| You are obsessed. |
Posted on 12/17/2004 2:13:45 PM PST by Rodney King
Huh?
Oh, I guess I couldn't tell from your post whether Ulrey was in or not in your text book. Since abiogenesis is not in evolution and not basic to the understanding of biology, it would not be crucial to study it.
It is really more chemistry than biology. However, I remember it being in college texts. I don't think it was mentioned in my HS text, but that was many many years ago, before the nonsense of creationism was a problem.
In nearly all cases, evolution, once begun is "punctual", with very little evidence of transitional forms. Note the experience of Charles Walcott in 1909 and the Burgess shale. He found an explosion of forms that didn't comport with his theories, so he shelved some 60,000 samples into drawers at the Smithsonian, where he was head, which weren't "rediscoverd" until the mid 1980s.
Note too the case of Stephen Jay Gould who actually changed Darwin's writings to exclude any refernce to God, which Gould evidently found "inconvenient" in his eyes.
Some "scientists", these guys.
I'd like to to suggests the writings of physicist Gerald Schroeder, particularly his The Science of God for some at least healthier, and strenuously wrought "objective" looks into the subject than either Walcott, Gould and a panoply of other "scientists" could evidently entertain.
It seems to me that biogenesis is "crucial" to biology from the standpoint of its underpinnings, rather than just "making-up" some convenient starting point from which to launch into the standard "evolutionist" line.
Best to You and Yours....
Macro and micro evolution are the same process. Scientists don't call into programs that spout superstitious nonsense.
Like to God a day is as a thousand years?
If you accept young earth creationism, you must reject sanity.
"I don't see how you can label creationism "nonsense" while the jury's still out, so to speak."
Science works through a peer reviewed stringent system of observation and analysis. There is not one peer reviewed paper for a "creation scientist/ID" con man in scientific literature.
The jury won't even meet on this one. There is no evidence for creationism except misinterpretation of the Bible.
Ping
Why are there so few large gaps between the large
classification groups in the fossil record of
vertebrates?
There are no discovered missing links, because once they are discovered they are no longer missing. Science can not show one piece of evidence where anything turned into something else. Besides, how could all this happen in just 6000 years.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahrrrgh
Evidence for evolution that wasn't called in:
Introduction:
How do you convince a creationist that a fossil is a transitional fossil? Give up? It is a trick question. You cannot do it. There is no convincing someone who has his mind made up already. But sometimes, it is even worse. Sometimes, when you point out a fossil that falls into the middle of a gap and is a superb morphological and chronological intermediate, you are met with the response: "Well, now you have two gaps where you only had one before! You are losing ground!"
One of the favorite anti-evolutionist challenges to the existence of transitional fossils is the supposed lack of transitional forms in the evolution of the whales. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regularly trots out the "bossie-to-blowhole" transition to ridicule the idea that whales could have evolved from terrestrial, hooved ancestors.
There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and their supposed land mammal ancestors . . . It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked life. Starting with a cow, one could even imagine one line of descent which prematurely became extinct, due to what might be called an “udder failure” (Gish 1985: 78-9).
snip
Conclusion: Taken together, all of this evidence points to only one conclusion - that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals. We have seen that there are nine independent areas of study that provide evidence that whales share a common ancestor with hoofed mammals. The power of evidence from independent areas of study that support the same conclusion makes refutation by special creation scenarios, personal incredulity, the argument from ignorance, or "intelligent design" scenarious entirely unreasonable. The only plausible scientific conclusion is that whales did evolve from terrestrial mammals. So no matter how much anti-evolutionists rant about how impossible it is for land-dwelling, furry mammals to evolve into fully aquatic whales, the evidence itself shouts them down. This is the power of using mutually reinforcing, independent lines of evidence. I hope that it will become a major weapon to strike down groundless anti-evolutionist objections and to support evolutionary thinking in the general public. This is how real science works, and we must emphasize the process of scientific inference as we point out the conclusions that scientists draw from the evidence - that the concordant predictions from independent fields of scientific study confirm the same pattern of whale ancestry.
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
"Peer review" long argued for a steady state universe where in The Bible it was ever maintained.
And Maimonides argued for the creation of "time" some thousand years before it was accepted "scientifically".
Obeservation, of course, is the modern key. My mind remains open.
"Evolution is incompatible with the Scriptures."
Not the way I read the Bible.
I was simply demonstrating that there is nothing but hot air in your arguments. There is no fluster there.
I don't really care if you come off your position, as I have yet to see anyone indoctrinated with the belief that a nonsensical literalist interpretation will get them into Heaven change.
I doubt if a good biology course would change that either.
But for anyone who is viewing our discussion, I must make it clear that you have no scientific evidence for your position and are using rhetorical devices not logic or science to falsly claim you have won an argument that you do not even understand.
"My mind remains open."
I think he means his cranium has a crack in it. ;-)
| You are obsessed. |
Pot Kettle
I am 100 percent certain man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. In fact, I'm not at all sure dinosaurs are even extinct!
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.