Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DittoJed2
Part A, why assume that it was a "mammal part" that was put in the whale? Why not assume that it was a part with purpose (like an eyeball) that whales and mammals happen to share since the part was DESIGNED for a specific purpose?

Because a whale is a mammal and has mammalian parts.

Part B. The fossil record does not show this. ["Why also put fossils in the rocks that seem to show land animals slowly losing their legs and becoming whales?"] It is your interpretation that some land animal lost its legs and became a whale, but there is no proof (and don't use the alleged hip bones inside the whale as evidence as those bones are not vestigial even today but assist in a very important process for the whale- reproduction).

Really jaw-dropping. So either you know nothing at all of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, or you only vaguely remember that there's an AiG naysaying article somewhere trying to dismiss it all on technicalities. Either way, ignorance of evidence is not absence of evidence.

Just because the designer did not design things the way the omniscient scientist would have liked for him to does not mean that it was a design flaw.

You can't infer much from the occasional appearance of design if nothing can be inferred from the absence of clear design intent.

Out for a while. I'll check back when I can, but I'm looking at a busy next few days.

2,166 posted on 08/22/2003 11:44:31 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2158 | View Replies ]


To: VadeRetro
Part A, why assume that it was a "mammal part" that was put in the whale? Why not assume that it was a part with purpose (like an eyeball) that whales and mammals happen to share since the part was DESIGNED for a specific purpose?

Because a whale is a mammal and has mammalian parts.

I knew that. Wasn't thinking. My original point stands though. You assume that the whales parts are somehow not what they were designed to be.

occasional appearance of design if nothing can be inferred from the absence of clear design intent.
OCCASIONAL APPEARANCE OF DESIGN??????? Puhlease! Everything appears designed in some way shape or form. The way the tides work, our distance from the sun, the intricate details in even the simplest of cells. That appears to you as something that happened by CHANCE???????? Give me a break!
2,173 posted on 08/22/2003 12:15:03 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2166 | View Replies ]

To: Doctor Stochastic; Junior; js1138; BMCDA; CobaltBlue; ThinkPlease; PatrickHenry; ...
Back from 5 days of relax.... err, I mean camping with 17 kids, moving the campsite twice, 85 degree weather in the middle of an open field cooking my brains out etc, etc.

I am one tired puppy, let the girls and the wife take a shower first, so now it is my turn.

Consider this a placemerker until I catch up, which will probably not be until Wednesday.

So, I'M BACK!! ;)
2,392 posted on 08/24/2003 7:56:55 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2166 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson