User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 72 of 147 FirstFirst ... 226268697071727374757682122 ... LastLast
Results 569 to 576 of 1176

Thread: Where does everyone stand in regards to...

  1. #569

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Zone 9
    Posts
    455
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]The entirety of life's progressions will never be found in the fossil record as a result, but a good framework certainly exists.
    There certainly isn't a "good framework" for anything. All we've got are scattered fossils, and in the lower levels we find ones that don't exist anymore. As for "primitive life forms" not being able to escape water, most land dwelling ones could easily find a home in an larger animal habitats in an ark.

    From what I can tell Punctuated Equilibrium is not unlike creation - a bunch of new life forms appear, and then we have an equilibrium for many thousand years.
    the cellist

  2. #570

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,344
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]There certainly isn't a "good framework" for anything. All we've got are scattered fossils, and in the lower levels we find ones that don't exist anymore. As for "primitive life forms" not being able to escape water, most land dwelling ones could easily find a home in an larger animal habitats in an ark.
    no, there's not a good framework of fossils. there's a GREAT framework.
    They're not "scattered" anyway. (as you would expect with a great big flood)
    so you're saying ALL individuals of "primitive life forms" went to the ark? HA!
    for those of you who still believe in the ark and want to base your unplausible stories on it, PLEASE take a look at this. You don't have to read it all... if you change your mind about it :P but if you still believe it, do read it all. http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html (good catch eh?)
    Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish-Euripides
    wikipedia rocks! (except for species info)(CPers-add your vast knowledge of CPs to wikipedia&#33
    A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it
    Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything

  3. #571

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Zone 9
    Posts
    455
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]just wondering but what organisms are found in EVERY layer?
    Oh, lots - protozoans, arthropods, brachiopods, mollusks, bryozoans, coelenterates, sponges, annelids, echinoderms or chordates are all found in the lower levels much like they do in the top levels. The lower levels contain no intermediates between these groups, either. I'm not saying giant cockroaches didn't exist. They just didn't survive. What do you think a cockroach would be more likely to do - develop the ability to deal with less oxygen, or to decrease in size?

    Peter
    the cellist

  4. #572

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,706
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If creationists where to study evolution and comprehend it... well.. they wouldn't be creationists anymore.

    and i bet if christians were to find out some information about their bible they wouldn't be religious anymore.
    They say if you play a Microsoft CD backwards, you hear satanic messages. Thats nothing, cause if you play it forwards, it installs Windows.

  5. #573

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,344
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Oh, lots - protozoans, arthropods, brachiopods, mollusks, bryozoans, coelenterates, sponges, annelids, echinoderms or chordates are all found in the lower levels much like they do in the top levels. The lower levels contain no intermediates between these groups, either. I'm not saying giant cockroaches didn't exist. They just didn't survive. What do you think a cockroach would be more likely to do - develop the ability to deal with less oxygen, or to decrease in size?
    you're naming GROUPS of animals. They are NOT the same species that are today (most of them anyway)
    and if you notice they come in order.
    Most of the animals you named are soft bodied animals (or decendants from them). Of course there aren't going to be intermediates because the actual animal rarely fossilizes.
    and for example you can even find them in the himmalayas which totally disproves a young earth and the flood.
    as for the cockroaches, they decreased in size.... that's proving evolution.
    Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish-Euripides
    wikipedia rocks! (except for species info)(CPers-add your vast knowledge of CPs to wikipedia&#33
    A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it
    Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything

  6. #574

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,344
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    OOPPPSS... could a mod please delete this?
    Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish-Euripides
    wikipedia rocks! (except for species info)(CPers-add your vast knowledge of CPs to wikipedia&#33
    A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it
    Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything

  7. #575

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,706
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Wesley @ Jan. 04 2005,9:03)]It is not getting equal focus, cause we are not talking about Hindus.... we are talking about...err against Christains. The Hindu belief of how the earth came into being could very well be correct, but as it is religious along with Cristianity and all the othere. It is wrong cause it states there is a god... hmmm how sad. I'm so glad I have a god. I like knowing that I will go somewhere(well that's what I believe) when I die, I don't want to merely cease to exist. Evolution "proves" that right? We have no soul but we do lose weight the moment we die... I heard many examples done(by the way dogs don't lose weight when they die interesting "fact" aint it).
    Sorry luis but you're wrong on this one. The experiment was called 21 Grams and it was done by Dr. Duncan MacDougall. It was even published.
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]
    People have believed that the "soul" has a definite physical presence for hundreds, and possibly thousands, of years. But it was only as recently as 1907, that a certain Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill in Massachusetts actually tried to weigh this soul. In his office, he had a special bed "arranged on a light framework built upon very delicately balanced platform beam scales" that he claimed were accurate to two-tenths of an ounce (around 5.6 grams). Knowing that a dying person might thrash around and upset such delicate scales, he decided to "select a patient dying with a disease that produces great exhaustion, the death occurring with little or no muscular movement, because in such a case, the beam could be kept more perfectly at balance and any loss occurring readily noted".

    He recruited six terminally-ill people, and according to his paper in the April 1907 edition of the journal American Medicine, he measured a weight loss, which he claimed was associated with the soul leaving the body. In this paper, he wrote from beside the special bed of one of his patients, that "at the end of three hours and 40 minutes he expired and suddenly coincident with death the beam end dropped with an audible stroke hitting against the lower limiting bar and remaining there with no rebound. The loss was ascertained to be three fourths of an ounce."

    He was even more encouraged when he repeated his experiment with 15 dogs, which registered no change in weight in their moment of death. This fitted in perfectly with the popular belief that a dog had no soul, and therefore would register no loss of weight at the moment of demise.

    But before his article appeared in American Medicine, the New York Times on the 11th March, 1907 had already published a story on him, entitled Soul Has Weight, Physician Thinks, on page 5. His reputation was now assured, having been published in both a medical journal and The New York Times (a Journal Of Record).

    As a result, the "fact" that the soul weighed three-quarters of an ounce (roughly 21 grams) made its way into the common knowledge, and has stayed there ever since.
    They say if you play a Microsoft CD backwards, you hear satanic messages. Thats nothing, cause if you play it forwards, it installs Windows.

  8. #576

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,344
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    and snopes.com already pointed out why it wasn't a good experiment/conclusion.
    besides... the fact that it was published doesn't mean much.
    Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish-Euripides
    wikipedia rocks! (except for species info)(CPers-add your vast knowledge of CPs to wikipedia&#33
    A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it
    Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •