Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
Not in that post, no. The sole purpose of that post is/was to show what a proof of macro-evolution would be and to show why the definition was reasonable. I was not trying to debate the possibility of macro-evolution. In fact, what I was doing was setting a challenge to evolutionists to show some proof of macro-evolution.
You can believe what you want, it's a free country. You can believe in the Bible, you can believe in the Vedas, you can even believe in the demi-god Charles if you like. All I am saying is that the Bible has the answer as to how life originated and was created and that evolution contradicts the Bible.
This is what I said and I stand by it for the reasons I explained:
So to sum up. Macro-evolution is a transformation requiring new genes, more complexity and new faculties. In terms of genetics, it requires at a minimum the creation of more than one new gene. In terms of taxonomy it would require an organism to change into a different genus
Yes, although the species was renamed "apatosaur." Why would you not think it existed? Don't tell me you're one of those "the fossil record is a conspiracy to damn us all to perdition" fellas.
Me too! :)
Yes. They call it the Apatosaurus now but the species is still studied. If it's been overthrown, you have a scoop. (Oh, that's right. You already have a scoop. There has been no evolution.)
Usually, though when examples are provided they are disappointingly anti-climatic. Can you provide an example? Remember, we are talking about macro-evolution.
I can't tell you how this sounds this far along on this thread. gore3000 told me a long time ago that, for all you can tell from a fossil, there were mammary glands on dinosaurs.
Yes, that sort of soft tissue has not been preserved. And ID, with it's non-second-guessable Designer, seems to have little to say on the subject.
Evolution has a line of reasoning that says there were no teats on a T. rex. I've challenged gore, who likes to model things with evolution to show how impossible it is, to reproduce this simple syllogism. He has so far failed. Aquinasfan failed to answer on this one as well.
Maybe you can help them out. Why does an evolutionary framework say Mrs. T was a flat-chested as Mr. T?
I think this might be the real point. The model is broken but it's all people have so they hang onto it like a starving dog hangs onto a bone.
On this point, you're supposed to defend how ID really tells you something. To continue to attack evolution here is to stay stuck on the last item, which is where you feel more comfortable.
I can see why you don't want to defend ID as science. It's the most pitiful of contentless shams.
My "church" is doing all the scientific inquiry and has all the scientists who are still asking questions.
Your post confirms that creationists think everything's about religion. That's why the people who are still creationists make lousy scientists. They're the people who have stopped asking questions, or maybe never were asking questions.
The people who still are asking questions stopped being creationists in the 19th century.
This does not help you that much. There's noise in everything in real life. There's also signal and it's real and convincing if you have a brain and it's not turned off.
The line of evidence that comes from these clocks tends to confirm the results from elsewhere. To the extent you want to say some reliability problems are fatal, tell AndrewC.
He thinks molecular evidence trumps all other lines of evidence, always. Maybe not always. When he needs it.
If you're a Christian that means you beleive in God and automatically creation--only...no matter how God accomplished it.
Creationism via God--"evolution" right?
That isn't complicated...
and likewise...
an atheist can not believe in creation either---only evolution!
You have to be crazy--in two non communicating pieces to be both---opposites!
No right--no wrong--no sense...atheism/secular humanism---EVOLUTION.
Creationism cancels out the relevance of evolution unless you collect/trade Christmas wrapping paper--ribbons--boxes?
Completely unless you are in the paper-rags--bones--scrap business!
That would make this the third thread I've filled up with archaic Homo sapiens skulls just to answer you on this point. Why is this necessary?
Ah, but wait! Now you're saying "after 200,000 years ago," not before? Are you declaring a skinny gap from 200,000 years ago to 120,000 years ago? Or would anything after 200,000 years ago do? You forgot the upper limit on your gap. How about some skulls from last week?.
Earlier, your gap was from 400,000 years ago (the approximate end of H. erectus) to 100,000 years ago. Has your position evolved?
Your gaps are getting smaller than the error bars in dating most of these skulls. I don't see where that helps you.
But settle down and just tell us what you're trying to tell us.
What did I say and how does what you say I said differ?
No problem there, but the motion is what scientists study, not the creation.
When you say humans are smarter than elephants you are simply saying that humans have language. And the relevant parts of the human brain are larger.
Animals with larger brains -- particularly in proportion to their overall weight -- are smarter than those with smaller brains.
To communists, everything is a class struggle. To a child with a hammer, everything's a nail. Same thing.
Considering morphologically H. Erectus shades into H. Sapiens over this time period, and Vade has already shown you skulls from this time frame, and has also explained to you the nomenclature surrounding Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Archaic Homo Sapiens. Your inability to grasp even simple concepts does not speak well for your ability to grasp something as involved as the theory of evolution. Which lends credence to our theory as to why you cannot answer Vade's question dealing with teats on dinosaurs -- you really don't have any idea of that which you speak in regards to the theory of evolution.
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.