Quote
Now that you realise that these bones may actually serve a function (and a very important one at that), you are back-peddling and covering yourself as much as possible. Is this kind of what you believe? -
Quote
All animals that walk have pelvic bones. The pelvis is where the hind legs attach to the body. Some whales still have pelvic bones, even though the bones don't have any purpose now. There wouldn't be any reason to ever have a pelvis if you didn't ever have hind legs. And there wouldn't be any reason to have hind legs if you didn't want to walk on land....
No that is not what I believe. Since I never said anything of the sort, I can't see why you think I do believe that.

Quote
Quote
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.


I think the above should be more than enough for now.
What!!!? All of your quotes from above show that the biologists say the pelvic bones in a whale have a function. I asked you to quote from a biologist who said the HUMAN ORGANS you mentioned DID NOT have a function. So, I guess you still have to answer the question.

Quote
The coccyx bone was a tail? Oh yes, where is the fossil evidence that we had tails? The coccyx serves as a point of insertion for several muscles and ligaments including the gluteus maximus and many functions that come from this (need I go into details, this has been repeated before also). The fact they think it was a tail, once again is based on mere assumptions, not fact. The coccyx is just the end point of the tail bone.....what did you think it was going to do? Have yours removed Linear and then see how it feels to sit and perform certain functions <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> It's there for a reason, it ends at the right place, it's designed that way.

Those muscles that attach to the coccyx are the same ones that attach to the tail in mammals with tails.

Some humans are born with tails due to a protein mix up during development. Some of those tails even have extra vertebrae.

Quote
Yeah it seems so ludicrous doesn't it? The fact they all accepted it as fact and had it in science textbooks for years and guess what? Apparently, it's still turning up.
Show me a current science book that says Hackel's hypothesis is true.

Quote
This makes sense, one young guy I debated awhile back started giving me examples of embryo evolution based on Haakels' fraudulent drawings. So it is a problem when stuff like this gets preached and written as a scientific fact, when there are not only holes in these things, but often they are totally fictitious. I don't see the other vestigal examples as being any different. Just more of the same.

A person's incorrect statements are the reason we should teach what science has accepted. You blame the science teaching evolution and even say that the science teachers are teaching debunked information as true based on your conversation with one knucklehead? Does this even make sense? If one person in your congregation stated to me that Christ and Paul were the same person, should I automatically assume that your church teaches that?

Quote
I think a great deal of denial, assumptions and wishful thinking is involved yes. And they have certainly been caught in the past with hoaxes/lies. Track record is far from reliable. Are you calling me a liar and a fraud, because I believe in 7 day creation? should I assume that you imply this because you do not agree with my beliefs and instead challenge them? How am I doing any different than you are? Please stop putting words in people's mouths on here.


Quote from Bex:
Quote
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.

Clearly, implying that all evolutionist falsify information. Perhaps I incorrectly took that to mean you thought all evolutionists were deceitful.

I don't think you are a liar for believing in 7-day creation....just incorrect.

Quote
Time is not going to make one kind of animal into another. Changes in environment don't make one kind of animal into another. Thicker coats go back to being thin again as the weather changes from cold to warm. This is not one kind of animal becoming something else. Breeding can only create variants, so far nothing has shown macro evolution.
You have not defined the point at which micro becomes macro so your statement that "nothing has shown macro evolution" is nonsensical. How can I show you something when I don't know your definition for it? The theory of evolution does not include the term "macroevolution". It is a creationist term that came about when speciation was shown to occur. BTW: If you could define "kind", it might be helpful also.

Quote
No amount of walking will change me into another kind of being. Even if I tone my body, if I cease exercise, my body goes back to being untoned. None of these things equal evolution of one kind of being into another kind. Such a comparison doesn't make sense linear. I decide to walk by using my legs.....If I had evoluton on my side, I'd evolve flippers and swim across the ocean to get their faster, or perhaps evolve wings and fly. Funny, no matter how much walking one does, or how slow and frustrating, nobody evolves wheels or anything else to get their quicker. We have to design ways of doing that!

I am going to assume that you are being facetious and don't actually believe the theory of evolution teaches that individual organisms evolve.

Quote
Good luck to the Mastiff, thanks to the breeding, the toy poodle is now too small for him/her to have a successful coupling. I'm sure the toy poodle aint too chuffed either, but he/she can probably go and find a terrier some where and do just fine. Size difference can be a problem in any kind. Humans are lucky, we have ways of bridging those gaps. We create ways around it if it poses a problem. Nope, no evolution there. Just variation through breeding. Kids don't usually have problems pointing out any dogs once they know what one looks like. Most dogs pant and bark, be it a deeper or yappier bark, they're all dogs.

Yet the kid would probably point to the coyote unless he had been taught what a pug was and what a coyote was.
The question was: Are the Mastiff and the Toy Poodle the same species even though they cannot naturally breed? If you didn't have the knowledge that they were both dogs and saw them in the wild, would you say they were the same species? What about the kid...would he say they were the same?
What about birds? Would the kid say they were the same if he saw a turkey and a robin? What about a robin and a starling?
The taxonomic grouping of animals is not so easy as you declare it is.

Quote
I believe what the God of the bible has pointed out Linear. If He said it was 7 seconds, I'd have no problem with it, because I believe by faith and believe He's omnipotent. I cannot be sure how long ago it happened, but following back through each generation, some have concluded that it appears to be around 6000 years. God can do anything Linear, if He wanted to evolve the world and use billions of years, that's His perogative, but the bible does not even SUGGEST this. In fact, the opposite! Nor is there enough evidence to support evolution. Therefore I am not obliged to believe it, even if you think I should.

I wouldn't preach anything as science, unless I could prove beyond doubt that it was and is a fact. Evolutionists do it anyway! Your arguments and comments here are leaning towards being theological and emotional, rather than scientific. You are attempting to fit God into your belief system (rather than accepting Him at His biblical word) because of your un-dying faith in evolution (Man's ideas of how the entire universe came into being). Don't expect me to do the same.

Do you accept the idea of trees anointing a king of trees?
Judges 9:8 - 15:
Quote
8 One day the trees went out to anoint a king for themselves. They said to the olive tree, 'Be our king.'
9 "But the olive tree answered, 'Should I give up my oil, by which both gods and men are honored, to hold sway over the trees?'
10 "Next, the trees said to the fig tree, 'Come and be our king.'
11 "But the fig tree replied, 'Should I give up my fruit, so good and sweet, to hold sway over the trees?'
12 "Then the trees said to the vine, 'Come and be our king.'
13 "But the vine answered, 'Should I give up my wine, which cheers both gods and men, to hold sway over the trees?'
14 "Finally all the trees said to the thornbush, 'Come and be our king.'
15 "The thornbush said to the trees, 'If you really want to anoint me king over you, come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, then let fire come out of the thornbush and consume the cedars of Lebanon!'

Nothing in the preceding or following verses state that this is just a story. What allows you to declare it is not a true rendering of what the trees did? This is a serious question because you are declaring that you believe the literal Bible. How do you determine which parts are literally true that you can believe actually took place?

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke