Gary

Where is that at?

The Dome.

Record predictions anyone?

Same as last year... 8 & 8

Amazing stuff guys... I learned something today.

I can see the consistant sarcasm/humor/flame bait in RedScare, but I am thinking otherwise regarding quality, hence my nomination for member to most likely to cause a topic to be locked still stands alone on this one. No one can top him.

Quality humor. . . ., he has his moments, quality HAIF posts. . . not so much.

although he can get me started from time to time, my intuition tells me that Red is probably a pretty nice guy in person. As far as quality of posts, I couldn't dissagree more. Red has been a big contributer to HAIF since I've been here.

Two things:

1. Am I wrong, or isn't the economy in Houston fairing much better relative to the rest of the country, and

2. Have you been to Mem City Mall lately? It's packed and you can't find a parking spot.

I think he was being sarcastic.

Sorry, Gary, I wasn't clear. That clain was made, but it was not by you.

You have thrown out some terms I admit I am not all that familiar with, like macroevolution, microevolution and speciation. I know their meanings

Why would I have to do that?

Because it has everything to do with my point. There were huge changes in species (say from a lizard to a bird) from the beginning of the era to the end, changes that fly in the face of Macro-evolution. That's the concept of Quantam, Macro, evolution. Really you can call it what you want, but my point is that the Triassic period holds BIG problems secular scientists and micro-evolution.

I'm gone for tonight fellas. Got an early day ahead of me.

Ever watch The Naked Archeologist? I watched a few times, but I saw pretty quickly what the program was all about. Simcha Jacobovici would go around talking with others about events that seemed to fit all too nicely into

See Evidence for Speciation.

There are no "giant leaps" between species. Variations are small, but they accumulate over time.

Have you done any research on the "Triassic" period? It is exactly what I'm refering to. And I know the argument that there were no giant leaps, however, by making that statement you have to eliminate the Triassic period from the equation. The belief of adaptive speciation (refering in this case to your point above) is not held by all secular scientist, in fact many argue Quantum evolution.

Not any more insulting than claiming Evolution is an impossibility to people who know better.

Your taking me out of context H2B. I never argued that evolution was impossible, it's not only possible, but is a fact. Of course your evolution and mine are two different things.

Wikipedia says otherwise, providing four different means by way of which speciation can occur without human intevention and has been observed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

It was mentioned on another thread that in contrast with Caucasians and Africans, Asians have a hard crusty grey kind of earwax. All three sub-species can still mate with one another. But clearly there are some adaptive traits that came along subsequent to migration/isolation of a genetic pool. (And clearly God did not create everyone in his own image because God's earwax can only be one color.) Is it not conceivable that at some point Asians and Caucasians/Africans, left to their own regions, would've adapted reproductive traits in such a way as not all of the groups could have mated with one another? And if they cannot mate, then wouldn't that make them different species?

From Websters....Speciation; the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution. In individual cases, it involves the splitting of a single evolutionary lineage into two or more genetically independent ones.

You are talking about a completely different evolution here. I'm talking about giant leaps in speciation (Macro-Evolution). We certainly know, and has been proven, that much smaller leaps like you've mentioned are true.

Like what?

I gave an example about an hour ago, and it goes right along with my point about speciation. It's a simple one yet it's very difficult to argue from a Macro-evolutionary standpoint... Question: Where is the fossil record of giant leaps between species?

Now, that

And regular scientists don't separate them that way. Speciation occurs when evolution prevents the production of fertile offspring, and that's also been proven.

Regular Scientist? How about we say "mainstream" scientist. The reason I say that is that I'm kind of a creationism vs evolution nut, and I read a lot of journals about the subject, and you might be suprised at the number of scientist that have moved toward creationism over the last 15 years. I'm not saying their moving to Christianity, but the science of creationism.

As far as speciation is concerned... I'm not sure what your talking about. The speciation I've been talking about is the process of formation of a new species from an existing one, and that has not been proven, in fact there's almost zero evidence of it, and that's being generous.

First, there's no "micro" or "macro" evolution. Second, if evolution is true, it doesn't matter where the first cell/whatever came from. But chances are the first cell/whatever evolved.

