RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >   
  Topic: FTK Research Thread, let's clear this up once and for all< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,06:17   

Earlier (in this very thread I believe) I found a prediction from that website, something like the Oort cloud does not (could not) exist. I posted a section from the relevant wikipedia article noting a couple of objects that have tentativly been assigned as Oort cloud objects.

One prediction seriously damaged. No comment from FTK.  

No matter what we find, or what we disprove, it will never be enough to convince FTK.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,06:22   

"The chemical evolution of life, as you will see in the next few pages, is ridiculously improbable."

The word "so?" springs to mind.

"If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain. Evidently, these complex pathways were created as an intricate, highly integrated system."

This is hammering a square peg into a round hole, I believe. Insisting that something must be just so without actually KNOWING what the hell you're talking about.

--------------
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.

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,11:00   

Quote
Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells.a The forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as digestion and respiration. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.
Quote
If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats.
Wow this guy has an awful understanding of biology.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,11:12   

just biology?

I must have missed where he exhibited a coherent grasp of anything he actually wrote about.

don't forget, as FTK told us, he's a shining beacon and the leading creation scientist!

he must also have been the source for that fascinating documentary,
"Cat Dog"



--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,11:20   

FTK, simple question. Do you agree with
Quote
If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats.


y/n

?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,11:22   

you might want to wait on that one until she finishes that basic biology text that she said was beneath her level of knowledge.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,11:55   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 24 2007,11:20)
FTK, simple question. Do you agree with
Quote
If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats.


y/n

?

Would you mind posting the link to that quote? I believe what he's saying is that if macroevolution has occurred, we might see some of these transitions still slowly occuring over time.  We never witness macro changes - can't even make them happen.  

The cat/dog is an "example".  

If you've read all Brown's work, it's obvious that he knows enough about biology to realize that a cat and a dog cannot breed and create a cat/dog "blend", if that is what you are implying.

He's trying to give an "example" of how things would have occured and what we should still be seeing if macroev. was "factual".

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,11:58   

Quote
He's trying to give an "example" of how things would have occured and what we should still be seeing if macroev. was "factual".


you just don't get that what you said makes no sense at all, do you?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,12:03   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 24 2007,06:17)
Earlier (in this very thread I believe) I found a prediction from that website, something like the Oort cloud does not (could not) exist. I posted a section from the relevant wikipedia article noting a couple of objects that have tentativly been assigned as Oort cloud objects.

One prediction seriously damaged. No comment from FTK.  

No matter what we find, or what we disprove, it will never be enough to convince FTK.

Hmmm...."tentative" information is, well, "tentative".  Obviously, many scientists believe that the Oort cloud exists, but there are many issues that conflict with that belief.  Here's the index in which the Oort cloud is listed.  You can read more about the problems surrounding the Oort cloud in the links provided.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4952
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,12:05   

FtK:

Quote

We never witness macro changes - can't even make them happen.


So, where exactly are the peer-reviewed articles that show that colchicine and overpressure fail to induce polyploidy, and always have failed to do so? I seem to have missed those.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,12:06   

you've become nothing more than a redistributor of creationist claptrap.

don't you see the difference in you posting links ONLY to "creation science" websites, where we can post links to innumerable published articles in actual science journals?

are you truly that delusional to think the two are somehow equivalent?

both sad and pathetic.

close the book.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,12:13   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 24 2007,12:05)
FtK:

Quote

We never witness macro changes - can't even make them happen.


So, where exactly are the peer-reviewed articles that show that colchicine and overpressure fail to induce polyploidy, and always have failed to do so? I seem to have missed those.

Isn't polyploidy limited to flowering plants?  I don't think it would be the cause for new morphological characteristics.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,12:16   

Icky gets all huffy...

Quote
close the book.


LOL...why?  It's really interesting, and it makes me think about things from a different perspective.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Patrick Caldon



Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,12:24   

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,11:55)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 24 2007,11:20)
FTK, simple question. Do you agree with
 
Quote
If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats.


y/n

?

Would you mind posting the link to that quote? I believe what he's saying is that if macroevolution has occurred, we might see some of these transitions still slowly occuring over time.  We never witness macro changes - can't even make them happen.  

The cat/dog is an "example".  

If you've read all Brown's work, it's obvious that he knows enough about biology to realize that a cat and a dog cannot breed and create a cat/dog "blend", if that is what you are implying.

He's trying to give an "example" of how things would have occured and what we should still be seeing if macroev. was "factual".

It's the first line here:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences13.html

The problem is that it's not true.  The statement of evolutionary theory is that cats and dogs (and every other critter) have a common ancestor.  That critter will not have been "half dog/half cat".

