Hellbender

Its not rejected; its dealt with over and over again, and not just on talk.origins. You think we reject tired old arguments out of hand when we are really just tired of refuting them over and over for the amusement of people who never get the point.

You avatar freaks me out, Pat.

Be specific. What "gaps" were open as of 1980? As an aside, I have actually read "The Panda's Thumb", and I greatly enjoyed it as well. Gould was referring to the relative rarity of your beloved transitionals, meaning that, in terms of all the animal fossils that have been found, studied and classified, a relative few are still missing. This indicates no shortcoming of evolutionary theory, but if you want to point the finger at something blame natural geological processes for destroying the fossils. At any rate, its all moot. There is enough evidence through complete lines of descent, (such as whales and horses and possibly turtles for starters) as well as much, much more varied junk, that evolution (yes, macroevolution too) has occured, is responsible for changes in organisms, and continues to occur as we speak. I will post some links for your benefit, and it is up to you to at least read and address them, although there is still the feeling that you probably won't like what you read here and act like I never took the time out of my day to post this. Transitional Fossils FAQ: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html Evidence for "macroevolution" FAQ: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4 My favorite, "jury-rigging" in organism anatomy: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html

OMG will creationists ever stop their love affair with Stephen Jay Gould quotes?

You chose the right forum. I haven't yet read this book (right now I am reading "The Beak of the Finch" for biology class), but maybe I will get it out. If you are interested in bioanthropology as I am, find a textbook in the library, or even better, if you are in college take the class. I had a great time in it.

Hey, if it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone. Thats my point. I used to be a little on the anti-social side, but I started getting too lonely and put a stop to it.

okay, but you need to be more specific.

All these physics buffs joining, wow. Any biology majors here? At any rate, welcome and enjoy yourself.

....And you can't be too young either. I met "the one" at the tender age of 20, and decided to marry her several months later. My friends all say I am too young, and that i should "live my life". But don't buy into that. You are never too young or too old to find love.

What I meant was that "highly evolved" and "primitive" are not conisdered useful designations anymore, as they hearken back to the time when evolution was erroneously thought of as a progressive chain leading to better and better organisms. Sorry I didn't clarify that.

...Pat Robertson took the words right out of your mouth. ...You think that environmental concerns are always bad for the economy. ...Global warming is bad science, but intelligent design should be taught in schools.

Sorry. Cambrian, please make it apparent to us and other members what your reason for posting creationist arguments is. Am I right to assume that you are not a creationist, that you post these arguments for us to refute so you can have ammunition for when you debate them? There is nothing wrong if you do, I am just curious (and glad to help).

god forbid you wait more than 2 minutes for a reply.

OKay, first of all, even if humans were found in strata that also bear pre-human fauna, this barely changes the fact that heritable changes in a population occur. We would just need to revise our current understanding of the fossil record. Second, its all moot because this hasn't been found and verified. I would love to see this picture. I would love to ask this creationist you have been debating with if he has met every scientist in the world to be able to accuse the whole scientific community of being immoral. Scientists are critical, and rightly so, of creationism of any stripe because it has no evidence. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with trying to prop up evolution as a basis for a secular world-view, or to persecute christianity as a whole. "When in doubt, invoke the ad hoc conspiracy theories!"

I'd still work, but not as much. Just for a bit to keep myself from going nuts. I didn't work for a while this winter (when I joined this site), because of a car accident, and was very bored (not to mention broke).

The atkins diet is severly flawed for a numeber of reasons. I have very little background in nutrition or physiology, but last I checked, the amount of carbohydrates in fruits and vegetables is negligable. Eating only bacon and meat is more harmful with the cholesterol and animal fats. Fad diets are usually full of crap. Plus, eating lower on the trophic scale wastes less energy and you get much more out of it. I shouldn't talk though. Although I enjoy a good salad from time to time, I eat primarily meat almost every meal.

He seems quick to call creationists "lunatics" in his posts, before or after he presents their arguments. It would behoove him to try and conest or refute some of the claims he posts if his true motivation was to critique them, but I am still tempted to think he wants us to offer our's. Not that there is anything wrong with it.

i still don't have him figured out. He seems to argue the creationist side, but I am pretty sure he isn't a creationist. I think he posts so much becuase he wants us to answer his questions about evolution. Whatever his motivation, I really think he should explain it to us, as you and I probably aren't the only ones confused by him.

Metatron is an idiot, but hardly a troll. Still, he does post some stupid stuff, and responds to challenges to his "vesicca attractor" stuff with lines of irrelevant poetry, which is annoying. Now I thought he was permanently banned, but yesterday I saw his name on the members online list. Wierd.

but not civilian vehicles.

I'm taking it you read about evolution in your environmental science class, and not a commerce class, right? Learning about evolution in environmental science isn't the shocker of the century, pal. Get used to the fact that in college, you may have to learn about things that don't directly relate to your major. These are called "fluff classes". I am a wildlife technology student-and I am taking a class on Australian literature. Go figure. The New York state board of trustees actually wants graduates to be exposed to different things.

yup true true again! Creationist sites may have a grasp on reality after all! false. While the mesozoic is commonly referred to as "the age of reptiles", this is because they were apparently the dominant land vertebrate of the time. There were also mammals, amphibians, insects, etc. partly true. some lines dies out, some gave rise to some of the animals we see today. Euryapsids such as plesiosaurs and ichthosaurs have left no descendants, but saurischian dinosaurs have. And yes humans are primates, although I wouldn't say "highly evolved". And they will support why this is with lame "athiestic scientist global conspiracies" untile they are blue in the face, never admitting that it is taught because it is science. Thats good to hear, although I think preschool is stretching it a little. At least spend more time on the subject in high school biology. Really? *smirks* I can't wait to see the leaps in logic wating for me ahead. Scientists don't "guess". They may infer things about the creature's lifestyle based on the fossil's anatomy, but they don't "guess". No crap. I'm sure in their eyes this proves something, but it really doesn't. No the body was of Apatosaurus, and they found the closest skull they could to complete the skeleton. The skull happened to be from a Camarasaurus At the time, it was a good idea, but they found later they made a mistake. Dinosaur books were revised, and everyone moved on with their lives. Its the creationists who can't seem to forget decades-old mistakes . LOL this may be, but I would more accurately call them "fanatics".

its not a scientific article though, but a newspaper article. I think rakuenso doesn't want to read the whole thing (I can't blame him there) so a summary of main points would be nice.

Dancing won't necessarily get the girl of your dreams like it seems, but it can help as an ice-breaker, like playing the guitar. I do neither of these, but instead in the past have relied on the "nice, smart understanding good-listener emotional support guy". I developed a lot of female friends this way, and a few girlfriends. I think more than anything, girls like confidence. You've probably heard it lots of times before. After this comes sense of humor. A woman needs a reason to intially want to have you around. And be yourself. That helps too. People can tell if you are not comfortable in your own skin, and this again leads to the confidence issue. This is really how I got the girl I am with today. Once you get past these, a girl can start to appreciate your other, not-so-apparent qualities. There's always hope, so don't give up. Like glider pointed out earlier, humans are primates, and primates are predominantly social animals. Your sanity won't survive long without inimate social interaction.

And if you don't actually need the big SUV, and you just have it "'cuz you can afford the gas", that is basically turning a blind eye toward the fact that, someday, gas will be gone forever. Then what will we do? If it is so valuable, why not do our best to make it last?