Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > FTK Research Thread

Pages: (25) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:18    Quote Well, yeah, I think there are some things that would be much more difficult to explain in regard to common descent than other things. as both Ian and I keep asking... why? based on an entirely instinctive viewpoint on your part? have you finished reading that basic biology text Alby sent you yet? do they give the impression that behavior is more or less subject to selection pressures or drift than morphology? I'd bet not. Is it more or less remarkable that a newborn joey can find its mother's teat than a newborn puppy? answer Ian's questions first. he's both on a deadline and apparently more interested than I am in your answers. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:20    Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,19:18) Quote Well, yeah, I think there are some things that would be much more difficult to explain in regard to common descent than other things. as both Ian and I keep asking... Ah, a long time, main contributor notices me, suddenly I'm the belle of the ball! (Note to anyone reading who has had major brain surgery go wrong, this is more of what we humans call "humour") -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:30    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,18:13) Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,18:12) Natural selection seems like such a far fetched explanation for surviving through these incredibly complex situations in which intermediates would have to evolve through. THIS is why everyone thinks you are talking bollocks. You cannot say that "seems" is a valid argument. Incidentally, I don't know what the evidence is for quantum mechanics, so does it therefore not exist? Yes, Ian, I understand that "seems" is not a valid argument.  I'm merely stating why I have difficulty accepting the ToE as "fact".  I'm not making a scientific statement by any means. I think your quantum mechanics question is similiar to the standard gravity comment.  And, sure, you have a point, but I think there is much more research that will be done that will answer many of these questions we currently have about common descent with more accuracy.  So, like I've said many times in the past, I'm not locking into the mindset of the "scientific community" without hard empirical evidence, and I'm certainly keeping an open mind in regard to other explanations. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:36    Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,19:30) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,18:13)   Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,18:12) Natural selection seems like such a far fetched explanation for surviving through these incredibly complex situations in which intermediates would have to evolve through. THIS is why everyone thinks you are talking bollocks. You cannot say that "seems" is a valid argument. Incidentally, I don't know what the evidence is for quantum mechanics, so does it therefore not exist? Yes, Ian, I understand that "seems" is not a valid argument.  I'm merely stating why I have difficulty accepting the ToE as "fact".  I'm not making a scientific statement by any means. I think your quantum mechanics question is similiar to the standard gravity comment.  And, sure, you have a point, but I think there is much more research that will be done that will answer many of these questions we currently have about common descent with more accuracy.  So, like I've said many times in the past, I'm not locking into the mindset of the "scientific community" without hard empirical evidence, and I'm certainly keeping an open mind in regard to other explanations. I may be getting this wrong here, but I THINK you have misunderstood my quantum mechanics comment. See, I don't personally know about any evidence for it. Not got a clue, physics being most definately not my thing, but I do understand there IS evidence for it, and that it wouldn't be a valid theory otherwise. However, you who seem to gloss over a lot of evidence for evolution by simply stating "I don't know, seems a bit dodgy to me" are clearly NOT listening to the people who have seen, and weighed up the evidence, and think that you have to personally view every single piece of evidence, or the theory falls flat. In addition to this you seem to want every concievable piece of evidence, even where none exists, and since there isn't every single possible little change between animals in the fossil record, to pluck an example from the air, you think this somehow makes all the nonsense handwaving done by creationists equally valid to evolution. Keeping an open mind does NOT mean accepting that everything is equally valid, that is called being a fence sitting pig ignorant who tends to hmm and haw like Alain De Botton, and pretend they are really so much better than the closed mided people on either side of the fence, because they've yet to understand that a massive mountain of evidence from practically every field of science is not equal to "I just can't see it". -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:51    Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,19:18) Quote Quote Well, yeah, I think there are some things that would be much more difficult to explain in regard to common descent than other things. as both Ian and I keep asking... why? Well, because I believe I somewhat understand mutations and from what I understand and have observed, most seem to be negative to the organism.  But, in rare cases they can be beneficial.  I can see how a mutation could change morphology, but when considering abiogensis (which I know I'm not supposed to think about in regard to the ToE), I have a really hard time with accepting that instincts, or examples of symbiosis, or almost unbelieveable migration patterns, or the evolution of the mind are all a product of evolution. Isn't it natural to question these issues?  I mean, they seem so much more improbable than examples like the ones I always hear at evolution lectures.  I swear, when I went to listen to Eugenie Scott at KU last year, I felt like I was sitting in a 5th grade science class.  She went on and on about natural selection and white and gray mice.  Same with Sean Carroll's lecture at KU...again, very simple (in my mind) examples of microevolution which seem quite viable, IMO. Quote have you finished reading that basic biology text Alby sent you yet? No, I'm not "finished".  I've been using it as more of a reference book as I work my way through the other two books I've been reading.   Quote do they give the impression that behavior is more or less subject to selection pressures or drift than morphology? I don't know, I'll have to see what the books says about evolution of the mind, instinct, etc. etc. Quote Is it more or less remarkable that a newborn joey can find its mother's teat than a newborn puppy?   