Skip to comments.
Zoogenesis: a theory of desperation (Evo admitted creationists explain fossil gaps better)
Journal of Creation ^
| Russell Grigg
Posted on 04/06/2009 11:48:57 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-107 next last
To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...
To: GodGunsGuts
Shhh...there are some present on FR who fervently believe that their ancestors were monkeys. We must be sensitive to their religious beliefs.
To: kittymyrib
I’m like you. I like to get in on the Evo threads before they go all twitchy.
Everybody stand back!!!
4
posted on
04/06/2009 11:54:51 AM PDT
by
subterfuge
(BUILD MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS NOW!!!)
To: GodGunsGuts
To: GodGunsGuts
In 1972, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed a theory they called "punctuated equilibria," namely that major changes between types happened so fast (geologically speaking), and in such small isolated populations, they didnt leave any evidence that they had occurred at all. This means that the evidence to support their theory was the fact that there was no evidence! Gotta love this kind of rationale. LOL.
6
posted on
04/06/2009 11:57:29 AM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
(I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
To: GodGunsGuts
Go man, go! If this forum had “smilies”, I’d give you a “thumbsup”.
7
posted on
04/06/2009 11:57:32 AM PDT
by
SandWMan
(While you may not be able to legislate morality, you can legislate morally.)
To: subterfuge
Let the name calling begin in 3...2....1....
8
posted on
04/06/2009 11:58:31 AM PDT
by
SandWMan
(While you may not be able to legislate morality, you can legislate morally.)
To: kittymyrib
some also believe in global warming, Darwinism, and life came from other planets (never mind that explaining the genesis of life by saying it came from another planet equates to intellectual dishonesty)
To: kittymyrib
There aren’t enough molecules in the universe to support this kind of probability. The “Tree of Life” was the only hope of the Evos. Even then it was far-fetched. Now, it’s impossible.
10
posted on
04/06/2009 11:58:53 AM PDT
by
TenthAmendmentChampion
(Be prepared for tough times. FReepmail me to learn about our survival thread!)
To: GodGunsGuts
“1 Not many people have heard of him today, because he had a major problem with Darwinism, “
Yeah. He is well respectd among fans of the Flat-Earth Theory and the Geocentric Universe.
11
posted on
04/06/2009 12:03:59 PM PDT
by
ZULU
(Obamanation of Desolation is President. Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam.)
To: SandWMan
NEANDERTHAL!! Well, I used to be, apparently.
12
posted on
04/06/2009 12:06:23 PM PDT
by
subterfuge
(BUILD MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS NOW!!!)
To: GodGunsGuts
Evolution is stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand you have the paleontologists who know that there is no evidence for evolution at the higher taxonomic orders. On the other hand you have straightforward mathematical calculations (such as Dr. Behe discusses in The Edge of Evolution) that prove that is evolution occurs, it *must* occur one mutation at a time on a gradualistic pathway. (Or 2 mutations together at a time, maximum, for bacterial populations)
This is because on average there is one mutation out of about 100,000,000 copying events. The population size of larger critters is thus too small to expect that any given combination of 2 mutations will occur in the same individual at the same time. For example, suppose there is a species of deer with a population size of 10,000,000. On average every 10 generations you would get a mutation of any given bit of DNA. But the odds of getting two specific mutations together would be astronomically low, even over millions of years.
So if animals evolved from common ancestors, there absolutely should be long, amply-documented fossil lineages showing gradual evolution over time. Even with the imperfection of the fossil record we should see plenty of bits and pieces of this evolutionary happening. Instead we just see the 'tips' of the evolutionary tree - never the trunk or main branches. True, evolutionists seize on a tiny handful of examples, but it is far too tiny to impress the skeptic much. Thus you get folks like this author, who obviously (with 600+ articles under his belt) was more familiar with the data than most evolutionary true believers.
13
posted on
04/06/2009 12:06:56 PM PDT
by
Liberty1970
(Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
To: ZULU
Yeah. He is well respectd among fans of the Flat-Earth Theory and the Geocentric Universe. You apparently don't grasp that he was an evolutionist trying to salvage evolution. It is evolutionists who aren't dealing with the evidence, like Clark at least was, who are the real flat-earthers.
14
posted on
04/06/2009 12:09:44 PM PDT
by
Liberty1970
(Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
To: SandWMan
LOL, there is name calling in the title of thread.
15
posted on
04/06/2009 12:09:53 PM PDT
by
DManA
To: GodGunsGuts
RE “
He even said, Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other.4 His solution: a new theory...”
I went to the link and found no alternative creationist argument or theory at all, contrary to the above misleading text. It's just more of the same. "evolution is bad, evolution is evil , bla-bla-bla "
16
posted on
04/06/2009 12:14:38 PM PDT
by
sickoflibs
(RNC Party Theme : "We may be socialists, but they are Marxists!")
To: Liberty1970
==Instead we just see the ‘tips’ of the evolutionary tree
That is why the Evos are FINALLY cutting down Darwin’s tree. Indeed, the way the evos are describing the evidence now sounds an awful lot like a creationist prediction of an orchard/forest of life!
To: sickoflibs
Reread the article. It was the Evo who proposed the new theory, not the creationists.
To: sickoflibs
and itz also false as far as gould, dawkins, et al tried to foist upon the public..
YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE...
THE PERSON WHO CONTINUES TO BUMP THE HOUSE OF CARDS OF EVOLUTIONISM, PLEASE REPORT TO THE FRONT DESK FOR FRESH OSTRACIZATION...
To: DManA
"
there is name calling in the title of thread." And what would those names be?
20
posted on
04/06/2009 12:21:36 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-107 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson