Posted on 05/04/2005 12:32:23 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
Caught in the act of evolution, the odd-looking, feathered dinosaur was becoming more vegetarian, moving away from its meat-eating ancestors.
It had the built-for-speed legs of meat-eaters, but was developing the bigger belly of plant-eaters. It had already lost the serrated teeth needed for tearing flesh. Those were replaced with the smaller, duller vegetarian variety.
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
uh... sounds more reasonable than it being proof that they were once lizards.
Flood maybe? Things tend to gather in one place when they're underwater...
Oh but no, couldn't have been. Must be a dinosaur graveyard. Or they were traveling together to find the promised land... or...
I was just answering your question where they fit in the equine family. Go use google yourself.
A successful preditor focuses on one individual ("cutting one from the herd") because that one individual will eventually wear out.
The stripes are an adaptation used (by the herd collectively) because it makes a particular animal hard to follow by a given preditor, making this "cutting" process difficult.
I could see how such a pattern would easily evolve, in that those without such a pattern would get eaten and not have babies.
Your ignorance make you and those who argue with you look silly and stupid. If you want to debate, at least take the trouble to find out what your opponent really says.
Evolution gives a better idea? You still have to explain how something comes from nothing. How morality, personality, physical and chemical and biological order, mind, and intellect arises from ... their exact opposites (as seen in the natural state of chaos).
Talk about blind faith. But of course, you can't see that.
I spent many years learning the stuff... funny how we conservatives can think the Publick screwels are right on this one issue, and wrong on everything else.
If you want to see the evolution of horses from reptiles, you can trace it for yourself here. There's plenty of evidence for that as well.
Your post did not make sense.
Or are you just re-hashing the point I, myself, made about how poorly-written the article was?
Funny, you don't seem to know squat now.
Besides, it really doesn't matter what I look like. The facts speak for themselves for those who actually want to look at them.
The main issue continues to be:
Since no one, neither creationists nor evolutionists, has explained HOW something has arisen from nothing, other to say either "God did it" or "evolution must have" - the choice, at least for now, comes down to:
1. BY FAITH believing in natural causes
OR
2. BY FAITH believing in a transcendent intellect which created it all.
There is no third option.
AFTER making one of those choices, one then should ask themselves WHY, in the absence of scientific evidence for something arising from nothing, do you, as an individual, choose what you choose?
Well there are plenty of you who are educated far beyond your IQ as well.
BTW I should have said I spent enough years being indoctrinated with the stuff. And still, I wonder how many people agree the public schools are going downhill... except... in this one little pet area....
I didn't say anything about Genesis. I follow scientific evidence. Threfor O.J. did it and darwin didn't.
Can you show me a biology/science/evolution book that states anything similar to that?
I wasn't talking about the way you look, but about the way you argue. It's not pretty.
The two options you present are not mutually exclusive.
Everything is ultimately natural, even the existence of God.
Evolution is simply a forensic branch of biology, dealing with the genology of living things. It's neither pro nor anti religion.
You know, I more and more believe this obsession with darwin's preposterous suggestion is based almost wholly on resistance to ANY Higher Power.
"You still have to explain how something comes from nothing."
Come on, you know better than that.
The theory of natural selection has nothing to do with the moment of creation, and that point is a straw-man lie created by people who wish to set up an easy-to-discredit argument.
The entirety of the theory of natural selection is this: those with traits that are best suited to the environment they are in, live and have babies that pass on, and potentially reinforce, that trait.
As environments and situations change, the traits that matter can change.
This process, taken over many, many, years often results in branches of family trees of animals.
It has nothing to do with how it all started.
Me, personally, I believe the God of Abraham said, "Let there be Light." And then there was a Big Bang.
Science does resist being told that natural events require supernatural intervention. Phere is scarcely any phenomenon from volcanos to the flight of an arrow that has not at one time in recorded history been attributed to divine intervention.
"You know, I more and more believe this obsession with darwin's preposterous suggestion is based almost wholly on resistance to ANY Higher Power."
Horse hockey.
It's just that many, many Christians (myself included) do not twist Genesis incorrectly like Creationists do to fit their preconceived world few.
The problem is that Creationists need to learn Hebrew.
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.