English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/12/AR2007041202043.html

2007-04-12 15:51:50 · 29 answers · asked by foodstamp 2 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

29 answers

t-rex = big chicken yum yum.

2007-04-12 15:54:24 · answer #1 · answered by uhohspaghettiohohs 5 · 1 0

Wouldn't you think that the collagen would be remarkable similar to today's reptiles, considering that the T-Rex is classified as a reptile by every other standard rather than a mammal? Even if these findings are accurate, how do you explain the development of feathers, hollow bone structure, avian lung, temperature regulation and a host of other very different features. One small similarity does not create a direct link.
If you want to verify the truth of biological claims, apply the scientific method, and verify those claims through the hundreds and thousands of experiments that are required in every other field of science to establish validity. Don't just take the word of a Washington Post reporter who is trying to get public notoriety for uncovering some life changing finding. Who trusts the media anymore anyway?

2007-04-16 17:40:22 · answer #2 · answered by Brian H 2 · 0 0

did you ever think maybe evolution is in fact a tool of creation?just because things evolve doesn't mean they werent created.if you look real close you can see personality in the way nature works.If we should prove evolution as fact it still doesnt mean a thing.Just the eyeball alone is a miracle in itself.Think about it ,if you took all the peices of a watch and put it in a cigar box what are the chances of all the peices falling together as a watch?no big bang or little bang is gonna make that watch come together without specific arrangement.We are thread.who can know the whole cloth?

2007-04-12 23:07:57 · answer #3 · answered by savage_14u2000 3 · 1 0

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter9.php

Let us suppose that millions of years ago a cell was formed which had acquired everything necessary for life, and that it duly "came to life". The theory of evolution again collapses at this point. For even if this cell had existed for a while, it would eventually have died and after its death, nothing would have remained, and everything would have reverted to where it had started. This is because this first living cell, lacking any genetic information, would not have been able to reproduce and start a new generation. Life would have ended with its death.

2007-04-14 09:04:17 · answer #4 · answered by J D 2 · 1 0

Evolution has already been proven to be a fact. The true defintion of evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. We are designed to adapt to change. The article just gives more evidence to prove evolution's existence.

2007-04-12 23:02:40 · answer #5 · answered by Brett 2 · 0 1

By the definition of a scientific theory, it can never become fact. Theories are as high as it goes. A theory is meant to explain a collection of facts, therefore can't be a fact itself. Basically, it doesn't get any more accurate then scientific theory. Like the theory of gravity for example.

2007-04-13 10:44:18 · answer #6 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0 0

*sigh*

Evolution will not be elevated to 'fact'. Theories are more useful than facts, because they can predict and explain things. Facts are just there - just facts.

Evolution is, and always will be, a theory. That doesn't mean it's wrong - it is certainly correct. But it's a theory.

2007-04-12 22:57:25 · answer #7 · answered by eri 7 · 1 0

Not much. Just because there is a near exact chemical similiarity between a sidewalk at the side of a road paved in concrete is in no way indicative that one "evolved" from the other; rather, it is indicative of a DESIGNER choosing a similar medium for construction.

Tom

2007-04-12 23:01:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Of course this is possible...even likely. So what does this mean in terms of evolution? Nothing from my viewpoint. When God created the plants, animals and man, he used the same basic premise. Why keep recreating the wheel when you already have a good working model?

2007-04-12 22:59:13 · answer #9 · answered by Poohcat1 7 · 1 2

Oh, that cannot be right, 63 million years, we ALL know the world is only 6000 years old!
And Noah took chickens on his Ark, so it must be true.
And Genesis is the truth, because it say so in the Bible.
LOL!
WHAT A PILE OF IGNORANT, DIMWITTED MORONS!

2007-04-12 23:04:05 · answer #10 · answered by tattie_herbert 6 · 0 1

Evolution will be proven.

While it may be difficult to get our heads around that concept today, there will come a time when it makes complete sense, just like thunder.

2007-04-12 22:57:20 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers