Which came first....

It seems you're going out of your way to start creation/evolution debates. We've all been asked by the moderators to refrain from such, especially in light of the necessessity to close the forum that related to the topic.

This whole topic has been thoroughly beater as per the proverbial dead horse. Let's move on, shall we.

 

But you're not looking for answers. You're looking for arguements. Which is why the creation/evolution forum was discontinued.

Besides, its youre assertian that those of use who don't accept a literal 6 day creation are not really Christians. An assertion, btw, that's an unbiblical judgement of brother towards brother.

 

Mark:
As one who wholeheartedly agrees with your position on this, it is sad to say that perhaps we are going nowhere with the other side here. While I am through arguing something, where there should be no argument let me be "Foolish" for a
little bit here:

Foolish enough to believe that God's word is literal, unless, in a particular context, there is compelling reason to seek another explanation.

Foolish enough to believe that in the passage that says, "ALL things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made", there is no such compelling reason to believe it to be allegory.

Foolish enough to believe that an evening and a morning is a literal day then, as it is now.

Foolish enough to believe that when God tied the creation of the earth to those literal six days, as He did in the Fourth Commandment, then that settles it.

Foolish enough to believe that God can create everything that has been created out of nothing and did need random selection, nor millions of years to accomplish it.

Foolish enough to believe that we were created in the image of God, not in the image of the monkey.

Foolish enough to believe the The Lord Jesus, humanly speaking, was not descended from the monkey.

 

(puts moderator hat on)

Mark: The administrators and moderators are working on a new CR/EV forum.

I notice you have 6-7 threads started dealing with this subject.

Please refrain from starting any more threads of that ilk until we can get the new forum up and running. You have enough threads started already to keep you busy until then.

(takes moderator hat off)

Thanks!
§ue

 

And with this post I am going to try and remove myself from this debate until that proper forum is restarted. It is way too devisive to go on here. And besides, I think you are only starting threads in an attempt to divide than because you want real discussion. I reserve the right to jump back in if I see something particularly egregious.

If you take even a casual look at evolutionary theory, the answer is apparent. The baby. From the developement of multicellular life, through the evolution of the fish, the amphibians, the reptiles, and the birds, parents produced babies for whom they cared little if any, or for those who did offer parental care, they were able to provide without the lactation ability of mammals. This does not seem to be much of a quandry.

Now, if you look at the primitive mammals monotremes (a platypus for example) you will see that they do not have a breast. They have modified sweat glands that lactate onto the skin and the young lick the milk from the mother's skin. Move on to the next group of mammals, the marsupials. They have modified this pore that secretes milk with a little nipple to which the underdeveloped young attach. Finally, the most modern mammals, the placentals like us, have added the ability to store the milk in the gland for a period of time.

So you see, there is no quandry here. The breast is simply a modified sweat gland. If you test sweat you will even find it contains lactate (reference Marx, S: Lactate concentration in blood, saliva and sweat of horses during exercise with special emphasis on the Salivette® as a sample collecting device. Bonn (1999) 96 S., Landw.F., Diss.v.16.04.1999, this was for horses by the way). So what is the problem? You have a sweat gland that already produces lactate. A little modifocation and the concentration is high enough to feed a baby. Modify the pore a bit into a small nipple and you are even better. Make the part of the ducts large enough to have a cistern for storage and you get us. We can even go out at look at living examples of the stages. But that is a powerful way that evolution operates. By modifying an existing structure in some new way or into something new, evolution proceeds and these things that you deem so impossible are not really that unusual.

 

The breast is a modified sweat gland? And then milk is modified sweat?

Right.

By the way, the reason the creation evolution forum was discontinued was not what was stated above. Due to the death of my mother, a desperate situation with one son, the Ohio conference coming up this weekend (which required a lot of preparation), and the necessity of getting a number of rooms painted before new carpeting comes in, I have not had the time to consolidate the threads on the old forum as I had told the webmaster I would do. For this I apologize publicly -- I, and the circumstances we have been dealing with in the last couple of months, have been the reason the creation-evolution forum has not been back up.

 

Hello Helen and welcome back, it’s good to see your posts again! I’ve missed reading them and I’ve learned quite a bit from them as well in the past and hope to see more in the future.

May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God be with you and your family.

 

Boy, that qualifies as something I just cannot let go.

Mark asks. I answer. And the argument presented to counter the answer: good old fashioned sarcasm.

Mammary glands are similar to other skin glands. Sweat contains lactate, the sugar in milk. We have living examples of various stages of development of the mammary glands of placental mammals in the monotremes and the marsupials. The evidence is denied but not countered. Notice the pattern.

 

It's not the lactate. It's the calcium, protein, and various vitamins and minerals which do not appear in sweat.

It's the ability of the infant to suck.

Or perhaps you can list the technical mutations which were required for the progression named? Or show that all mammals which suckle their young came AFTER the marsupials in evolutionary time?

Or show why the pouch disappeared and the young stayed inside longer and were born later?

Sorry about the sarcasm. I get a kick out of the evolutionary 'just so' stories at times, but this one was really too far-fetched even for comedy.

Nor did I see a pattern. In private and in public, sir, we have answered you with specifics every time asked.

 

In essence, it boils down to whether we think things things could have gradually happened and we disagree on that matter. Fair enough.

 

I thought that the protein, calcium, and vitamins WERE the lactate.

 

SEC

I am speaking specifically of the salt (lactate) of the sugar. The sugar is where you get the series of related terms lactation, etc. It is named after the sugar.

So, no help there. But, the aprocrine sweat glands also produce fluids with proteins and lipids (fats) in them, so you are still part of the way there. It is enough as is to feed those bacteria under our armpits we are always trying to put down so that we don't stink.

 

[ October 28, 2003, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

The chicken came first.

 

So what came first. The mosquito or the mammal which if feeds on for required reproduction?


The Venus Fly Trap (plant)
or the insect life it requires for food?


These questions should help the young earth side of the argument as well as the old.

 

Considering there was supposedly no death before the fall...
Would venus fly traps have eaten berries and nuts?
Would mosquitoes have sucked juice from apples.
Would black widow spiders needed their web spinning skills and deadly venom to catch and paralyse bits of grain to eat?

What's the consensus on these??

-KFC

 

Being a Discovery Channel nut... mosquitoes do take all their food from plants, but the female must drink animal blood in order to reproduce. Without animals, the mosquitoe can't reproduce.

A 6-day earth could account for the mosquitoe's existance, but not a 2 week or older earth creation... unless evolution is correct, then it would work. It's either/or with nothing in between allowed.

I think your other examples would also be supported by a 6 day old creation. The point about no death.... I thought that only applied to mankind, not the rest of life forms. If it did then there would be no need for reproduction without over-running the planet with life form. Granted an argument could be made for animials only not ever have to die because they took the same breath of life as man did. But that wasn't your question.