You are not logged in.
After watching the video discussion between Shermer and the genetecist was pathetic! Every answer was that because it disagreed with the Bible (or her interpretation), it was automatically rejected. Not a true scientist at all when the conclusions are decided first. <BR> <BR>How would anyone like to go to a medical scientist (physician) who refused to listen to your ailments, etc., and had concluded even before seeing you that your problem was diagnosed by a previous decision before you were seen? <BR> <BR>She accepted very literally both creation stories, claiming they were realy "not different" even though they are so definitely contradictory.
Offline
Very simple, Darwin never saw or proved macroevolution ever happened.
Offline
<font color="0000ff">Darwin never saw or proved macroevolution ever happened.</font> <BR> <BR>'Moses' never saw or proved that Creation ever happened.
Offline
New PROOF today to add to the HUGE mountain of proof that Darwin was correct. <BR> <BR>Add these awesome specimens to the mountain... <BR> <BR>Transitional octopus (from Lebanon circa 95,000,000 years before 'Creation'). <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/836.jpg" alt=""> <BR> <BR> <BR><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/octopods_from_the_cretaceous.php#more" target=_top>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/octopods_from_the_cretaceous.php#more</a> <BR> <BR>(Message edited by neal on March 18, 2009)
Offline
The article sure didn't give much on the dating procedures. Is that give or take 90 million years??<img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/lol.gif" border=0>
Offline
<font color="0000ff">The article sure didn't give much on the dating procedures.</font> <BR> <BR>The point was that its a TRANSITIONAL SPECIES. <BR> <BR>Ya know, macroevolution. <BR> <BR>Only a small frazzled group debates the validity of the dating techniques anymore. <BR> <BR>I am certain you could ask a geologist if you could find one that would talk to you.
Offline
Cretaceous Octopus With Ink And Suckers -- The World's Least Likely Fossils? <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>ScienceDaily (Mar. 18, 2009) — New finds of 95 million year old fossils reveal much earlier origins of modern octopuses. These are among the rarest and unlikeliest of fossils. The chances of an octopus corpse surviving long enough to be fossilized are so small that prior to this discovery only a single fossil species was known, and from fewer specimens than octopuses have legs. <BR> <BR>Even if you have never encountered an octopus in the flesh, the eight arms, suckers, and sack-like body are almost as familiar a body-plan as the four legs, tail and head of cats and dogs. Unlike our vertebrate cousins, however, octopuses don't have a well-developed skeleton. And while this famously allows them to squeeze into spaces that a more robust animal could not, it does create problems for scientists interested in evolutionary history. When did octopuses acquire their characteristic body-plan, for example? Nobody really knows, because fossil octopuses are rarer than, well, pretty much any very rare thing you care to mention. <BR> <BR>The body of an octopus is composed almost entirely of muscle and skin, and when an octopus dies, it quickly decays and liquefies into a slimy blob. After just a few days there will be nothing left at all. And that assumes that the fresh carcass is not consumed almost immediately by hungry scavengers. The result is that preservation of an octopus as a fossil is about as unlikely as finding a fossil sneeze, and none of the 200-300 species of octopus known today has ever been found in fossilized form. Until now, that is. <BR> <BR>Palaeontologists have just identified three new species of fossil octopus discovered in Cretaceous rocks in Lebanon. The five specimens, described in the latest issue of the journal Palaeontology, are 95 million years old but, astonishingly, preserve the octopuses' eight arms with traces of muscles and those characteristic rows of suckers. Even traces of the ink and internal gills are present in some specimens. ' <BR> <BR>"These are sensational fossils, extraordinarily well preserved," says Dirk Fuchs of the Freie University Berlin, lead author of the report. But what surprised the scientists most was how similar the specimens are to modern octopus: "these things are 95 million years old, yet one of the fossils is almost indistinguishable from living species." This provides important evolutionary information. "The more primitive relatives of octopuses had fleshy fins along their bodies. The new fossils are so well preserved that they show, like living octopus, that they didn't have these structures." This pushes back the origins of modern octopus by tens of millions of years, and while this is scientifically significant, perhaps the most remarkable thing about these fossils is that they exist at all. <BR><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR> <BR>Note this excerpt that helps add "credibility" to the find: <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p><b><font color="ff0000">The body of an octopus is composed almost entirely of muscle and skin, and when an octopus dies, it quickly decays and liquefies into a slimy blob. After just a few days there will be nothing left at all. And that assumes that the fresh carcass is not consumed almost immediately by hungry scavengers. The result is that preservation of an octopus as a fossil is about as unlikely as finding a fossil sneeze, and none of the 200-300 species of octopus known today has ever been found in fossilized form. Until now, that is. <BR> <BR>... perhaps the most remarkable thing about these fossils is that they exist at all. </font></b> <BR><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090317111902.htm" target=_top>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/09031 7111902.htm</a>
Offline
I was thinking this afternoon about the title for this thread when I did the 'Moses' comment. <BR> <BR>A good thread would be titled <b>What God Didn't Know</b>. <BR> <BR>Alternatively, <b>What Whover Wrote The Torah Didn't Know</b>. <BR> <BR>You could take the progressive evolutionist that wrote the article you copied here and rewrite it almost line for line. <BR> <BR>Would be pretty hilarious IMO.
Offline
<font color="0000ff">Note this excerpt that helps add "credibility" to the find:</font> <BR> <BR>"credibility" <BR> <BR>What is the meaning here. Expound please. <BR> <BR>Sarcastic maybe?
Offline
See how similar a different branch looks? <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/840.jpg" alt=""> <BR> <BR> <BR><font size="+2">WHOOPS</font> I meant this one! <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/841.gif" alt=""> <BR> <BR><a href="http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/marathon_man/" target=_top>http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/marathon_man/</a>
Offline
<font color="119911">You could take the progressive evolutionist....</font> <BR> <BR>On second thought, not possible! <BR> <BR>WHY? <BR> <BR>Cuz you'd have to use every accepted piece of science known to MAN. It would fill up the 'internets'! <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/biggrin.gif" border=0>
Offline
Four wheels and a motor, does not make a Chevy Malibu a Mercedes Benz. <BR> <BR>Progressive Evolutionist??? What's that??
Offline
<font color="0000ff">What's that??</font> <BR> <BR>Do I have to explain EVERYTHING to you?
Offline
This one you do, Neal, because I looked it up, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. Maybe you can bring wisdom to bear on what it is.
Offline