| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 04/04/2002 10:05:32 AM PST by Heartlander
My statement may sound silly, but it shows exactly how silly the statement is by evolutionists that physical distance proves speciation. No you cannot breed without close proximity but that does not mean that a geological event for example creates new species. It does not. Such silly statements are given by evolutionists because they completely lack proof of real evolution having ever taken place, so they make up false definitions so that they can massage the evidence to prove what they want it to prove.
No I will not waste my time proving what is common knowledge. Look it up in any astronomy book.
There are no pointers, there are no links in post#9. If you cannot bother giving proof of how abiogenesis took place, I cannot bother believing you - and I am sure no one else will either. Science has shown quite specifically why the chances of abiogenesis ever having happened are close to infinitely impossible. You cannot even show how such a thing might have happened! Even Art Bell and the bozos he puts on his show can do better than that.
No, I did not say the above nor anything close to it. What I said is quite simple: real science has not only not been able to produce life, it has also disproven that life comes from inert matter and in addition has shown that it is almost impossible for life to have ever arisen from inert matter. Now if you are smarter than Pasteur, the Noble Prize winners who discovered DNA and the many others who have advanced biology from the dark ages in the time of Darwin to where it is now, then it is up to you to prove them wrong and give evidence for your theory. Because you cannot, because you do not even have a hypothesis as to how life might have arisen from non-living matter, you indulge in silly rhetorical arguments.
One of the marvelous things about evolutionists is their ability to spout mutually contradictory statements next to each other without realizing how ridiculous they are talking. The only way selection insures some will proliferate and others will not is by killing them. Else both the mutants and non-mutants would proliferate and there would be no selection. Selection is a totally negative force, it only kills, it does not produce anything. To call such a "force" the agent of new traits, new abilities, new genes is totally ridiculous.
Remember, all planets move in ellipses. A planet that moves in a perfectly circular orbit is actually an ellipse with its eccentricity (e) = 0, a parabola has e = 1 and a hyperbola the e > 1. So the closer to zero the planets eccentricity, the more circular its orbit.
For the planets, the furthest point from the sun in its orbit is called aphelion and the closest is called perihelion.
All of the planetary distances from the Sun are measured in Astronomical Units (AUs). One AU is the average distance from the Earth to the Sun, which is approximately 93,000,000 miles.
Mercury: e = 0.2056 and its AU = .39
Venus: e = 0.0068 and its AU = .72
Earth: e = 0.0167 and its AU = 1
Mars: e = 0.0934 and its AU = 1.52
Jupiter: e = 0.0483 and its AU = 5.20
Saturn: e = 0.0560 and its AU = 9.54
Uranus: e = 0.0461 and its AU = 19.18
Neptune: e = 0.0097 and its AU = 30.06
Pluto: e = 0.2482 and its AU = 39.44
If you notice only two planets have a high eccentricity; Mercury and Pluto. Only one of them cross the mean distance of another planet from the Sun and that is Pluto and Neptune. Briefly Pluto is closer to the Sun than Neptune when its orbit is at perihelion.
The eccentricity of our planet's orbit is mild; aphelion and perihelion differ from the mean Sun-Earth distance by less than 2%. In fact, if you drew Earth's orbit on a sheet of paper it would be difficult to distinguish from a perfect circle and that is with e = 0.0167.
I, unfortunately, do not hold out hope for your comprehension of the differences in the above paragraph, as your actual knowledge of evolution seems to be woefully lacking.
A far more interesting question (to me at least) is how the activation of a single gene can result in a major structural change. It is as if the blueprints for your house contained -- as an appendix, so to speak -- the blueprints for a skyscraper. A lot of "design" packed in a few molecules.
In the parable of the talents, the foolish servant buried his allotment because he was afraid of what his master might do to him. To me, this sums up the attitude of the creationist community -- it is so afraid of heavenly retribution it plays dumb. You remember what happened to the foolish servant, do you not?
I have always wondered why God gave us curious minds and supposedly forbids us to use them. If there ever was a Satanic idea, this is it.
It might look different if you weren't filling the thread with blue spew, but given that you are, it's amusing that you have to run away from your own misdeeds and errors.
You claimed you had proven me a liar for the following supposed contradictory statements:
1) Humans and chimps have the identical molecule for cytochrome c.
2) Humans and chimps differ by a single DNA triplet in the genes for cytochrome c.
After I showed you that there are tons of redundancies in the DNA code (18 of 20 amino acids having more than one triplet that codes for them), you ran away, leaving your charge of "liar" unretracted.
You have also called me a liar for correctly conveying to others that you say we don't know if dinosaurs had mammary glands. Never mind for a moment that evolution has a line of reasoning that they definitely should not have had them, the point is that you said a thing, you called me a liar for telling other people you said it, and on this thread you've gone back to saying it again.
A bizarre performance.
No, but they were when they had their progeny. Also they were not monkeys either. A species that was extinct over 200,000 years ago is not the ancestor of a species that arose less than 100,000 years ago. We are dealing with facts, not theory.
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.