Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ancient fossil forest found by accident (potential major out of order problem for Darwinists)
news@nature.com (via BioEd online) ^ | April 23, 2007 | Katharine Sanderson

Posted on 07/30/2007 2:01:00 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Geologists have found the remains of a huge underground rainforest hidden in a coal mine in Illinois. The fossil forest, buried by an earthquake 300 million years ago, contains giant versions of several plant types alive today.

...

Also surprising is the presence of remains from mangrove-like plants. "It was always assumed that mangrove plants had evolved fairly recently," says Falcon-Lang.

(Excerpt) Read more at bioedonline.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: ancient; catastrophism; coal; crevo; crevolist; forrest; fossil; godsgravesglyphs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-376 last
To: free_life
For something to evolve it had to have come from something before it evolved. What was the first thing? How did it come into existence? I have a scientific answer, it was created. You have no answer.

You are stating a religious belief: "It was created." Don't confuse your religious belief with science (hey, that might make a good tagline...).


Don’t talk to us about evolution if you cannot give an intelligent foundation for the start of it.

False!

It makes no difference for the theory of evolution whether life began via:

1) some form of creation,
2) natural causes,
3) panspermia (e.g., spores drifting through space), or
4) intelligent aliens starting life going here.

In any of these cases, evolution works just fine.
361 posted on 08/02/2007 11:40:57 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Hello?

I guess you didn't notice where I quoted, what, three paragraphs from the article?

The problem here is that we have a straightforward article about evolution, and then we have some creationists pretending that the article is presenting some kind of "problem" with evolution, when that is not what it is at all. This is called "misrepresentation."

- SteveG
362 posted on 08/02/2007 4:42:16 PM PDT by steveg1961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
PAR35 wrote:
OK, set out your evidence that macro evolution is a proven fact. No theories, just hard evidence. Show all links in the chain.
Nice try at changing the subject. Not only that, but I don't have the time to waste trying to teach the relevant science to people who have deliberately ignored the science and who have every intention of continuing to do so.

The issue here, the one I was addressing in my comments that you responded to, is that there are a lot of creationists who pretend that "Evolution is religion, not science." The fact of the matter is that evolution is science, period. Not a religious faith. Any creationist who pretends otherwise is either ignorant of the science, or is simply lying about it. These are not stated as insults, but are statements of the truth of the matter.

Here are some specific references to back up what I have just pointed out to you:

Evolutionary Biology, 3rd Ed. (1998)
by Douglas J. Futuyma
[Undergraduate textbook on biological evolution.]

Bringing Fossils To Life: An Introduction To Paleobiology, 2nd Ed. (2003)
by Donald R. Prothero
[Undergraduate textbook on paleontology.]

Yes, evolution really is part of science
[This is a list of about 30 professional science journals, in the U.S. and the U.K. only, that rountinely or exclusively publish professional scientific research on evolution.]

- SteveG
363 posted on 08/02/2007 4:43:00 PM PDT by steveg1961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
For something to evolve it had to have come from something before it evolved. What was the first thing? How did it come into existence? I have a scientific answer, it was created. You have no answer.

You are stating a religious belief: "It was created." Don't confuse your religious belief with science (hey, that might make a good tagline...).

Don’t talk to us about evolution if you cannot give an intelligent foundation for the start of it.

False!

It makes no difference for the theory of evolution whether life began via:

1) some form of creation, 2) natural causes, 3) panspermia (e.g., spores drifting through space), or 4) intelligent aliens starting life going here.

In any of these cases, evolution works just fine.

------------------------------------------------------

one - you still have not answered the question. Com'on give it a try. First thing? How?

two - If everything was created [and their is both scientific theory and evidence of that] then creationism is science.

three - false, if you cannot prove the beginning of something living you cannot know it evolved. I am not talking about macro 'E' but NOTHING to something to cell thingy to fish thingy to crawling thingy to land thingy to flying thingy to giant T-rex thingy to man thingy.

Evolution is cute little theory but not science.

364 posted on 08/02/2007 5:09:16 PM PDT by free_life
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: steveg1961

You either have a solid scientific basis for your beliefs, or you accept them on faith. I called your bluff, and you folded.

What’s so painful about admitting you have faith in Darwin? I’m not ashamed about that in which I have faith.


365 posted on 08/02/2007 5:09:26 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: navyguy
Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive.

:-} By George, you've got it!

366 posted on 08/02/2007 6:42:30 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: free_life
one - you still have not answered the question. Com'on give it a try. First thing? How?

I go with natural causes. At least there is some evidence there. Unlike religion, which is entirely based on scripture and other mythology.


two - If everything was created [and their is both scientific theory and evidence of that] then creationism is science.

