Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
With you. You claimed that these teeth were proof of macro-evolution. You told me to go away because of your so-called proof. You had no proof and the person who wrote it is just another whore of evolution who just makes up stuff in order to get his name published and keep his job by giving phony proof for what evolution cannot prove.
Here's another example of paleontological fraud. I shall call it:
On the second day of the symposium, William Garstka reported that he and a team of molecular biologists from Alabama had extracted DNA from the fossil bones of a 65-million-year-old dinosaur. Although DNA from other studies suggests that DNA older than about a million years cannot yield any useful sequence information, Garstka and his colleagues amplified and sequenced the DNA. compared, it with known DNA from other animals, and found that it was most similar to bird DNA . They concluded that they had found "the first direct genetic evidence to indicate that birds represent the closest living relatives of the dinosaurs". Their conclusion was reported the following week by Constance Holden in Science.
The details of the discovery, however, are revealing. First the dinosaur from which Garstka and his colleagues allegedly recovered the DNA was Triceratops. According to paleontologists there are two main branches in the dinosaur family tree. One branch included the three-horned rhinoceros-like Triceratops which millions of people have seen in museum exhibits and movies. But birds are thought to have evolved from the other branch. So according to evolutionary biologists, Triceratops and modern birds are not closely related, their ancestors having gone thier separate ways almost 250 million years ago.
Even more revealing, however, was that the DNA Garstka and his colleagues found was 100 percent identical to the DNA of living turkeys.. Not 99 percent, not 99.9 percent, but 100 percent. Not even DNA obtained from other birds is 100 percent identical to turkey DNA (the next closest match in their study was 94.5 percent with another species of bird). In other words, the DNA that had supposedly been extracted from the Triceratops bone was not just similar to turkey DNA - it was turkey DNA. Gartska said he and his colleagues considered the possibility that someone had been eating a turkey sandwich nearby, but they were unable to confirm that.
FROM: Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, page 130, 131.
Just comes to show the professionalism and dedication of paleontologists! And remember, your tax dollars paid for this wonderful discovery!
... to say nothing of the rest of us.
4) One reason for the multitude of names given to Notharctus was the frantic naming competition between O.C. Marsh and E. D. Cope. Another, however is the fragmentary nature of the fossils themselves. They commonly consisted of isolated teeth or small jaw fragments. Indeed, Leidy himself identified several other primate teeth and bone fragments as belonging to insectivores (the group of primative mammals most closely to primates) or to "pachyderms".
It should also be noted that the only bones shown in the article are a lower jaw of Notharcus (or rather reputed to belong to Notharcus) from a lithograph.
Charts prove nothing, charts are not evidence. The evidence is in the bones, charts are supposedly a representation of actual evidence, that is why I said:
SHOW ME THE BONES OF A HOMO ERECTUS WHICH HAS BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE LIVED LESS THAN 100,000 YEARS AGO.
To continue with Vade's reply:
Same applies here.
Your wish is my command Vade. Here are the bones of homo erectus after 200,000 years ago:
No we do not knock science. We knock ideology posing as science which is what evolution is. In fact, to call evolution a science is an insult to science.
As to our theory of how life began and all the life in it, read the Bible. The answer to your question is there. It is not an atheistic/materialist explanation but the answer is there.
You don't know what science is, as is demonstrated by the next sentence of yours I quote. You therefore can't know what science "isn't.":
As to our theory of how life began and all the life in it, read the Bible.
The theory of evolution does not address "how life began." The Bible is not science. Do you follow the Bible when it comes to medicine? Cross-country travel? Buttons? Why, then, speciation?
Macro-evolution requires new faculties, new capabilities, new genes. Speciation is very loosely defined by evolutionists and does not require new genes - as I have posted 3 times already. Do I need to post it a fourth time? If you disagree with my definition of macro-evolution why did you not show your disagreement with it the three times it was posted? (the last time in post#1652). See my comments there for a fuller explanation of my reasoning.
So say you. However, I see nowhere in Darwin or any evolutionist the statement that 'God created life' and then afterwards the rest of life came about through evolution. If I missed that statement, kindly show it to me. However, the second part of my statement, that the bible says how all life was created does concern evolution and is denied by evolution. That is why evolution is unChristian and that is why we refute it.
And I've already shown you evidence for all three. Whether you accept the evidence or not is irrelevant; the folks following this thread already know your tactics of ignoring the evidence or claiming to "disprove" it when you've done nothing of the sort. Hell, your entire argument against evolution has been reduced to bantering semantics.
Here's what's interesting about posting to you: You never, ever remember anything. This is why I call you Orwell's Memory Hole. How many times have I posted the Pope's document regarding evolution? I'm losing count myself. The Pope has stated that belief in evolution does not contradict Catholic teaching. Therefore, evolution cannot be unChristian. Unless, of course, you belong to one of those sects that deny Catholics are Christians.
The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. Neither does calculus. Do you expect to see in calculus books the statement "God created life"? If you had anything like the understanding of Darwin or evolution that you pretend to, you'd know that the theory doesn't address the origin of life. Give it up; you're not fooling anyone who knows anything about the subject, and you're embarrassing to believers who don't think progress stopped circa 1 BC.
If all you know about life comes from the Bible, stay away from me and my family when you get an infectious disease. My earlier question still stands unanswered, however. Do you use buttons? They're not in the Bible, you know. Have you rounded the corners of your beard? You really ought to stop. I'm told that certain religious sects believe God told them not to round the corners of their beards ... whatever that means. The Bible says that the sun once stopped while going around the earth. What does that mean?
By the way, you haven't "refuted" anything. You've ignored evidence, denied it exists, gone out of your way to misinterpret and misconstrue the material you don't actually misquote, and are impervious to anything resembling rational argument. None of that constitutes refutation.
Oh sure! You say you're lurking, but have you really ... oh, wait ...Sorry.
By, golly, you are lurking! Not that you can convince G3K ...
Trust me; I'm lurking. And I'm not worried about convincing g3k of anything.
You think he believes in the solar system? It's "only a theory," you know. And it's certainly not scriptural. Quite the opposite. How would you convince him? More importantly, why would anyone care if he believed it or not?
What's the prize? A glorious romantic weekend with Splifford the ASCII bat?
The prize would have to involve being locked up in a small, windowless room for 30 days with medved, g3k, f.Christian, and AndrewC, as they lecture you on the shortcomings of science. That's what the winner gets. The loser gets to spend 90 days.
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.