Posted on 08/02/2004 3:58:04 PM PDT by Renfield
It's called humor. Ever seen "the Great outdoors"?
Leg remnants? Or something else you don't understand?
Well, yes I do presume. So your God likes to confuse his precious creatures by sticking inappropriate features into animals?
He sounds like a little boy with an ant farm, torturing the ants. I'm glad I'm an atheist, because I sure don't like the idea of living in aa universe run by an omnipotent seven-year old.
If we could scientifically prove the existence of God, he wouldn't be God, now would he?
Given the millions of animals on the face of the planet, surely you would be able to find one living animal group that is observably in transition.
Everthing alive on the planet today could be a transitional species. Problem is, we don't know exactly what they might be transitioning into, since we can't see into the future. However, some marine biologists think that Atlantic and Pacific Killer Whales are transitioning into different species. Similarly, the King Cheetah may be an evolving form of Cheetah.
Is he tricking you, or are you tricking yourself?
Lighten up.
First, you Creationists claim that evolution doesn't make sense because it's inefficient. After all, why would an all-powerful being spend billions of years making man in his own image when he could have done it in a nanosecond?
Then, you claim that God uses inefficient design to trick man.
You can't have it both ways.
Re: bats.
Give it up ModernMan... back several posts, Havoc thinks that he should see this: "a bat with no wings, and then multiple stages of the bat with non-working wings, then shazam, wings."
A bat with no wings, dear Havoc, is not a bat. A bat with non working wings, dear Havoc never existed as a reproductive line of bats. Surely the flaps of skin between the fingers (Unlike bird wings, because, y'know, bats aren't birds... or rodents) gave proto bats an advantage. Say, oh I don't know, gliding. Like those other insectivore mammals that glide? Come to think of it, flying squirrels and flying foxes must give creationists fits.
Oh, who am I kidding.
Machines don't mate, exchange DNA or mutate. They are not a good analogy for evolution.
RWP made a mistake. Surely we know it was Satan who tricked us (and continues to do so) with those darn fossils he stuck in the ground all over the place!
/blasphemous sarcasm
My name is RobRoy, not "you Creationists." And yes, I CAN have it both ways. God is the most creative force in AND OUTSIDE the universe. He is efficient when he wants to be, and inefficient when he doesn't.
Have you ever taken the long road on you motorcycle. Sometimes getting there most efficiently isn't the point.
You forget God is a person, and the reason for His universe is His pleasure, not ours. Course, sometimes it's fun to go fishing with Daddy, especially because He enjoys it too.
No, I think it's clear in the discussion what has been talked about. Quite clear in fact. You ignore the discussion and try to make this some other discussion you've had. Sorry you can't fit the world into a box. I think I've been rather clear as to what we're looking for here. For you to show systems growing into a species creating a change. That is a transition - not a fully developed species seperate to itself. A transition between species. Show the fish growing legs, arms and lungs, etc. You can't. But that is a transition. We're all aware of the dodges built into your arguments - they're there for a reason - so you think you can't be put on the spot.
Of course, Creationists also fail to notice that bat wings are different than bird wings. So, we've already established that the Creator is inefficient (vestigial bones in snakes and whales) and now we can see that he forgets old designs and goes to the trouble of re-inventing the wheel, or the wing. Since bats evolved after birds, why not just use the bird wing structure?
>>Machines don't mate, exchange DNA or mutate. They are not a good analogy for evolution.<<
They certainly are not if you do not believe in a designer of both. If you do, then the analogy is darned sound. The two were created similarly on purpose. Why not? Do you have evidenc to prove that could not be the way it happened, or is it just a "logical conclusion" on your part. If I did not believe in the one true God, I would share your "logical conclusion." But my personal relationship with Him precludes me from making that logical conclusion as though it was fact. Possible? Yes. But not the only intellectually sound choice. Which is actually back to the point of the article which prompted this whole thread.
So, God is flighty. Got it. For a being that is supposed to be all-knowing and all powerful, he sure is a poor biological engineer.
You forget God is a person, and the reason for His universe is His pleasure, not ours
Okay, so God gets pleasure out of messing with us? Seems like a silly, immature thing for an all-powerful being to do.
Do you get pleasure out of confusing ants? It's pretty much the same thing.
Yes, but remember, it's okay when a creationist does it. It "doesn't count" when they use insults to attack evolution or supporters of evolution.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. What a dodge. No, but it makes good press when you can't prove your case. Instead of looking for a transitional - an actual transitional, you point to everything and make a wild unsustainable claim that everything is in transition. Should be easy to point out then, show us a group of Human beings that are growing gills in their bodies out of need for them. Should be cake.. Oh, wait, I forgot, the theory has morphed and changed directions so many times that we ain't on the same page anymore. Forgive me, how silly of me. Forgot that all transitions now just leap out of the ether fully formed and with no discernable evidence of what they transitioned from. Makes it handy to the theory. How about if I theorize your past and lock you up for it? Do you suppose something more than a theory would need to be involved? Or shall I just send the paddy wagon to collect you and be done with it. Oh, you want a crowd of people to verify my theory - sure, how about a bunch of computer scientists since I'll be generating it on a computer.. They can come in and offer supporting theories and laugh at you when you dare contradict them. Maybe even tweak you a little when you pretentiously claim to be innocent. Evidence? Bwahahahaha. Can't you see our theory lines up with the facts. Are you blind. Shut up and put the cuffs on.
Small, exposed pieces of bones attached to a hip. OR, we can go your way: we just don't understand it!! Your argument is useable in every situation possible ( i.e. it's not raining. You just don't understand it), you realize this, no?
And, going from there, let's figure out how much we can advance mankind by simply stating "You simply don't understand it" to everything?
Rrepudiation of my earlier recantation of a placemarker.
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.