I thought George Burns was....
Oh, you must mean Bill Cosby
.
???
!
Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker
If you mean your link way back in post#29, it was not proof of anything, least of all of macro-evolution. All it gave proof of is that evolutionists call any article link "proof" in the hope that no one will follow it. However, if I missed that momentous moment which no one seems to want to refer to, kindly give us all the number of the post where the proof was shown. We are all waiting on baited breath to hear it.
Yes evolution should not be taught as a scientific theory. It should not be allowed in the schools until they can give clear, incontrovertible proof that macro-evolution does indeed occur (which they cannot).
Well, evolutionists constantly deny God, they deny the Bible, they attack those who believe in the Bible as yahoos and worse. They certainly deny the Word, they certainly deny that God created all living things, they certainly deny that God created man. Remember the Scopes trial? (which BTW the evolutionists lost). They love to attack religion.
That the above features do often occur in most mammal species is undeniable. But that is not the point. The point is that an animal such as the platypus is considered a mammal because it has mammary glands even though it lacks many of the above features.
The larger point as I have mentioned several times, and you evolutionists totally ignore, is that extrapolation just confirms prejudices, it adds no new knowledge. For example, using the platypus as an example again. If it was not a living species, it never would have been classified as a mammal, none of its uniqueness such as its killing poison, it's sensory radar, it's egg laying, its not having separate excretory and sexual ducts and many other interesting features would have never been known. It would have been just one more set of bones like any other stuffed into some procrustean bed by lazy paleontologists.
Yes, that's why I mentioned chemosynthesis. It is not very common, and the process is not very well understood yet, but it is even more complicated than photosynthesis and that is why as a source of nutrition for the first life form it is just as unlikely as photosynthesis.
Good ol' Chuckie! Like all the evos after him, he always hedged his bets and spoke out of both sides of his mouth!
No. The platypus is considered a mammal because it shares these features in addition to having mammary glands. If there were no know extant platypi (sorry, Plato) their fossilized remains would still be classed as mammalian because of these other features.
Since when? I'm a church-going, Bible studying (and believing) Roman Catholic. There are some parts of the Bible meant to be taken as poetic allegories, and guess what? Genesis is one of those. The only folks we "attack" are those who cling to a faulty interpretation of the Bible regardless of the evidence. In other words, when your beliefs fly in the face of reality, it is time to reexamin those beliefs. Don't worry, though, this will not make you a Satan-worshipping atheist -- though if you become RC, many here will consider it the same thing.
The reality, is that evolutionists after 150 years of saying that evolution is true, cannot give proof for their theory. The reality is that evolutionists use this totally unproven theory to attack the beliefs of Christians. A famous example is the Scopes trial. Another good example is the writings of the virulent atheist, and current banner bearer of evolution Richard Dawkings. While Darwin, dishonestly, never professed himself an atheist, most of those around him were self-professed atheists.
Face it, "Junior", you're not bright enough to "run numbers". You can barely handle a keyboard.
Ted, I cringe when others insult you for lack of courtesy and common sense. It hurts me when I do it to others too, even when I am returning fire. Junior is no more in error than our spelling mistakes.
I thought George Burns was....
Oh, you must mean Bill Cosby
.
???
!
So science doesn't always proceed in a logical, organized way. To your comment:
This is a side trip into science because evolutionists keep denying that science gives any proof.
This isn't a side trip, it goes to your mantra about "proof". I'm not sure that the evos are denying science gives proof. For some folks posting, overwhelming evidence is close enough to call proof. Myself being more the mathematician, I still call it overwhelming evidence rather than proof. And I would like more of the details filled in before calling anything in biology proof.
And for the record, I'm not an "evo", I'm a "thevo". I thought we settled that.
Oldcats
I'm not sure that can be concluded. The record seems to indicate a loss of faith which resulted in agnosticism.
One cannot give "proof" for anything. One can present evidence that one's theory is the best one going to explain certain phenomena -- and that's precisely what evolution does. No one yet has presented any evidence that Biblical creation is a better theory; all they can do is harp on a theory for which they have only a passing aquaintance. If, for example, you could show how creationism is better than evolution at explaining the fossil record and the diversity of life around us, then you would have a dog in this hunt. However, you can't so you don't. Rale against progress all you want -- science is pretty much going to just ignore you and go about its business.
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.