Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In other words - it is OK for you to ignore the abiogenesis question because it doesn't fit neatly with the rest of your theory - but you demand that an ID person explain abiogenesis. I see.
Nobody ignores the abiogenesis question. It is one of the most fruitful and dynamic areas of biochemical research.
It is still simply irrelevant to evolution.
It does not matter how the first living thing came to be. It can have arisen spontaneously out of a primordial soup, or been seeded by aliens from another galaxy, or created by God. it still doesn't matter.
All of life since is still the product of common descent from that same first living thing via a process of descent with modification... i.e.e Darwinian evolution.
It is one of the most fruitful and All of life since is still the product of common descent from that same first living thing via a process of descent with modification... i.e.e Darwinian evolution.
The fossil record does not demonstrate this to be true.
Frankly, I would place about as much weight on what Gould thought was smart or honest as I might afford you ... and unless you're very good at large fractional math, don't bother asking how much .
Since there is no such thing as "large fractional math," Gould's opinion that you are stupid would appear to be the betting man's position. But of course we are all aware that this does not mean you are honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
In any case, what I said was true ... your picture was, and still is a fabrication, originally based on a few skull fragments only. And here for review is that picture again:
Your furious backpedaling is noted. You now admit that it was only originally based on "a few skull fragments." More complete skeletons have been known for more than a decade. The evidence is irrefutable, the science is solid, and you are shown to be (as Gould asserts) both ignorant and dishonest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Now, just to highlight the bias and predetermined conclusion at play with this fraud ... Pakicetus (Short for Pakistani-Whale) got it's name based only on those few skull fragments. Maybe it all went down something like this:
Writing fiction now, Guy? You think that your previously exposed ignorance can be compensated for by flights of fancy?
And it is even more fascinating that where as this morning you were proving to be completely unfamiliar with the actual Pakicetus fossils, tonight you are cutting and pasting from creationist propaganda... showing again that you have made no effort to actually go read any of the papers that directly describe the real science.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Sorry, no. We have the fossils, and Pakicetus is only one of them. They are all of them stony slaps in the face of every creationist who ever lied that there were no transitional forms in the fossil record. None of your cutting and pasting from creationist propaganda will make the evidence go away.
Gould calls you either stupid or a liar. The fossils simply prove him correct.
In other words - it is OK for you to ignore the abiogenesis question because it doesn't fit neatly with the rest of your theory - but you demand that an ID person explain abiogenesis. I see.
Why not do the work yourself?
I'm not ignoring it at all. It is within the scientific realm by which attempts have and are being made to come up with an answer which is far more than can be said about anyone in the Intelligent Design community. All I said is that when life exists on this planet it evolves regardless of how it came about.
Your argument, on the other hand, insists that all life was created automagically by the snap of some celestial fingers. That leaves you having to explain the process of the diversity of life AND the origin of life simultaneously as in your case they are inextricably linked to one another by a single moment in time.
Besides, those claiming that an infinitely complex creator is necessary for the complex "designs" we see never seem to want to own up to the fact that this complex creator had to come from somewhere.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
