Posted on 02/08/2005 3:50:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
"(1) key expected fossil transitions be found, but also (2) the amount of biological change must be mathematically possible given the size, reproduction rate, and mutation rate of the evolving population, the supposed time allowed for the change in the fossil record, and the rules of population genetics, (many of these characteristics may be dependent upon one another, but the point is that in the end, the numbers must add up), and also (3) all stages of intermediate macro- and micro- morphology of the transitional organisms must be conceivably functional and advantageous to survival. "
The above is what they base their "science" on. Pretty funny. Thanks for the laugh.
Do you have anyone in creationism that can separate between science and assertion, evidence and philosophical Bravo Sierra?
You offered offense to all good thinking people here with your first post about Whales. Care for me to repost it?
Global Warming is not man caused as far as I can tell. I can't tell whether we are warming or cooling from politicized science involved.
And what I gave you is evidence. What is your problem?
I'm tempted to say for you to look in a mirror but I won't.
One of the biggies for the maintenance and upbringing of life on earth is the moon. It's one of those inspirations you get sometimes. The moon causes regular tides, which in turn give a slightly fluctuating rhythmic environment on the seashore that favors the cycles of living creatures and promotes their adaptation in easy steps. The moon also stabilizes the rotation of the earth, which would otherwise flip its polar axis at frequent intervals. Of course, the moon is tiring and gradually withdrawing, so the little littoral creatures may be headed for trouble eventually.
You have a problem with that! Speak up!
I thought they decided to call the Brontosaurus something else. I am no expert on paleontology or dinosaurs.
Are you?
Evolution is a fact. Instead of continuing to ridicule what you don't understand, give us a piece of evidence that refutes evolution. None of your buddies has been able to do that. All they have is silly-science and sophistry.
You may just find yourself the new dartboard.
Regardless of Dr. Popper, I still think gravity is real. ;)
Okay, how about a venomous mammal? Here's a shrew whose venom is chemically similar to that in cobras. Would creationist theory predicted the existence of these creatures?
Yeah, that remark was really uncalled for.
Well, we have read multiple things from you that confirm you have no scientific background but get your "quotes" from creationist websites, DVD's, books ...
That is the problem with you evangelical evolutionaries, you can't see the science from the propaganda you have wrapped yourself in.
Since he doesn't know any science, I take it as a compliment that he doesn't see any science from me. ;-)
You want to tell us how thermodynamics is violated?
Your total concept of entropy is based on the false science of the creationist that told you about entropy.
"order" certainly is. "pattern" otoh... I am not certain a cyclic period requires an observer to be a cyclic period.
I've heard that about the moon. Why wouldn't solar tides suffice?
Put some O2 and H2 together and see what happens. It is called chemistry.
placemarker
2000?
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.