Define "macro change".  How is a "macro change" different from a great many "micro-changes" one after the other?

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,12:40   

Quote
Hmmm...."tentative" information is, well, "tentative".  Obviously, many scientists believe that the Oort cloud exists, but there are many issues that conflict with that belief.  Here's the index in which the Oort cloud is listed.  You can read more about the problems surrounding the Oort cloud in the links provided.


See here for a discussion on the Oort cloud and belt formation.  There's lots of useful information on short and long period comet formation in section 3 and section 4 deals specifically with the Oort cloud. The question these days isn't so much if it exists, but the dynamics of the cloud formation. Let me know if you have questions!

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,13:06   

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,13:03)
Hmmm...."tentative" information is, well, "tentative".  Obviously, many scientists believe that the Oort cloud exists, but there are many issues that conflict with that belief.  Here's the index in which the Oort cloud is listed.  You can read more about the problems surrounding the Oort cloud in the links provided.

What I think is more important than the attempt at pooh-poohing science is WHY this attempt is taken.

Ftk,
WHY does the present scientific explanation for the Oort cloud formation (or existance) require some creationist tracts against this explanation?

I really want to know, from you (or the creationist authors) WHY you have to disprove this point.

There has to be a reason behind this attempt to discredit published science.

WHY?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4952
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,13:06   

FtK:

Quote

Isn't polyploidy limited to flowering plants?


Unsurprisingly, no, it isn't. There is the well-documented case of Hyla versicolor, for one. And then, if FtK had bothered to even glance at the second link I provided, she would have known that the topic there was various fish stocks.

Even if it were limited to flowering plants (which, by the way, it is not), FtK would still be out of luck (which is all she has to go on, since actually learning about something before spouting seems to be anathema) since macroevolution can be evidenced via plants.

FtK:

Quote

I don't think it would be the cause for new morphological characteristics.


Unsurprisingly, FtK is wrong about this, too. Orchid growers note the varietal designation gigantea:

Quote

Var. gigantea- a term used for large-flowered types that are probably tetraploids.


Now, there might be some quibbling about "new morphology". What tetraploidy does in orchids certainly presents heritable change that is linked to differing morphology. Only creationists want evolution to have mechanisms that can be directly equated to "poof!".

It could also be noted that various researchers have dismissed polyploid events as not evolutionarily significant. Here's an abstract of a paper that takes that idea on and argues for the relevance of polyploidy to macroevolutionary change:

Quote

The role of polyploidy per se in the development of evolutionary novelty remains one of the outstanding questions in flowering plant evolution. Since chromosome doubling usually is associated with hybridization, the effects of doubling are difficult to uncouple from those of hybridity and recombination. Synthetic polyploids in crops typically are inferior to their diploid counterparts under conditions to which the diploids are adapted. This observation has suggested to many that chromosome doubling is a hindrance to progressive evolution. Evidence is presented herein from biochemical, physiological, developmental, and genetical sources which indicates that the nucleotypic effects of chromosome doubling are not necessarily negative. Indeed chromosome doubling may "propel" a population in to a new adaptive sphere, and render it capable of occupying habitats beyond the limits of its diploid progenitor. This postulate is consistent with what we know of the ecological tolerances of diploids and related polyploids. As the establishment of a polyploid subpopulation may occur within a short time span, chromosome doubling may bring about abrupt, transgressive, and conspicuous changes in the adaptive gestalt of populations within microevolutionary time.


Donald A. Levin.  1983. Polyploidy and Novelty in Flowering Plants. The American Naturalist, Vol. 122, No. 1 (Jul., 1983), pp. 1-25.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 11175
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,13:28   

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,12:03)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 24 2007,06:17)
Earlier (in this very thread I believe) I found a prediction from that website, something like the Oort cloud does not (could not) exist. I posted a section from the relevant wikipedia article noting a couple of objects that have tentativly been assigned as Oort cloud objects.

One prediction seriously damaged. No comment from FTK.  

No matter what we find, or what we disprove, it will never be enough to convince FTK.

Hmmm...."tentative" information is, well, "tentative".  Obviously, many scientists believe that the Oort cloud exists, but there are many issues that conflict with that belief.  Here's the index in which the Oort cloud is listed.  You can read more about the problems surrounding the Oort cloud in the links provided.

All science in tentative. Unlike the bible, eh?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,13:35   

After taking a break from sifting through Walt Brown's book, I feel I should pursue some more, since FtK seems to want me to read THE WHOLE BLOODY THING rather than show me the relevant parts.

I must say FtK, I'm not impressed so far (page 32, or section 32, or something) and apart from the one section in which I'm not familiar with the science, I've been able to tear these "arguments" apart like they were paper.

--------------
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 24 2007,13:46   

I've done it!

