Posted on 10/11/2005 4:07:11 AM PDT by mlc9852
MONDAY, Oct. 10 (HealthDay News) -- Head to the American Museum of Natural History's Web site, and you'll see the major draw this fall is a splashy exhibit on dinosaurs.
And not just any dinosaurs, but two-legged carnivorous, feathered "theropods" like the 30-inch-tall Bambiraptor -- somewhat less cuddly than its namesake.
The heyday of the theropods, which included scaly terrors like T. rex and velociraptor, stretched from the late Triassic (220 million years ago) to the late Cretaceous (65 million years ago) periods.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I was thinking of a less secular dozen.
. Not the fossil record. The evolution of life. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear.
The fossil record is "severely discontinuous" as Darwin admitted. And that was his gravest concern.
No fair. Creationists haven't figured out QM yet and probably never will.
I happened to take college geology a few years before plate techtonics was proposed. I distinctly recall hearing rather long and detailed lectures on the evidence for continental drift. It was even in the textbooks.
No one was really opposed to the idea. They simply hadn't settled on a mechanism supported by evidence.
How about a Baker's dozen? They need all the help they can get.
They must be playing Canadian fooball.
Domestic roosters can't fly. A flying velociraptor is more frightening than a running raptor.
It's great fun when you cut their heads off and they insist on believing it's still attached while running 'headlong' into a barn door.
(I needed the catharsis of that ghoulish vision.)
That's an absolute statement attempting to cover a complex reality. Modern egg layers are so inbred and overfed they can barely walk. Free range chickens can fly, even if not far. Farther than a two-year-old boy.
I am prone to that aren't I.
The chicken I have familiarity with were far too heavy to fly farther than 10 or 20 metres. I had cousins that lived on a farm who loved teaching their city slicker cousin all the ins and outs of farm life, including how to scare the s&*t out of chickens. They taught me to hold the rooster or hen with its head tucked under its wing and gently rock it to sleep. When it was sound asleep I was instructed to throw it as high as I could and watch the look on its face when it found itself 4 or 5 metres in the air.
I never did learn how to read their faces...beaks...whatever.
"Modern egg layers are so inbred and overfed they can barely walk. Free range chickens can fly, even if not far. Farther than a two-year-old boy.
There's the problem...your age. I was 8 when I tortured my first chicken.
(The torturing didn't last long because I really felt I was doing something wrong.)
Yes, you do keep singing that mantra. Darwin dealt with that objection to his theory and every other one he could possibly think of in the first edition of his book. In later editions--I have the sixth--he added a chapter on other people's objections which he had not anticipated and dealt with those there. Darwin's style of argument is thus particularly admirable because he tries to anticipate every argument AGAINST his theory. He ignores nothing away.
So you have ignored absolutely every item of evidence posted to you and are still chanting the same mantra with which you came onto the thread. It's hard to put a good face on this.
Darwin did have a paucity of fossil evidence for his theory in his day. He acknowledged that fossil land mammal ancestors of whales must have existed. His theory demands such. He predicted that such might be found. We now have a fine fossil series for that evolutionary change. He predicted that light would be shed on the origins of humans. We now have a fine hominid progression from apes to man. We now have a fine progression from fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, dinosaurs to birds, etc.
So Darwin, if he was wrong, if he was faking something, would seem to be the luckiest charlatan in history. Every time we find a fossil that further outlines the tree of life that was vaguely visible in 1859, that's a fulfilled prediction of Darwin's. There's an announcement like that every few weeks at least.
That circumstance should be very hard to explain by someone who like you has a religious horror of evolution. Should be, but isn't. A liar for the Lord simply pretends that problem doesn't exist. Gaps, you see. Gaps, everywhere. Gaps! Gaps! As far as the eye can see, holes!! Holes on holes! Holes in holes! Whole lotta holes!
IOW, creationists do exactly what Darwin disdained to do: put on blinders and ignore away all problems with the favored theory. They could learn from Darwin, if religious horror didn't so interfere. Ethically, they couldn't polish his boots.
A very dishonest enterprise, creationism, mostly practiced by having grownup people playing childishly dumb and making very bad arguments in public. It gives everything it hides within, Christianity and conservatism for two examples, a bad name.
Now they're going after science education in this country. Scummy people doing scummy things.
Not to mention those who can't figure out how methodology impacts our conception of the way physics and biology might differ or not! : )
Is ethics a function of nature or does intelligence struggle against it? By what criterion do we obtain a right to abort the fetus? By nature? Is it bone structure or DNA which determines the survival of the Jewish state?
If you have something to say, why not just say it?
Natural selection doesn't mean flying faster than the fox, just faster than the other chicken.
Wisconsin is beautiful. I drive through it every now and then. I used to live in NE Wisconsin. Gorgeous birch forsts.
Wisconsin; I lived there for some years.
Heh? I don't follow!
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.