Incorrect... Creationist scientist seperated what is known as "Micro" (a term that evolutionary scientist coined in the 20's) into two terms "Macro" & "Micro" in order to help laymen understand two very different processes. Macro represents huge jumps in "Speciation", while Micro is (which is proven by the way) represents a completely different subject.

But all evidence indicates that it evolved.

No it doesn't... While it can spur good strong debate, there is a plethora of evidence to the contrary.

Really? I've read quite a bit of mathematics that shows how simple evolution really is. All you need is an imperfect replicator and some sort of survival filter, and evolution comes out the other side. If you've got some mathematical proof that evolution is impossible, I'll help you win a Nobel prize.

Like I mentioned to Niche, I believe he was saying that something had to make the something that made the something, otherwise where did it come from. I certainly don't think that his theory disproves evolution, but I agree with his point. It's simple, but makes sense.

Humans can synthesize single-celled organisms in labs that replicate conditions of the early Earth.

I think his point was, where did the "single-celled organism" intially come from?

And those disproofs are . . ? Who discovered them? Where were they discovered? Can you name any scientific journals where these disproofs can be found?

And no, I am not kidding. Are you?

First of all, I would suggest doing some unbiased research on the subject of Macro-evolution (I'm assuming your familiar with the term). Secondly, it's impossible to discuss all of the details here because of the subjects depth. However, one significant example would be the almost complete lack of a fossil record reflecting evolution between species.

Edit: I also agree with lockmat below that the concept of evolution as determined by Darwin (we were created by the primordial ooze) is impossible.

Darwin pretty much blew that story out of the water. At least he got the ball rolling. Science has proven that Evolution and not Creationism as our origins.

Your kidding right? Science has NOT proven Macro-evolution, in fact as we go, we're finding more to disprove it's theory.

Also, how can the bible be used to substantiate/give evidence to the existence of the supernatural since it is not a factual book?

One of the ways the Bible proves itself to be inspired by God is prophecy in both testaments. I really don't want to get involved in the debate, but when studied, Biblicle prophecy can be astounding. Another point that scholars will use is the sheer amount of manuscript evidence of the New Testament. The Greek manuscripts alone are over 5000 in number, with Homer coming in 2nd with just a few hundred.

Happy B-Day bro...

If I remember correctly, it was close to Sugarland. I passed by it just last week.

This isn't in Sugarland, it's in West Houston, on the Beltway 8 between I-10 & 290 (1 block north of Clay).

This is why we loved having our Gritty Kitties smuch those pesky mice. One used to pounce on them and snap off the head and leave at my door step as a token of appreciation. Sometimes only the heads would be positioned perfectly looking up but with no eyes. The kitty must have thought they were mud bugs.

Good kitty!

LOL! I had my new (outdoor) kitty bring one to my front door the other day. Good Kitty...

Are you sure that's not a common lizard that was addapting it's color to the chair? I thought the green lizards were camelians.

Do they eat rats and mice? Really??? That would be brilliant, as it would save me the karma of killing them myself. We have a huge rat / mouse problem because of the bayou, but I can't bring myself to put out poison and kill them. If that little water snake wants to take on one of those rats, more power to him. I'd be ecstatic.

Oh yeah, I've seen them feast on them several times. I used to kill them (water snakes) not knowing what they were until I encountered one that was gourging himself with a very large rat. I've actually seen them go after small turtles to. I've also started putting cat food outside my back door to get the neighborhood cats to hang out at night, and it has worked like a charm. My rat and mouse population has dwindled down to almost nothing.

Oh, I don't know. It's just a couple seats shy of 15,000.

Semi-major acts is code for washed up formerly popular bands. Normally, they are booked at the 6,500 seat Reliant Arena. Guess I'll have to go to Sugarland to see Marilyn Manson now.

DON"T KILL IT! My house backs up to a bayou, and I have those watersnakes all the time, and what makes them great is they eat rats and mice. I've had a few cotton mouths and their easy to identify. their heads are more triangular (viper), and their generally a black/dark brown. Those I kill.