Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Hey Y'all,

This thread is about Creation too. So I wanted to add something written in the Bible.

The 3rd angel that visited me told me about the things that follow. The Lord also helped me to understand certain things, or else I would not know them. The 3rd angel that visited me said, "Do not follow after the beast and his image, nor receive his mark in your right hand or forehead." And the angel told me that this man was an Israeli man named Uri Geller, and that he wouldn't worship the God of his fathers, but instead worship a god of force (See Dan. 11:37, 38). Also he would urge others to acquire these powers or abilities and God would not allow more than six hundred sixty six other people to receive these abilities. (See Rev. chapter 13:17, 18). And they could 'buy or sell' these powers to other friends, etc. And the angel said, "Let him who hath understanding count the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666. The angel said that this number was like the number of followers to a leader, or the number of the army men to a captain. Do you understand at all?

Now, as far as the whore/beast mentioned of in Rev. 17:5, the Lord told me that the seven kings were the seven deadly sins, which are kings with the devil for a time. Not literal kings, but spiritual kings of sins. Now the 10 horns are the seven kings/deadly sins, plus three more, additional sins of the devil that are newer. Drugs may be one of them, fornication may be another (I'm not talking about adultery here), and the other could POSSIBLY be smoking cigs, or allowing gay marriage. Both are nearly impossible to quit. Quite definitely highly improbable to the point of sheer torture. I'm not saying either way, because I can't say for sure. I don't have ALL of the answers ALL of the time. I'm not God, nor Jesus. But I do tell you that I know what I'm talking about and what I was told, I am writing, and what I was not told, I am letting you know that also, just so there is no question later.

In God's Hands!

Michael

 

[The Barbarian]

Perhaps, You are Unable to Understand what the Word Species Means.

In science, it has a number of meanings. Necessarily so, since evolution means there will generally not be discrete species, but all sorts of half-species, quarter-species, and so on. Darwin discussed the issue, and in spite of the best efforts of creationists, there is no single, all-encompassing definition.

I also Understand, that Biologists are trying to Redefine the Word, in order for it to Fit into Micro Organism's Life Cycles, also; as if the Micro Organisms Are the Same As the Animals We Share the World With, even though the Processes that they Use to Reproduce are Much Different, than Animals and Man.

You've been misinformed about that, too. The truth is, microbiologists have always used different criteria for taxonomy. One of my degrees is in bacteriology, and it's quite interesting how genetics has revolutionized bacterial taxonomy; my old Bergey's Manual from 1978 is now no more than a historical curiosity.

It is Very Simple

No, it is quite complex, even for sexually-reproducing organisms.

Animals that Have Like Characteristics, and are Capable of Interbreeding, should be considered the Same Species.

So polar bears and grizzly bears are the same species? And leopard frogs in Minnesota are a different species than the identical frogs in Alabama? You sure about those ideas?

You believe that One Kind of animal Can Give Birth to another Kind of Animal.

Darwin pointed out that all organisms are different than their parents. And geneticists have confirmed this fact. It's just the way things work. So, over a few decades, a population of lizards in a new environment can evolve a new digestive organ. Not all at once, but by preservation of gradual changes.

That Makes No Sense.

Creationists often find reality incomprehensible.

LOL!!!! @YOU

Thomas Huxley, in a debate with Samuel Wilberforce, was challenged by Wilberforce to say whether he was descended from an ape on his mother's side or his father's side. According to several attendees, Huxley responded:

If then the question is put to me whether I would rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly endowed by nature and possessed of great means of influence and yet employs these faculties and that influence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave scientific discussion, I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape.

Not that the above description applies to you, of course.

http://animals.about.com/od/s/g/species.htm

You should have read past the first sentence. If you had, you'd have learned something important:
Unfortunately, in practice, this definition is plagued by ambiguities. To begin, this definition is not relevant to organisms (such as many types of bacteria) that are capable of asexual reproduction. If the definition of a species requires that two individuals are capable of interbreeding, then an organism that does not interbreed is outside of that definition.

Another difficulty that arises when defining the term species is that some species are capable of forming hybrids. For example, many of the large cat species are capable of hybridizing. A cross between a female lions and a male tiger produces a liger. A cross between a male jaguar and a female lion produces a jaglion. There are a number of other crosses possible among the panther species, but they are not considered to be all members of a single species as such crosses are very rare or do not occur at all in nature.