I know where Walt Brown gets his science from!

Look Around You!

--------------
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.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,14:01   

The whole paragraph.
 
Quote
If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats. Actually, some animals, such as the duckbilled platypus, have organs totally unrelated to their alleged evolutionary ancestors. The platypus has fur, is warm-blooded, and suckles its young as do mammals. It lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening (for elimination, mating, and birth), and has claws and a shoulder girdle as most reptiles do. The platypus can detect electrical currents (AC and DC) as some fish can, and has a bill somewhat like a duck—a bird. It has webbed forefeet like an otter, a flat tail like a beaver, and the male can inject poisonous venom like a pit viper. Such “patchwork” animals and plants, called mosaics, have no logical place on the evolutionary tree.

Link

Yep, proof positive. I'll just check however to see if anybody else is looking into it....

 
Quote
Molecular systematics The platypus put in its place : Article : Nature
The next best alternative places the platypus on the early ... Solving the evolutionary tree will not be the end of the study; rather it will be the start ...

Link
 
Quote
The Theria hypothesis holds that eutherians (humans, rats, pigs,
whales, etc.) and marsupials (kangaroos, wallabies, koalas, etc.)
have evolved from a common ancestor, and monotremes (platypus,
echidna) have evolved from a different ancestor and on a separate
land mass. The mitochondrial method of studying evolution, however,
supports the Marsupionta hypothesis, which places the platypus and
kangaroo together. This controversy has lasted for more than two
centuries since the discovery that the platypus lays eggs.

"Our study is the first to provide statistically unambiguous results
in favor of classifying mammals using the Theria hypothesis, as
paleontologists have long done through studying fossils," Jirtle
said. "Now we need to retest the results generated by scientists who
have used mitochondrial DNA sequences to link mammals such as hippos
to whales."

Link
There are all sorts of interesting links out there but I can't find any scientists saying "Such “patchwork” animals and plants, called mosaics, have no logical place on the evolutionary tree."

Google search for platypus+"evolutionary tree"

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,14:24   

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,12:03)
Hmmm...."tentative" information is, well, "tentative".  Obviously, many scientists believe that the Oort cloud exists, but there are many issues that conflict with that belief.  Here's the index in which the Oort cloud is listed.  You can read more about the problems surrounding the Oort cloud in the links provided.

Odd. You could (should?) have said something more like "Obviously, many scientists believe that the Oort cloud exists, but there are many other scientists who are working on proving that in fact it does not exist. They've got a good testable case, lab and telescope time and it's a close race! Oh, and the anti-Oort team also believe the earth is less then 10,000 years old and are doing this to help prove that"

Copy and Paste from AIG et al it'll have to be!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,15:52   

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 24 2007,13:28)
Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,12:03)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 24 2007,06:17)
Earlier (in this very thread I believe) I found a prediction from that website, something like the Oort cloud does not (could not) exist. I posted a section from the relevant wikipedia article noting a couple of objects that have tentativly been assigned as Oort cloud objects.

One prediction seriously damaged. No comment from FTK.  

No matter what we find, or what we disprove, it will never be enough to convince FTK.

Hmmm...."tentative" information is, well, "tentative".  Obviously, many scientists believe that the Oort cloud exists, but there are many issues that conflict with that belief.  Here's the index in which the Oort cloud is listed.  You can read more about the problems surrounding the Oort cloud in the links provided.

All science in tentative. Unlike the bible, eh?

Hi Richard... :)

I'm not sure what your point is.  Science is tentative...there are different interpretations of the bible and how literal we should consider it's history.  

And, no, I don't guess one can go back and rewrite biblical history, so I don't imagine it's "tentative".

Your point?

--------------
"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 24 2007,16:00   

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,15:52)
And, no, I don't guess one can go back and rewrite biblical history, so I don't imagine it's "tentative".

It's pretty pointless to rewrite fiction.

Oh, and don't start sentances with and.

--------------
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 24 2007,16:01   

Quote
There is the well-documented case of Hyla versicolor, for one.


I’m sorry...I don’t know what Hyla versicolor is, and I’m short on time right now.  Maybe someone can give me a quick explanation?

Quote
And then, if FtK had bothered to even glance at the second link I provided, she would have known that the topic there was various fish stocks.


You’re right...I didn’t check out the link.  I’ll try to get to it later tonight.

Quote
Now, there might be some quibbling about "new morphology". What tetraploidy does in orchids certainly presents heritable change that is linked to differing morphology. Only creationists want evolution to have mechanisms that can be directly equated to "poof!".


I certainly don’t need “poof”, but some empirical evidence for macro changes would be helpful.  Can you show me some pictures of exactly what you are talking about when you refer to orchids evolving with noticeable changes in morphology.  I glanced at the link and saw some orchids, but I’m not sure exactly what the changes are that are taking place.

I’ve got to get to another ball game (believe it or not) and want to address Ian real quick, so sorry I haven’t taken more time to read your links.

--------------
"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 24 2007,16:09   

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,16:01)
and want to address Ian real quick, so sorry I haven’t taken more time to read your links.

Anything specific?

--------------
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 24 2007,16:11   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 24 2007,13:35)
After taking a break from sifting through Walt Brown's book, I feel I should pursue some more, since FtK seems to want me to read THE WHOLE BLOODY THING rather than show me the relevant parts.

I must say FtK, I'm not impressed so far (page 32, or section 32, or something) and apart from the one section in which I'm not familiar with the science, I've been able to tear these "arguments" apart like they were paper.

Tear them apart like paper, huh?  Okay... good for you.  But, you've only barely skimmed the surface.    You're the one who didn't believe creation scientists have anything to offer whatsoever.  You can read the entire book, or close it and move on (Icky would prefer that).  But, I assure you it gets much, much more interesting, and regardless as to whether you think it's a bunch of bunk or not, it will get you thinking.  If you don't read the whole thing, many parts read at a glance will make no sense at all.

If you make it to section II, I hope you have a good memory because reading from the site is a little complicated as all his theories kind of interrelate.  I had to read the book a couple times to pick up on how much he’s put into considering the bigger picture and how he feels the flood could be accountable for how our earth looks today.

[ps..I like to start sentences with "And".  I don't care if it's poor grammer or not.  Like Lenny, I have my little quirks.]

--------------
"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 24 2007,16:14   

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,16:11)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 24 2007,13:35)
After taking a break from sifting through Walt Brown's book, I feel I should pursue some more, since FtK seems to want me to read THE WHOLE BLOODY THING rather than show me the relevant parts.

I must say FtK, I'm not impressed so far (page 32, or section 32, or something) and apart from the one section in which I'm not familiar with the science, I've been able to tear these "arguments" apart like they were paper.

Tear them apart like paper, huh?  Okay... good for you.  But, you've only barely skimmed the surface.    You're the one who didn't believe creation scientists have anything to offer whatsoever.  You can read the entire book, or close it and move on (Icky would prefer that).  But, I assure you it gets much, much more interesting, and regardless as to whether you think it's a bunch of bunk or not, it will get you thinking.  If you don't read the whole thing, many parts read at a glance will make no sense at all.

If you make it to section II, I hope you have a good memory because reading from the site is a little complicated as all his theories kind of interrelate.  I had to read the book a couple times to pick up on how much he’s put into considering the bigger picture and how he feels the flood could be accountable for how our earth looks today.

Trust me, I'm going to read it all. I've only skipped over one bit, and that was the preface (I wanted to get to the meat of the book, so to speak) and it certainly is an eye opener.

What I can't understand is, how is this evidence to you? I mean, you must know that there are obvious challenges to a great number of the things in the first 30 sections, so how does this persuade you evolution isn't all it's cracked up to be? You could be right, but how the hell this book leads you to that answer, so far, I don't get..

--------------
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 24 2007,16:22   

Ian, it's not "just this book".  It's tons of books, articles, and internet sites I've read over the years.  When I took biology, there was so much I never even thought of questioning, but after reading info. from both sides of this debate, I could not possibly consider common descent a "fact" in the sense that the "scientific community" wants it to be taught.  

I have absolutely no problem with evolution being taught...including common descent and the whole shebang, but certainly we should be considering the massive amount of questions still haunting the theory.  I 'd never even thought about some of the stuff I think about now in regard to the theory.  I just learned what was provided me and didn't question it much.

There is the bigger picture to consider.

Crap...I've got to go to the game.

Later.

--------------
"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 24 2007,16:25   

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,16:22)
Ian, it's not "just this book".  It's tons of books, articles, and internet sites I've read over the years.  When I took biology, there was so much I never even thought of questioning, but after reading info. from both sides of this debate, I could not possibly consider common descent a "fact" in the sense that the "scientific community" wants it to be taught.  

I have absolutely no problem with evolution being taught...including common descent and the whole shebang, but certainly we should be considering the massive amount of questions still haunting the theory.  I 'd never even thought about some of the stuff I think about now in regard to the theory.  I just learned what was provided me and didn't question it much.

There is the bigger picture to consider.

Crap...I've got to go to the game.

Later.

So, what do you think motivates the scientific community to keep the mass of questions quiet? Why do you think they aren't doing this research themselves?

Also, finally, why aren't the creos doing any research?

--------------
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.

   
  748 replies since June 10 2007,02:04 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]