Posted on 01/14/2002 9:50:16 AM PST by Junior
(2002-01-01) Conservatives, Darwin & Design: An Exchange
(2002-01-01) Design Yes, Intelligent No
(2002-01-01) Intelligent Design As a Theory of Technological Evolution
(2002-01-07) Genetic Marker Tells Squash Domestication Story
(2002-01-07) SNPs as Windows on Evolution
(2002-01-07) Supreme Court Won't Hear Case on Teaching Evolution
(2002-01-07) Universe Of Life: Maybe Not, A
(2002-01-07) What Every Theologian Should Know about Creation, Evolution, and Design
(2002-01-08) Universe Might Last Forever, Astronomers Say, but Life Might Not, The
(2002-01-09) Life On Other Planets? Vatican Aide Ponders The Possibility
(2002-01-10) How STILL Not to Debate Intelligent Design (Liars for Evolution)
(2002-01-10) Study: Neanderthals, Modern Humans Same Species
(2002-01-10) Taking Wing: A New View of the Origin of Bird Flight Emerges
(2002-01-13) From scientist to saint: does Darwin deserve a day?
I don't think I have ever read anywhere but here that evolution is a fact, just as I have never seen a fossil that was clearly a bridge between species. It would certainly seem Gould is unwilling to make such a claim as well.
“but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science”
Can any one reading this imagine any argument or demonstration that would cause an "evolutionist" to doubt his sacred cow?
Silly scientists are always proving last weeks theories bogus. For now, Genesis, even as an Allegory or Metaphor, probably still has far more truth to it than supposing intelligent designs like kidneys, feathers and gills just accidentally occured and gave their brethren a surprising advantage.
v.
Silly scientists are always proving last weeks theories bogus. For now, Genesis, even as an Allegory or Metaphor, probably still has far more truth to it than supposing intelligent designs like kidneys, feathers and gills just accidentally occured and gave them a surprising advantage over their brethren.
v.
Archaeopteryx. Definitely has the characteristics of both therapod dinosaurs and birds.
... just as I have never seen a fossil that was clearly a bridge between species.
Archaeopteryx. Definitely has the characteristics of both therapod dinosaurs and birds.
</logic>
He's got you there, Junior. Archaeopteryx was a species, so you can't call it a bridge between species.
<logic>
Maybe you need some better sources.
X-ray resonance spectrograph tests performed on the British Museum specimen in 1986 showed the material containing the feathers was different from that containing the rest of the fossil.
Completely false. Somehow, the result of the investigation into Hoyle's bogus charge is changed in your report. Your work, or your sources?
Add to this that fossils of real birds have been found that are much older than this hoax and it is obvious it is not a link.
The logic would be silly here even if true. That Archae is probably somewhat off the main line leading to modern birds isn't a huge deal. It's still evidence of where birds came from. Here's a thread I did on the dino-bird sequence, the point of which is that some dinosaurs were rather birdlike to begin with and can be seen virtually morphing into birds in the fossil record.
This is an old, discredited, canard. From On Archaeopteryx, Astronomers, and Forgery:
If a layer of cement is present, then some sort of discontinuity should be visible between the true limestone and the cement, on the surface and/or in vertical section (a vertical section is a section cut through the slab, at 90 degrees to the fossil). No such discontinuity has been found, even in vertical section. There does appear to be a division in vertical section whereby an upper 500-850 micrometre (1 micrometre = 1/1000 millimetre) layer is separated from the lower layer by a dark band. However, the upper layer shows the same granular structure as the lower layer and the structure is continuous through gaps in the dark band (Charig et al.. 1986). Also the complete lack of air bubbles and the presence of calcite crystals indicate that the whole section is original. Besides, the upper layer is far too thin to receive any feather impressions (Charig et al.. 1986). A further point worth raising here is that any organic bonding material available to a forger in the 19th century for mixing cement would have shown some evidence of cracking or shrinking away. No such cracking or shrinkage has been observed.
And
The evidence claimed by Watkins et al. to indicate that the feather impressions are a forgery appear to be easily explainable by natural processes. Detailed study of the London specimen both across the surface and in vertical section have failed to provide any evidence to support the contention that a layer of cement is present. The method claimed to have been used to produce the forgery cannot explain the presence of fine lines crisscrossing the fossil, or the matching dendrites on the slab and counterslab, which occur on top of the feather imprints. The feather imprints on the Maxberg specimen, despite claims to the contrary, are clearly identifiable as such. In this case, forgery of the type envisaged by Watkins et al. can be discounted because of the fact that the impressions run underneath the bony elements of the skeleton.
This is one reason I created The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource -- so that these discussions could move beyond reinventing the wheel every time a new thread opens.
Find me a 100 million year old wheel of cheddar and i'll jump ship.
I know some cheese gets better with age, but you're a fanatic!
It does not even approach the question of how it began. Its the question of how the kidneys, gills and feathers "just happened" over time that I don't see in the record. Nor does an extrapolation of the record coupled with the current theory make clear to me how anything essential to the survival or function of the creature could have not have been with it from it's first moment of existance. I can imagine cells spontaneously deciding to band together and differentiate into a functioning whole, I just can't do it with a straight face.
Like I said, I'm not a Creationismalist, Evolution as an explanation of life on earth "sola scriptura" just does not seem to me to be as much rational science as a dogma seeking to find ways to trumpet the potential non-existence of God. I still vote for intelligent design and adaptive change over time.
Vaguely? A paleontologist going over the skeletons would enumerate point-for-point morphological similarities essentially all over the body. By the way, the incomplete parts of the skeletons are marked in dotted lines. There aren't that many. You're looking for dodges everywhere. Do you realize how obvious it is? When you ask for evidence of transitional forms, what do you think you're asking for?
Evolution as an explanation of life on earth "sola scriptura" just does not seem to me to be as much rational science as a dogma seeking to find ways to trumpet the potential non-existence of God.
I read things like this and realize the writer doesn't care about science but is (needlessly in my view) defending his religion against some vicious undermining attack from Godless Science. God is not the business of science.
I still vote for intelligent design and adaptive change over time.
The nature and history of the universe is not subject to your vote.
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.