Posted on 01/26/2006 3:31:41 AM PST by Pharmboy
Yeah, I need to get busy, too. Have a good afternoon.
I wonder what its diet would have been.
Don't have that problem with this "chicken-mouth."
I really hate when they evolve into an annoying kids show.
Do they have that in size 38L?
Careful... evolution depends on kind-after-kind, too. Requires it, in fact.
As for me, I dunno how it all worked. I wasn't there. But I'm fairly certain that nothing in science threatens God. I don't think it worries him at all. So... it doesn't bug me either.
Keen eye! I believe they are first cousins although some say they are brothers. Teddy is the black sheep of the family.
Well, I don't consider apes to humans "kind after kind".
No one asserts "apes" as they are now, evolved into "humans" as they are now. To say that evolution proposes that any animal gave birth to a new species one morning is distortion of the truth.
Two parents give birth to a child that is similar and related to each parent, but identical to neither one. Outward appearance is only the most obvious way to compare and contrast the differences... but outward appearance is perhaps the most wildly variable of traits. Look at how radically different the various breeds of dogs can be, for example. All were bred from original wild canines that didn't look like any of them do now.
How about Eden to Chinese or African or Swedish? A european couple will not have a squirrel but nor will they have a chinese baby. Kind after kind. Kind after kind includes basic rules of genetics but it does not-- nor does it need to-- say anything about genetic variation over time. Whether given enough time the beginning and later individuals are different enough to be different "species"? Of course they could. "Species" is man's categorization, not God's.
Yes, but a canine is a canine. I believe humans were created as humans.
The age is determined by geological dat based on the sediment in which the fossil is found.
The "fleshy parts" can be very closely approximated on the basis of marks for muscle attachments on the bones.
The realtionship to other species can be roughly determined by osteological features.
Imagination, yes, but a lot of fact enters into it also.
And both humans and apes are primates... farther removed from each other than are wolves and dogs, but people and some species of apes appear related nonetheless, with features that on the surface look more similar than a wolf does to a chihuahua... It is tempting, but not meaningful, to compare only our outward appearance.
I believe humans were created as humans.
I know you believe that... trouble is you only believe that because you want to believe you are not of the natural world but of God's, as if the natural world is not also of God. And you believe it because it was written that way by a man a long time ago in a land far away in a book not meant to be scientific. Do you believe God literally reached down and removed a rib from Adam to make Eve?
"Do you believe God literally reached down and removed a rib from Adam to make Eve?"
Yes. Do you believe we descended from apes?
Do you believe we descended from apes?
Modern apes? no... But you know that and you're bing deliberately obtuse. We did not descend from modern apes, but I believe we may have both come from a common ancestor that was similar, but not exactly like, that which we've become now.
A line of decendency. Branches leave the main trunk of the tree different from each other.
And you know what Darwin thought about different races, right? You agree with him?
I don't know what he thought about races. Tell me.
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.