Posted on 03/24/2002 7:03:09 PM PST by scripter
Yes, clearly gore3000 -- who assured us in the message you responded to that Darwin was "a charlatan [who] did not know beans about biology" -- surpasses even the world's oldest and most prestigious professional scientific society in his authority. Sadly gore3000's guidance was not available when The Royal Society of London awarded Darwin its Royal Medal for Natural Science in 1853 (well before his evolutionary views were known) in recognition of his comprehensive series of monographs on the systematics, anatomy and physiology Cirripedia (Barnacles). I.e.:
DARWIN, Ch. (1851): A monograph of the fossil Lepadidae: or, pedunculated cirripeds of Great Britain.
DARWIN, Ch. (1851): A monograph of the sub-class Cirripedia, with figures of all the species. The Lepadidae: or pedunculated cirripeds.
DARWIN, Ch. (1854): A monograph of the fossil Balanidae and Verrucidae of Great Britain.
DARWIN, Ch. (1854): A monograph of the sub-class Cirripedia, with figures of all the species. The Balanidae (or sessile cirripedes), the Verrucidae etc.
On the other hand Darwin continues to be frequently cited by modern cirripedists, and his monographs are still found in biological libraries due to this continuing currency, so I suppose it is not to late for gore3000 to inform these scientists and librarians of their error!
How dumb can you get? Even allowing that this is you . . .
Your chronology is all messed up. The Miller experiment of the early 50s retains its importance. A meteorite strike in 1969 isn't going to call off an experiment that had been completed 15 years before in any event.
The point of both lines of evidence, terrestrial and extra-terrestrial amino acid synthesis, is that the imagined shortage of organics on the early earth is just that--imagined.
g3 still claims he can prove that there is NO junk DNA. He can explain every single base pair. I'm just asking him to post it. No one else has this information. A couple dozen articles doesn't cover a single human chromosome. Where's the beef?
Like all charlatans, the evolutionists always claim that the proof will be found. They have been saying that for 150 years, and they still have not found it.
I said nothing of the sort. I do think that our best chance of observing pre-biotic soup is under the ice of those moons.
If you want to engage in conversation, you need to listen and respond to whbat other people said.
BTW, why do you figure that all the great apes share the same genetic defect? Or whay embryonic whales have legs? You know what a guilty conscience is, don't you? It's when you try to lie to yourself.
Nope. You are wrong once again - as usual. You can not even understand simple English, let alone the wonderful simplicities of evolutionary science.
I said "From you point of view? When hell freezes over."
From your point of view there are no facts that move you from the wrong headed notion that the bible is an authoritative source for science.
Simply breathtaking!
I wander if g3k is any kin to the former VP, or if f.Christian is a any kin to the mutineer? Strange names for Frepers!
(The non-conformist in me made me do it.)
Bummer.
Actually I took that handle as joke on Al around the election. Conservatives always understand the joke, liberals do not.
An' dey didn't show respect. So you made 'em an offer dey couldn' refuse.
An' now dey sleep wit' da fishes.
Not really. I don't think I have ever seen a single non-evolutionist ever support abiogenesis on these threads, not one. Only evolutionists believe that abiogenesis is possible. Abiogenesis is the attempt to take the "God did not do it" atheistic/materialistic philosophy of Darwinism back even further. Most evolutionists have no problem with that at all. Most of them love the idea. The only reason some go around talking as you is that they know that by connecting the two they will just end up making evolution laughable instead of strengthening their atheistic position.
In addition, abiogenesis is almost a necessary proof of the theory of evolution. After all, if one admits that God exists, there is no necessity to evolution. The answer to a question can then completely legitimately be "God did it". And indeed that is the case because after all what are miracles except God's involvement in what goes on in the world? So yes, if evolutionists cannot prove abiogenesis, their theory is very weak indeed.
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.