Surprise.

I also believe, that you Probably don't know the Definition of Speciation, or understand How the Evolutionary Mechanism Known as Speciation is thought to Work.

As you learned, there is no single definition of speciation, because there is no clear definition as to the point that two populations diverge sufficiently to be called separate species. Reproductive isolation is usable in cases of sexually-reproducing organisms, but it won't work for others, such as bacteria or many protists or even for parthenogenic vertebrates, like whiptail lizards.

And there are several documented forms of speciation. The most common form is allopatric speciation, but not the only one.

Wikipedia is more accurate than many people think, but it's still not the most reliable source; always check your findings. Here's a good definition from Biology Online:

Speciation

Definition

noun, plural: speciations

The process in which new genetically distinct species evolve usually as a result of genetic isolation from the main population.


Supplement

Due to Genetic Isolation, the differences in gene pools among species become so great that they cannot reproduce through interbreeding. As a result, new species are formed with a genome that is genetically distinct from the main population.

The ways in which new species are formed are as follows:

Allopatric speciation
Peripatric speciation
Parapatric speciation
Sympatric speciation

Read and learn.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

In science, it has a number of meanings. Necessarily so, since evolution means there will generally not be discrete species, but all sorts of half-species, quarter-species, and so on. Darwin discussed the issue, and in spite of the best efforts of creationists, there is no single, all-encompassing definition.
LOL

Yep, AL found One Earlier today;

You've been misinformed about that, too. The truth is, microbiologists have always used different criteria for taxonomy. One of my degrees is in bacteriology, and it's quite interesting how genetics has revolutionized bacterial taxonomy; my old Bergey's Manual from 1978 is now no more than a historical curiosity.

No, it is quite complex, even for sexually-reproducing organisms.

So polar bears and grizzly bears are the same species? And leopard frogs in Minnesota are a different species than the identical frogs in Alabama? You sure about those ideas?



Darwin pointed out that all organisms are different than their parents. And geneticists have confirmed this fact. It's just the way things work. So, over a few decades, a population of lizards in a new environment can evolve a new digestive organ. Not all at once, but by preservation of gradual changes.



Creationists often find reality incomprehensible.



Thomas Huxley, in a debate with Samuel Wilberforce, was challenged by Wilberforce to say whether he was descended from an ape on his mother's side or his father's side. According to several attendees, Huxley responded:

[COLOR=""]If then the question is put to me whether I would rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly endowed by nature and possessed of great means of influence and yet employs these faculties and that influence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave scientific discussion, I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape.[/COLOR]

Not that the above description applies to you, of course.



You should have read past the first sentence. If you had, you'd have learned something important:
Unfortunately, in practice, this definition is plagued by ambiguities. To begin, this definition is not relevant to organisms (such as many types of bacteria) that are capable of asexual reproduction. If the definition of a species requires that two individuals are capable of interbreeding, then an organism that does not interbreed is outside of that definition.

Another difficulty that arises when defining the term species is that some species are capable of forming hybrids. For example, many of the large cat species are capable of hybridizing. A cross between a female lions and a male tiger produces a liger. A cross between a male jaguar and a female lion produces a jaglion. There are a number of other crosses possible among the panther species, but they are not considered to be all members of a single species as such crosses are very rare or do not occur at all in nature.

Surprise.



As you learned, there is no single definition of speciation, because there is no clear definition as to the point that two populations diverge sufficiently to be called separate species. Reproductive isolation is usable in cases of sexually-reproducing organisms, but it won't work for others, such as bacteria or many protists or even for parthenogenic vertebrates, like whiptail lizards.

And there are several documented forms of speciation. The most common form is allopatric speciation, but not the only one.

Wikipedia is more accurate than many people think, but it's still not the most reliable source; always check your findings. Here's a good definition from Biology Online:

Speciation

Definition

noun, plural: speciations

The process in which new genetically distinct species evolve usually as a result of genetic isolation from the main population.


Supplement

Due to Genetic Isolation, the differences in gene pools among species become so great that they cannot reproduce through interbreeding. As a result, new species are formed with a genome that is genetically distinct from the main population.