Creationism is religion, not science; why don't you just admit it?


three - false, if you cannot prove the beginning of something living you cannot know it evolved. I am not talking about macro 'E' but NOTHING to something to cell thingy to fish thingy to crawling thingy to land thingy to flying thingy to giant T-rex thingy to man thingy.

False. You don't need to know how a germ originated to figure out how to combat it! Germ theory does not state the origins of germs!


Evolution is cute little theory but not science.

If evolution is a theory, how is it not science? As I recall, science is the discipline that deals with hypotheses, theories, laws, and all those other scientific things which are dealt with using the scientific method.

From your post, it seems that you are doing apologetics, not science.

367 posted on 08/02/2007 7:04:14 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
8beryllium + 4helium --> 12carbon + energy

I'm sure Townes knows this. Did you? But how could you with the comments you've made here?

368 posted on 08/02/2007 7:26:24 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

It’s irrelevant to any point I was making.


369 posted on 08/03/2007 5:37:46 PM PDT by TigersEye (Intellectuals only exist if you think they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
PAR35 wrote:
You either have a solid scientific basis for your beliefs, or you accept them on faith. I called your bluff, and you folded.

What’s so painful about admitting you have faith in Darwin? I’m not ashamed about that in which I have faith.
In fact, I didn't "fold" at all, but proved that, contrary to creationists' pretensions, evolution is science, not faith. It is you who chose to deliberately ignore the citations to the science references that I gave you. This is precisely how creationists, like you, prove that you are religious dogmatists ignoring science.

When you are ready to honestly acknowledge the existence of the references I provided to you, then we might be able to have a rational discussion about this.

- SteveG
370 posted on 08/06/2007 4:03:30 AM PDT by steveg1961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: steveg1961
I don’t need to go buy undergrad Geology books on Amazon. I did quite well in my undergrad geology courses.

Do you want me to recap the basics, such as the ‘law of original horizonality’ - all layers were originally horizontal, no matter how they now appear. (Of course, then you learn the exception, so the rule becomes, ‘all layers were originally horizontal, except when they weren’t’.

Or what about the rule that younger strata are always on top of older strata, and if that causes difficulty, obviously the layers have been turned upside down by earth movement. (And guess what - the ones that haven’t been turned over are the ones that were discovered first - newer discoveries should be explained away whenever possible so that the older theories can remain intact.)

Dealing with animals, it used to be accepted by scientists that the Okapi was the missing link between horse and giraffe, or that the Coelacanth was a missing link - now both discredited, but at one time accepted as articles of faith. And, of course, scientists knew that the Duckbill Platypus was a fake.

So again, when you can show me the physical existence of the current ‘missing links’ I might acknowledge that something other than faith underlies your belief system.

371 posted on 08/06/2007 8:55:06 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

review


372 posted on 08/06/2007 9:01:06 AM PDT by sauropod (Dorothy Parker, on Ernest Hemingway: “Deep down, he’s really superficial.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Thanks GraniteStateConservative, just adding, not pinging. Either a Bloodbath topic, or a Flame Festival, but I don't feel like posting the graphics.
 
Catastrophism
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·

373 posted on 03/06/2009 6:59:21 PM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·

 
Gods
Graves
Glyphs
Thanks again GraniteStateConservative. I never posted the ping message because this topic was such a bloodbath.

Blast from the Past.

Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
 

·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society ·
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·


374 posted on 03/06/2009 6:59:26 PM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
...are folded so much the layers stand nearly vertical.

I took this pic from the web. It is along Corridor H (more familiarly known as the Robert Byrd Highway!) and cuts through many mountains. I have marveled at the striations exposed along these hills.

In the pic, you can see the lines run about 45 degrees, but some surrounding cuts go vertical. They are ripples of something, for sure!

As a Theist, I can accept geologic upheaval (...the earth was without form, and void.) and easily accept it as the "Breath of God" moving things, about until He got it to the starting point. He then took from the soil and made man, then woman from man. I have found no date stamp in my Bibles.

Is is a myth? I don't believe so.

Darwin was skeptical of his own conjectures. Now, just like Joe Smith, his words are gospel truths, and his "science' is an accepted faith. I know in Whom I believe... The Creator, and have placed my life in the hands of His Son, Jesus Christ. Believe Him, or not!


375 posted on 03/07/2009 5:59:14 AM PST by WVKayaker (“Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear - not absence of fear.” -Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

You are doing a great job with these posts. Keep it up.


376 posted on 03/07/2009 6:02:14 AM PST by bmwcyle (Obama voters, your 401 K's are dead. Now what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-376 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson