Skip to comments.
Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution
Scientific American ^
| October 2006 issue
| Michael Shermer
Posted on 09/18/2006 1:51:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,301-1,320, 1,321-1,340, 1,341-1,360 ... 2,001-2,015 next last
To: PatrickHenry
To: js1138
One may make a simple mathematical transform from a heliocentric to a geocentric system. Mathematically, these are equilivant. The heliocentric system has nicer laws that the geocentric system. (The law that things further from the center of rotation move more slowly than those closer in, for example.)
And you seem to be quoting a notorious anti-trinitarian.
1,322
posted on
09/23/2006 7:27:46 PM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: SoldierDad
Produce the evidence or not. If not, then we agree to disagree. Enough said. I produced evidence in post #1,272. You have been ignoring it.
1,323
posted on
09/23/2006 7:58:28 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: Coyoteman
No, you posted more blather that is trump up to look like evidence. Using the language of science does not prove a thing. You can talk circles around the issue all you want, but the proof is in the pudding so to speak. You've used pretty language, but nothing which could be described as parimonious to the discussion.
1,324
posted on
09/23/2006 8:04:55 PM PDT
by
SoldierDad
(Proud Father of an American Soldier)
To: SoldierDad
No, you posted more blather that is trump up to look like evidence. Using the language of science does not prove a thing. You can talk circles around the issue all you want, but the proof is in the pudding so to speak. You've used pretty language, but nothing which could be described as parimonious to the discussion. I posted data and theory, that is, photographs and summary descriptions of actual fossils hominids, along with an interpretive chart.
You have countered with hand waving and verbiage, but no data, theory, or even an attempt at a rebuttal. Your argument comes down to "It ain't so and you can't make me believe it nohow 'cuz I says so."
Well, you'll be waving half the night over this next one (watch out you don't reach V1).
Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
1,325
posted on
09/23/2006 8:48:55 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: Coyoteman
OOOh, a bunch of pretty pictures which mean exactly jack. Where in all those skulls is the proof of your theory?
1,326
posted on
09/23/2006 8:51:45 PM PDT
by
SoldierDad
(Proud Father of an American Soldier)
To: SoldierDad
OOOh, a bunch of pretty pictures which mean exactly jack. Where in all those skulls is the proof of your theory? With all this handwaving, have you reached V1 yet?
You really should just admit it: no amount of evidence will be convincing because your mind is made up.
With that, good night to you.
1,327
posted on
09/23/2006 9:03:02 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: Coyoteman
I'm still waiting for evidence to be produced as opposed to conjecture and supposition. So far all that's been given is language wrapped up as evidence where one says this is proof because I say it is proof.
1,328
posted on
09/23/2006 9:05:45 PM PDT
by
SoldierDad
(Proud Father of an American Soldier)
To: SoldierDad
The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470, a transitory into some mens fancy.
The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470
In late 1972, an enigmatic fossilized skull was unearthed near Lake Turkana, Kenya. The skull, which was subsequently accessioned as East Rudolf specimen 1470 (or KNMER 1470 in abbreviated form), was unearthed by Bernard Ngeneo a field worker for renowned paleoanthropologist, Richard E. Leakey.
original reconstruction of Skull KNMER 1470
The discovery was greeted with much enthusiasm by evolutionists the world over because it appeared to bridge the gap between the putative hominid line of ancestors (including the australopithecines and Homo habilis) and the decidedly more humanlike fossils designated Homo erectus
Leakey himself ended up back pedaling on this one..,
profile of 1470.
Based on new bone-scanning techniques, typical australopithecine prognathicity is evident in this 1992 drawing
There is precious little evidence to show otherwise. For the present it should be quietly packed away and added to the long list of abandoned or downgraded hominid specimens, which once adorned our natural history textbooks.
To: RunningWolf
So, are you saying that you believe that KNM-ER 1470 is just a member of the ape baramin and not a transitional between ape & human?
1,330
posted on
09/24/2006 1:39:08 AM PDT
by
jennyp
(There's ALWAYS time for jibber jabber!)
To: Coyoteman; SoldierDad
I call, "Shennanigans!" Loki Troll, right?
1,331
posted on
09/24/2006 3:01:15 AM PDT
by
Thatcherite
(I'm PatHenry I'm the real PatHenry all the other PatHenrys are just imitators)
To: Thatcherite; Coyoteman
All I see is some dots on my monitor. No debate, no conversation, no nuthin'! Only dots on a screen. I don't see nuttin' else! No evidence, no proof! I don't care what you say, I'll never see nuttin'!
1,332
posted on
09/24/2006 4:25:40 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Science-denial is not conservative. It's reality-denial and that's what liberals do.)
To: js1138; presently no screen name
Do what I did the last time some creationist idiot tried to pass off another author's work as his own -- I notified the author and provided him with a link to the stolen passage. Said passage was gone in minutes.
Your average creationist hasn't got the brains God gave small rodents. He or she cannot understand enough of what an author is saying to paraphrase that author, so instead he or she steals the words of those smarter than him or her and hopes no one will find out. But, this is the Age of Google, and it is relatively simple to find the source of the passage.
Plagiarism should be a bannable offense. It subjects Free Republic to possible legal action. And the bad part is, if the idiot in question had just attributed the passage, none of this would be a big deal; he knows enough HTML to format a post, he should know enough to include a link to the original.
1,333
posted on
09/24/2006 5:24:46 AM PDT
by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: SoldierDad
Using the language of science does not prove a thing. Ask us if we really care what you think.
You have provided an oportunity to post arguments, and we thank you for it.
1,334
posted on
09/24/2006 5:34:45 AM PDT
by
js1138
(The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
To: Junior
I agree that plagiarism should be bannable, particularly when the offender refuses to request removal of the post, but I think that by standing unopposed, it shines a light into the rathole of the anti-evolutionists. Not one of them has the integrity to call the offender out.
Some witness to religion, huh?
1,335
posted on
09/24/2006 7:05:14 AM PDT
by
js1138
(The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
To: js1138
"anti-evolutionists" "integrity".
Don't make me laugh.
1,336
posted on
09/24/2006 7:52:32 AM PDT
by
Thatcherite
(I'm PatHenry I'm the real PatHenry all the other PatHenrys are just imitators)
To: js1138
Some witness to religion, huh? Except for Islamic jihadists, religion is fine. It makes people and society better. But not always. There's one very peculiar bunch going around screaming that if you don't believe in the pure, absolute, word-for-word scientific reality of [fill in the blank], then you're eeeeeeevvviiillll and you can't possibly be a conservative. Not only that, but you must be a liberal, a commie, an atheist, a homo, a kiddy-porn freak, etc.
But they're the exception. At least I pray that they are.
1,337
posted on
09/24/2006 8:22:49 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Science-denial is not conservative. It's reality-denial and that's what liberals do.)
To: Junior; Thatcherite; Coyoteman; PatrickHenry
Sticks and stones, gentlemen; sticks and stones. Sounds like none of you have grown up quite yet. Or perhaps your advanced degrees have caused you to de-evolutionize.
1,338
posted on
09/24/2006 8:52:05 AM PDT
by
SoldierDad
(Proud Father of an American Soldier)
To: js1138
Arguements which hold no water.
1,339
posted on
09/24/2006 8:52:38 AM PDT
by
SoldierDad
(Proud Father of an American Soldier)
Unitarian baramin placemark
1,340
posted on
09/24/2006 9:25:31 AM PDT
by
dread78645
(Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,301-1,320, 1,321-1,340, 1,341-1,360 ... 2,001-2,015 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