Um yep, you're right! Never seen a whale walk on water! But these bones aren’t even vestigial as mentioned previously time and time again. These “pelvises” are different in the males and females and play an important role in sexual reproduction, why do you fail to acknowledge this? There’s probably nothing more important to the whale’s ongoing survival!
ves·tig·i·al (from dictionary.com)
1. Of, relating to, or constituting a vestige.
2.
Biology Occurring or persisting as a rudimentary or degenerate structure.Hmmm, I guess it doesn't mean useless, just like I said before.
Example of so-called vestigal organs:
Tonsils - which supply phagocytes to the mouth and pharynx to destroy certain harmful bacteria.
Parathyroid glands - which regulate the calcium and phosphate balance in the plasma.
Appendix - which plays a part in the control of intestinal flora and fights disease in the intestinal tract.
Thymus gland - studies show that it confers antibody producing capacity to the lymphoid tissue during the early portion of life.
Coccyx bone - which serves as an attachment to the sphincter anal externus muscle which is used in eliminating waste from the large intestine.
You, of course, can find quotes from biologists that say these organs are useless? And since vestigial means rudimentary or reduced, the coccyx bone is a vestigial tail, even though it has other uses.
This should give people just a wee example of what evolutionists have attempted put across as "useless" (or leftovers). I already gave the example of the human embryo and all the bollocks that surrounded that too and this is usually ignored or "overlooked", and then they wonder why we're not suckered into more of the same <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/looney.gif" alt="" />
What? The Hackel stuff? That was declared incorrect by evolutionist biologists back when Hackel was still alive. But, of course, if one evolutionist tries to perpetrate a fraud then all of us must be frauds. It's a good thing that type of categorization only works for evolutionists. I would hate to think of the problems Christianity would have if all Christians' reputations depended upon the actions of a few like Haggard, Phelps, and Swaggart.
Thanks for the charts in the links, but evolutionists have already been caught adding/subtracting or exaggerating certain aspects to fit in with their theory or placing fossils together as transitional forms, when they really do not know if they are or not.
Right, I forgot that all evolutionists are liars and frauds. I don't recall calling you a liar or a fraud. Why do you want to paint me with that brush?
We know crocs do well in water and land....does this make them a transitional form? Are they in the middle of becoming a complete land dwelling creature or sea mammal? I very much doubt it, they've been this way since we've known about them. But the evolutionist would have us believe differently and no doubt would have us believe they are on their way to becoming something else.
That's because all organisms are transitionals. Crocs are on their way to something else. They have changed some since we've known about them. If you look at croc fossils you can see that even though they are very much the same as now, there are differences.
Funnily enough, whatever it is that a creature does, whether in water, on land, or dwells in both, they seem to do just fine as they are. One wonders why the evolutionist can never accept any creature for being what it is....common ancestors are one thing, but evolution? One kind evolving into a completely different creature? How can any amount of time produce that? What is it about time that is magical to the evolutionist I wonder?
Small changes occur in species over time. If the environment around that species changes then the changes in the population that help the species in the new environment become more dominant. Small changes over small time eventually lead to big changes over big time. It's like walking. Even if you only walked one mile a day, in 6 years you would have walked across the country.
Micro evolution is something we observe. Macro evolution is not. I think it's obvious Linear, no matter how different the breed of dog is, they can interbreed (as long as there is not ludicrous size difference) and they are still obviously dogs. A child can tell a dog very easily, just ask one to point it out. Any kind of dog will do, kids do very well. They don't tend to get confused like adults
Will a mastiff breed with a toy poodle if not helped by some kind of artificial method? Since they would not naturally breed, does this make them different species?
If you ask a child to point to a dog and you only provide a coyote and a pug to choose from, will the child point to the coyote or the pug? Is a coyote a dog? So much for the taxonomic skills of children.
The changes are small, they don't "add up" to anything because dogs stay dogs. It is simply variation differences, not one kind of animal becoming something else. Evolution preaches that things are continually evolving/improving and one kind of animal can become something else. We have simply not observed this to be the case. Dogs bark, cats meow......and you want me to show you the the demarcation point?
Things evolve, they don't necessarily improve. The surviving species fit better in the environment.
Even if you get a dog to look like a cat (can you give me an example of one by the way?), is it becoming a cat simply because it's been bred to have external characteristics that resemble one? Try interbreeding the two! See what happens. Let me know if achieve success.
How about
this?
Wolves and dog can interbreed and produce fertile off-spring. Wolves can be crossed with any breed of dog. The most common hybrids are wolf bred with malamute, husky, or German shepherd. Although wolf hybrids can occur naturally in the wild, this happens very infrequently due to the territorial nature of the wolf. Most hybrids are the result of deliberate breeding in captivity. This is not evolution, this is cross breeding between very closely related animals.
e.g. Dogote, the result of breeding a male domestic dog with a female Coyote. This particular cross is a German Shepherd / north western Coyote from northern Washington state near the border of B.C.
Coydog, the result of breeding any domesticated female dog breeds with a male Coyote. This particular cross is a Coyote / Irish Setter.
Coywolf, the result of breeding a Wolf with a Coyote. This particular cross is a Coyote / Red Wolf.
Wolfdog, the result of breeding domesticated dogs with wolves. This particular cross is a Gray Wolf / Alaskan Malamute cross.
I think it would be very hard to say how much it's now a wolf, as opposed to how much is dog. So many mixtures of dogs in themselves, let alone breeding wolves and dogs together. This is not evolution. It's a no brainer to see how closely related the wolf and the dog are, and the fact they can successfully interbreed and produce offspring is a testament to that fact. The only issues with this would be size related as I mentioned. Through breeding dogs down to a tiny size, or a huge size. What you are talking about is not evolution though. No kind has miraculously, through time and chance, just started to become something else. Everything you are talking about here is related to breeding. As I mentioned, you can breed lions and tigers together too, though usually there is a problem with sterile offspring.
Breeding between different species is not something that would happen in nature, I'll grant you that. So it is not part of the theory of a common ancestor for all life.
Why isn't it evolution to select certain traits and only allow breeding between animals that exhibit those traits? Do you think that someone just bred 2 random dogs and got a toy poodle? That breeding took years and decades of selection by the breeder. Just because the traits were decided upon by a human, you decide it is not evolution? It's not natural selection but it is change in the allele frequency in a population of organisms so it is artificial evolution.
Where is this magical force of evolution that causes these animals to spontaneously start evolving into another kind of animal? You can't even breed them into another kind of animal, let alone wait for it to happen on its own.
The magical force is the environment (food, predators, opposite sex of their own species, natural disasters....etc) and its selection of which organisms will live long enough to pass their genes to the next generation.
Does man know the mind of God? How on earth can man possibly fully comprehend omnipotence? Are you aware that we as humans are limited and God is not? If God could do any of this at all, what makes you think He's restricted by anything? Do you think God is restricted by His own laws? His own creation? Time? He's outside of it all, He owns it all, He's above it all. He could have done it in 7 hours if He wanted to. Everything is in subjection to Him. So no, you cannot possibly understand the mind or ways of God, nobody can. This is why we call Him "God". Limitless! Timeless! Beyond our comprehension.
You're right. God could have done it in 7 seconds at 10 am last Thursday. Why don't you believe that? Is it because the evidence you agree with says that He did it 6000 years ago? So you use some evidence, the Bible, to say God didn't make the universe last Thursday. I use more evidence to say that God made the universe around 13 billion years ago and the Earth around 4.6 billion years ago. According to you, your God that can do anything, cannot do that. Why not?
But you won't hear me preaching it as science, because number 1, I'm not a scientist, 2 I am a limited human being, 3 I believe it by faith and 4 evolution fails to explain the intricate balance and wonders/laws of the universe, solar system and the life on earth, vast wonders, impossible for the limited mind of man to fully comprehend or explain. I have no problems believing in a creator being. None whatsoever. I find, if anything, that the miracle of life itself and what I see around me remind me of the mind behind it all.
You seem to think that I don't believe in God, because I believe the evidence points to an old Earth and evolution. I have no problem believing in a God that designed a universe with physical laws that guaranteed humans would result from that design. He's a very clever God who could see the end that came from his 13 billion year design.
Another reason you won't preach it as science is because you can't show evidence that it is true. I can't show evidence of God's hand in evolution so His involvement shouldn't be preached as science. Only the mechanism of evolution, and the evidence that supports the theory can be taught as science. Science cannot be about what people believe unless they can support those conclusions with the available evidence.
If 7-day creation as written in Genesis can better explain the evidence than the theory of evolution, then put forth the explanation, show how it better explains the evidence in the taxonomy, genetics and fossil record, and go claim your Nobel Prize for overturning a key theory in the biological sciences.
