Letters to the Editor
rupert_c
Published Letters: 1382 Editor's Choice: 12
-
@carlton
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Sorry for leaving this thread after so long, but I must respond. Just because YOU do not understand the mechanics of evolution"
I understand the mechanics of natural selection and the variation of genetic material and I accept that and change over time regarding variation of structure. Show me anyone who purports to understand or have a theory concerning the mechanism of evolution when it comes to the transition between reptiles or avians and mammals. The deveolpment of fundamentally new types is not addressed. Variations of structures is evdent, but not the creation of new structures.
"and the preponderance of evidence which support it, does not mean evolution is not happening."
I've seen the bones and fossiles at the museums and in the books and there are gaps. Change and variation occur. Then you have things which appears as if from nowhere, like bats. Evolutionist assumptions concerning that are little more than a creationist suggestion that god just stuck them in the timeline then.
The fossile record is fragmentary, lets use that against evolution: They say that mammals existed during the time of the dinosaur and we are to believe that all of the mammals are to be derieved from that shrew like and rodent like common ancestor. Why? Why not there being thousands of species of mammals extant with the dinosaurs and we just don't find them because they tasted so good. Let all the basic types of mammals be descended from older ancestors instead of a common one. More species in the past, less species in the present - doesn't that fit the reality we see today, unless you want to believe that our ancestors are still walking the streets and have a TV show on ABC?
"Why not spend some more time with the evidence, i.e. such as basic concepts like radiometric dating which PROVE mathematically that the Earth is more than 4,000,000,000 years old, before trying to "teach the controversy"."
Typical troll behavior, I never said I believe in a young earth and in fact I consider the astrophysicists who claim that the universe is only 14.5 billion years old are full of it - it is unimaginably older than that. The heavier elements have to be cooked in stars several times to even exist so the age of the earth is no mystery to me.
"There is NO controversy, the scientific community - from geologist to biologists - all agree evolution is happening and can describe the framework in which it happens."
Utter nonsense! Scientists disagree quite often and anyone with a three digit IQ would grasp what problem I have with the theory as popularized. The big bang may be off the charts and there is debate about dark matter and now and the analog universe model is under assault by the granualarists! Is global warming real or not? Ask a scientist!!!
Yeah, all the scientists agree with me is a real sweet unbeatable argument.
Most scientists, as with most everyone else, believes the things they were taught during their imprint vulnerability stages when they were in school and/or religious organisations. Most scientists can grasp the problem with popular evolution. Explaining how you go from one celled proto-lifeforms to people is not an easy task for any one theory.
I don't have any problem with natural selection and that theory is workable to the point of being fact.
But here is a question, Way back at the beginning, some one celled critters learned how to make chlorophyll so all they had to do to make food was get some sun, water and air. Some other one celled critters learned how to eat the other ones and each other. Now all the plants and animals are evolved from these two lines of one celled critters according to evolution and mutations and mistakes happen all the time which is why we have the rich variety of life.
Now how come in all the billions of years of evolution we don't have any animals that have learned how to make chlorophyll? After all, if a one celled critter can do it why not an animal? Wouldn't it be an evolutionary advantage to be able to stand out and the sun and made glucose? Especially now that you can't get it in Coke or Pepsi anymore.
rupert
BTW - carrying algae internally doesn't count. Yeah, I know a lot of stuff.
p.s. it is clear that really stupid people have no problem believing either theory in total.
-
@verelse
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]More evidence supporting the theory of devolution.
"Insidious new assaults" - I guess that people are not scared of Al Qaeda or the Islamofascist threat anymore.
Well we won't be reading or hearing that phrase, "insidious new assaults" the next time we start bombing and shooting at people who have done us no wrong.
Even more evidence supporting the theory of devolution.
-
Mena
[Read the article: WSJ Op-Ed page decries hatred of the president]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The piece [linking Saddam with the Oklahoma City bombing] was written by Micah Morrison, a senior editorial writer at the Journal who gained a certain notoriety during the Clinton years by chasing all sorts of conspiracy theories, most notably that as governor of Arkansas, Clinton was somehow associated with a drug running operation out of a remote airport in Mena, Ark."
How about that?