this isn't necessarily true... in oklahoma when a juvenile becomes pregnant she is considered and emancipated minor and can make the same decisions any adult could.Quote:
Originally Posted by freeby4me
Printable View
this isn't necessarily true... in oklahoma when a juvenile becomes pregnant she is considered and emancipated minor and can make the same decisions any adult could.Quote:
Originally Posted by freeby4me
What are my rights to abortion in Oklahoma?
If you are under 18 years old and want an abortion, you are required to ask your parent/s or guardian for permission, and tell them. Ask your abortion provider for the latest legal info, or call the National Abortion Federation Hotline at 1-800-772-9100, Monday–Friday, 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.; Saturday–Sunday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).
There is a 24-hour mandatory waiting period in your state before a teen can get an abortion.
Your state does not provide Medicaid coverage for medically necessary abortions. If you need help paying for an abortion, call the National Abortion Federation Hotline at 1-800-772-9100, Monday–Friday, 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.; Saturday–Sunday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) or click here. The hotline can tell you where and how to get financial help for an abortion in the U.S.
http://www.sexetc.org/state/?state_us_id=OK#m
I was walking out the door earlier so I couldnt say everything. I was saying that for two points, 1 being he has used the whole science vs bible thing and 2 he said that for a Fact that the sky was blue. Thats why I said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubblescc
All a girl has to do is go to court and get emancipated if she has medical proof of her pregnancy. She has to prove that she can care for herself on her own (job or apply or state aid etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lasher
Also... parental notification is required, but consent is not enforced, but that is currently being challenged at the state capitol.
I am just about done talking with you I never said that IF a woman throws it out there NOONE will ever love her. I was using a generalization, there are LOTS of people out there to whom this applies.Quote:
Originally Posted by freeby4me
And you think I make dumb comments?
ARe you people afraid to take my words at face value?
It doesnt surprise me when people say that everyone reads the Bible differently when some of you cant even read MODERN english.
I am not really sure what you mean by science VS the Bible. The bible is supported by science MOST of the time. My problem lies with evolutionary Science.Quote:
Originally Posted by freeby4me
They have made a crucial error, they started with the ANSWERS. Then as more discoveries were made if they didnt support these PRECONCEIVED answers, they either ignored it entirely or questioned the motives and practices of the researchers.
This has always been a problem in Science that to eliminate the need for religion or God many Scientist adhere rigidly and DOGMATICALLY to a form of naturalism that isnt very far removed from any organized religion.
Just one quick search on neanderthal man pulled up these links
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v1i12f.htm
http://unasked.com/Question5023.htm
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4001305AAKZU4K
http://home.primus.com.au/bonno/evolution8.htm
MANY scientists question how ANY naturalistic causes are sufficient to explain the ORIGINS of life. And MANY scientists now believe that Neanderthal man and Homo erectus existed SIDE BY SIDE. If this turns out to be true, then neanderthal man cannot be a progenitor of homo erectus and they are 2 DISTINCT species.
Anyone who accepts all they are told UNCRITICALLY, is naive. HIstory, civics and yes even Science being taught in schools is biased and in some cases FALSE.
I dont question that MOST of science is true and serves a purpose, but when anyone says that I came from a single celled organism I can only say PROVE IT. To this day NO one has.
I also found a great snippet of Kirk Cameron the actor from a debate he had with some atheists it actually shows an atheist after, admitting that he didnt know what to believe anymore. Because he had ASSUMED that there were proofs of species to sppecies evolution. This is patently false.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNLvXllvvsA
Now once again I ask who is stupid? Why do you feel the need to call names when someone has a differing opinion from your own.
i know i have kept posting these same links time after time in debates such as these.........but i've found them to be most in tune with my line of thinking. if nothing else, some of you should check out the slideshows here: starting with this one:http://www.godandscience.org/love/sld001.html
and then more
http://www.godandscience.org/slideshows.html
and then if you feel like reading and comparing what Christian scientists and creationists say about evolution and much much more, check this site out. very informative. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
be sure to check out the article topic index about half way down the page. they actually support a lot of scientific facts, but obviously dismiss some such as carbon dating, darwinism, etc. one thing i've learned that can not be refuted is if evoultion is the case, there should be a coexisting of certain species but that is not the case according to fossils. it's like all or none and if that's the case, then evolution can not be. there should be lots more in between fossils of species. i don't think i got that point across to well but i know what i'm talking about lol.
You mean there's a 'missing link' or 'catalyst'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Njean31
not really THE missing link...but many missing links between species forming. if evolution was everything it's claimed to be (i believe in certain aspects of it but not all of it) then there should be alot more fossils of species during the process. shoot, i can't explain it?Quote:
Originally Posted by pepperpot
here, i found something that explains better what i'm trying to say. intermediate forms, yeah that's what i was trying to say.
How Fossils Overturned Evolution:
Millions of Proofs that Refute Darwinism
Were We exhausted by the first creation? Yet they are dubious about the new creation.
We created man and We know what his own self whispers to him. We are nearer to him than his jugular vein.
(Qur'an, 50:15-16)
The Origin of Species According to the Fossil Record: CREATION
he theory of evolution claims that all the living species on Earth descended, by means of a series of minute changes, from a common ancestor. To state the theory another way, living species are not separated from one another by absolute differences, but exhibit an inner continuity. However, actual observations in nature have indicated that there is no such continuity as claimed. What we see in the living world are different categories of organisms, separated by vast and distinct differences. Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology, admits this in his book Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution:
Although an almost incomprehensible number of species inhabit Earth today, they do not form a continuous spectrum of barely distinguishable intermediates. Instead, nearly all species can be recognized as belonging to a relatively limited number of clearly distinct major groups...1
Evolution is a process alleged to have taken place in the past, and fossil discoveries are the only scientific source that can tell us about the history of life. Pierre Grassé says this on the subject:
Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms. ... Only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms.2
In order for the fossil record to shed light on this subject, we need to compare what the theory of evolution predicts against the actual fossil discoveries.
According to the theory, all living things have descended from various "ancestral" forms. A living species that existed before gradually turned into another species, and every present species emerged in this way. According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. And a few of them must certainly have been fossilized.
For example, half-fish, half-amphibian creatures that still bore fish-like characteristics but which had also acquired certain amphibious features must have existed. And reptile-birds with both reptilian and avian features must have emerged. Since these creatures were in a process of transition, they must have been deformed, deficient and flawed. These theoretical creatures claimed to have existed in the distant past are known as "intermediate forms."
If any such living species really did exist, then they should number, in the millions, or even billions. Abundant traces of them should be found in the fossil record, because the number of intermediate forms should be even greater than the number of animal species known today. The geologic strata should be full of the remains of fossilized intermediate forms. Darwin himself admitted this. As he wrote in his book, The Origin of Species:
If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.3
Yet Darwin was aware that no intermediate forms had yet been found, and regarded this as a major dilemma facing his theory. In the chapter "Difficulties on Theory," he wrote:
... Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.4
In the face of this difficulty, the only explanation Darwin could offer was that the fossil records of his time were insufficient. He claimed that later, when the fossil records had been examined in detail, the missing intermediate forms would definitely be found.
The Sufficiency of the Fossil Record
In the face of the lack of intermediate forms, Darwin claimed, 140 years ago, that they were not available then but new research would definitely unearth them. But has it? To put the question another way, after looking at the results of all the fossil research carried out to date, should we accept that intermediate forms never actually existed—or should we await the results of still further excavations?
A bony fossil fish dating back some 210 million years.
A fossil frog, approximately 53-33.7 million years old.
A fossil spider, some 355 to 295 million years old.
A trionyx (tortoise) fossil, approximately 300 million years old.
An echinoderm (starfish) fossil dating back some 135 million years.
A fossil crab approximately 55 to 35 million years old.
The answer to that question of course depends on the wealth of the fossil record we already have available. Looking at the paleontological data, we see that the fossil records are extraordinarily rich, with literally billions of fossil specimens obtained from different regions of the world.5 From examining these fossils, experts have identified some 250,000 different species, many of which bear an extraordinarily close resemblance to the 1.5 million species living today.6 (Of the 1.5 million species alive today, fully 1 million are insects.) Yet among these countless fossil specimens, no supposed intermediate form has ever been found. It seems impossible for the intermediate forms, that have not been discovered despite the rich fossil records, to be unearthed in new excavations.
T. Neville George, the Glasgow University professor of paleontology, admitted as much many years ago:
There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is outpacing integration … The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.7
All living things on Earth came into existence suddenly with all their complex and superior features. In other words, they were created. Absolutely no scientific evidence suggests that living things are descended from one another, as evolutionists maintain.
Niles Eldredge, a well-known paleontologist and director of the American Museum of Natural History, states that Darwin's claim to the effect that "the fossil record is deficient, which is why we cannot find any intermediate forms" is invalid:
The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: The gaps we see [in the fossil record] reflect real events in life's history – not the artifact of a poor fossil record.8
In his 1991 book, Beyond Natural Selection, Robert Wesson says that the gaps in the fossil record are real and phenomenal:
The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, ... genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.9
The argument put forward 140 years ago that "no intermediate forms have been found yet, but they will be in the future" is no longer tenable today. The fossil record is sufficiently rich to account for the origin of life, and it reveals a concrete picture: Different species all emerged independently of one another, suddenly, and with all their different structures. No imaginary evolutionary "intermediate forms" existed among them.
No, you did....there's huge 'steps' missing in the 'order' of things.......what caused these 'changes' and brought them up to the 'next level'?....Quote:
Originally Posted by Njean31
here's the rest of it:
Facts Revealed by the Fossil Record
What is the origin of the "evolution-paleontology" relationship that has been installed in society's subconscious? Why is it that when the fossil record is mentioned, most people assume that there's a definite, positive link between this record and Darwin's theory? The answers are set out in an article in the magazine Science:
A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.10
A 24-million-year-old caterpillar fossil embedded in amber is proof that caterpillars have always existed in exactly the same form—and never underwent evolution.
A cicada nymph, 50 to 45 million years old.
N. Eldredge and Ian Tattershall make the following important comment on that matter:
That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ... prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.11
The American paleontologist S. M. Stanley describes how this fact, revealed by the fossil record, is ignored by the Darwinist dogma that dominates the scientific world, and how others are also encouraged to ignore it:
The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured. ... "The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin's stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation." ... their story has been suppressed.12