Posted on 06/17/2007 6:54:37 PM PDT by Rodney King
Exactly, I agree with what you say...I also believe, very firmly, that God is the one who caused the beginning of the universe...we are in agreement on this...science will never be able to prove or disprove Gods existence, because it is a belief based on faith....I have enough faith to believe that God exists and did begin life...but that does not conflict with my acceptance of evolution...just the way I see things, tho I know it disagrees with many here, but on the other hand, my view also does agree with many others here...
I also do not believe that the dinosaurs, were still roaming the earth in any great numbers at all some mere 6000 years ago...
Tho, unlike many who support evolution, I do believe that it is possible that some creatures that existed millions of years ago, could still possibly exist today, or that they have existed in modern times...I still do believe that things like the Loch Ness Monster, or some sea serpents could still have survived over time, given that they are in isolated regions, or in regions where man is unable or unwilling to go..
Which is why I am so interested in the supposed picture of WW11 Australian soldiers, standing over the body of a pterodactyle...I have already seen all the pictures of civil war soldiers, and cowboys or ranchers standing over such proclaimed pterodactyles, but all of those pictures have been shown to be hoaxes, or fakes...which is why I am so interested in this claim of a pic with WW 11 Australian soldiers, and their pterodactyle...that is one pic I have not seen, at least I do not remember seeing it...I would just love to see it, if someone can find it, tho it seems to appear, that it is easier to make these claims, than it is to come up with the actual picture...
I remain hopeful that someone will find this picture with documentation, and prove me wrong in my belief about its existence...that would be quite an interesting find...
When I first posted the link to the paranormal site it had three pictures, in exactly the same poses, of soldiers from different eras standing over a putative pterosaur carcass. One of those pictures was of what looked to be WWII solders, although I could not identify whether it was supposedly taken in Australia or not. After I posted the link and you mentioned it did not contain any pics, I went back to try to find those pics again. I either posted the wrong link or they changed the page I linked to. I have been unable to find that link again, sorry.
~yawn~...
Well, I checked those pics out, and I could not find what I was looking for at all...I found pictures that were from the Civil War, I could not find anything that looked like it was from WW 11...I will deal with whether or not it was shot in Australia later...first off, we need to find a picture with WW 11 soldiers in it...well, you gave it a shot, I will keep looking...I wonder if there might be some museum, or some such place, actually in Australia, that would have this picture...its worth a google and a try...
If that picture does exist, I mean to find it...
Do you believe that all darwinism is bunk?
Of course. Yes, it is all built on the flimsy atheistic hopes of the Darwinoids. It is not what it should be: knowledge attained through study or practice. The evolution field has become politicized by the darwinoids who are bound and determined to bar anyone with alternative views a hearing.
None of it is science in its pure sense. It has become an institution propped up by an establishment which does not allow any contrary hypothesizing.
In accepting Mr. Darwin’s theory of evolution, we are we are really being asked to accept many other theories based upon many preconceived facts. This piling up of theory upon theory like a chain easily nullifies the whole kit and caboodle when one theory is proved wrong.
Nodding off seems to be a behavior that fits.
So how old is the planet anyway?
Yes, what you provide in your posts, does that to me...you have provided nothing of interest or value, addressing the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, which is what I was addressing...since you refuse to address that, and just repeat the same stuff, yes, your posts made me nod off...when you actually address the subject at hand, than that will be of interest...
Why are you asking me? It’s right here:
1:8. And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.
1:9. God also said; Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done.
1:10. And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
I fee the same way about your posts...unfortunately.
I’m not here to address any of your concerns about panspermia or any of the other theories put out there by arrogant self styled scientists.
Well, I sent off an inquiry to the Australian Museum, a museum of natural history, and explained the whole situation...and asked what they might know about this, and if they might have any information....I dont know if they will reply or not, or if they will have any information or not, but I will keep on digging...seems to be, the only way, I will get to the bottom of this, is to look for the picture for myself, since no one has been able to bring it forward...after I exhaust all possible avenues and still cannot find the picture, I will have to agree with other posters, who believe that such a picture does not even exist...I still hold out hope, that it does exist, and will keep on trying....actually if this Australian Museum, does not have a line on this picture, I could go to other Natural History Museum, in the states, and maybe one of them would have a lead...one never knows...
~yawn~.
Because you can’t prove it.
“Someone who believes in Jesus can’t believe in evolution — what He believed and spoke directly contradicts the theory”
You are dead wrong.
If you demand a transitional to prove one tenet of the ToE then yes.
Logically, to show the existence of something you only have to show one example. Even if Evolution did not occur in any other lineage of organisms, anywhere, only one example of an organism that can be shown to fit a predicted transition is necessary to show that Evolution occurred in at least that particular lineage. This one instance proves that Evolution occurs. If you demand that every extant organism be shown to belong to an evolutionary line then it may be necessary, at least logically, to provide a transitional specimen for each line, but practically we only need enough to show that a pattern develops. At that point, if we want to show that not all organisms are a result of evolution we have to begin looking for evidence that shows a disconnect.
Put it this way, to prove the existence of something, say a leprechaun, all you need to do is find and present one leprechaun. If you want to prove that something does not exist then you have to search every possible potential hiding place, and guarantee that the leprechaun did not move to an already examined place behind your back.
Just as it is not necessary to show every step you take between LA and NY to know that you went from one city to the next and which direction you went, it is not necessary to show every possible transition between two organisms.
If we see you in LA one day, Minneapolis the next day and NY the third day, and we know the possible paths and transportation methods possible for humans to take, then we know you traveled at least one path and used at least one transportation method. If we further know the speed at which each transportation method moves and which paths those methods are limited to we can, based on your departure times from LA and Minneapolis, and your arrival times at Minneapolis and NY we can calculate the most likely method and path you have taken. The more points we know in the path and the arrival and departure times the more accurate our estimation of the types or transportation and paths taken.
The way we can identify that you are you at each point is by identifying a number of 'diagnostic' features which make up your physiology, morphological traits. This is the same with fossils. We identify features that are exclusive to a particular clade and follow the changes, or retention, of those features as we travel though time to the terminal organism of the lineage.
Although there are many more than just Archaeopteryx fossils available to show the sequence between dinosaurs (which is a rather large group) and birds (another large group), there are a number of traits which do not belong to modern birds, but do belong to dinosaurs, and a number of traits which do not belong to dinosaurs that do belong to modern birds that Archaeopteryx has that we can be highly confident that Archy is a valid transitional between dinos and birds.
If we track the trait changes in the dinosaur clade through time, and even if you doubt the absolute dates given by radiometrics, the relative dates are pretty easy to verify, we see that early dinosaurs had no bird-like features but later dinos, especially theropods, had a few bird like features and other features were becoming more bird-like as time went on. There was a pattern emerging.
We also see in birds, traits which were changing from Achy-type (sorry) to more modern bird-like in bird fossils following Archy. Even though we class Theropods as dinosaurs, and Archaic Aves as Birds, the changes within those clades indicate a specific path taken. Archy is midway between those two clades along the same pathway (although Archy was likely a cousin to the organism on the direct path).
This pattern was observed, not just in the Theropod/Aves line but many others.
I've had a lifetime of reading and experiences to rely on when I contemplate scientific notions. I have also taken a number of University Courses in the Math and Science areas, and I have never failed any School Course in my entire life.
Additionally, during the last three years I have achieved a relatively high GPA in my more than a few Biology and Chemistry Courses including microbiology. In fact I have never had a problem maintaining a minimum " cumme laude" recognition and that Astronomy "C" was an exception and the very reason that I mentioned it at all.
I took the Astronomy Course as a sort of lark when I was still a teenager, and I thought that it would have something to do with gazing through telescopes and such.
It was actually sort of a baptism by fire for me. It was my first real introduction to the Physical Sciences, as I was a High School dropout.
A dropout because I am one person who had a difficult childhood because I was a member of a seriously dysfunctional family and there were problems. But that is enough about my personal history.
I think that TOE is a joke when it comes to real Science. Darwin only published his first work because it was quite clear that he had contemporaries with similar studies and conclusions, and he simply needed to be first.
You keep posting your silly cranium sketches and assume away that the World is populated by a bunch of dopes who will bend knee at the altar of your infant religion that knows no God, no Creed, no Faith, and no Logic.
But please, just because from time to time I post silly things, and I am often in a pissy mood, do not assume that I am ignorant. Please?
I can think.
OK, so you don’t believe that any living organism ever has, or ever will evolve?
Evolution (or Biological Evolution, in order to extract it from the morass of creationist propaganda) relies on some very specific mechanisms and processes to show common descent, change in allele frequencies due to differential reproductive success within a population, and the origin of allele variation. Right now, abiogenesis, which is primarily a chemist, biochemist and physicist laden field, has not yet been shown to require those same mechanisms and processes. If at some time in the future, abiogenesis is shown to require and utilize those same mechanisms then we can include abiogenesis, or at least that part of abiogenesis which uses those mechanisms, as part of Evolution.
Abiogenesis is no more an integral part of the ToE (Evo-Devo, SToE) than is the evolution of stars.
"Why is that so hard for you to figure out?
Because its just an assertion.
Can you 'prove' that the Bible is the inspired word of God?
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.