Posted on 10/22/2002 2:49:25 PM PDT by Junior
Can't you just put it on your profile page, or your web page, or post a link to it elsewhere?
Kirk: Ok, get a landing party together - you, me, Bones, and three crewmembers...
So little confidence in their beliefs, that ANY scientific dissent must be crushed, really says something.
I'm not trying to be rude here, but as good a rulebook for a moral life that The Bible may be, it is NOT a biological or paleontological textbook. Twisting it to fit those roles not only does not work, but demeans the Book itself.
Darwin Central calling all sons of pond scum. 26 posted on 10/24/02 7:49 PM Central by PatrickHenry |
Darwin Central calling all sons of pond scum. 26 posted on 10/24/02 7:49 PM Central by PatrickHenry |
Darwin Central calling all sons of pond scum. 26 posted on 10/24/02 7:49 PM Central by PatrickHenry |
Darwin Central calling all sons of pond scum. 26 posted on 10/24/02 7:49 PM Central by PatrickHenry |
Darwin Central calling all sons of pond scum. 26 posted on 10/24/02 7:49 PM Central by PatrickHenry |
Buy a web page, spammer!
Of course I do! (reply to Post# 82 ).
Progressionism: Everywhere in the world, if you dig for fossils, you will find that as you get deeper, the fossils become simpler. This trend is known as progressionism and it indicates that highly evolved animals occupy only a small, recent portion of the fossil record,
This is not as clear cut as one might think. Problem is that we cannot tell from fossils just how complex an organism is. We do not get DNA from fossils, we do not know how they lived, we do not know in many cases how they reproduced, and we do not know of the unique features of these organisms from fossils either. So we cannot verify in any way the 'evolutionary tree' which evolutionists keep claiming to be true. In fact we keep finding problems with it such as the Cambrian explosion and just this week (see Evolution Upset: Oxygen Making Microbes Came Last, Not First ) we find that a bacteria assumed by evolutionists to be 3.5 billion years old is over a billion years more recent than that. Sort of puts into question evolutionists claims of the accuracy of their dating methods which of course are totally essential for this claim being true.
Homology: Profound similarities between different species (in conjunction with their geographical placement) were the original motivation for Darwin's theory of evolution. To put it simply, when two species are so similar that they seem as if they're related, then perhaps they are related.
There are a few problems with the above as proof of evolution. First 'similar' is not a scientific term. It means whatever a person wants it to be. Are twins similar - certainly. Are two Caucasians similar - depends on what you are comparing. Are blacks and whites similar - depends again on what you are looking at. Are men and monkeys similar - again depends. So homology is essentially a whatever you want it to be term, it is not science.
The second problem with homology is that there are numerous examples of homologous features which in no way are due to descent. Evolution claims that complex features can arise gradually through descent and that each feature builds upon what came before. However, if the same features can arise in totally diverse species who did not descend from each other then this proposition is totally false. Homology does not prove descent. Since paleontology is almost solely based on homology, then the findings of paleontology cannot prove descent and cannot prove evolution, in fact they disprove it since homologous features are indeed found in totally unrelated species.
Lastly, the argument of homology being proof of evolution is false. An intelligent designer would not keep reinventing the wheel, so it is not an argument against an intelligent designer that features found in one species are similar to the features in another. Because of the problem with similar features being found in totally unrelated species, these similarities favor intelligent design more than they favor evolution.
Transformed organs: Some related species have similar organs in similar places, with subtly altered functions. For example, flies differ from most flying insects by having one pair of wings rather than two, but the rear pair of wings is not gone- it has been transformed into a pair of gyroscopic organs (halteres) which aid in directional control.
Again, this argument favors intelligent design more than evolution. Why would the flies have developed stabilizers instead of wings if it was working fine in other similar species? Evolutionists have no response for this. One must note that such a transformation would require more than one change in the organism and that therefore the species would be less fit during the time it would take all the changes to occur than before such a change had taken place. Evolution has no answer to this problem which occurs in all transformations.
Poor design: Many biological structures are obviously "jury-rigged", ie- they are trial and error modifications upon pre-existing structures which don't work very well in their current application.
This is a theological argument and not science, so there is no need to address it.
Vestigial features: The human appendix serves no useful function but it corresponds to the cecum of the alimentary canal of many other mammals. It can be removed without detriment, and it creates a serious infection hazard that can lead to death; hardly a good idea!
The appendix has been found to have an important role in early life. The above is one of many evolutionist assumptions which have been totally disproven. The tonsils also have a role to play against infection. Evolutionists seem to think that everything that cannot be ascertained is fodder for their story telling. When it was found that 95% of DNA did not code for proteins, they immediately made the claim that this was 'junk DNA' and was the remnants of genes from ancestor organisms. This moronic and totally baseless assumption has been totally disproven. Scientists call such DNA 'non-coding' and it is the source of the complexity of organisms and what really makes them tick. In fact it is the non-coding DNA that makes organisms work, the genes just do what the non-coding DNA tells them to do.
Parasites and diseases: Most parasites have evolved to specialize so that they require another life form, sometimes retaining structural evidence of a previous, free-living evolutionary ancestor.
The above is a totally unsubstantiated assumption by evolutionists. Viri, bacteria and other parasites have been and are continuously examined in laboratories. Research goes on everyday trying to find out how they work. They are constantly attacked with everything imaginable from chemicals to radiation. Not a single one of these organisms has ever been seen to have transformed itself into another organism which is more complex or different from the original.
Geographical distribution: If God made thousands of...
Another theological argument. It is very doubtful that atheists know God's will. Further there is no reason why a Creator should create the same species over and over again in different places.
Paleontology: The fossil record demonstrates that the structure of animals has historically been consistent with their environmental conditions.
Oh please! We do not know how species lived and behaved from bones, let alone what the environmental conditions were of their existence. In fact, we use evidence of what species lived in an area to tell whether that area was a sea hundreds of millions of years ago or land. This argument is totally bogus.
Observed adaptation: It is hopefully common knowledge that bacteria have been constantly adapting to survive the antibiotic assaults of mankind.
The organisms that mutate to resist antibiotics are less viable under normal circumstances than those who have not mutated. This is not a change which creates greater complexity either as evolution requires. As to the moths, both spotted and white moths existed before the industrial revolution, they both exist now that the skies have been cleaned up. In addition, the 'scientist' who did the study has been proven to have falsified his data. This does not bother evolutionists of course but it should bother those who believe that science must be truthful.
Funny, I am on these threads all the time and I had not seen it before. Why is it garbage? Because you cannot refute it? Why is it garbage? Because it gives proof against your beliefs?
The evolutionists have been going on about science fiction on this thread for over a hundred posts. It has nothing to do with the article or the subject of the thread. Seems to me that that is spamming, that is garbage, that has nothing to do with anything. Perhaps since you think you are the appointed cop on these threads you should complain to the moderator about the spamming by yourself and your friends.
Funny coming from you who only posts insults and mindless nonsense which has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
It is also very interesting that even though the article is by an evolutionist attacking those opposed to it, the evolutionists are spamming it so that nobody reads the thread! Seems to me you folk know that it is evolution which is the pseudo-science and cannot support it with evidence.
No surprise here. You've already proven, time and again, that you don't remember the previous threads, the previous facts, and your previous errors, misstatements, and misunderstandings.
So where are the numerous threads where post# 197 has been on? All you do is make unsubstantiated attacks and call everyone that opposes evolution a liar. Let's see you back up your attempt to silence opposing views.
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.