Creationist Wolf in Cheap Clothing

Nope, Duke. Several semesters of both cultural and biological anthropology in one of the world's premier primate centers.

 

actually, no. i'm talking about a large number of snakes. the "rear-fanged" snakes don't have the classic viper hollow tube fang. instead, they have grooved teeth in the rear of their mouth. garter snakes even have such "fangs" and a far more complex venom than originally believed.

the venom is a series of protiens and -- like spider venom -- is believed to aid in digestion.

 

what's the difference?

 

http://www.thisboardrocks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1339400&postcount=41

Sure it is. It is as valid as hypothesis as all the other ones out there about the holes.

Again - yes, it does.

 

Macroevolution are the forks in Darwin's tree whereas micro evolution is a non-forking branch.

 

I'm about ready to lock this thread down until cooler heads prevail.

 

really? branches at what level of detail?

 

aww...

 

A lot of it depends on what you mean by Intelligent Design. I have absolutely no problems with the idea of a creator being who set the universe in motion. I'm a little more sketchy on the concept of an "active creator," but not so much if people aren't suggesting that the being in question is changing the natural laws in any way. Interestingly, theoretical physicists came to the conclusion that there must either be an initial consciousness (re: creator) or else near infinite universes. Most choose to speculate on multiple universes, but I think it's interesting that the biggest brains in the world would suggest a creator as a very real possibility. Along those lines, I think people who dismiss religion completely out of hand aren't being very rational.


And no, HardHarry, ID absolutely isn't science and should not be taught in schools for that very reason. It's faith. But by the same token, science doesn't invalidate the possibility of a creator or anything else regarding the supernatural. Science only deals with the natural world, it can't prove or invalidate something beyond that.


slydevyl:

Yeah, I know they are to you, but that's either because you want to see them as contradictory or else you just don't know enough about our documentation of the fossil record. We do have a direct line all the way through the various homo species back to the late australopithecines, but after that we have a fairly large number of different species with different traits, and a lot of argument about what led to what else. Nothing is actually missing from the picture, it's just hard to reconstruct what happened, when, and how.

 

Collin and Hardharry:

You know I respect both of your respective intellects, but you both are stepping over the boundaries of civilized debate in this thread. Both of you are rebutting from a position of assuming Sly's motives rather than working the argument itself (i.e. "[Sly]"The world is flat! The world is flat!"[/sly]"), and that is eliciting emotional rather than objective and constructive responses.

For the record, I've only seen Sly argue the points presented in this thread, or introduce other corresponding evidence.

It's quite obvious that you don't agree on this subject. I'm just asking that you disagree without being disagreeable. And if neither side is willing to at least consider the other (in the spirit of open minded discovery), then perhaps it would be best if both sides backed away.