Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
What absolute garbage! How were the genes transferred from the Euglena to man? Super-evo molecular transference? There are hundreds of species between Euglena and man in your stupid evo trees that had no eyes. Let's see some proof not garbage from you folk.
It is utterly unbelievable what moronic things you say in support of your ideology! The only reason the ear-bones are necessary is that we have not yet found a mammal that does not have those ear bones. And we will never find a mammal without ear-bones because paleontologists will classify anything with 3 ear bones as a mammal and anything else as not a mammal. It has nothing to do with biology, it has nothing to do with science. It has nothing to do with a necessary connection between the organism of mammary glands and ear bones. All it has to do with is that bones prove very little and you folk make up false standards to make more of those bones than you are entitled to.
Vade showed garbage. Totally unclassified skulls, not called homo erectus or homo sapiens. The one he showed from the phony TalkOrigins site, I blew out of the water as a total fake. I also blew out your phony Java Man transformed into a homo erectus. You, like the professional whores of evolution are just playing the bone game. Classifying and reclassifying bones to fit your theory with absolutely no scientific evidence for it.
And kindly, when you purport to refute my statements, refer to what you are refuting. I make enough posts here for you to answer them directly, not second hand.
No, you didn't. You followed the Creationist Arguments link from the TalkOrigins page already linked for you, lifted the creationist arguments . . .
Perhaps the most remarkable feature of this fossil is that it was found about sixty feet underground at the far end of a shaft in a lead and zinc mine. He was either mining lead and zinc himself or was in the mine shaft at a time when lead and zinc were being mined by other humans -- indicating a very high degree of civilization and technology. Not surprisingly, many evolutionists report that Rhodesian Man was found in a cave. While not an outright lie, one has to consider if calling a mine shaft a cave is not a crude attempt to minimize the technical abilities of ancient humans.. . . and ignored the refutations already sitting there.
There is no deception. As the original paper on Rhodesian Man (Woodward 1921) clearly states, the fossils were found in a cave, which was found in a mine. Lubenow's claim that the Rhodesian Man was mining lead and zinc is one of his more spectacular mistakes. No evolutionist has ever claimed that Rhodesian Man was mining. Why would they? The mine is of recent (19th century) origin, and Rhodesian Man was found in it along with remains of other animals (perhaps they were mining too?).Amusing and revealing that you would so transparently lift a discredited argument and then claim it as your own without credit to the hapless bozo you stole it from.
Recall that I predicted that you would continue to argue gaps until your gaps were smaller than the error bars in the dating of the skulls. We have arrived.
Most people don't know there is a gap in non-Neanderthal hominid fossils. But you and I know that our fossil series is made of discrete fossils, don't we, and however you date them, there are gaps between them.
But this proves what exactly?
You never did reproduce the evo logic. Rather, you pretended to not understand. "So you admit there's no proof?" Whatever.
It was No-Kin-To-Monkeys, of all people--I mean, look at that screenname--who took the challenge of trying to think like an evo and eventually lurched to the conclusion the evo way. It about killed both of us. Me, anyway.
You're simply bubblin' and babblin'.
gore3000: They sure are! And each time we are told that this is the last time.
Nah! There's never a last time. But, when you get to where No-Kin untangles the mystery of why an evo would say there are no mamms on a dino, you'll note the tree of life figures heavily in the argument.
Biologists make trees of relationship all the time, argue over them, revise them. But "common descent with modification" means there's a real tree out there. You might need a time machine to get it absolutely positively right, but it's out there. It's like your own geneology. In fact, it is your rather extended geneology.
You might not know your geneology beyond who your great-great grandfather was, but it extends back into the mists of time. I mean, you know that great-great grandfather of yours had a father and mother. You just don't know who they were.
When you try to uncover more data (visiting graveyards and county courthouses, using web search tools, etc.) you start to extend your knowledge.
But you also keep having to revise, as you start to get contradictory data from different sources. You get ambiguous data that leaves exact relationships unclear.
You realize that your tree is imperfect both in how far back it goes and in its level of detail, especially as you go farther back. Your tree will never be perfect in your lifetime, cannot ever be perfect with the data preservation that exists, but if you work at it you can still improve your knowledge.
You keep changing the subject. You claimed (in post #1750) that all evolutionists were atheists, and that neither Darwin nor any other evolutionist ever said that God created life which evolved from that point. I replied (in post #1812) that Darwin said exactly that in The Origin of Species. You now respond that Darwin "was a hypocrite" because he wrote a letter worrying that Biblical Literalists would have a problem with his book. (Another prediction of Darwin's that came true!)
The point is not whether Darwin was a Biblical Literalist. Had you made that claim, I would have agreed with you; no evolutionist has ever believed in a word-for-word literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3; neither, for that matter, do many religious people who are not evolutionists. But that is simply not the issue we were discussing. You were claiming that there can be no such thing as a Theistic Evolutionist, and that evolution is inherently atheistic. I proved you wrong.
Your problem seems to be that you cannot imagine that there can be people who believe in God but also believe that parts of the Bible are allegories or parables. There are. They may be wrong (or you may be wrong), but they exist.
If butting in is a sin, I'm the worst offender in the world. As for gore, he's always showing what it means to be gore.
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.