Re: Questions to Evolutionists

Creationists love that half-bird, half-reptile question. Unfortunately it only proves that they are completely stupid, because anyone who at least bothers to learn about evolution should know it doesn’t happen that way. Dumbasses.

I am not saying CA Xtian is like this..I don’t know “him” at all. But, my frustrations with people is that they DO NOT understand the ideas within the theory of evolution (mistaught?. And some Christians get ticked off when I compare their religious ideas of today with those of their “common ancestors.” Is there a (false) belief that the world/life is static that makes some feel secure?

“Is it possible that similarites in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?” Actually, I think Stephen Jay Gould answered yes. That’s why he chose to focus on obvious examples of “misdesign” – like the panda’s thumb.

I’d say that while it’s possible, it reduces the “almighty” creator to a pretty unimaginative designer. If you have infinite power, why repeat the same design elements over and over again? And why arrange things so that they appear to have evolved even though they haven’t? That’s deceitful.

http://mama.essortment.com/lungfish_rank.htm

Even better: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/sarco/dipnoi.html

Hi again. If you concede the unborn child is living, but not human, then you must concede that abortion murders a living entity (so you’d better watch your back for PETA!). But from the point of fertilization, you are fully human (your DNA says so!) and because everything reproduces after its own kind (dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have humans). So I feel it would be…

…a cop-out to consider an unborn child alive but not human. I would urge you to check back soon, as I will be delving into the scientific nature of the unborn child. My favorite resource on the matter is Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Questions by Randy Alcorn. He uses all kinds of facts and figures to support his claims, and I will try to use as many as I can. Thank you for your interest.

And about your entry: You say it’s not possible that we had a common Creator, but you fail to reason why it’s impossible. What’s your reasoning? And also, you say they’re sneaky questions, but I don’t agree. The question was posed “how” they became that way, so if there were intermediary creatures, then that answers the “how”. But then you bear the burden of proof to present any sort of…

…intermediary life-forms in the fossil record, of which I have not seen.

“You say it’s not possible that we had a common Creator, but you fail to reason why it’s impossible. What’s your reasoning?” Ah, this was a mild protest to the rhetorical question. Rhetorical in that asking if it’s “possible” that something occurred always has to be answered “yes” unless it’s logically impossible. The question just asked, “is it possible that there was a creator?” Yes.

You should watch the movie “Unlocking the Mystery of Life”. It’s pro-creationism of course, but you would find it interesting.

The ostrich is not a transitional animal because a) It’s alive today, so it can’t be a transitional animal. And b) Just because it walks doesn’t mean anything. The only reason it doesn’t fly is because it’s too heavy to fly. Does it have scales like a reptile or does it have gills like a fish?

Your cells are different, in that all of your cells make up the whole (you). Just as the unborn child has cells that make up him/her. The fact is that all the signs necessary for life are present from the beginning (including, but not limited to, cell division, locomotion, and even respiration). You are fully human right from the start.

Acorns and trees is a different scenario. That’s like squashing a caterpillar and claiming you just killed a butterfly. It exists as a slightly different creature. But the preborn child doesn’t. The only difference inside the womb is that you are still developing (as all mammals do) inside the womb. You don’t start as a clump of cells then suddenly become human once you leave the womb.

You are fully human from the time of fertilization.

Well..first off feathers are scales but a lot loger and lighter. they are of the same material and if you look reeeeeaaalll close you will see the lattice work is the same. Similar to how tusks are like teeth and antlers are like hair. reptiles just started to grow longer scales. Better insulation, no need to warm up under the sun, heart beats faster, you got yerself a bonified dino.

next, you got mamals. they have found reptiles that have VERY similar body components to mamals. Early reptiles had mamal like skulls (more than 2 holes in the jaw to allow muscle expansion) and they had reptile like skulls. The mamal like skulls which are also similar to birds allowed for bigger brains and better animal variation. That’s why the reptiles with more rigid skulls havnt changed much.

less variation in the design. The fossil records are full of cross over species, fish to amphibianss, prions to viruses and backteria, single celled organisms working as multi-celled organisms. The only problem is, it is imposssible to form a complete record of 3.5 billion years!!! But I don’t understand why evolution is such a hard concept. Is it because it takes away the arrogance that

that religion gives us? dominance and supremacy… I am honoured to be the top species, not because it was handed to me..but because my genetics kept us alive this long while countless others have failed. Evolution is a means to explain the obvious gradient which is life. Things change and change and like a beach, the sands are always shiffting. Nothing I see points to intelligent design.

