Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
Recess
God created a mystery---Evolution is an abortion---a capital mortal sin!
IN addition to your list on "inconvenient" items found in the vicinity of the Canyon, I will add one that ISN'T found that should be there if (as "medved" claims) a Giant Electrical arc formed the Grand Canyon, as stated by "Dr. Stocastic" in an earlier response to "medved":
"Where are the fulgurites?"
As you probably know, fulgurites are glassy formations created by a lightning strike in sandy soil (the heat of the lightning melts the sand and forms glass), so if the Grand Canyon was formed by some sort of Gigantic Lightning Bolt(s) from another Planet, as "medved" seems to think, there should be the "Mother of All Fulgurites" (or pieces of same) sitting there all around the Canyon.
But where are they? The place ought to look like a dumping ground behind a glass factory, but where are the fulgurites?
We've been waiting for two days now, and nary a word from "medved" in response.
There are many theories about how variation occurs. But if it is directed, it can only be directed by God. All other variants of evolution require another active agent which requires yet another layer of creation.
Switching sides does not help your argument if you intend to keep the same argument. Are you now asserting that evolution violates the 2nd law?
Your views are every bit as sound scripturally as they are scientifically.
No, and I'm not switching sides. Who posted that "deliberate misunderstanding is a lousy debating tactic?"
(Note to that guy: I said up front I was going to "tallhappy" tallhappy! I'm not usually like that.)
You and the people who like the silly 2nd Law argument commit the same fallacy here, which is to cite thermodynamics as if there were nothing else going on.
So often things result from a balance of forces. The mix of ions inside and outside the cell wall of the axon of a nerve cell, for instance.
"Greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes."
Duane Gish? Or Ernst Mayr? Your understanding of punk eek is not as widely and uniformly accepted as you portray. Some quotes from a (pro-evolution) review of "The Dynamics of Evolution":
The opening essay by Ernst Mayr is a broad attempt to explain what the theory of punctuated equilibrium is and what the debate has been about. Mayr describes the different things that have been labelled "punctuated equilibrium", with a concern to clarify some points of uncertainty. His view is generally very favourable; apart from some of the more extreme ideas regarding saltationism (production of new species by large single mutations) which he sees Gould as having toyed with for a few years, he believes that most of the claims associated with punctuated equilibrium are in fact either true or in the process of being tested, and that the issues involved are significant.
...The only really dissenting voice in this discussion is that of Antoni Hoffman. His essay is a general attack on the theory of punctuated equilibrium; he claims that the weak form (that rates of evolutionary change vary) is trivial and says nothing that wasn't known to Darwin, the strong from (macromutations and saltationism) is false, and the moderate form (widespread stasis in evolutionary lineages) is untestable. He does admit that punctuated equilibrium has had heuristic value in sparking debate and suggesting research. Again it is evident that there is confusion about whether (and how strongly) Gould actually pushed saltationism, but it is clear that he no longer does so; hence criticism of the "strong" version of punctuated equilibrium is now peripheral to the main debate.
The funny thing is that you consider the meager evidence below (from your link) to sufficiently explain away the overwhelming evidence of morphological stasis in the fossil record:
Yes. Several examples of this exact scenario are known. For example, there's a marine microfossil, a trilobite, a brachiopod, and some dinosaurs (including a Tyrannosaurus).
You've told me many times that punk eek is not saltationism. And Junior has patiently explained that under punk eek variation occurs by small mutation, just like in regular old evolution, except that under the punk eek paradigm populations become isolated. Under either theory then, we should expect to see a myriad of transitional forms. In fact, that's all we should see. Instead, the overwhelming majority of fossils collected indicate morphological stasis, sometimes over what are purported to be enormous amounts of time.
This is the central, fatal problem of evolutionary theory which evolutionists strive mightily to avoid.
You mean unless we can write it down similar to y=2x+1 it doesn't exist?
Is it "people eating less junk food tend to live longer"? If not, how would you characterize it?
1366 posted on 3/22/02 9:33 AM Hawaii-Aleutian by Lurking Libertarian
Evolution--lab coats--frocks/lace and plastic surgery on frankenstein in concentration--pow--camps by the soviets...sovietization of America---nazis!
Want more transtionals? Apes-to-hominids-to-man. Dinos-to-birds. Synapsid reptiles (not lizards) to mammals. (Been reading the thread?)
Nothing you have posted justifies returning to the position you take above. Read Mayr again. Read the Punk-eek page again. What exactly are you saying doesn't happen?
Where is the justification for this "prediction" you insist upon imposing? Only creationists insist that the fossil record has to be this amorphous, species-less mess.
Would you clean house--pay the bills for them?
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.