[geocentrism] Re: Evolution
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:10:48 +0000 (GMT)
Philip M
Comments in teal.
Philip M From philip madsen Wed Sep 19 21:54:42 2007
Paul you are stretching things a bit.
Do they then have photos, or perhaps an original in deep freeze? I have
mentioned this url several times -- thus far no indication that anyone has
looked at it. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/philos.htm#Science Scroll down
to History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth by Davis A.
Young, Ph.D. Scroll down about half way and you will find a fairly good picture
of a Pterosaur. This picture has a striking resemblance to the famous picture
of archaeopteryx, and while I can't at this second give you a url, I would be
surprised if you have not seen a good picture of this animal. If you have, you
could not have missed the unmistakable, well defined teeth and the exquisite
preservation of the feathers.
Do you believe then that Dinosaurs are reptilian.. ? Why? because thats what we
have been told for centuries? Are you forgetting that speculation (and fraud)
clothed these monster skeletons. ?
The definition 'reptile' has been made by others -- much more able than myself
-- from skeletal remains, that these skeletons have features characteristic of
reptiles. The structure of the bones also display characteristics which speak
of cold blooded creatures -- something to do with the holes which carry blood
vessels I think it was. That they were not amphibian can also be determined by
skeletal characteristics.
Do you know that doubt has been cast on this speculation by more recent DNA
tests that show these to be mammal rather than reptile..I've stated what I
think about DNA in this context. also the dating method has been turned upside
down by serious new evidence.. References? What reason other than faith in
evolution would cause scientists to get angry at these new research data? Is
this true or are you just projecting your anger onto them?
And From philip madsen Fri Sep 21 07:45:24 2007
Beaks may be/ are teeth... That some deformity may be propagated is liken to
natural selection, but it is not evolution. I suppose you might want to believe
that certain men who are covered in hair like an ape is a transitional? No --
these people 'suffer' from a normally switched off gene instead being
expressed. The colloquial term I think is 'throw-back'. A deformed beak in a
bird that work like teeth is no different from certain humans developing a real
tail.. Its still a bird and its still a Human kind. Well think what you may but
lacking a firm definition of what you would regard as transitional is a problem
here. I have indicated what I believe is a reasonable definition.
Using your reasoning Paul, that all kinds have skeletons of bone is proof of
evolution.. Is there an important word or two missing here?
Paul D
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
Other related posts:
