Posted on 07/04/2002 9:49:26 PM PDT by Phil V.
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:29 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A fossil previously mistaken for the remains of an extinct fish turns out to hold the earliest known creature to have emerged from the Earth's waters and walk on land some 350 million years ago.
This ancestor of every four-limbed, backboned animal living today -- the first creature clearly designed to walk on land, with forward-facing feet -- fills a major gap in the evidence for the evolution of vertebrates from sea to land, scientists say.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Oooohh...a blue text induced head-rush!
If you're over the heaves, you can play.
I'm a Heathen Evo! I'm supposed to be the incarnation of evil.
Speak for yourself, monkeywoman.
p.s. Facts? what facts? the 'facts' that 'scientists' put in front of you and tell you to believe? man, you are gullible! Boy, the Antichrist is gonna LOVE you......
If one were to interpret my sentence in that way, in my opinion that would be a rather elitist attitude.
True in some cases, not true in others.
I think we can agree there.
It seems to me that if you're debating someone who cites a source, you ought to be able to use the source either to impeach the interpretation given by a poster, or to impeach the source itself.
I completely agree. The problem here is either I'm not communication very well or everyone keeps missing the point. If a discussion is going on regarding transitional fossils and the evolutionist posts the first chapter of Genesis as some form of rebuttal or ridicule, how does that work to impeach the interpretation of the transitional fossils? That last sentence is the context of this sub thread, except the example (fossils) is different.
Even if you believe that someone who believes in evolution must ipso facto be an atheist (G3K's position, which is indefensible on its face), an evo using Scripture in a debate of this nature is neither a non sequitur nor, necessarily, a dodge.
I believe you have gore3000's position incorrect. He has stated that one can be a Christian and believe in evolution.
...an evo using Scripture in a debate of this nature is neither a non sequitur nor, necessarily, a dodge.
An evo using Scripture in a debate where pulling Scripture into the debate doesn't follow from the context of the thread would, IMO, be a dodge.
ME:Also, the mentioning of Scripture which started this sub thread wasn't used to illustrate the absurdity of any position.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
That was a comment to balrog666 regarding a previous sub thread, I think. I'm getting a couple of threads confused.
OMG - let me go get my hand counter, in that case...
One to the 720th power? Hmmm.... ;^)
Fundamentalist Christians? I haven't heard that term in a while. I think if you dug a little deeper you might find not all is as it appears. BTW, I use anti evolutionist for everybody that doesn't buy the theory, if that helps.
Even disregarding the odd visitor that posts bible passages and leaves, you must be reading different posts than I am. Discussions of real "data" and interpretations are quite rare. For example, you read the extensive gore3000/RightWingNilla exchange where one side was talking studies and one side was talking out of it's weasel-like ass. What was your impression of that series of exchanges?
I'm sure we're reading the same posts. I wasn't really reading the G3K/RWN exchange too closely until the end. They were definitely talking real data. I don't know that much about the subject but did some reading just before that thread ended. After reading the referenced links and some info on codons, I came to the conclusion that G3K was right - the new genes were not expressed. I asked RWN about it but missed him before he went on vacation.
I have yet to see any rational anti-evolutionist that was not simply advocating Creationism - read through the past threads and you will see that they think they are mutually exclusive (and you will see the same old non-de-plumes in almost every thread). And, as I touched upon above, I have yet to see a Creationist "theory" advanced here that was not attributable to Christian belief with all the baggage that entails.
I understand what you're saying and agree with it, with what we've seen here on FR. I wasn't referring to just freepers when I said that, sorry for not making that clear. I've been "involved" with this debate for over 10 years and have seen all kinds come and go in different forums. My father is an example of the types of people I meant. He's an agnostic and doesn't buy the theory of evolution. It's folks like my father and the others I've met in other forums that I was referring to. To summarize that point, some folks reject evolution because they don't see evidence for it, not because they're advancing some creationist theory.
Whoops. I clicked "Post" too early. I think that's a pretty difficult topic to tackle. You either have a naturalist explanantion of things or you don't. What's left?
Or spelling well, monkey boy!
And why would the world's scientists lie? Oh, I get it, you're one of those conspiracy theory folks who think ALL scientists are in some sort of cabal dedicated to damning our eternal souls to Hell, aren't you?
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.