Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
-
-
For the same reason that we allow nonChristian posters to use misleading terminology on this board. You are free to challenge him and argue against his terminology, just as we are free to challenge and argue against those who use terminolgy such as 'homophobe' in a misleading way.
Er, you had a big blow up threatening bans a few weeks ago over non-Christian posters "trolling" by, in your opinion, purposefully misrepresenting Christian position on issues.
Why is JC, someone who happily admits he doesn't accept evolutionary biology and who has been demonstrated to understand hardly any of it, allowed to continuously misrepresent what the theory of evolution actually says, a theory that is very well defined and not even something that as ambiguous or in need of detailed interpretation as the Christian doctrine is.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Well, JC actually does accept all the foundation blocks of evolutionary biology, she just don't admit that it amounts to anything. That's a bit like her saying that she's happy that the world is round, but doesn't accept that if you keep going in one direction, you'll eventually wrap around. The "muck to man" thing is a bit tiresome, I have to say, and all the more so since it's been repeated for three years nonstop and in suspicious ignorance of the fact that this is what Genesis says. But when that's the only arrow in one's quiver, I suppose she can't help but using it all the time!Why is JC, someone who happily admits he doesn't accept evolutionary biology and who has been demonstrated to understand hardly any of it, allowed to continuously misrepresent what the theory of evolution actually says
Of course, there's the simpler argument that without JC, this thread would probably run into the sand fairly quickly, so I suppose we do have her to thank for that
0 -
Well, JC actually does accept all the foundation blocks of evolutionary biology, she just don't admit that it amounts to anything. That's a bit like her saying that she's happy that the world is round, but doesn't accept that if you keep going in one direction, you'll eventually wrap around. The "muck to man" thing is a bit tiresome, I have to say, and all the more so since it's been repeated for three years nonstop and in suspicious ignorance of the fact that this is what Genesis says. But when that's the only arrow in one's quiver, I suppose she can't help but using it all the time!
Of course, there's the simpler argument that without JC, this thread would probably run into the sand fairly quickly, so I suppose we do have her to thank for that
Have we been assuming J_C's gender incorrectly?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fossil fills out water-land leap
By Matt McGrath
BBC science correspondent
Scientists say a fossil of a four-legged fish sheds new light on the process of evolution.
The creature had a fish-like body but the head of an animal more suited to land than water.
The researchers' study, published in the journal Nature, says Ventastega curonica would have looked similar to a small alligator.
Scientists say the 365-million-year-old species eventually became an evolutionary dead end.
Counting digits
About one hundred million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth, Ventastega was to be found in the shallow waters and tidal estuaries of modern day Latvia.
According to lead author, Professor Per Ahlberg, from Uppsala University, Sweden, this creature had the head of a tetrapod, an animal adapted to live on land. The body, though, was fish-like but with four primitive flippers.
"From a distance, it would have looked like an alligator. But closer up, you would have noticed a real tail fin at the back end, a gill flap at the side of the head; also lines of pores snaking across head and body.
"In terms of construction, it had already undergone most of the changes from fish towards land animal, but in terms of lifestyle you are still looking at an animal that is habitually aquatic."
Experts believe that Ventastega was an important staging post in the evolutionary journey that led creatures from the sea to the land. Scientists once believed that these early amphibious animals descended in a linear fashion, but this discovery instead confirms these creatures diversified into different branches along the way.
Professor Ahlberg points to the discovery of a fossil called Tiktaalik in Canada in 2004. It is believed to be the "missing link" in the gap between fish and land mammals. Ventastega is a later species but is a more primitive form of transition animal.
" Ventastega fills the gap between Tiktaalik and the earliest land based mammals. All these changes in these creatures are not going in lockstep; it's a mosaic with different parts of animal evolving at different rates. Ventastega has acquired some of land-animal characteristics, but has not yet got some of the other ones."
For instance, the creature had primitive feet - but with a high number of digits.
Superb sands
"I would draw the inference that Ventastega probably had limbs very much like Acanthostega (another transitional species). These were little things sticking out of the sides, with a strangely high number of digits. You would have seven, eight, maybe even nine toes per foot, rather than five or so which you would expect to find in modern day animals," the Uppsala scientist explained.
Unfortunately for Ventastega, a multitude of toes does not inevitably lead to evolutionary success. It eventually died out. Other creatures went on to become our very distant land-living ancestors.
Scientists are delighted with the quality of these Latvian fossils, saying they are really well preserved. Professor Ahlberg believes it is due to some of the geological characteristics of the area.
"This region has had a very quiet geological history since that time, and as a result the rocks have not been folded or squashed up to form mountains.
"We still find sediments not yet properly turned to rock. These fossils were found in compact, wet sand. It's not sandstone, it's sand; you dig it with a breadknife.
"Once you take it back to the lab very carefully, you can remove the remainder of the sand with brushes and needles. These fossils are fragile but superbly preserved. They are actually three dimensional, not flat. It makes it very easy to interpret the skeleton."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7473470.stm
Published: 2008/06/25 18:00:09 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
and another
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/06/creationist-critics-get-their.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=specrt11_head_Anti-nonsense
:pac:0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
......that is what I have been telling you all along.......Spontaneous Evolution is indeed complete rubbish..........because nothing as complex as the information that specifies living organisms could arise spontaneously........and it could ONLY therefore have been CREATED!!!!:pac::DNope, as you know very well! It's the "spontaneous" bit that's complete rubbish!!
.0 -
-
-
-
.......I also found that there was nothing substantive (from a scientific viewpoint) to agree with either!!:DOriginally Posted by J C
......yes, I made my points.....and you made your 'Joycean' rebuttal......and, surprise, surprise....... I found that there was nothing substantive (from a scientific viewpoint) to refute!!!
The Hitcher
So you must agree!!!:)D::D:D:D:D:):D):)!0 -
-
Yes indeed, and as I said above, I have no idea why you keep obsessing about the obviously daft idea that life suddenly showed up "spontaneously". I think you've been reading too many creationist books that reproduce this silly notion -- why not try one by a biologist that might actually be more honest about what science actually says?Spontaneous Evolution is indeed complete rubbish..........because nothing as complex as the information that specifies living organisms could arise spontaneously:)
I can assure you JC, that I do not fantasize about you at all! At all!!.......yes Robin seems to be 'all shook up' about many things.......he is even fantasising that I am a WOMAN!!!!!
But seriously, I have to keep my mind open the possibility that you are, after all, a woman and not the man you sometimes claim you are. After all, your postings have been found to be somewhat less than entirely accurate everywhere else!!
.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
:D:):p!!! ....:p:p:) "
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement