Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
BTW, am I your alter-ego or are you mine? Or are we both really Junior?
Maybe PH's Plato and medved's Splifford are really controlling us all.
No one outside of the willfully obstinate questions the idea that new life forms evolved from older ones, a process conclusively illustrated in biology and the fossil record.
We've got a whole lot of these folks on this forum...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#4 in reply to cracker
It's a bit different when taken in context, isn't it?
>"As Pakicetus and Ambulocetus show."
Oh really? SHOW ME THE BONES!
Right here. Was that so hard? No. It wasn't.
"Knowing gore3000, he'll take a look at your link and claim that evolutionists say coyotes are descended from whales. Do not underestimate the power of willful ignorance..."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#68
Followed by:
Now that the "proof" is right here for all to see, perhaps you can explain to us how the above prove the evolution of whales from a coyote!
87 posted on 2/20/02 9:49 PM Central by gore3000
As far as I can tell, I was simply making a prediction that came true. It's a bit different when taken in context, isn't it?
""Now that the "proof" is right here for all to see, perhaps you can explain to us how the above prove the evolution of whales from a coyote! -me-
Did I call that one, or what? gore3000, I've got you figured out!"
You and your buddy put this article as proof of evolution. It is up to you to show how it does so.
What is the point in those bones? What is the proof given in that article?
The answer is:
"THE ARTICLE PROVES NOTHING AT ALL"The evolutionists just put up a ton of links that they claim prove evolution but whenever I examine a link said to "prove" evolution it proves nothing at all.
You didn't even read the freakin' article, you dolt, or you wouldn't have made the inane comment about whales evolving from coyotes, or vice versa. Do you ever read any of the stuff we give you, or do you glance at the pretty pictures, decide that nothing's going to change your mind and then post inanities on these threads?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#143
Note that this is in response to the "whales evolved from coyotes" comment gore3000 made after glancing at a picture of a coyote skull being used as a scale for two whale skulls and blithely claimed that we said whales evolved from coyotes -- when the article itself made no such claim. It's a bit different when taken in context, isn't it?
My theory has always been he's nothing more than a rather primitive computer algorythm.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#152
You got me on that one. That came from frustration at gore3000's inability to process new data, instead claiming never to have seen the data in the first place.
So, your God is a trickster, hmmm? Interesting...
366 posted on 2/22/02 10:01 AM Hawaii-Aleutian by Junior
Do you think He would run his business like Las Vegas/chance-glitter...hollywood tinsel town---animal house...(evolution)?
Michaelangelo only signed the pieta because someone said a rock chopper did it...evolution is rock chopping---sand and dust!
The Bible says..."God's foolishness is more powerful than man's wisdom"...what wisdom-CLASS God has---
evolution has none...
wise men with elephant feces--afterbirth---yeah oracles!
Did you ever read about the last days of Leaky in California---beserk--sun-fossil stroke---pathetic!
Even the media couldn't believe it...raving delusional maniac!
374 posted on 2/22/02 2:53 PM Central by f.Christian
You are the only person I've met who suffered from Tourette's Syndrome of the keyboard.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#384
Considering the post I was replying to, you can see why I made the comment I did. It's a bit different when taken in context, isn't it?
"The earliest known whales, Himalayacetus and Pakicetus are presently known only from cranial material<.b>, so they are not much help. However, the position of the inner ear bones in Pakicetus are a perfect intermediate between those of land mammals and the rotated ones of cetaceans (Thewissen & Hussain, 1993), not to mention the fact that the tympanic bullae are composed of dense bone as those of cetaceans (Gingerich, et al, 1983).
Before I say anything else, your link goes to a personal page which the author did not even bother to assign his name to. It also does not have any examples of bones showing any proof for what he mentions in the text.
Aside from that, we have a very real problem with this article and I am surprised you did not notice it. Look at the bolded words, look at the bottom picture in post#87. The statement is false. We indeed have a lot of bones from Pakicetus besides the cranium. Those bones show a four legged animal.
So there we go Junior, another article "proving" whales came from land animals that does not show any such thing.
Let me just say one more thing about this matter. DNA analysis has shown that whales are in no way related to hippos and have not shown them to be related to any known land animal. So much for evolutionist fantasies.
Face it, gore3000, your brain (or programming) has been trained to force a cognitive disassociation between the pariticulars of evidence and the sum total of evidence. You can't see the forest for the trees. You'll pick at individual pieces of evidence given you, but fail to understand the overall picture painted by the evidence coming in from dozens of scientific disciplines. And, you show an inherent inability to actually learn anything
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#632
It's a bit different when taken in context, isn't it?
The scientific definition of a mammal is that it has mammary glands.
Not quite. Milk production is part of the definition of mammal, but it also includes all the other stuff mentioned earlier (dentition -- a biggie, hair or fur, number of holes in the skull, warm-bloodedness, single lower mandible and differentiated ear bones, etc.)
Now, the first two, milk production and fur do not fossilize, but as the others are all found in mammals and they do fossilize -- and this combination is not found in any other class of animals -- any fossils exhibiting the complete collection of stuff that does fossilize and denotes mammal, can be assumed to be a mammal -- except by creationists who cannot see the forest for the trees and refuse to accept any evidence unless in the form of a living, breathing critter (and then they'd probably claim it was ginned up by geneticists in some secret laboratory to mislead good, God-fearing Christians in an effort to damn their souls to Hell).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#750
One of your more egregious examples of quote mining. It's a bit different when taken in context, isn't it?
Then you would agree that the first part of the article was <euphemism> baloney </euphemism> ?
Perhaps you would also suggest to JediGirl that she stop using bandwidth for this <euphemism> nonsense </euphemism>.
First LOL I've seen in the whole thread!
Was anyone's mind changed? Did anyone see anything new?
I've chided G*r*3K for rudeness a couple of times.
Let's not forget the thermoacidophiles that live in Old Faithful, the eurypterids, and so forth.
Sources, please.
a sickening story to be told--lived---the dead---dying!
...isn't that what evolution is---animated earth-flesh---blindness---the spiritual dirt poor--trash---alienation/orphans?
Castaways---CAPTIVES/prisoners too!
I find this to be very confusing.
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.