Posted on 02/08/2005 3:50:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Why, do you really *enjoy* horse manure that much? And yes, I can document that assessment to any level of detail you'd like.
Let's look at one of the opening paragraphs, for example:
Yet the fossil has absolutely no connection with the whale. Its skeleton turned out to be a four-footed structure, similar to that of common wolves. It was found in a region full of iron ore, and containing fossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises, and crocodiles. In other words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one.This is just.... moronic. Yes, "its skeleton turned out to be a four-footed structure" -- THAT'S THE FREAKING POINT. That in no way supports their opening claim that "the fossil has absolutely no connection with the whale", and only an idiot (or an anti-evolutionist propagandist, but I repeat myself) would think that it did.
Even more jaw-droppingly stupid is the next sentence: "It was found in a region full of iron ore," (um, yeah, so f***ing what?) "and containing fossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises, and crocodiles. In other words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one."
EARTH TO IDIOTS: snails, tortoises, and especially CROCODILES are SEMI-AQUATIC, you MORONS. How many crocodiles have you seen living in terrain *NOT* on the shore of some river, lake, or ocean?
For pete's sake, just how STUPID are these people? Crocodiles et al live PARTLY IN THE WATER, PARTLY ON LAND -- and gosh, SO DID THE ANCESTRAL WHALE being discussed. So by what brain fart did these imbeciles manage to take the presence of *crocodiles* as somehow a "disproof" of the scenario that the ancestral whale found in the same spot had a similar way of life?
The mind *boggles* at the ability of the anti-creationists to MISS THE POINT so badly.
And how can you be so enamored with such nonsense as to call it "just awsome"? Most gradeschool kids could have made more sense than that web page.
And not just their "misinterpretation of Scripture" -- they work overtime at misrepresenting science as well.
Perhaps you should refrain from name-calling if you are truly a Bible believing Christian.
Apparently not, actually.
What species will human kind become? Evolution works both ways, don't just look to the past, look to the future. What will the squirrel become? What will the bald eagle become?
"I don't want to argue this at length. I don't subscribe to your idea and you don't subscribe to mine. We're even."
No we are not even. I am a biologist and you are not. I am a Biblical scholar and you are not.
Ping
Being a Biblical scholar, are there parts of the Bible you consider to be merely figurative?
But then you'd never come here to post, and we'd miss you...
LOL!!
You missedit again!!
For over a century, evolutionists have been tellng us that whales came from the ancestor of the hippo, now they are telling us that hippos came from the whales ancestor!
And what I said earlier is still valid, you guys must think people are stupid or something, but dont you dare call it science.
Oh yeah? Well ... you got no evidence!!!
</creationism mode>
If God has a hand in the affairs of men, then why is it so hard to believe that God also has a hand in the affairs of animals?
God is the creator and author of the universe. If, as the Bible says, God knows the number of hairs on a man's head, and that nary a bird can fall from the sky without His knowledge, then why can you not accept that God also might have a hand in forming the traits of animals over a long period of time?
Where does it say in the Bible that God created animals which will never change one little bit?
I am touched!
How will the environment in the future be different from what it is currently? In what ways are the current anatomy and physiology of humans, squirrels, etc. insufficient to deal with these future environmental changes? If there are no environmental changes that a species can't deal with, then there's no selection pressure and therefore no major changes to a species. If there is a selection pressure, then the nature of that pressure must be known in order to determine the result of evolution of that species.
What is really frustrating is their ability to attack science with no scientific evidence whatsoever.
Even Bible interpretations take more knowledge than the AIG or ICR attacks on science. It just illustrates the sad state of affairs in science education.
Yeah! What he said! And also, it takes one to know one!
I think he's objecting to your "dramatic change" phrasing. While the end result XX million years down the road may look "dramatically" different from its distant ancestor, the phrase "dramatic *change*" sounds too much like the folks who expect that if evolution were true it would have to work by at some point having "a fish give birth to an elephant" or somesuch.
The actual *change* at any given point (i.e. generation to generation) is actually not very "dramatic" at all. It's only in the long run that all the smaller changes accumulate to the point of something "dramatically" modified from where it may have started.
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.