I think you missed the point of the article. They weren’t intimidated by the eggs, because they knew it could lead to more dangerous things (as what happened at other churches). And they did say it was but a “small” taste of what Jesus went through (emphasis on small).

Good entry.

So.. if evolution didn’t occur, how can a liger exist? It does, it happens when a tiger and a lion have offspring together I thought God made them of their own kinds? How about the ‘wolphin?'(falsekiller whale/dolphin hybrid) How can it exist? Don’t you find it AWFUL PECULIAR THAT similiar creatures can breed? No, that’s right, you’ll just say “god made it that way” and dismiss the evidence

I’m sorry CAxtian. Not just the ostrich… but literally hundreds of interspecies hybrids exist giving strength to evolutionary claims.

http://www.messybeast.com/genetics/hybrid-mammals.html This site will play havoc with your notions of creationism. However, i’ve no doubt you’ll find a way to rationalize it within 15 seconds or less.

I think the observations of primitive peoples several thousand years ago can not even come close to the scrutiny of science over the past 150 years. In fact that is such a short period of time, imagine what we will uncover in the next 150 years? They had their time..now it’s time for logic and reason to win out of emotional fairy tales. hahaha..a liger… that’s cute.

Actually Hybrids brings up an interesting question about genetics. That saying, I do not know what the question might be but I am sure it is quite profound. I remember this big debate over strawberries that had a certain enzyme derived from fish to keep the berries in cold weather longer. People were worried about allergies to fish… I tried to explain to hot headed liberalhumanists

(which are by all means just as if not more annoying than religious yahoos just for the fact a lot of the humanists are arrogant bastards) anywho. I tried to explain that animal proteins CAN NOT be devided and created by plant. BIOLOGICALLY Imposible. Who knows, maybe even biology is wrong..so..maybe they can be forced to create animal proteins. another rambling note from me.

I do agree with Cali Christian. Why wouldn’t you be fully human at time of conception?? I mean that’s what the point of reproduction is.. to make little humans. It’s not like we start off like a single celled..err..well. Ever notice how human fetuses LOOK just like any other mamal fetus AND the same process is very similar to evolution in general?? single celled to multicelled to multicelled var

Hello again. Actually, I don’t think we ever had a conversation about 2 Timothy. Actually, Paul’s writings were not written first. The four Gospels and the Book of Acts were all written first (especially since Acts goes into detail about Paul’s conversion), and the Gospels were written only a few years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. So they were certainly included in 2 Timothy 3:16.

Now, Peter considered Paul’s writings to be authoritative (2 Peter 3:15-16). Also, 2 Peter 1 speaks of the authority of all Biblical prophecy. Now, regarding the stars falling to Earth, I have recently become a partial preterist (which is of the belief that the events of the Book of Revelation are past events, up until chapter 20). The important thing to remember is that Revelation is…

…rife with symbolism. One thing to keep in mind is that in Scripture, stars were a symbol for kings (e.g. see Genesis 37:9). In Revelation, 1/3 of the stars falling to Earth was a symbol for the fall of certain kings. Perhaps I will write an entry on this view of Revelation.

BUM, Re: The American Revolution, I might agree. I don’t think I would have been a rebel in that revolution. [bgbez]

CA CHRISTIAN. Consider the context of 2 Timothy 3:16. Paul was talking to Timothy about books the young preacher had read since birth. He’s referring to the Old Testament. There’s no way that Timothy could have read the Gospels from that earlier time. Now, 2 Timothy 3:16 certainly applies to the apostles’ letters and the Gospels since they were guided by the Holy Spirit. [bgbez]

Okay, this note is signed. The two above are mine too.

CA CHRISTIAN: Consider that the Gospels were written so that the apostles–who were dying–would leave a written record of their teachings. It’s more conceivable to see Paul’s letters–which were written circa 55 AD as predating the Gospels. John was written circa 90 AD with knowledge of the other three Gospels having been written.

If it helps I learned that scientifically the female becomes an “adult” 21 whereas the male becomes an “adult” at 27. Of course this doesn’t answear the philisophical question of “What is an adult?”

I will never never never understand creationists. Always glad to read someone who knows how to think. I just posted a link on my last entry (“Unbelievable”) to a scary Baptist web site for children. You might find it interesting. They have a lot of stuff about creation on there that is ridiculous, like they insist dinosaurs still exist somewhere in Africa.