Well how bad is it gonna be???

[bassin_bug]

Bug, evolution is really pretty credible. Heck you see it every day. Dogs for example can be used to demonstrate what evolution is and how it works. The different breeds of dogs out there today are because we took traits we wanted and bred them out. We are kind of like playing "nature" here and choosing what traits...genes...we wanted to "survive" and get passed to the next generation. Nature has been doing this for hundreds of millions of years.

Personally I believe that life is far too complex and just simply too amazing to have come from no where. Something much greater then us had it all planned out from the very beginning. I think he has a great sense of humor too...

Your dog theory is called "breed mingling" not evolution. The breeds are mingled, meaning merged to produce specific traits and characteristics. You started with dogs and ended with dogs, so in my opinion, nothing evolved, nothing morphed. The breeds of the dogs used to mingle continued to exist as separate breeds.

A Mockingbird blows your theory to pieces. If it was a product of evolution, it would sing a specific song just as all the other birds but the Mockingbird sings the songs of many birds. I'll go even further, in 1993 there was a blizzard and all the quails either froze or starved to death in this area. Up until that time the Mockingbirds included the sound of a quail in their songs. After the quails died, all the subsequent Mockingbirds do not make the sounds of the quail. The change in their song wasn't caused by evolution but, rather, by the absence of quails in this area.

I am a Christian and, therefore, I believe what the Bible said about the creation. It is written that God created man and woman, male and female created He them. Nowhere did it say "And God created ape and ape, or swamp scum, or swamp organisms." I am fearfully and wonderfully made; I am neither an accident of nature or an accident by my parents.

The man who did the drawings of the evolution of homo sapiens (man) was NOT Charles Darwin. The bones used by that man were not even found until beginning sometime around 1938. Charles Darwin died in 1882. He was not a biologist, zoologist, or botanist but he WAS one of the few men of his day who could read and write. How convenient! Since people couldn't read and write, Darwin could say anything and there was no way for them to prove him wrong.

Biology professor John Stevens Henslow (1796-1861) referred to Darwin as a "naturalist." His purpose for recommending Darwin for a trip on the ship, HMS Beagle were, he wrote:

"The admirals were scouting out someone to ACCOMPANY Capt. Robert FitzRoy on his two-year survey of coastal South America. FitzRoy, only twenty-six himself, WANTED A YOUNG COMPANION, a well-bred 'gentleman' who could RELIEVE THE ISOLATION of command, someone to share the captain's table. Better still if he were a naturalist, for there would be UNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITIES. The ship was equipped for 'scientific purposes' and a 'man of zeal and spirit' COULD DO WONDERS, Henslow enthused. Charles might not be a 'finished naturalist,' but 'taking plenty of Books' would help, and he was the obvious choice." (Taken from The Biography of Charles Darwin)

In today's society, I believe people would call them homosexual. Perhaps that's the type "evolution" that Charles Darwin was talking about. Wouldn't it have been interesting to know exactly WHAT evolved between the "naturalist" Darwin and the Captain. I believe he came out of the closet for John Stevens Henslow and that's how he knew who to recommend. Now you know the REAL TRUTH about Charles Darwin.

My sister and I were once called "naturalists." We were caught lying topless on a private beach on the Gulf of Mexico. When we opened our eyes an old man stood over us, drooling, and said, "What bee-oot-e-ful naturalists." Who is correct in their definition, Henslow or the old man?

[DJD]

Your dog theory is called "breed mingling" not evolution. The breeds are mingled, meaning merged to produce specific traits and characteristics. You started with dogs and ended with dogs, so in my opinion, nothing evolved, nothing morphed. The breeds of the dogs used to mingle continued to exist as separate breeds.

A Mockingbird blows your theory to pieces. If it was a product of evolution, it would sing a specific song just as all the other birds but the Mockingbird sings the songs of many birds. I'll go even further, in 1993 there was a blizzard and all the quails either froze or starved to death in this area. Up until that time the Mockingbirds included the sound of a quail in their songs. After the quails died, all the subsequent Mockingbirds do not make the sounds of the quail. The change in their song wasn't caused by evolution but, rather, by the absence of quails in this area.

I am a Christian and, therefore, I believe what the Bible said about the creation. It is written that God created man and woman, male and female created He them. Nowhere did it say "And God created ape and ape, or swamp scum, or swamp organisms." I am fearfully and wonderfully made; I am neither an accident of nature or an accident by my parents.

The man who did the drawings of the evolution of homo sapiens (man) was NOT Charles Darwin. The bones used by that man were not even found until beginning sometime around 1938. Charles Darwin died in 1882. He was not a biologist, zoologist, or botanist but he WAS one of the few men of his day who could read and write. How convenient! Since people couldn't read and write, Darwin could say anything and there was no way for them to prove him wrong.

Biology professor John Stevens Henslow (1796-1861) referred to Darwin as a "naturalist." His purpose for recommending Darwin for a trip on the ship, HMS Beagle were, he wrote:

"The admirals were scouting out someone to ACCOMPANY Capt. Robert FitzRoy on his two-year survey of coastal South America. FitzRoy, only twenty-six himself, WANTED A YOUNG COMPANION, a well-bred 'gentleman' who could RELIEVE THE ISOLATION of command, someone to share the captain's table. Better still if he were a naturalist, for there would be UNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITIES. The ship was equipped for 'scientific purposes' and a 'man of zeal and spirit' COULD DO WONDERS, Henslow enthused. Charles might not be a 'finished naturalist,' but 'taking plenty of Books' would help, and he was the obvious choice." (Taken from The Biography of Charles Darwin)

In today's society, I believe people would call them homosexual. Perhaps that's the type "evolution" that Charles Darwin was talking about. Wouldn't it have been interesting to know exactly WHAT evolved between the "naturalist" Darwin and the Captain. I believe he came out of the closet for John Stevens Henslow and that's how he knew who to recommend. Now you know the REAL TRUTH about Charles Darwin.

My sister and I were once called "naturalists." We were caught lying topless on a private beach on the Gulf of Mexico. When we opened our eyes an old man stood over us, drooling, and said, "What bee-oot-e-ful naturalists." Who is correct in their definition, Henslow or the old man?

Bug,
I was on the same level with you until the "Natural" part! I know I know it's a curse that men have. OOpps My bad you said "naturalists".....

[bassin_bug]

Bug,
I was on the same level with you until the "Natural" part! I know I know it's a curse that men have. OOpps My bad you said "naturalists".....

I have no explanation for the word the old man used. Perhaps he thought we were studying the evolution of sand in a bikini; or testing to see if global warming would cause our chest 'bumps' to bloom like roses. If he thought the last part, he was half right; those things turned as red as an American Beauty rose. Ouch! We should have gone sailing as originally planned. LOL

[kygorski]

The fact that the world adds about 2000 people a day minumum, and has been for the past 25 years has absolutely no impact on anything.

[JD7.62]

Bug, my dog example was on the small scale. Imagine doing that for oh say 50,000 generations. I can assure you that the end product will not be a "dog" as we know it today.


I am not understanding your mockingbird story. So if an African Grey Parrot is raised in a house hold and can speak 300 words but its offspring are released back into the wild and doesnt speak one word that disproves evolution? Mocking birds simply hear and mimick sounds. No quails to mimmick = no quail songs to sing!

I am a Christian too, I believe in the Bible. But I also know that it is IMPOSSIBLE for stories that were not written down for generations and generations and translated from language to langueage to be 100% factual and therfore can not be taken word for word. I do believe that the MESSAGES in the Bible however remain unchanged and are just as meaningful and important today as they were before Jesus walked the Earth.

[apb]

Your dog theory is called "breed mingling" not evolution....

Check out: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html for a discussion on new species.

You might also consider how doctors have to change antibiotics from time to time cause they start to lose their effectiveness. Why, natural selection.

[quote=bassin_bug;355361]....A Mockingbird blows your theory to pieces. If it was a product of evolution, it would sing a specific song just as all the other birds but the Mockingbird sings the songs of many birds. ...

I'm not following this logic either.

....I am a Christian and, therefore, I believe what the Bible said about the creation. ...

Which version?

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Seems to be two different versions of man's creation in the bible. In the first, man and woman were created at the same time. In the second, man was created, and later woman. Why is that? Theologins tell us that there are probably 5 different authors of the old testiment. Might explain the discrepancies. They were passing on similar stories. The main ideas behind those get lost if one tries to take the bible literally. Lets face it, there is some stuff in the bible that we do not follow. For example:

You should kill your child if he strikes you (Exod. 21:15).
If you work on the Sabbath, you should be put to death (Exod. 35:2-3).
If you curse, you should be stoned to death (Lev. 24:14-15).
Happiness is smashing children upon the rocks (Psalms 137:9).

....The man who did the drawings of the evolution of homo sapiens (man) was NOT Charles Darwin. The bones used by that man were not even found until beginning sometime around 1938. Charles Darwin died in 1882...

And this proves what? There have been numerous drawings of the evolution of man. Fossils of human ancestors continue to be found and revisions made to those drawings of man's evolution.

Bug, how do you account for the fossils and numerous other evidence for evolution? btw, one can be christian and accept the theory of evolution. The pope does, for example.

Andrew