Posted on 07/05/2005 7:07:57 PM PDT by balrog666
OK, I'll allow that explanation. (again, Laymen's)
Lets go with... cat (earliest carnivores) to bear.
Now you're just being mean. ;)
Maybe you should take a deep-breath! The only lies we are talking about here would be those told and drawn by Mr. Haeckel, years ago, perpetuated by people like you and your atheist buddies. I'm sorry if the truth hurts. Why don't you cut and paste another 50+ paragraph post from talkorg or the P-thumb and calm down.
Genesis 1: [27]So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Not quite the end, actually. In Genesis 1:27 man is created on the sixth day. In Genesis 2:7 he creates man again. This is after the 7th day.
Genesis 2:
[1] Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
[2] And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
(snip)
[7] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
LOL! That's complete baloney.
Darwin never adopted Haeckel's "biogentic law," nor did most (or any scientifically prominent) evolutionists following. Darwin, indeed most scientists of the time period, adopted Von Baer's views which were directly contradictory to Haekel's. (See "Baer's Laws" in the link above, especially 3 and 4.)
Do your own text search of The Origin and other writings by Darwin if you don't believe me, and see for yourself who's embryological theories he cites. Haeckel never achieved anything close to the status of Von Baer wrt expertise in embryology, and the same is even more true for his "biogentic law".
How can "immeasurable dammage" be done by a theory that was never widely accepted, immediately challenged, and soon universally abandoned?!
Around 50 million years ago, cats broke off from common line of descent that would lead to canines and bears. Bears and dogs split around 30 or so million years ago. The last common ancestors for cats and bears was at the 50 million year mark.
If you're asking whether a modern cat could evolve into the bear family. No, that would be pretty much impossible.
"If you're asking whether a modern cat could evolve into the bear family. No, that would be pretty much impossible."
How do you know that?
You mean to tell me, that in another 20 million years, cats will still be cats? Or is it possible that they could change?
Or did you mean to say "implausible"?
Then we could talk if that's what you meant.
More admissions of a fraud:
After this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow - culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of 'forgery,' for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed.
Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Ticknor and Fields, New York, 1982, p. 204
In 20 million years, cats will likely have evolved, but not into bears. Could even be a bear-like (in appearance) species, depending upon selection pressures. But not into actual species of bears as they exist today.
Both, actually. In 20 million years they will still be cats due to the fact that they descended from a population of contemporary cats.
However, they will be cats only in the same sense that humans, mice and aardvarks are still mammals or humans, mice, aardvarks and crocodiles are still vertebrates and so on.
*opens the door to the thread and is burned by flames that jump out of the screen*
Yikes...
A cat species would have to get a set of mutations that would "turn" it into a bear species. Possible? Well, anything is possible. Likely? Not really.
You mean to tell me, that in another 20 million years, cats will still be cats? Or is it possible that they could change?
20 million years from now, cats could be extinct with no descendants. Cats could continue to exist and have descendant species who aren't classified as cats. Or, cats could be an evolutionary dead end that survives for another 20 million years but does not lead to the rise of new non-cat species.
All of these things have happened to various species in the past.
See post #52.
Would you like me to show you a copy of Hitler's private handwritten notes, where he credited the Bible for his notion of Racial Purity, but never mentioned Darwin? How about the SS uniform button that is imprinted with the slogan "God Is With Us"?
Or would you like to drop the usual creationist canard that somehow evolutionary biology was Hitler's inspiration?
Or even a step away from evolution: secular thought and reasoning. Hmm, yup, got another party just east of that first one that came to mind.
You obviously have something against thinking and reasoning, but in any case, that "another party just East of that first one" explicitly rejected Darwinian evolution, so perhaps your attempted point falls flat on its face.
Try some new material instead of the usual propaganda.
Or, and I know this is a shockingly original suggestion for a creationist to consider, perhaps you might want to try just discussing the actual science for a change instead of trying to smear it through cheap innuendo.
*Cue the Bud*weiser music*
For all that you do, this quote's for you:
After this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow - culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of 'forgery,' for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed.
~Haeckel
Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Ticknor and Fields, New York, 1982, p. 204
At least he took solace in the fact that his buddies were doing it too, so that made it okay. The culprit.
Imagine my surprise.
And it's the same problem I ahve with the first toon.
Do tell.
It's incomplete and arrogant.
And creationists are *never* that, certainly...
I disagree with the simple statement "h2o freezes at 32 degrees farhenheit" based on this: You aren't accounting for pressure.
Oh, right, the cartoonist should have put a whole chapter of chemistry into that panel, just to make it cover all bases instead of the standard conditions. And my car's speedometer should adjust for Relativity.
Yeah, that would have made the cartoon *much* funnier and more relevant. Uh huh.
Half-assed statements like that, that are then used to smear other people are crude, deceitful, and igotistical.
Missed the real point again, I see.
I am yet to meet any one who believes that the Bible says that bacteria can't adapt.
We covered this already. Did you not bother to read my reply, or did you utterly fail to understand any of it, so you decided to just repeat your original irrelevant complaint?
The astute reader will note that *nothing* in MacDorcha's post addresses *anything* I actually wrote in my very lengthy post to him, other than to nitpick about the cartoon.
I am also yet to find one who disagrees with the fundamental idea of gravity.
That's nice. Now feel free to go find someone who ever claimed or implied that they did, because *I* sure didn't.
I DO, however, find Darwinists who are willing to put forth only enough effort into making alternate thoughts look childish... but only to a child.
What in the heck are "alternate thoughts"? Attempt to remain coherent. Ask one of those insightful children for assistance if need be.
Now did you want to actually address anything I actually wrote? Or do you just want to ramble some more?
Those would be thoughts by George Westinghouse ... as opposed to thoughts by Thomas Edison, which were "direct thoughts."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.