Who said that?

It goes back to the old Noahs Ark description of 'kind'...

It has been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, the complete impossibility of all the known species today evolving from what actually COULD fit into the said Ark, based upon the estimated time it would take for the evolutionary 'process' to arrive at what IS now from what 'was' then...

Evolution is fact, the theory is growing in it's understandings of exactly 'how'... based on further new findings, ALL of which support it as fact.

There is no credible evidence to the contrary.

AGAIN, where is this incest you keep claiming? It's not there, it's only YOUR assumption, please for the last time, this is akin to slander;^[

damn are you still on this crap? why must religion threads always end in fights?

I have asked for the same thing since I first posted here over a year ago. The people in these forums love to talk about tolerance and open-mindedness, but they will call for the destruction of the Christian church at the drop of a hat. No beliefs are allowed, except for theirs. If you don't believe that God is completely non-judgemental and is an amorphous blob of happiness, which doesn't care what you do, then your beliefs aren't good enough. End of story.

spider:

The description of 'fact' IS in my other thread... do I need to post it here?

Please don't. My stomach and sides are already aching, I couldn't stand to laugh anymore today.

That would not surprise me at this point, spider...sadly enough.

Laugh in the face of what you asked for... irrespectively so, indeed...

It has been put in front of you.

Close your eyes spider... and you WILL see better.

You haven't even tried to give me what I asked for. Tell me what is flawed or irrational about my OP. You think you can copy/paste a bunch of stuff and all your little buddies should give you a high-five. Sorry dude, none of you can refute what I posted, because what I said is the facts. Science assumes that evolution is true. Science assumes that a species can branch off to create a new genus. We have no proof, they have no proof and you are duped into believing that they do.

Now that's what I call thorough and credible refutation !!!

Bravo 'spider'! I had no mind for creationism, but reading your 'brilliant' refutation: '...It's magic, got it', just turned it all around.

Life will never be the same for me!!!


'...It's magic, got it'. What briliance! What insight!

I have decided to join the nearest 'fundie apologetics' bible inerrancy refutation 'school'. They have thought you such 'neat' things!!! I want some of it too!!!

Can I count on a recommendation letter from you 'spider'?!?!?

By the way 'spider', the reason I don't eve wish to even try to come close to addressing the first degree of your topics, has to do with this brilliance you have in refuting 'everything' without even thinking about it.

Maybe it's the 'cut and paste' technology of those 'great' apologetics posts you 'belong' to, which saves you from having to think through anything...

Anyhow, I just wanted to tell you, I have known all along that you (think) know everything, and that (you think) everything you know is THE TRUTH.

That's why I find it really funny when you open these new threads and do that real fake thing of asking us questions. As if you were interested in our 'false' answers.

Anyhow, it is certainly not out of disrespect that I don't answer your 'first degree' questions 'spider'.

On the contrary, it's just that I know YOU (are so sure) YOU KNOW EVERYTHING!!! I couldn't possibly be able to add anything to your already 'overflowing' knowledge of everything!!!

And don't worry about 'creative', I'll brief about your 'fake' questions trick!!!

He won't bother you again with answers and facts to your 'Gotcha!' threads!!!

i just thought i would pop in and say hello to everyone. i dont have input on the topic, i just want to wish everyone a blessed day and i hope that you are all well! i like to post well wishes but they dont get read by everyone b/c they are in the coffeehouse. so i have decided that today i will post in a "controversial" thread and say hello. (no, i have NOT lost my marbles. lol)

Honestly, I think that's exactly what this thread needs..lol. Hello and blessings!!;^]

thank you turtle. i have decided that today i will post random happiness!

Definition of slander: Main Entry: 2slander
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sclaundre, slaundre, from Old French esclandre, from Late Latin scandalum stumbling block, offense -- more at SCANDAL
1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person -- compare LIBEL
- slan·der·ous/-d(&-)r&s/ adjective
- slan·der·ous·ly adverb
- slan·der·ous·ness noun

I cannot slander a book. The bible teaches of incest. I cannot ruin the bibles reputation by stating what is read there. I am sorry if you take it personally turtle, I do not mean it in any way as a personal attack that you are incestuous or come from incest. Unless you believe that you do and you are okay with it like spider, then that is different.

I assumed the religious know of what is taught and accept it as law. That is how it was taught to me, my soul would burn in hell if I did not take it and defend it. I cannot do that, for one, man created the stories as stories. Theses stories were not meant to be any kind of law. People have taken these seperate stories, put them together, said they were law and started killing people who believed differently.

I knew this much before evolution was ever a factor for me.

But incest is part of the teaching, it cannot be removed from it unless you convert the meaning into a symbolic form. I guess some could do that but many, many want to take the book as literal as possible. If this is the case, creationism involves incest. Sorry.

Hello winnie!

On the contrary, you might be the only one with her marbles o this post.

I know I'm losing mine reading 'spiderwebs' !!!

:)

i just want to bring some happiness and light into these posts. i hope you are having a wonderful day voile!

WHERE is this incest? You jump to it because of missing data, it would be as if I said that the planet pluto must be covered with blue cheese, we haven't seen the surface so why not?

"1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation"

This is exactly what you're doing with creationism, because there is missing data you ASSUME that it must mean incest. Show me some scripture that says there was incest in the begining of man. Until then, what you are doing IS slander to creationism, not to mention lumping non judaic/ christian/ muslim creation beliefs in with ours. Incest in the bible doesn't pop up until Lott and his two daughters, long after Adam & Eve & this story is to teach us a lesson AGAINST incest. Please stop presenting your assumptions as fact, it's slander in the fullest;^[

And remember, the scripture never says there weren't people created outside the garden, missing data doesn't equate any sollution, a mystery is just that, a mystery, not "incest" by default;^]

I have very happy days always and I am always full of light and warmth. Thanks winnie for the wishes Back to you

Upsetting others is not the purpose, I would hope, just the sharing of views, correct????