Not terribly, it's just a much longer trip to it's goal. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,19:55    Quote Not terribly, it's just a much longer trip to it's goal. must i start all over again with the wallaby/roo comparison?  I swear, it's like talking to a five year old, kiddo. Quote what I understand and have observed you've observed mutations, eh? tell us about it.     Quote but when considering abiogensis (which I know I'm not supposed to think about in regard to the ToE), they why are you, since it's completely irrelevant to ANY point you are apparently at least trying to make here?     Quote I have a really hard time with accepting that instincts, or examples of symbiosis, or almost unbelieveable migration patterns, or the evolution of the mind are all a product of evolution. there's that incredulity thing again. go back to the last thing that I quoted from you that I labeled as ironic. oh hell, i know you can't remember what you said 5 minutes after you said it, so here:   Quote I'm just saying that I believe the bottom line in these issues will have to be what we can gather from the empirical science - not what we infer based on blind faith or ridiculous speculation. I bet you STILL don't see the irony. I'm convinced you never will, which makes this whole excercise more an issue of cruelty on my part as I'm pretty sure at this point the only reason I have for continuing to pose questions to you is to laugh at the continuing irony of your answers. *yawn* Ian seems to have a genuine interest, so you can continue on with him.  I concluded months ago that you were hopeless, long before you left off at KCSF. It's just sating my own sense of humor to continue at this point. one last thing for you to think about:   Quote ...examples of microevolution which seem quite viable, IMO. add time and stir well. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:12    Quote See, I don't personally know about any evidence for it. Not got a clue, physics being most definately not my thing, but I do understand there IS evidence for it, and that it wouldn't be a valid theory otherwise. However, you who seem to gloss over a lot of evidence for evolution by simply stating "I don't know, seems a bit dodgy to me" are clearly NOT listening to the people who have seen, and weighed up the evidence, and think that you have to personally view every single piece of evidence, or the theory falls flat. Well, I don't think I gloss over anything and I've truly been listening contently for years to people who have "weighed up the evidence" personally.  I guess I've never been one to bow to authority if they are basing their "evidence" on speculation and just so stories.  I'm skeptical of the tales, and in the same way, I frequently question creation and ID theories.  I've written or called several authors and personally questioned their work.   Certainly, I'm in no position to draw any conclusions from what they've told me.  But, just like any other person considering these issues, it's my right to question what's thrown in front of me.  I think it's absolutely foolish to accept all the aspects of the ToE as fact at this point in time. Quote In addition to this you seem to want every concievable piece of evidence, even where none exists, and since there isn't every single possible little change between animals in the fossil record, to pluck an example from the air, you think this somehow makes all the nonsense handwaving done by creationists equally valid to evolution. I don't need "every conceivable piece of evidence", I'd just like to see more than what we have currently.  And, I believe that *most* scientists, in general, have absolutely no clue as to what creation science actually entails.  Most of the stuff I see written about creation science is laughable and completely inaccurate.  I think most scientists just listen to the ridiculous rhetoric being spewed from anti-creation groups and disregard creation science without any consideration whatsoever. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:12    Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,19:55) Ian seems to have a genuine interest, so you can continue on with him. Well I certainly would like to see some of these fantastical claims she keeps making. Plus I really, really want the answer to the Egyptians thing. It's a question that I've always wanted to get a reply to. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:15    Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,20:12) Quote See, I don't personally know about any evidence for it. Not got a clue, physics being most definately not my thing, but I do understand there IS evidence for it, and that it wouldn't be a valid theory otherwise. However, you who seem to gloss over a lot of evidence for evolution by simply stating "I don't know, seems a bit dodgy to me" are clearly NOT listening to the people who have seen, and weighed up the evidence, and think that you have to personally view every single piece of evidence, or the theory falls flat. Well, I don't think I gloss over anything and I've truly been listening contently for years to people who have "weighed up the evidence" personally.  I guess I've never been one to bow to authority if they are basing their "evidence" on speculation and just so stories.  I'm skeptical of the tales, and in the same way, I frequently question creation and ID theories.  I've written or called several authors and personally questioned their work.   Certainly, I'm in no position to draw any conclusions from what they've told me.  But, just like any other person considering these issues, it's my right to question what's thrown in front of me.  I think it's absolutely foolish to accept all the aspects of the ToE as fact at this point in time.   Quote In addition to this you seem to want every concievable piece of evidence, even where none exists, and since there isn't every single possible little change between animals in the fossil record, to pluck an example from the air, you think this somehow makes all the nonsense handwaving done by creationists equally valid to evolution. I don't need "every conceivable piece of evidence", I'd just like to see more than what we have currently.  And, I believe that *most* scientists, in general, have absolutely no clue as to what creation science actually entails.  Most of the stuff I see written about creation science is laughable and completely inaccurate.  I think most scientists just listen to the ridiculous rhetoric being spewed from anti-creation groups and disregard creation science without any consideration whatsoever. 1. So how much evidence do you think there is? 2. How do you know there is this amount? 3. How much more is needed? 4. Why do you think you cannot draw a conclusion yet? 4.B. Assuming the above is related to the evidence for creation, explain, at least roughly (remember, I'm no scientist either) what it is. 5. What exactly IS creation science then? 6. What happened to all those Egyptians et al who lived happily under water whilst also dying? -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:22    Well, nice talking with you Icky.   And, yes, I understand the irony of my statement from your point of view.  You believe that creation science is "infered" on "blind faith and ridiculous speculation". -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:25    Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,20:22) Well, nice talking with you Icky.   And, yes, I understand the irony of my statement from your point of view.  You believe that creation science is "infered" on "blind faith and ridiculous speculation". Because it does seem to be. Hell, I'm new to this, and still have some small part of me that can be convinced, but it's yet to be touched. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:27    Good grief, Ian.  I'm not going to sit here for hours and answer all those questions.  I've answered several already.   And, you were all in a tizzy about boiling water killing all of life on earth, but I haven't heard a peep about the answer I provided for you.  You went right on to another question..and another.   It doesn't matter how many questions I address, you'll just bring up something else without even giving consideration to the ones I've already answered. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:29    Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,20:27) Good grief, Ian.  I'm not going to sit here for hours and answer all those questions.  I've answered several already.   And, you were all in a tizzy about boiling water killing all of life on earth, but I haven't heard a peep about the answer I provided for you.  You went right on to another question..and another.   It doesn't matter how many questions I address, you'll just bring up something else without even giving consideration to the ones I've already answered. 1. Where did you answer any of them? (bar the water one, which wasn't in that list) You told me you HAD answers, and either couldn't remember them or were going to get them, and then..... 2. I didn't see much evidence, maybe I missed it. I'll give it another go. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:35    Ian, You wanted predictions, I gave you predictions.  Read about them thoroughly and give them consideration before jumping right on to something else. You wanted to know why everything wasn't "boiled" in the flood, and again, I gave you something to consider on the subject. You could spend hours in regard to just these two issues if you followed all the links and read about each in detail from the site I provided.   Have a ball. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:36    Hang about, whilst not on the topic of the boiling water thing, I did look at this: Linky Now, I may be jumping the gun, but is this supposed to be evidence? If it is, it just amounts to "Ohh...look at the pretty! Therefore:God" Which is neither evidence, nor rational. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:37    Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,20:35) Ian, You wanted predictions, I gave you predictions.  Read about them thoroughly and give them consideration before jumping right on to something else. You wanted to know why everything wasn't "boiled" in the flood, and again, I gave you something to consider on the subject. You could spend hours in regard to just these two issues if you followed all the links and read about each in detail from the site I provided.   Have a ball. Ok, but while I'm reading them, do you mind, and I'm being very civil here, so don't cry persecution on ME, digging up all that stuff on those pesky Egyptians, since that is something I've always wanted answering? -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:40    Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,21:12) I think most scientists just listen to the ridiculous rhetoric being spewed from anti-creation groups and disregard creation science without any consideration whatsoever. That's because you don't know anything about science or scientists. I don't know anything about Thai food, but I have the good sense not to hang out on Thai food message boards telling Thai chefs they're doing it all wrong. Scientists get direct contact with loonies such as creationists all the time. Loonies love attention. I'm not even a scientist, and hardly a month goes by that a person who hears I have a physics degree doesn't start telling me where Einstein got it wrong, or what's wrong with string theory, or that they learned a lot of physics from the movie "What the Bleep do we Know?". That last one is pretty much the only thing in the world that can send me into a state of rage. The funniest example I've encountered, by the way, was, the guy who taught my thermo class told the physics department secretary office to stop forwarding him every moronic free-energy or anti-relativity manifesto mailed to them. "We don't," the secretary office told him. "We distribute them evenly among the whole faculty." Edited by stevestory on June 23 2007,21:44

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:42    Ok, I've hit a snag already. "Notice that macroevolution would require an upward change in the complexity of certain traits and organs. Microevolution involves only horizontal (or even downward) changes—no increasing complexity." This is...well, I don't know what the fuck it is, but it isn't evolution. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:43    "Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates." This is EVIDENCE to you?! [In order to not get a lenny flank esque mass of posts, I'll add my next point here as an edit] Ok, page christ only knows but it's not far, and what do we have here? Abiogenesis? What the hell does that have to do with evolution FtK? [edit no. 2] Ok, this is getting really repetative. He keeps making claims, but doesn't support them at all. By his logic, I can show the evidence that black is white. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,20:59    Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,20:22) Well, nice talking with you Icky.   And, yes, I understand the irony of my statement from your point of view.  You believe that creation science is "infered" on "blind faith and ridiculous speculation". heh, but that would mean I was talking about something a creation scientist said, and not what you said now, wouldn't it. nope. still blind to your own irony, though you at least got a slight bit closer.   @ Steve: I hereby claim this thread as evidence in support of the theory on humor discussed in the other thread. wouldn't you agree? -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:03    I don't know. I got up at 5 am today so I'm a little groggy at the moment. What was the theory? That creationists are humorless?

