Posted on 11/09/2009 9:44:55 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
This is not the first time that I have been accused of that! :)
No I understand evolutionary theory. I also understand that you want to try to use natural selection, speciations and mutations (things that we observe) and extrapolate it into the past to try to explain how goo led to you. The basis of the evolutionary theory is that BELIEF that all things evolved from a common ancestor. You use changes you see in the world around you (natural selection etc) and try to say that proves it. It doesn’t make it so but you can keep saying it. I don’t deny thing that make sense (roundness of the earth). However, TOE makes no sense scientifically (observational science).
I so think that God revealed what was necessary. There isn’t enough room in the Bible to name every animal and really no reason for it. Sometimes it was necessary to mention the mundane and sometimes the extraordinary. This is one of the reasons I believe that the description in Job 40 is a dinosaur. They were some of the most majestic creatures every created (chief of the ways of God). Have a great day!
You need a definition of "snidely"?
Gee, you don't know the original source (really not hard to find), yet you're gonna keep on posting words from a REPORTER? Is that how homeschoolers are taught "science"? "Hey kids, forget the actual research....here's a reporter's take on it"...better yet, here's lyin' Brian Thomas MS8 take on it.
You are misrepresenting her work. It was demineralized and all the ROCK was dissolved leaving behind what wasn’t rock.
I misrepresent nothing, and you need an english comprehension class....as that's EXACTLY WHAT I'VE SAID ALL ALONG....in contradistinction to what lyin' Brian Thomas MS* keeps on saying that "soft tissues were found"...that "blood cells were found" in the fossils, leaving YECers to believe they found "soft" "tissue" and actual blood cells, when they've found "fossilized" "soft tissue" and "fossilized" "blood cell structures"...and and the presence of heme and some protein fragments...."soft tissue" is a medical term...I'm sure your dictionary can help you.
The real reason why this is "news" is because she did to the samples what paleontologists don't do...destroy the sample, instead of preserve it at all cost.
From all this....that they were able to demineralize a fossil and find a fibrous matrix....does that tell YOU that T. rex walked the Earth with Man within the last 4,531 years? Tells me that we don't know as much about decay and fossilization in anoxic environments as we thought.
“So then what evidence would it take for you to accept the evolutionary theory?”
Sorry to horn in, but this is a good question and I would like to make a stab at it from my perspective.
Take a species of fish living today, any species, and any number of them you wish. Have them in a controlled lab environment (indoor or out). Map out the fish’s genome and document a series of mutations, in any order you prefer, that would turn the fins into legs. Induce the first mutation of the sequence in one of the fish’s sex cells that codes for fins. Alter the environment in the lab, in any way you want, such the new environment causes the mutated offspring to have such a selective advantage that they thrive while the environmental pressures kill of the other non-mutated progeny. Then repeat for the next mutations that would continue to do away with fins while proceeding along the path to forming functioning legs. Then, after completion, we can come into the lab and see that all the original species of fish are gone but we have instead creatures capable of walking on land. I would be impressed.
Arrested, convergent, divergent, parallel, fast, slow, partial, micro, macro, mickey mouseo.
But “evolution” has all the attributes of intelligence and can do anything as it chooses, sorts, designs, advances, adds, subtracts, guides, anything and everything.
My point is not what evolutionary theory IS but what is it NOT?
Definitions are important.
Generally, when discussing evolution, I am talking about the theory that all life that we see and interact with everyday originated from a common ancestor, and that random mutations and natural selection, brought to bear by environmental pressures, has the mechanistic power to build wholly new body forms and complicated biological systems and functions (legs from fins, for example). If we limit the definition of evolution to adaptation, changes within species, even random mutation and natural selection (such as microbe resistance to certain toxins), then we are all evolutionists.
I was not offended by your remark about homeschoolers although you tried to be condescending to me. So no false indignation actually no indignation at all. I was just suprised and a little humored, that’s all.
I asked for a link to the original research because I searched for one and I couldn’t find one. I would like to read it that is why I asked for it. Instead of helping, you tried to further insult homeschoolers. Again, not offended just suprised/humored.
Besides, the article I linked to was in a science magazine not a newspaper report and it reported the scientist’s words.
Providing a definiton was part of making my counter argument. It was not an attack on your intelligence as if you didn’t know the definition.
Also, I reread your post and said to another poster (I thought it was you), that I had misread the post and I realized we were saying the same thing. Sorry about the confusion with that. I will ping you to that post when I find it. I think I said it to Ira_Louvin thinking that he was the one I was talking about that particular point with.
Have a nice day. I won’t be debating with you on this subject anymore because it seems awfully personal to you and you seem angry. I hope I am wrong. Blessings to you and yours!
Ping to post 116. This is the post I thought I was addressing to you. :)
snidely
Derogatory in a malicious, superior way.
I have dictionary.com ;)
Getting a meaningful definition of evolution from a darwinist is like trying to nail jello to a leviathan. You must be a creationist or IDer.
“Getting a meaningful definition of evolution from a darwinist is like trying to nail jello to a leviathan. “
I agree.
“Getting a meaningful definition of evolution from a darwinist is like trying to nail jello to a leviathan. “
Not near as hard as getting you to say you believe that silly Jonah in the belly of the whale story.
And yet you believe that God created Eve from Adam's rib because why?
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.