I do apologize if my view is upsetting. I take things literally and form opinions from it. If I was suppose to be ambiguous and beat around the bush, noone let me know.

Again, I apologize for any bad feelings generated.

A little more substantiated evidence of evoution:

Horses lineage through evolution as we 'know' it...


Here we come to the most famous general lineage of all, the horse sequence. It was the first such lineage to be discovered, in the late 1800's, and thus became the most famous. There is an odd rumor circulating in creationist circles that the horse sequence is somehow suspect or outdated. Not so; it's a very good sequence that has grown only more detailed and complete over the years, changing mainly by the addition of large side-branches. As these various paleontologists have said recently: "The extensive fossil record of the family Equidae provides an excellent example of long-term, large-scale evolutionary change."

(Colbert, 1988) "The fossil record [of horses] provides a lucid story of descent with change for nearly 50 million years, and we know much about the ancestors of modern horses."(Evander, in Prothero & Schoch 1989, p. 125) "All the morphological changes in the history of the Equidae can be accounted for by the neo-Darwinian theory of microevolution: genetic variation, natural selection, genetic drift, and speciation." (Futuyma, 1986, p.409) "...fossil horses do indeed provide compelling evidence in support of evolutionary theory." (MacFadden, 1988)

So here's the summary of the horse sequence.

Loxolophus (early Paleocene) -- A primitive condylarth with rather low-crowned molars, probably ancestral to the phenacodontid condylarths.

Tetraclaenodon (mid-Paleocene) -- A more advanced Paleocene condylarth from the phenacodontid family, and almost certainly ancestral to all the perissodactyls (a different order). Long but unspecialized limbs; 5 toes on each foot (#1 and #5 smaller). Slightly more efficient wrist.

GAP: There are almost no known perissodactyl fossils from the late Paleocene. This is actually a small gap; it's only noticeable because the perissodactyl record is otherwise very complete.

Recent discoveries have made clear that the first perissodactyls arose in Asia (a poorly studied continent), so hopefully the ongoing new fossil hunts in Asia will fill this small but frustrating gap. The first clue has already come in:

Radinskya yupingae (late Paleocene, China) -- A recently discovered perissodactyl-like condylarth. (McKenna et al., in Prothero & Schoch, 1989.)

Hyracotherium (early Eocene, about 55 Ma; previously "Eohippus") -- The famous "dawn horse", a small, doggish perissodactyl, with an arched back, short neck, omnivore teeth, and short snout. 4 toes in front and 3 behind.

Compared to Tetraclaenodon, has longer toes, interlocking ankle bones, and slightly different tooth cusps. Probably evolved from Tetra. in about 4-5 my, perhaps via an Asian species like Radinskya. Note that Hyrac. differed from other early perissodactyls (such as tapir/rhino ancestors) only by small changes in tooth cusps and in body size.

Hyracotherium vassacciense (early Eocene) -- The particular species that probably gave rise to the equids.

Orohippus (mid-Eocene, ~50 Ma) -- Small, 4/3 toed, developing browser tooth crests.

Epihippus (late Eocene, ~45 Ma) -- Small, 4/3 toed, good tooth crests, browser.

Epihippus (Duchesnehippus) -- A later subgenus with Mesohippus-like teeth.

Mesohippus celer (latest Eocene, 40 Ma) -- Three-toed on all feet, browser, slightly larger

Mesohippus westoni (early Oligocene) -- A slightly later, more advanced species.

Miohippus assiniboiensis (mid-Oligocene) -- This species split off from early Mesohippus via cladogenetic evolution, after which Miohippus and Mesohippus overlapped for the next 4 my. Distinctly larger, slightly longer skull, facial fossa deeper and more expanded, subtly different ankle joint, variable extra crest on upper cheek teeth. In the early Miocene (24 My) Miohippus began to speciate rapidly. Grasses had just evolved, & teeth began to change accordingly. Legs, etc., started to change for fast running.

Kalobatippus (late Oligocene) -- Three-toed browser w/foot intermediate between Mio. & Para.

Parahippus (early Miocene, 23 Ma) -- Three-toed browser/grazer, developing "spring foot". Permanent establishment of the extra crest that was so variable in Miohippus. Stronger tooth crests & slightly taller tooth crowns.

'Parahippus' leonensis (mid-Miocene, ~20 Ma) -- Three-toed browser/grazer with the emphasis on grazer. Developing spring-foot & high-crowned teeth.

'Merychippus' gunteri (mid-Miocene, ~18 Ma) -- Three-toed grazer, fully spring-footed with high-crowned teeth.

Merychippus primus (mid-Miocene, ~17 Ma) -- Slightly more advanced.

Merychippus spp. of mid-late Miocene (16-15 Ma) -- 3-toed grazers, spring-footed, size of small pony. Diversified into all available grazer niches, giving rise to at least 19 successful three-toed grazers. Side toes of varying sizes, very small in some lines. Horsey hoof develops, leg bones fuse. Fully high-crowned teeth with thick cement & same crests as Parahippus.

The line that eventually produced Equus developed as follows: M. primus, M. sejunctus, M. isonesus (these last two still had a mix of primitive, hipparion, and equine features), M. intermontanus, M. stylodontus, M. carrizoensis. These last two looked quite horsey, with quite small side toes, and gave rise to a set of larger three-toed and one-toed horses known as the "true equines". Crystal clear, right?