|
Author
|
Topic: Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?
|
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5862 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: 12-27-2005
|
|
Message 134 of 301 (287691)
02-17-2006 2:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 131 by randman
02-17-2006 1:15 PM
|
|
Re: Wrong on both counts
Building on what Schraf said, we need to define a few terms: - Kind - Range - Statis within a range - General Pattern (what general pattern is predicted?) Rand, you have managed to string together a sentence that is almost 100% nonsense
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 131 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 1:15 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5862 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: 12-27-2005
|
|
|
Message 152 of 301 (287770)
02-17-2006 4:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 148 by randman
02-17-2006 3:54 PM
|
|
Biogenetic law
What is biogenetic law?
biogenetic law, in biology, a law stating that the earlier stages of embryos of species advanced in the evolutionary process, such as humans, resemble the embryos of ancestral species, such as fish. The law refers only to embryonic development and not to adult stages; as development proceeds, the embryos of different species become more and more dissimilar. An early form of the law was devised by the 19th-century Estonian zoologist K. E. von Baer, who observed that embryos resemble the embryos, but not the adults, of other species. A later, but incorrect, theory of the 19th-century German zoologist Ernst Heinrich Haeckel states that the embryonic development (ontogeny) of an animal recapitulates the evolutionary development of the animal's ancestors (phylogeny). biogenetic law | Infoplease Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions Please read these randman and then NEVER post about this again.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 148 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 3:54 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 154 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 4:12 PM | | SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied |
|
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5862 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: 12-27-2005
|
|
|
Message 157 of 301 (287781)
02-17-2006 4:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 154 by randman
02-17-2006 4:12 PM
|
|
Re: Biogenetic law
Deleted.... As an admin would probably remind me this is probably the most overdiscussed, stupid and irrelevant subject on the board. I've thought better of it This message has been edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, 02-17-2006 04:22 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 154 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 4:12 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5862 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: 12-27-2005
|
|
|
Message 169 of 301 (287850)
02-17-2006 6:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 166 by randman
02-17-2006 6:33 PM
|
|
That's how science works
You guys made that claim, but it still isn't true. The fact is the fossil evidence disagreeing with the prior evo models is indeed a large part of what drove the need for new PE models. Come on Rand, you know that's the WHOLE FREAKING POINT OF SCIENCE!!!!! As new evidence arises theories are revised, rethought and sometimes even replaced. Now, if scientists REFUSED to change their theories in light of new evidence you would have a case......
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 166 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 6:33 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 171 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 6:50 PM | | SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied | | | Message 182 by ramoss, posted 02-18-2006 9:41 AM | | SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied |
|
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5862 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: 12-27-2005
|
Noooooooooooooo
..and, we see that any time that Randman is confronted by an argument he can't address, it's right back to the Haekel's drawings nonsense. Crash, I haven't been here nearly as long as you and some others and I ALREADY cringe when I hear that name! Can we all just agree that if a researcher in a field commits fraud that entire field is invalidated!! 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 168 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2006 6:36 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 172 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 6:51 PM | | SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied |
|
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5862 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: 12-27-2005
|
|
|
Message 173 of 301 (287859)
02-17-2006 6:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 172 by randman
02-17-2006 6:51 PM
|
|
Re: Noooooooooooooo
Find I admit fraud was committed. There you go! Now you never have to bring it up again.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 172 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 6:51 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5862 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: 12-27-2005
|
|
|
Message 174 of 301 (287864)
02-17-2006 6:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 171 by randman
02-17-2006 6:50 PM
|
|
Re: That's how science works
Uh, can you yell at the evos then on the thread that are brining up some mistaken creationist ideas from well over 100 years ago? And then refusing to acknowledge the accurate predictions of modern creationism Hey Rand, sorry for the yelling! (Interesting enough I read a study, maybe it was linked here, that is takes much longer for people to read things written in all caps).... Here's the problem. There is no creation science. If you could point me to experiments, peer reviewed research, falsifiable theoretical models, i mean anything from creationist sources I would be happy to read them. I like to think I am open minded enough to consider the material objectively.... The problem is creation science has no theoretical framework that I am aware of so it's not science; it's philosophy.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 171 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 6:50 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 175 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 7:17 PM | | SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied |
|
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5862 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: 12-27-2005
|
|
|
Message 176 of 301 (287887)
02-17-2006 7:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 175 by randman
02-17-2006 7:17 PM
|
|
Interesting Stuff
I read over some of the links and they certainly have some elaborately constructed articles. The problem is, every single argument revolves around poking holes in evolution! There are A LOT of references to information theory... but no specifics. Do they ever actually propose anything other than "this is very improbable, etc. etc"? Serious question, I'm not going to read every single article, but if you have any specific ones you would like to point out I'll take a look at them. Actually, that's a good idea for a new thread rand. Pick out the scientific paper you feel is most persuasive and we will discuss it. Like I said I try to keep an open mind. while I don't believe in ID or creationism at all.... I do waver from atheism into deism on occasion and the origin of like does interest me.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 175 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 7:17 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 177 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 7:46 PM | | SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2