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:06    LOL....Ian, sweetie, you've really gotta calm down.  I thought Lenny was the only one around here who freaked on every sentence he confronts.   Just relax...and if you're really serious about this, you've got to read the whole entire book to get a clue as to where the man is coming from.  I know that is asking a lot, and I don't expect you to ever get through it.  But, Brown is one of the more respected creation scientists out there for many reasons.  His work would be a good starting point if you want to actually call yourself "open minded". -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:09    Quote (stevestory @ June 23 2007,21:03) I don't know. I got up at 5 am today so I'm a little groggy at the moment. What was the theory? That creationists are humorless? no. go read the humor thread. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:12    Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,21:06) LOL....Ian, sweetie, you've really gotta calm down.  I thought Lenny was the only one around here who freaked on every sentence he confronts.   Just relax...and if you're really serious about this, you've got to read the whole entire book to get a clue as to where the man is coming from.  I know that is asking a lot, and I don't expect you to ever get through it.  But, Brown is one of the more respected creation scientists out there for many reasons.  His work would be a good starting point if you want to actually call yourself "open minded". Numero uno, I am not freaking out. I'm aghast you think any of the first slew of pages contains evidence. I've got to here and frankly, I don't see it getting better. Numero dos, I think it's pretty clear that he is one of the people who doesn't much like evolution, and thus, he should provide evidence against it. Sadly, I can't see any, and without blowing my own trumpet too much, I'm very good at reading between the lines, and it's still not showing up on my radar. Numero tres, I am open minded enough to accept any evidence, and so, if the creos start showing some I'll take it in. They will need a lot of it to change my mind about evolution, but if they can provide it, I will change my mind. THIS is being open minded, NOT "Well, someone disagrees with you, so suddenly everything you say needs to be compared on a level field to them". -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:15    But meesa sleepy.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:16    "No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors" Oh boy, this is really, really wrong. I mean, this is so wrong it's gone past being simply incorrect, and into a weird other dimension of wrongness. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:24    Ian, the Index of Creationist Claims says about a very similar argument, "It is hard to see how even creationists can make this argument..."

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:26    Quote (stevestory @ June 23 2007,21:24) Ian, the Index of Creationist Claims says about a very similar argument, "It is hard to see how even creationists can make this argument..." I read that too (but did not steal from it, so no lawyers please). In fact, I ended up here because of talk.origins, or rather, the archive. I don't think I'm totally ignorant, but I'm certainly no scientist, so I come here to learn about evolution, to learn about how creos work, and to learn about the elusive evidence they say they have. I don't hold out much hope for the evidence, but hey, if they have it, boy do I want to see it, since it'll blow my atheism out of the water, and that I want to see. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:27    Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,10:54) Okay, Steve, here's the fast answer... I would say that it is damn hard to believe that we can say "transitionals" should not be questioned, unless you are talking about small changes within certain body types.  Goodness knows, there have been many "transitionals" that have been proven hoaxes or misunderstood.  In regard to common descent, there is so much more to consider than looking at a series of fossils and saying "hey, cool, that proves I was the byproduct of an ancient microbe".   So, at this point in time, I believe that we are no where near the point of saying that the relatively small amount of "transitionals" we find in the fossil record is "proof" of common descent.  DNA seems to be the key to understanding more about common descent, so I'll wait for further research to answer the millions of questions that are still being asked before I believe that the naturalists creation myth is actually a fact. Good enough? I'm mildly curious as to, uh, why on earth you think anyone should pay the slightest attention to what you think, FTK . . . . . ? Since, ya know, you don't actually know anything that you are talking about, and all . . . . . -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 23 2007,21:28    Heavens no, I don't think that what you're reading is evidence for creation.  Goodness, you haven't even started...here, maybe that will help give you an idea of what his book covers.  The first part is merely an introductory, and then he goes into his points against evolution.  Part II is where he introduces his theory and how it may provide an explanation for many other observations about planet earth. Seriously, the whole site will take hours to go through. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Pages: (25) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard