c'mon, real, step up to the plate here.
real life wrote:
As I suspected , no one seems to have the guts to face what evolution would truly imply, if it were true.
parados:
I too am wondering, what does it imply?
It doesn't imply anything; real is left to sound bites that he thinks has some merit in the world of his reality.
real life wrote:As I suspected , no one seems to have the guts to face what evolution would truly imply, if it were true.
Oh boy, I feel a *good one* coming here... I can't wait, I hope RL doesn't keep us in suspense too long
rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:As I suspected , no one seems to have the guts to face what evolution would truly imply, if it were true.
Oh boy, I feel a *good one* coming here... I can't wait, I hope RL doesn't keep us in suspense too long
RL has always been a good sport. I am sure he won't disappoint us.
wandeljw says Real Life "has always been a good sport".
From Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:
"sport--n.: an individual exhibiting a sudden deviation from type beyond the normal limits of individual variation usu. as a result of mutation esp. of somatic tissue".
I think evolutionarily that does describe him perfectly.
"evolutionarily' Is this a new word? LOL
nah; in the same dictionary (c.1975)(I'm a traditionalist--get a good dictionary and stick with it).
My Webster's New World only has "evolution, evolutionary, and evolutionist." My American Heritage has "evolution, evolutional, evolutionary, and evolutionism."
Got to get a better dictionary.
Is that ALL you've got? I'll see those and raise you evolute, evolutility, evolutional, evolutionistic, evolutive, evolvible (and evolvable)evolvement, evolvent (OED)., evolutionally, AND evolutionarily (Random House Unabridged). Now hand over that pot.
That "pot" will be filled with beer. salute!
BTW, how thick is your dictionary? Weight is a consideration at my age.
Now THAT's the way to play word poker.
I looked up Erasmus "Zoonomia" and I found that the entire publication of the old mans thoughts on evolution consists of a series of "naughty poetic references" to the sexual habits of plants and animals and the following introductory statement.(which constitutes the most "scientific" observation that he made on the subject)
"All warm blooded animals have arisen from one common filament and that the common linneage possessed the capacity of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity with those improvements (which are then) transmissable from parent to offspring"
Hardly a "theory' and rather loaded with Lamarkian implications. RLs assertions aside, Erasmus Darwin was probably more a point of departure for Charles . Darwins work consisted of developing a comprehensive theory with mechanisms and lots of evidence. Did Charles ignore his grandfather? According to David Quammen, no, but neithere did he "Go and steal his grandaddy's notes on evolution" mostly because there wasnt anything valuable there.
To face what RL thinks that "evolutionists " are avoiding is rather easy. The Copernican revolution merely, when ya think about it, took mankind away from
his central role in the Universe when it became obvious that the earth isnt even the pivot point of our Solar SYstem .Darwin merely continues the Copernican revolution and extends it to life on our planet . Later came genetics, the genome, the massive data from the fossil record and biogeography to add a few more nails to Terracentrism. I think that the MArs Rovers may be the next phase in extending the Copernican revolution beyond this planet. The "revolution" is really never ended, true to its methodological basis, it continues to gather evidence and enables us to draw conclusions.
wheres all this data that RL was going to present on the Creation of bats, coelecanths, whales etc> Every time hes tried to sow doubts of the methods and conclusions of science, he walks away in mid argument.
I am certain that the Creationists can go only so far in their arguments. They cannot construct a wraparound "theory" that encloses their Bibliocentric beliefs. Neither can they provide any data and evidence to Support their beliefs . So they have to attain some credibility by their poor critiques of science. If you notice , their entire argument is always based solely at attempts at deconstructing evolutionary theory. When are we gonna see some sort of synthesis of their own evidence? Im willing to listen , but only if "LET THERE BE LIGHT" can be quantified objectively. So far, I aint holding my breath.
rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:rosborne979 wrote: You seem to have a real flare for selecting things which seem related at the grossest level (beaks and noses)
I wasn't the one who first suggested beaks were an example of evolution, ros.
But seriously, do you really think that since beaks come in different sizes and shapes that they therefore have the ability to transform themselves into something OTHER THAN a beak?
This is what evolutionists believe, is it not?
If that were true, we should see
innumerable examples of evolution still in progress NOW[/u] , i.e. half formed (or transformed) organs, appendages, limbs and systems of every type and description.
These forming and transforming parts of critters should be everywhere, in all species and numerous variations and kinds within each species.
But we don't see that at all.
Let's give you an easy one. Which of the races in the human family is the most evolved, ros?
If you say 'none', then you obviously don't believe your own theory.
I'm disappointed RL, your previous post was so elegant and subtle in its misrepresentation of the facts. This one just doesn't measure up.
You've over-used the straw-man thing so much that even a Kansas school board member could see through it.
Ros, you've repeatedly told us that differences in genetic makeup and morphology (NO MATTER HOW SMALL), expressed in populations, are evidence of evolution.
Is this what you still believe?
Religious faith is a matter of belief. Evolution has got nothing to do with belief. You're just too wrapped up in supernatural magic to see that other people are not afflicted by your delusions.
farmerman: I think that the Mars Rovers may be the next phase in extending the Copernican revolution beyond this planet.
Scientists have discovered that Mars shows signs of water; one of the prime ingredients for life. Even though they find life forms on Mars, theists will continue to believe what they read in the bible. For them, it's a matter of "life and death."
cicerone imposter wrote:farmerman: I think that the Mars Rovers may be the next phase in extending the Copernican revolution beyond this planet.
Scientists have discovered that Mars shows signs of water; one of the prime ingredients for life. Even though they find life forms on Mars, theists will continue to believe what they read in the bible. For them, it's a matter of "life and death."
If/when they find life on Mars, the theists will just claim that god must have created that life as well. They will have no proof of this, and nothing in the bible references life on other planets, but when has that stopped them.
I agree; nothing seems to phase them when evidence is provided that is in conflict with the bible starting with their 6000 year old earth.
And don't forget, the sun stood still for a day.
Quote:THE DAY THE SUN STOOD STILL
BERT THOMPSON
One of the most interesting stories in the Bible is found in Joshua 10:1-15. Joshua was the leader of God's people (the Israelites). The people of a city called Gibeon became servants of the Israelites. One day, wicked kings decided to attack Gibeon. The Gibeonites asked Joshua to help them. So, the Israelite army came to their rescue. Joshua knew this was the right thing to do because God had told him, "Do not fear them, for I have delivered them into your hands" (Joshua 10:8). God promised Joshua that He would help the Israelites win. He helped them by using two miracles.
First, at one point in the battle, the enemies of the Israelites tried to run away. But God sent a great hailstorm to stop them. The hail was so bad, and came down so hard, that it actually killed the enemy soldiers! More of the Israelites' enemies died in the hailstorm than in the actual battle (read Joshua 10:11).
Second, God did something else that had never been done before. The Bible says, "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the people had revenge upon their enemies" and "the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day" (Joshua 10:13). Maybe God did this so that the Israelites would have more daylight to fight the battle.
http://www.discoverymagazine.com/articles/d1992/d9212h.htm
And we all know this actually happened because the Bible is never wrong. Believe it or not there are Christians out there who believe this happened.
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/secret/velikovsky2.html
