Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker
Your crocodile tears do not sell Patrick. Why would an atheist like you be worried about religion being discredited. You constantly do your best to do so all the time.
Your appendix.-you-"
Wrong. Doctors have found uses for both the appendix and the tonsils. Your statement is an example of the know-nothingism of the evolutionists:
"For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals.
From: The Appendix
There is no speciation between dogs and wolves. They can mate and produce mixed offspring. Therefore, as I have been saying, in spite of the tremendous physical differences between dogs themselves and wolves there has been no genetic change in the species. They are proof of the tremendous variety of genes that can be found in a species (man is another example).
This is total nonsense. If plants were converting oxygen from water at such a rate, the seas would be dropping constantly and would have almost dissappeared by now. Truth of the matter is that the earth is a very well balanced eco-system and has been so for as far back as we can tell.
What do you think of horses and donkeys? They can mate, but the offspring can't reproduce. Isn't this exactly what recently-speciated forms should be like?
I didn't know the appendix was actually needed, but my point is still valid: vestigial organs are evidence of descent from something where they weren't vestigial. What about the occasional person who is born with a tail? where did the tail genes come from? Obviously, his parents. Where did they get them from?
Your statement is an example of the know-nothingism of the evolutionists:
That's just plain rude.
Huh, I don't follow at all.
Without evidence 'God did not do it' is not a theory either, it is an article of faith in the atheistic religion whose name is evolution.
"More than enough to support the theory of evolution."
So why have you and your fellow evolutinists been avoiding giving the proof of macro-evolution I asked for over 600 posts ago?
The scientific definition of a mammal is that it has mammary glands. The definition of a bird is feathers (not wings). You should learn a little about what you speak of before spouting your verbal diarrhea.
You really need to study some biology, this is getting silly. The scientific definition?
I'll reiterate: The animals that have hair also have mammary glands and inner-ear bones and bear live young (and share several more technical traits as well). True, the word mammal and mammary are cognate, but that's beside the point. The interesting thing is, there are two exceptions, which are only found in Australia: the platypus and the spiny anteater. They lay eggs, but share the other traits with mammals. Also, it's no longer clear that feathers are restricted to birds, as there were dinosaurs with feathers.
You should learn a little about what you speak of before spouting your verbal diarrhea.
That is also rude. Learn some manners while you're studying science.
I'm sorry but the only conclusion to be drawn from that is that birds and dinosaurs are the "same". So say the Darwinians.
What do you think of horses and donkeys? They can mate, but the offspring can't reproduce. Isn't this exactly what recently-speciated forms should be like?"-virginia-
Perhaps, but dogs and wolves can mate and the children can produce children also. So there is no speciation here in spite of the large variety within this species.
"I didn't know the appendix was actually needed, but my point is still valid: vestigial organs are evidence of descent from something where they weren't vestigial. "
Don't you see the problem in saying that something we do not know about has no purpose? When the human genome was sequenced, evolutionists quickly claimed that all the parts of the genome which were not part of a known gene were "Junk DNA". They said that these were part of vestigial genes which were totally useless and an indication of evolution. The problem with this argument from ignorance by the evolutionists is that the "junk DNA" is not junk at all (note: if we had taken the word of evolutionists on this we would have foreclosed on perhaps the greatest scientific advances in biology in generations). It is what would be called in programming "subroutines" used occassionally by genes to increase their functioning and abilities.
And the platypus and the echidna are considered mammals just because they have incipient mammary glands. Look it up anywhere. Yes, many species of the same genus have similar traits - that is why they are in the same genus. However, there is always one trait which is deemed to be characteristic of it and whether they have the other traits or not, they are considered part of the genus if they have that trait.
More importantly though is the whole idea that if one trait is present then all the others are present. This is ridiculous - especially from an evolutionist point of view. Simultaneous development of totally unrelated traits at random is totally impossible. Also, that is the general problem with paleontology. If we are going to assume things from little evidence, we are never going to learn anything new, we are just going to justify pre-existing prejudices.
If plants create oxygen from water as Vade implied was the reason for no oxygen in the atmostphere before plants arose, then water levels would be constantly decreasing. This is not the case.
Sorry I took so long to respond. Here is what I am explicitly trying to say, and it must be prefaced with a context:
First the context: I am talking about the theory of evolution and its proponents, only. I am not talking about creationism.
Now, what I am trying to say: Most, as in the vast majority, of the evolutionists I have come across in my travels meet Freds (the article I posted) definition of adherents to a religion. You may not, but most of them do. That's it in a nutshell.
My side note about taking apart the clock is just my way of saying that science is interesting and all (heck just look at where we are headed with nanotechnology), but ultimately, it is pointless. Only there for entertainment. I say that because nothing ever given us by science compares even remotely to what rewards are reaped with a relationship with God. Science is, and always will be, a relative thing. It's just fun, like finding tadpoles as a boy is fun; or making your own paper boat is fun. It is why God gave us brains and the physical world. I see us as kind of Gods ant farm. The universe and creation are partly there to satisfy our curiosity, giving up their secrets only after hard work. It keeps us interested.
I know this particular point has nothing to do with the origin of species, but I thought I would try to clarify the remark anyway.
Oh, and I have every right to question what some government employee (teacher) teaches my child. Most of those guys are the worst of the religious evolutionist zealots. Try discussing uniformitarianism and catastrophism with any of them and most just kind of glaze over. And they're teaching our kids?!?!
Actually, it is not. The origin of life being an unsolved problem, there are a number of theories (or proto-theories) out there. Some of them hypothesize a "pre-biotic soup" of some sort (and I presume these differ from theory to theory); others don't. I would imagine, as layman in these matters, that life probably formed in some kind of solvent medium, most likey water, but I wouldn't close off other possibilities. We know, for instance, that some of the simpler amino acids are created naturally in interstellar dust clouds.
And this is different from faith in what way?
The only faith here is that common to all scientific fields: That any well reasonably well defined problem concerning the behavior or history of the natural world is potentionally soluble, and might explained by some theory consistent with what we otherwise know about the laws of nature.
I think there are a few billion people on the earth who might disagree with you on that, or should, since they wouldn't be alive without science and its technological fruits.
I say that because nothing ever given us by science compares even remotely to what rewards are reaped with a relationship with God.
Except, as noted, the ability of six billion odd persons to seek, at their choice, such a relationship. I don't find that insignificant myself. Additionaly many of the opportunities available to those of us in the civilized world (beyond but including not having to watch a majority our offspring die in childhood) derive from the fruits of science; and many of our freedoms are not unrelated to "scientific" values such as respect for knowledge and critical inquiry.
In respect to those that assume the condition, it is. It is of those species that I write. I do not consider those theories involving space aliens.
Do you ever run the numbers before making such statements? Don't you know anything about science? You're the one claiming to have a leg up on everything, so work out the amount of water required to make an atmosphere of 21 percent oxygen. We'll make it somewhat easier for you:
• Figure the Earth's atmosphere to be about 150 kilometers deep (this is close enough for government work).
• Assume, also that the hydrogen part eventually bleeds off into space (which is what really happens).
• The diameter of the Earth is 12,756 km.
• According to this site, oxygen makes of 88.81 percent of pure water by weight.
• According to this site, air weighs 1.2 kilograms per cubic meter.
• This site says that oxygen makes up 23.15 percent of the atmosphere by weight, or 0.2778 kilograms per cubic meter of air, and 85.8 percent of seawater by weight (858 kilograms per cubic meter).
The last point means that for every cubic meter of sea water you get a little more than three cubic meters of atmospheric oxygen.
I'll let you work out just how many cubic meters of seawater had to be converted to get the current atmosphere. With actual numbers, you can make an argument, rather than just throwing out stuff willy-nilly Mr. 21st century scientist.
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.