quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy

quote:

---

Very cute filth. But the truth paints a different picture, or animated video, take your pick...

"We are now testing Darwin's idea, but in 'hot little puddles' associated with the volcanic regions of Kamchatka (Russia) and Mount Lassen (California, US)."

"The results are surprising and in some ways disappointing. It seems that hot acidic waters containing clay do not provide the right conditions for chemicals to assemble themselves into 'pioneer organisms.'"

"Understanding how life emerged on Earth within 1,000 million years of its formation is a fascinating scientific problem"
Prof Ian Smith, University of Cambridge

"However," he added, "in our experiments, the organic compounds became so strongly held to the clay particles that they could not undergo any further chemical reactions."

"Martian existence?"

"While our understanding of the world is rapidly increasing, the answer to how life began on Earth remains elusive."

"He believes the answer may lie in interstellar dust, and will be talking about the possibility that a comet or asteroid may have provided Earth with the raw ingredients needed for life."


"One possibility is that life really did begin in a 'warm little pond', but not in hot volcanic springs or marine hydrothermal vents," he added.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4702336.stm

---

I might remind that the failure to success ratio of experiments rather leans toward failure; but with each failure, a little more is learned. The research continues.

Incidentally, evolution doesn't "jump" from one species to another. Rather, it is a orderly process as can be seen in this link discussing the thecodonts: transitional species between mammals and reptiles.

---

quote:

---

I might remind that the failure to success ratio of experiments rather leans toward failure; but with each failure, a little more is learned. The research continues.

---

quote:

---

Incidentally, evolution doesn't "jump" from one species to another. Rather, it is a orderly process as can be seen in this link <http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm>discussing the thecodonts: transitional species between mammals and reptiles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.

You obviously don't, Bill. Think so, that is. Of course, most evolutionary biologists don't think that, either. You should start your own strawman museum.

---

quote:

---

You should start your own strawman museum.

---

quote:

---

I might remind that the failure to success ratio of experiments rather leans toward failure; but with each failure, a little more is learned. The research continues.

---

quote:

---

(bill) Which would include the Theory of Evolution. They admit the fossil record is shoddy, at best, while I would say non-existent at worst. The natural selection theory pushes statistical probability to the breaking point, time and time again. And where have we ever seen randomness create vast amounts of new and complex info?




Incidentally, evolution doesn't "jump" from one species to another. Rather, it is a orderly process as can be seen in this link <http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm>discussing the thecodonts: transitional species between mammals and reptiles.

---

quote:

---

(bill) Nice drawing. You would think with the millions of years it would have taken to jump between mammal and reptile, and all the carnage that would have been laid down in the process of these millions years, that we would find a few of these in-transit critters in the ground. Instead we have to look at the just-so drawings of what the evolutionist predicted to have happen in the past.

---

quote:

---

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ


Copyright © 1994-1997 by Kathleen Hunt

[Last Update: March 17, 1997]


wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year. I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions and with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned. Version 6.0 of the FAQ has been almost entirely rewritten, with:

A completely rewritten introduction & conclusion, discussing what "transitional" means, why gaps occur, and what the fossil record shows.
A greatly expanded list of "chains of genera" for most groups, especially mammals.
References for documented species-to-species fossil transitions, mostly for mammals.
Explicit mention of the notable remaining gaps in the fossil record.
If you have questions about this FAQ or want to send email to the author, click here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.

You obviously don't, Bill. Think so, that is. Of course, most evolutionary biologists don't think that, either. You should start your own strawman museum.

---

quote:

---

You should start your own strawman museum.

---

Right, to counter the naturalist's strawman museum.

---

quote:

---

The natural selection theory pushes statistical probability to the breaking point, time and time again. And where have we ever seen randomness create vast amounts of new and complex info?

---

quote:

---

You would think with the millions of years it would have taken to jump between mammal and reptile, and all the carnage that would have been laid down in the process of these millions years, that we would find a few of these in-transit critters in the ground

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

Most humans bury their dead. Where are all the dead people buried that have died over just the last 100,000 years? That would be a gigantic amount of carnage buried in the earth. Then go back 200,000 years. Where are all those people buried?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

Most humans bury their dead. Where are all the dead people buried that have died over just the last 100,000 years? That would be a gigantic amount of carnage buried in the earth. Then go back 200,000 years. Where are all those people buried?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pleco

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.

You obviously don't, Bill. Think so, that is. Of course, most evolutionary biologists don't think that, either. You should start your own strawman museum.

---

quote:

---

You should start your own strawman museum.

---

Right, to counter the naturalist's strawman museum.

---

Name a "naturalist's strawman".

---

quote:

---

Name a "naturalist's strawman".

---

quote:

---

The naturalist will claim that all creation science is "faith-based" while any evolutionary philosophical statement is labeled as science by default. As if the naturalist hold exclusivity to science.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

Most humans bury their dead. Where are all the dead people buried that have died over just the last 100,000 years? That would be a gigantic amount of carnage buried in the earth. Then go back 200,000 years. Where are all those people buried?

---

I believe the oldest burial ever found is only about 50,000 years old.

---

quote:

---

I believe the oldest burial ever found is only about 50,000 years old.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pleco

quote:

---

(bill) Code for, "with our biased dogmatic worldview all ready completely engrossed in naturalism, we can look at the evidence with are biased glasses on and predict the past with our biased conclusions. With that prediction of the past rubber stamped approved we can paint a picture, or make a cartoon video, of what we want the earth to look like 500 million years in the past."

---

The same dogmatic view that theorizes that e=mc^2, f=ma, or other sciences like forensic science (using science to re-create a crime scence that happened decades or centuries past), modern medicine, the computer you type your dribble on, etc.....Theory backed up by evidence - what a terrible way to look at the world.

You believe the world is a sphere? The earth rotates around the sun, right? You believe a man walked on the moon? You haven't seen this for yourself, so why do you believe it (if you do)?

---

quote:

---

Does not mean that it is the oldest one, just the oldest one found.

Key words in the naturalist vocabulary: I belive, we think, could have been, maybe, what if, just-so etc... etc...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

Key words in the naturalist vocabulary: I belive, we think, could have been, maybe, what if, just-so etc... etc...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pleco

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.

You obviously don't, Bill. Think so, that is. Of course, most evolutionary biologists don't think that, either. You should start your own strawman museum.

---

quote:

---

You should start your own strawman museum.

---

Right, to counter the naturalist's strawman museum.

---

Name a "naturalist's strawman".

---

quote:

---

Name a "naturalist's strawman".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy

quote:

---

Does not mean that it is the oldest one, just the oldest one found.

Key words in the naturalist vocabulary: I belive, we think, could have been, maybe, what if, just-so etc... etc...

---

And the key words of the creationist are: "faith" and "belief." Both are blind; neither is evidenced, and therefore creationists are blinded by an unwarrented mixture of the two.

Prove the supernatural, Bill. Document the existance and the imprint of God. Just any ol' God'll do -- doesn't have to be any one in particular.

---

quote:

---

And the key words of the creationist are: "faith" and "belief." Both are blind; neither is evidenced, and therefore creationists are blinded by an unwarrented mixture of the two.

---

quote:

---

Prove the supernatural, Bill. Document the existance and the imprint of God. Just any ol' God'll do -- doesn't have to be any one in particular.

---