Jesus wept, Darwin hysterically cried?

People today simply do not realize the immensity of the blessing of aspirin, tylenol, other basic, simple medications we take for granted today.

 

Macroevolutionary hypothesis not true? I cite the development of the large, single hoof of the horse from a former three toed version to be an example of macroevolution. That it happened is seen by the documentation of three toed horse species in the past and the presence of shin splints on horses today.

 

More strawman tactics. Christians are looking more and more silly, but what's worse is that they continue to cut off an entire segment of society from the Gospel through sheer ignorance.

What a shame. Instead of winning souls, we call scientists liars who hold atheistic beliefs while at the same time enjoying all the modern conveniences and medical aid that science has provided for us.

It's obvious the church as a whole has grown complacent and stagnant to the point of bickering and devouring itself over trivialities.

 

Irrelevent. The point is that science by default does not include God as the answer when determining the systems and laws by which the universe operates. Many Chrisians will hypocritically accept the benefits of science when it comes to technology or medical treatment, but as soon as science claims the evidence from nature reveals creation to be very old or humans to have a shared common ancestry with all living things it suddenly becomes godless and atheistic.

Yet YEC's still fail to present a better explanation for the data.

I'm expected to hear the same arguments which have been refuted for decades (entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, c14 dating etc. etc.) and believe this empty YEC rhetoric.

 

It takes allot more faith to believe that we are from monkies and all of the universe came out of nothing.. than it is to Believe that there is a Universal Creator who loves me and made me in his image and then Saved me from Death..
While We humans believe this lie Fallen angels are laughin at us sayin they dummer for monkies to believe our lies...
COULD IT BE HE WAS DEAMON POSSESED using science to degrading the authencity of God... Its a lie and a half...

 

But it's still a horse? This should be micro-evolution.

 

This is an interesting topic that I haven't looked upon. I knew Darwin was wacko but now there seems to be empirical evidence to document!!!

 

"But it's still a horse? This should be micro-evolution. "

If biologists use the term "macroevolution" they are generally talking about speciation. So I must assume that you are either inventing a new meaning of the word or that you think that the whole chain of fossils that he referred to are a single species. First off, this would mean that you think that modern equines such as various zebra and horse species are actually a single species.

Second, this would men that you think that the earliest in the chain and the modern horses are a single species. Even though there is a change from an animal that size of a small dog to the large animals that we see today. Even though there was a change from an animal with 3/4 toes per foot and with pads to an animal with 1 toe pper foot with hooves. Even though there was a change from a general brwosing animal to a dedicated grazer with a very different set of teeth including a different number of molars and a different shape to the head. Even though there was a change from a very flexible set of legs to a set of legs optimized for speed that are not very flexible and which even have some bones fused together.

Even better, you must think that horses and rhinos and tapirs are the same species since they both trace their histories to this same initial animal and genetic testing confirms the relationship.

Hmmm... Maybe the horse is a good example of a very well supported case of macroevolution.

"This is an interesting topic that I haven't looked upon. I knew Darwin was wacko but now there seems to be empirical evidence to document!!! "

If you wish to have a reason not to accept evolution, it does not matter if Darwin was "wacko" or not. It has nothing to do with the validity of the theory. To think that it does is to commit a logical fallacy; poisoning the well also known as the genetic fallacy. Besides, there has been a lot learned since Darwin.

 

A horse is a horse...
Cut off a leg it's still a 3 legged horse...
A horse born with a birth defect with both front legs missing...is still a horse!
If the horse evolves into a different animal ;say a snake , then you have macro-evolution!
Don't bait people by promising macro-evolution and showing examples of micro-evolution! Micro-evolution has been observed and qualifies as truth , macro-evolution has not been observed and is speculation. Actually macro-evolution is more of a fairy tale where a frog can turn into a prince!

 

A horse is a horse except when horse, zebra, rhinos and tapirs can all trace their ancestry back to the same small animal with traits completely unlike any modern horse.

If you consider the sweeping changes between Eohippus and moderns horses to be mere microevolution without speciation then I guess that ALL of what is considered to be evolution can be considered to be nothing more than microevolution and that there is no distinctive process to be called macroevolution. You seem to be able to define any series of changes, no matter how drastic, as mere microevolution.

I guess you must also think that horses, zebras, tapirs and rhinos are all the same species then.

Amazing. You think that a genuine series of what you have claimed cannot exist is nothing but "baiting."

I guess you also think that the evoution of the horses from their land dwelling ancestor must also be mere microevolution.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/23.html?

 

Replace "horse" with "whale" in that last sentence.

 

Yeah , lets replace horse with whale because evolutionist have beaten the old horse to death! Evolutionists have been so anxious to prove their theory they cite the horse , whale whatever they can last grasp to show it's true...can't hardly find an evolution of the horse chart anymore because Creation Science has blown this apart and exposed the scam.

As for the whale , Gup20 showed how it wasn't possible. If you will not accept his arguement ; why should anyone else bother? Good reading , especially the "I love fish stories" posts!!! lol

 

Funny that you do not tell us just how "Creation Science has blown this apart and exposed the scam."

Also funny that you must have stopped reading after you got to Gup's response. His "problems" on the whale evolution were based on a misrepresentation of the process and not the actual process. There just is no logical reason for us to observe all of the thing we do with the whales other than common descent. (Fossil record, genetic testing, atavisms, ontogeny, pseudogenes, etc.) Any proposed reasons have been arbitray and capricious and do not fit the actual data. Just as there there is no logical YE explanation for the detailed series of fossils that we observe leading to the modern horse. Especially since the same progenitor leads to rhinos and is confirmed through genetic testing. The horse fossil record is so detailed that it cannot be denied and YEers are reduced to grasping at the straw of asserting them to be all one species dispite the vast differences in morphology from beginning to end. YEers just have no answers for the actual data, so they must misrepresent it.

But that is the usual case with YE "explanations." They hardly ever seem to be able to deal wit the actual science so they build a strawman and knock that down instead. Their misrepresentations do a great harm and are one reason I find it so important to expose them for what they are.

 

ADNAN OKTAR
Evolutionist propaganda about marine mammals resembles the 'horse series' that was once put forward in the same way, but which evolutionists then admitted was invalid. A number of extinct mammals that lived at different times were lined up behind one another, and the evolutionists of the time tried to impose this as 'firm evidence.' Yet the truth emerged over time, and it was realized that these animals could not be each others' ancestors, that they had emerged in different periods, and that they were actually independent extinct species.


Articles written by National Geographic and T.V. shows produced by anxious evolutionists to prove their theory has been rejected by scientists.

Here is a quote from Mike Schultz...
Horse evolution is supposed to be the end all and be all to prove that horses evolved yet they are teaching the kids in school some crazy things. Like these horses are evolving but the truth is they don't tell them that it starts out with eohippus, with 18 pairs of ribs and then you keep going on to the next generation and then you can't make up how many ribs they are supposed to have. There a lot of problems with this horse evolution. It is made up by [H.C. Marsh] 1874 from fossils scattered across the world and not from the same location, which was Lucy's problem, scattered over almost two miles at different depths. Modern Horses are found in layers with or lower than ancient horses, if you believe in the geologic column that presents a problem for your theory. The ancient horse is not a horse but is like the [Hirex] still alive today, I have seen one in a zoo. Ribs, toes, feet, everything is totally different. South American fossils go from one toe to three toe and they are never found in the order presented, [Mothill] just put them together in the order he thought that they should go. And it is all being taught as fact and peddling to push evolution as true. And once you start to fall for this lie of evolution that has no evidence for it; scientific evidence, that which you can measure, taste, touch, weigh and smell and all of that. Once you began to fall for that you'll have a hard time with the Bible.

Quote from Dr. Kent Hovind....
Textbooks often state that the horse evolved from a four-toed ancestor. Othniel C. Marsh invented this entire series back in the 1870s. He gathered animals from all over the world and arranged them in the order he thought they would have evolved, though the animals are not found in the right order. Even if they had been found in order, that would not prove evolutionary relationships. The entire horse evolution series was disproved years ago. No knowledgeable scientist would support the horse evolution as depicted in textbooks.
Modern horse skeletons have been found in layers older than (at least according to the evolutionist view of geology) the so-called four toed ancestors. Also, an animal nearly identical to the Hyracotherium (the so-called ancestor of all horses) is a small, four-toed, meat-eating animal that is still alive in South America today! In addition, the fossils in South America show one-toed horses in lower layers than their supposed three-toed ancestors.
In 1995 the Tulsa, Oklahoma Zoo removed the display showing this disproved claim about horse evolution (after over 2,000 area residents signed a petition demanding that it be removed, and elected officials and news media got involved.) Pages that show the horse evolution should be deleted in future editions of textbooks and a warning label placed in the front of those that include it, warning students that the book contains outdated, false information. Call or write for more information about the long-disproved horse series if you would like.

Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum in New York, N.Y. has been quoted as saying: "I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem" [emphasis added] (Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems. Santee, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1984.).
Despite Dr. Eldredge's disclaimer, the exhibit remains on display in the American Museum.


I have heard all sorts of stories on the whale as whales evolved from wolves , land dwellers evolving from whales , pigs and whales share a common ancestor ,etc,etc...
If you believe the geologic column then it disputes the whale evolution theory because whales appear suddenly as a full funtioning creature with complex mechanisms so contrary to what you claim as clear cut proof of evolution ; There is no proven evidence that whales evolved from land mammals.
The changes would have to be rapid and it doesn't happen rapid according to evolution.
I also feel that any creature in any transitional stages would not survive and would rapidly become extinct according to survival of the fittest.

Why can't you accept the fact that the whale and the horse as being a magnificent creation of God Almighty and we should stand in awe at such perfect well designed creatures?
Whale of a trouble

Another Whale tale

Whale ....fact from fiction


Pseudogenes


Whale Fairy Tale by National Geographic

If the YEC leaders had mental health issues as Darwin...we would certainly be called out!
Evolutionists I have dealt with have referred to creationist as being wacko even though the evidence is clearly on our side and evolution evidence is lacking. Yet the founder of the evolution religion had mental issues? Go figure..........