Posted on 07/31/2007 10:18:52 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
...His findings: Overall, approximately 35 percent of the 982 trilobite species exhibited some variation in some aspect of their appearance that was evolving. But more than 70 percent of early and middle Cambrian species exhibited variation, while only 13 percent of later trilobite species did so.
"There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites."...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
==Then why did you use that phrase? Do you generally say things you don’t “know about?”
Are you being deliberately naive? I was referring to how Soren Luvtrop views Darwin.
==Who is this Lovtrop person anyway? What foundational theory has he formulated?
I already pointed you to his book. He has done what all good scientists do...he has refuted the biggest scientific myth of all time—Darwin’s so-called ToE.
Beware! There is a very sly underhanded movement going on to make the term "conservative" synonymous with the term "ignorant" in the perception of the public arena. On a forum like this you never know whether the creationist you are conversing with is an underhanded troll covertly trying to undermine the conservative movement in America or a sadly deluded anti-science paranoid who's been brainwashed by charlatan superstition.
Well put.
==Why should I read it? Why shouldn’t I expect it to be filled with creationist nonsense? Just the title is giveaway. Myths aren’t repeatedly confirmed by experience.
He’s an evolutionists. He’s just not a Darwinian evolutionist. And yes, there have been plenty of scientific myths that were repeatedly confirmed by experience until new experience superceded them. Trouble is, the experience of the fossil record falsified Darwin’s myth right from the start.
LOL! I think the creators of South Park were on to something there!!!
You're using it pejoratively. It's there for anyone to see. We also have you presuming to know the mind of all 'Darwinists' and have them all believing that "church" is a bad word, never mind the fact that *millions* of Christians (real ones, mind you, who actually practice the beliefs they hold) are also 'Darwinists' and might take issue with your presumption.
Why don't you let people inform you of their religious affiliation rather than you foisting it upon them? Oh, wait. I know why.
Christianity cannot be reconciled with Evolution.
The Bible teaches us that death entered the world with Adam’s sin. Therefore, nothing died before Adam doomed the creation.
==Christianity cannot be reconciled with Evolution.
Very true.
No, Darwin predicted life would become more diverse in a stable environment. He wrote that some changes would "be more successful at exploiting an existing environment or adapting to a changing environment". Darwin was an educated man looking at observable data and trying to postulate an explanation, he was neither an atheist nor the Anti-Christ.
The Imam Mahdi will be the Anti-Christ. I bet he won’t believe in evolution either.
Wow. Pretty strong words. I was just trying to have a friendly conversation. Anyway, GGG answered my question in a way that makes me think that he is, at least, no troll.
As for “brainwashed by charlatan superstition”, I wonder how many “atheists” really know that much science. I suspect very few. They aren’t really “atheists” at all, but (given the fact that they don’t really understand evolution or how it works) merely acolytes of what is for them a new religion. Which is, I think, at least one of GGG’s points.
Not that I agree with his underlying argument. I’m just talking about the vast unwashed majority of “atheists” who look down their noses at “superstition” but, in fact, wouldn’t know a biological adaptation from a spandrel of San Marco.
I guess dishonesty and demagoguery are still the only tools in the anti-science fundamentalist toolbox.
There, now it makes sense: On a forum like this you never know whether the Darwinists you are conversing with is an underhanded troll covertly trying to undermine the conservative movement in America or a sadly deluded anti-science paranoid who’s been brainwashed by charlatan superstition.
Speak for yourself. Darwinism has been thoroughly falsified, which means Darwinists are anti-science by definition.
Please explain how you can take
“Christianity cannot be reconciled with Evolution”
and stretch it become
“religion and science cannot be reconciled”
?
Where is the evidence of intelligence here?
Huh? That doesn't sound very intelligent!
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.