Print

[MonroeMonkey]

I could dismiss every word/argument Xerxes has ever typed on this forum because he just published: "Vestigial bones of past legs on a whale." - now, not being any sort of student of biology myself (let alone inclined to waste hours on end to PROVE God made the whale, which I cannot do - I just BELIEVE He did); I have seen Hovind present the very realistic proposal that the whale still uses these claimed "vestigal structures" in whale reproduction today - so - the far-fetched idea that...

What a pathetic excuse to ignore all the evidence above. Because KENT HOVIND said something about this you dismiss all other evidences? Huh?

I've heard what Hovind says about the vestigial legs of whales, saying they are used in mating, but, IN FACT, they are NOT needed.

Less, let's look at what real *Biologists* have to say about it.

Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss.

Bejder L, Hall BK.

Source:

Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

We address the developmental and evolutionary mechanisms underlying fore- and hindlimb development and progressive hindlimb reduction and skeletal loss in whales and evaluate whether the genetic, developmental, and evolutionary mechanisms thought to be responsible for limb loss in snakes "explain" loss of the hindlimbs in whales. Limb loss and concurrent morphological and physiological changes associated with the transition from land to water are discussed within the context of the current whale phylogeny. Emphasis is placed on fore- and hindlimb development, how the forelimbs transformed into flippers, and how the hindlimbs regressed, leaving either no elements or vestigial skeletal elements. Hindlimbs likely began to regress only after the ancestors of whales entered the aquatic environment: Hindlimb function was co-opted by the undulatory vertical axial locomotion made possible by the newly evolved caudal flukes. Loss of the hindlimbs was associated with elongation of the body during the transition from land to water. Limblessness in most snakes is also associated with adoption of a new (burrowing) lifestyle and was driven by developmental changes associated with elongation of the body. Parallels between adaptation to burrowing or to the aquatic environment reflect structural and functional changes associated with the switch to axial locomotion. Because they are more fully studied and to determine whether hindlimb loss in lineages that are not closely related could result from similar genetically controlled developmental pathways, we discuss developmental (cellular and genetic) processes that may have driven limb loss in snakes and leg-less lizards and compare these processes to the loss of hindlimbs in whales. In neither group does ontogenetic or phylogenetic limb reduction result from failure to initiate limb development. In both groups limb loss results from arrested development at the limb bud stage, as a result of inability to maintain necessary inductive tissue interactions and enhanced cell death over that seen in limbed tetrapods. An evolutionary change in Hox gene expression--as occurs in snakes--or in Hox gene regulation--as occurs in some limbless mutants--is unlikely to have initiated loss of the hindlimbs in cetaceans. Selective pressures acting on a wide range of developmental processes and adult traits other than the limbs are likely to have driven the loss of hindlimbs in whales.

*End Quote.

Xerxes (BELIEVES) these were once legs and whales used to walk upright on the Earth; and, eventually going even further back the whale used to be a pine cone or a banana is just stupid and even more unrealistic than the Bible's assertion that God made the fish on day 5 of His creation...

WTF? Lmao. Who thinks whales walked upright? NO one believes that! They would have been quadrupeds that lived mostly in water, like Hippos. Whoever said they were bipeds?



Less, provide me some credible sources other than Kent Hovind, who believes dinosaurs LITERALLY breathed fire! I have evidence of his saying they did. Why? He said, "That's what the Bible says, in the book of Job.

[MonroeMonkey]

LessGov's favorite creation scientist.


Dinosaurs breathed fire!


Kent Hovind: Dinosaurs Breathed Fire! WTF!? LMAO



Kent Hovind denies scientific realities, yet believes dinosaurs breathed fire only a few thousand years ago, after the fall of Adam. LMAO. This is the main spokesman for Creationism.

[Forsythia]

Less, did you even bother to look at the website I posted about creationist claims?  It's a very good source that cites all of it's information.  Granted you may not believe it because the sources are from accredited institutions.

Xerxes, I'm not sure if you checked it out since you have so many great sources, but it's good if you want to kill some time.


FYI, I've started to read some of that dissertation, and it's amusing to say the least.  Dude breaks out a poem he wrote in the middle of it, and it was only reviewed by one person.

[marilyn.monroe]

LessGov's favorite creation scientist.


Dinosaurs breathed fire!


Kent Hovind: Dinosaurs Breathed Fire! WTF!? LMAO



Kent Hovind denies scientific realities, yet believes dinosaurs breathed fire only a few thousand years ago, after the fall of Adam. LMAO. This is the main spokesman for Creationism.

You say he is. Fire-breathing dino sounds like a dragon.

[sammy]

You say he is. Fire-breathing dino sounds like a dragon.

Aaannd... you believe in dragons?

[MonroeMonkey]

Xerxes, I'm not sure if you checked it out since you have so many great sources, but it's good if you want to kill some time.

Yes. Talk Origins has just about every counter to creationist arguments. And the rebuttals are by real scientists.

You can even e-mail the scientists; I've done it. I e-mailed one scientist (Thomas A. Baillieul) from talkorigins and he explained in simple terms why creationists have no argument when it comes to Robert Gentry's "Polonium Halos."

To put it simply, Gentry could not show these halos were created by polonium, and being they could have been, and more likely were, created by uranium, Gentry cannot be taken seriously in his claim. If you can't demonstrate such a claim you can't be taken seriously, when there's a much more reasonable alternative; uranium.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

[MonroeMonkey]

How do you know it is randomly mimicing? I am sure it has a purpose.

Did you read my first post on "Universe Without Thoughtful Design?" I showed that Conway's simulation randomly selects laws, and from that random selection can arise systems so complex they appear to be driven by thoughtful intelligence and to have purpose.

Xerx, the fossil record is my source.

Your source for what? I know a bit about the fossil record, the process, and how likely it is something will be fossilized.

So what category would I fall into if I accept evolution, but believe it was started by a higher entity?

Flanders, depends. A Christian who accepts common ancestry as a reality, and believes God oversees it, would be a theistic evolutionist; but merely accepting adaptation is not considered theistic evolution. Some panentheists fall into this category.

A person who believes some god thoughtfully created the program and executed it, without further involvement, is a deist. They still fall within the theistic evolution category, but you could call it deistic evolution.

A person that believes the world was created 6,000 to 12,000 years ago, and all animals in perfect form from the dust of the earth, is a creationist.

An atheist, agnostic, or pantheist just accepts evolution as a reality.


Personally, I don't believe the universe was thoughtfully designed, nor do I believe evolution is thoughtfully driven. But, I do think the universe, and beyond, is like a vast organism that by its intrinsic nature grows into countless forms and then dissolves. It's not thoughtfully designed, but the very nature of the organism gives birth within itself to countless complex forms. If I call this vast Being "God" then all of us are the eyes, ears, and bodies of God.

What others call "intelligent design" I call the self-arranging quality of nature Itself, beyond thoughtful discrimination.

[marilyn.monroe]

Did you read my first post on "Universe Without Thoughtful Design?" I showed that Conway's simulation randomly selects laws, and from that random selection can arise systems so complex they appear to be driven by thoughtful intelligence and to have purpose.

Your source for what? I know a bit about the fossil record, the process, and how likely it is something will be fossilized.




Flanders, depends. A Christian who accepts common ancestry as a reality, and believes God oversees it, would be a theistic evolutionist; but merely accepting adaptation is not considered theistic evolution. Some panentheists fall into this category.

A person who believes some god thoughtfully created the program and executed it, without further involvement, is a deist. They still fall within the theistic evolution category, but you could call it deistic evolution.

A person that believes the world was created 6,000 to 12,000 years ago, and all animals in perfect form from the dust of the earth, is a creationist.

An atheist, agnostic, or pantheist just accepts evolution as a reality.


Personally, I don't believe the universe was thoughtfully designed, nor do I believe evolution is thoughtfully driven. But, I do think the universe, and beyond, is like a vast organism that by its intrinsic nature grows into countless forms and then dissolves. It's not thoughtfully designed, but the very nature of the organism gives birth within itself to countless complex forms. If I call this vast Being "God" then all of us are the eyes, ears, and bodies of God.

What others call "intelligent design" I call the self-arranging quality of nature Itself, beyond thoughtful discrimination.

If the random tweaks led to a complex thing, wouldn't that show they weren't so random after all?
Recent fossil finds, like the one in Asia, and what about Neanderthals?

[sammy]

If the random tweaks led to a complex thing, wouldn't that show they weren't so random after all?
Recent fossil finds, like the one in Asia, and what about Neanderthals?

Believe it or not, Neanderthals are your ancestors! Haven't you been following the history of "man"?

[MonroeMonkey]

If the random tweaks led to a complex thing, wouldn't that show they weren't so random after all?

Recent fossil finds, like the one in Asia, and what about Neanderthals?

Huh? If you didn't read or understand my first post in "Universe Without Thoughtful Design," then re-read it.

[sammy]

Huh? If you didn't read or understand my first post in "Universe Without Thoughtful Design," then re-read it.

Mind made up; you're wasting your time. Some people are immovable!

[LessGovernment]

Sammy is right; some of us have made up our minds - God exists, and God did it.

I won't expend too much energy "proving" that, I think it is majority opinion the world over; I am only inclined to interrupt Xerxes constant blathering and cut-and-paste efforts to sustain his claim that God doesn't exist(and evolution proves it) because I  ... well ... just because I should as a Christian.

Hovind hasn't hurt anyone; as an American, founded on our original principles; he should have been free to have that ministry, allow it to flourish as much as the free market idea of the creation account draws interest, and do as he wants with the donations, totally unmolested by his government in a truly free society where the public can CHOOSE to support him(or ignore/bankrupt him) to any degree they like ... he has had over 90 debates, Xerxes, over 90 - the man was no coward, he was well studied and very persuasive in his assertion that evolution is a STUPID religion that is tax supported - that is NOT how human beings came into existence - and all your childish "WTF's" and "LMAO's" don't lend one ounce of credibility to your argument/persuasion that human beings would be better off denying that they are extremely unique individuals that were CREATED by God.

You are just one young, rebellious buck who has got a lot of fight in ya; and unfortunately you have decided to direct your energy broadcasting your position that "no invisible God is gonna tell me what I can or can't do" which has always been your free choice all along - no different than any person who violates societies laws/natural laws.

http://www.thirdwave-websites.com/blog/calvin-hobbes-categorical-imperative.jpg

sorry I don't know how to imbed the image

[MonroeMonkey]

Mind made up; you're wasting your time. Some people are immovable!

Sigh... Seems so.

They never address the evidences with sound counter-arguments.

[Forsythia]

Sammy is right; some of us have made up our minds - God exists, and God did it.

I won't expend too much energy "proving" that, I think it is majority opinion the world over; I am only inclined to interrupt Xerxes constant blathering and cut-and-paste efforts to sustain his claim that God doesn't exist(and evolution proves it) because I  ... well ... just because I should as a Christian.

Hovind hasn't hurt anyone; as an American, founded on our original principles; he should have been free to have that ministry, allow it to flourish as much as the free market idea of the creation account draws interest, and do as he wants with the donations, totally unmolested by his government in a truly free society where the public can CHOOSE to support him(or ignore/bankrupt him) to any degree they like ... he has had over 90 debates, Xerxes, over 90 - the man was no coward, he was well studied and very persuasive in his assertion that evolution is a STUPID religion that is tax supported - that is NOT how human beings came into existence - and all your childish "WTF's" and "LMAO's" don't lend one ounce of credibility to your argument/persuasion that human beings would be better off denying that they are extremely unique individuals that were CREATED by God.

You are just one young, rebellious buck who has got a lot of fight in ya; and unfortunately you have decided to direct your energy broadcasting your position that "no invisible God is gonna tell me what I can or can't do" which has always been your free choice all along - no different than any person who violates societies laws/natural laws.

http://www.thirdwave-websites.com/blog/calvin-hobbes-categorical-imperative.jpg

sorry I don't know how to imbed the image

Less evolution is not a religion here is why.

Evolution merely describes part of nature. The fact that that part of nature is important to many people does not make evolution a religion. Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares: • Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
 • Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
 • Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
 • Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
 • Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
 • Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
 • Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.
 

2. How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.
 

3. Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.
 

4. Evolutionary theory has been used as a basis for studying and speculating about the biological basis for morals and religious attitudes (Sober and Wilson 1998). Studying religion, though, does not make the study a religion. Using evolution to study the origins of religious attitudes does not make evolution a religion any more than using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts makes archaeology a religion.
 

5. Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.

 The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982).

Taken from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html
 

[Flanders]

Deism (i/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is a religious philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an intelligent creator. According to deists, the creator never intervenes in human affairs or suspends the natural laws of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Cool, that pretty much sums up my beliefs.  Thanks xerxes