Posted on 02/05/2005 11:37:51 AM PST by gobucks
No wonder this thread is ponderous! Can't you read without twisting things ass backwards?
"I don't knows whats it is but I'm agin it!"
Learn the real title before you to try play with the big kids.
I'm saying there is a whole fossil record of animals preceding the whale who demonstrate diminishing limb structures. You screwed up on the second law interpretation, here is another example of where you are myopic.
At some point, your strict anti-evolutionist interpretation of the world will crack and fail. I'd like to suggest to you that this should not affect your faith in God at all, that there are mixtures of creationism and evolution that coexist quite easily. But you will have to open your eyes to understand the bigger picture, and that will be disturbing to say the least.
And moreover that principle is not a historical principle but it is one that should be taught in civics classes.
If God is an invention of humanity then anything attributed to God is also an invention of humanity.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/mpm_whale_limb.html
That's a link to a discussion of the vestigial pelvic girdle in the modern humback whale. I will look for earlier fossil pics with more developed systems.
So obviously, they didn't think it was important to list those animals.
And you say mylogic is bad?
From another source:
[What, then, does the fossil record reveal? Early whales, as exemplified by Ambulocetus natans, show well-formed fully functional hind legs. Two other whales--Indocetus ramani and Rodhocetus kasrani--appear later in the fossil record and show diminished although still perfectly functional hind limbs. Basilosaurus isis, finally, had very tiny hind limbs the utility of which is unknown. In the case of Rodhocetus, at least, where the pelvis is well-preserved, there can be no doubt but that the legs were attached to the pelvic girdle and that they were functional. As P. Gingerich et al note in their analysis of the fossil whale, "The pelvis of Rodhocetus articulates with the vertebral column by normal mammalian sacral synarthroses, meaning that Rhodocetus could support its body weight on land." ("New whale from the Eocene of Pakistan and the origin of cetacean swimming," Nature 368, 1994, p. 847). ]
Fungi aren't listed at all.
Actually, I'm not anti-evolution, but do believe that God created this universe for a purpose. From the literature that I have read (both in public school and on my own), I can only come to one conclusion.....creation seems more rational.....more believable and seems to take less faith. As I stated in previous posts, everything that I have read about Darwin seems to contradict itself in the end (especially his own experiments with pigeons and fruit flys).
I also recently read that the moth experiment was absolute bogus (this has always been a halmark of the evolutionist agend). The photo, of this touted classic illustration of natural selection, was found to be faked (the photo of the white moth against the soot colored tree). In fact, the article went on to say that the pepered moths fly about in the upper branches of the trees and don't perch on the trunks at all. In fact, Theodore Sargent of the University of Mass. admitted that he glued dead samples of the moths onto the tree trunks for a NOVA documentary. The respected journal Nature says the moth example, once the "prize horse in our stable" to illustrate evolution by natural selection must be thrown out.
Me too. I'm pro-choice and think Roe v Wade should get overturned.
Hmm.. A slight clarification: If the concept of God is an invention of humanity then any concept attributed to God is also an invention of humanity.
That post was the very first time I had heard about Annie.
My comments since then refer to the fact that after all these years, my 'exposure' to evolution is one that has been quite controlled. The parts that are nice, those get published and put out.
The stuff that is not convenient to Darwinists, it is omitted from the discussion. My point is this: why is it only on FreeRepublic that I learned about this stuff? Why is it that the shaded deliverance of evolution is tolerated?
Well, let me suggest the second law does not exclude evolution, but neither does it exclude the existence of "greater" entities than ourselves. The difference between creation and evolution also becomes confused once you start looking at string theory a physical causality.
Our form of life. Do you know what forms might arise in other universes with different physical laws?
(any closer to the sun and we would burn and any farther away and we would freeze).
Oooooh, a swing and a miss!
Do you believe that all the intricacies of the universe are just the result of happen-stance?
Would you believe I just happened to pick up this Grand Slam bridge hand!
No, my question refers to Creation. When were fungi created?
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.