Posted on 09/24/2001 1:12:24 PM PDT by ThinkPlease
Tonight is the beginning of the Evolution Series on PBS. I thought I'd open up some threads of discussion here prior, during and after the telecast of the episodes.
Here's PBS's homepage for the telecast:
And Here's something from the Discovery Institute, who is evidently irritated about turning down free publicity on the telecast. (They were offered time on the final night of the telecast, and turned down PBS.)
Do they assure you there will be at least one royal flush dealt, or exactly one royal flush dealt?
Are they gonna be playing during the weekend?
Are they gonna be playing during the weekend?
Are you really having trouble figuring that out?
No, there isn't. A gene just happens to be. If it's beneficial to the animal then the chances are high that it's passed on. OTH if it's detrimental to that particular organism then this organism is less likely to survive and pass it on.
It's trial and error. Whether a gene is good or bad is only kown after it exists and is 'tested' by the environmental conditions.
1 if this means this. 0 if this means lurking.
Har! Another laugher: Will the entertainment never stop?
Do you imagine they are seeing what you "see"? Doubtful.
Correct, it is hard to see and hear with your eyes shut and your hands over your ears and you are screaming "LALALALALALALALALA" at the top of your lungs.
Man did not evolve from chimps. The fossil and DNA evidence suggests that we share a very recent common ancestor, however.
(i.e. a living missing link or for that matter the breeding of a dog that would have a giraffe-type of neck). At least something better than a femur which has a drawing of the Lucy chimp-man drawing superimposed... or for that matter an 8mm film of Sasquatch).
All living things are potential missing links to some future species. Today's labrador retrievers may be tomorrow's otter-like carnivors, and the only evidence that labradors ever existed might be the discovery of a partial skull by some future paleontologist showing canine type fissures in the palate, even though that future otter-like labrador descended species looks more like an otter or a whale than whatever other terrestrial canines still exist at that future date.
Hmmm... why do you suppose that we don't find such animals today.... did the process take sabattical among only certain mammals? Details, details. Who cares, we've got the hammer (Darwin's theory) and thus the world is now a nail.
We do find such animals today. Every living species is a potential missing link to some future species. Should another Quarternary type extinction take place, who knows what surviving life forms will rush in to take opportunity of the habitats, whose occupants are destroyed now and then.
I'll stop wasting bandwidth, as apparently those details are but minutia for the intelligentsia.
It makes it easier if you understand the details.
It was significant on the 4th of July, it is now even more significant.
Why do I even waste my time with you?
Excellent point! There is also the point that in spite of thousands of years of our breeding plants and animals not a single new species has arisen that way. There is a vast variety of genetic "flavors" within every species. Some people are tall, others short, some white some black, some have blonde hair some have black hair, but they all share the same genetic pool. This gives strength, resilience and adaptability to the species - strength against viruses and bacteria for example. This adaptability, which we see every day is purposefully misrepresented by Darwinists as evolution when it is no such thing.
And so are evolutionists. They behave exactly like Clinton and Goebbels. They repeat constantly that evolution is true as if that was proof or as if that would make their lie come true. When they are caught with the hands on the cookie jar they assassinate the character of those who point the truth to them - just like good old Billy Boy. Of course they are also pack rats that gang up against those who disagree with them in an effort to get them off the thread. They are liars, they are evil, they behave like thugs. Each time they are asked for proof they start with the slime attacks. If their theory was true they would give answers instead of slimes but they cannot do that because evolution is a lie EVOLUTIONISTS HAVE NO ANSWERS.
You are completely ignorant about what Darwin himself said or are telling a blatant lie. Here is the proof that he was for the murder of the old and the weak - from his own pen in "The Descent of Man":
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Chapter V.
That is no refutation. For the materialist view that there is no God to be true, inanimate matter must have been able to organize itself into cells and living beings. We find no such ability anywhere in inanimate matter so GNDLGUN's post constitutes serious proof against the materialism promoted by evolution and evolutionists.
Correct, my error. However you were defending the statements of your fellow evo thinkplease. Your calling me names for a position I disagreed with is totally dishonest.
I ask a question and I am called a liar for asking it! Unbelievable!
Slimes and excuses is all the response the evos give. I have been asking for over a month for someone to post the theory of evolution and each time I ask I either get slimed, am given excuses, or am told it has already been given and they cannot be bothered to repeat themselves. The importance of the question and the reason the evolutionists refuse to give an answer to it is that if they state the theory then they cannot pull back and tell people they do not understand the theory.
However, this is the part where they outsmart themselves because it should be obvious to any moron that:
It doesn't have to assemble itself into "living beings," unless you are including cells in that category, in which case your statement is redundant. A simple life form is not a sand castle. Sand castles (and watches) remain irrelevant to the discussion.
We find no such ability anywhere in inanimate matter so GNDLGUN's post constitutes serious proof against the materialism promoted by evolution and evolutionists.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because we haven't found it yet does not mean that we will not. You apparently don't understand what a "proof" is.
Well, in fact, the theory does exist, even if no one has bothered to repost something that can be freely found on the net just to satisfy someone like you, who has no interest in it anyway. But I have never claimed that it has been "proven to be true." There is no way to "prove it to be true." For that matter, there is no way to prove Newton's theory of universal gravitation to be true. I just believe that it's the most likely explanation for the fossile record.
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.