The ways in which new species are formed are as follows:

Allopatric speciation
Peripatric speciation
Parapatric speciation
Sympatric speciation

Read and learn.

You Are Doug From Scrubs~!!!!!

Barbie is Doug;

My definition of Species is;

A group of Animals With Like Characteristics, Which are Capable Of Interbreeding.

The Common Biologist Definition of Species is;

A Group of Animals With Like characteristics, Which are Capable of Interbreeding, and Would be able to Do So in Nature.

See Here;

The term species can be defined as a group of individual organisms that are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring in nature. A species is, according to this definition, the largest gene pool that exists under natural conditions. Thus, if a pair of organisms are capable of producing offspring in nature, they must belong to the same species.

=M=

I use the Older Definition, before the Evolutionists that believe in Separation of animals From A Single Species, will eventually Lead to A Different Species, came and Mucked up the Definition, which should be Very Simple.

======================================

Here is the Article I Referenced Before, that Explains Simply some Bit of the "Species Problem", and Why Biologists Don't Feel that that Word Can be Defined Fully.

http://animals.about.com/od/s/g/species.htm

When considered in the context of classification, the term species refers to the most refined level within the hierarchy of major taxonomic ranks (though it should be noted that in some cases species are further divided into subspecies, but that term lacks clear and consistent definition).

Notice how Barbie, Uses the Word "subspecies"; which actually Is another Word that Lacks Definition.

According to My Personal Definition of Species, Lions And Tigers are Actually both the Same Species, Given they are Capable of Interbreeding. Given the Simplicity of my Species Definition, I believe that Donkeys and Horses are of the Same Species, because they Can Have Mules, Even though Most Hybrids, are Very Infertile.

The Very Fact that Hybrids are Infertile, Proves the Idea of Speciation Unreasonable. If an Animal Deviates Enough From it's Own Original Potent DNA, it will Loose the Ability to Reproduce. Given this Observation, Speciation as a Mechanism of Evolution is Completely Impossible.

So, that is why I'm saying, Speciation was Unbelievable to me, originally;

The Fact that; When Animals Mutate to the Point where they can No Longer Reproduce with their Original Species, they are Rendered Incapable of Reproduction Whatsoever, by the Amount of Mutation that Has Occurred.

All of the Human Reproduction System Problems are a Product of Mutation through Reproduction. If the Theory of Evolution was Truth, then there would be Some Evolutionary Mechanism that Allows Reproduction to keep Taking Place, not Stop taking Place all together.

Which is why Mutation could never lead to Better, or More Complex Organisms With New Anatomical Features, because Mutation Through Reproduction, is only Ever a Destructive Force, when you consider the Genome.

 

[Jose Fly]

Which is why Mutation could never lead to Better, or More Complex Organisms With New Anatomical Features, because Mutation Through Reproduction, is only Ever a Destructive Force, when you consider the Genome.

So do you believe your god intentionally and deliberately created things like the pathogens that cause ebola, botulism, malaria, cholera, smallpox, etc.? In order to cause their afflictions, they utilize very complex biochemical pathways, which you maintain can't come about via evolution, which I presume means you believe your god created them.

So I guess your god is a bio-terrorist.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Yes, and there are Many Woes ahead, Especially For you Evols;

He's also the Being that Created you, and thereby you should Love and Fear Him.

Kind of Like, a Good Father Figure.

=M=

Woe of Woes, to those That deny their Obvious Creator.
There is a Reward in Secret, waiting Just For You.

[Psalms 46:2 KJV] 2 Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea;

[Psa 46:1, 6 KJV] 1 [[To the chief Musician for the sons of Korah, A Song upon Alamoth.]] God [is] our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. ... 6 The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: he uttered his voice, the earth melted.

 

[The Barbarian]

Hmm... lots of misconceptions here. The ol' Gish Gallop is a tradition with creationists, but I'm a very patient guy...

Barbarian explains why the difficulty in defining "species" is a major problem for creationists:
In science, it has a number of meanings. Necessarily so, since evolution means there will generally not be discrete species, but all sorts of half-species, quarter-species, and so on. Darwin discussed the issue, and in spite of the best efforts of creationists, there is no single, all-encompassing definition.

Yep, AL found One Earlier today;

The duckagator meme was invented by atheists to make fun of creationist misconceptions about transitionals. As you know, scientists have made many predictions about the sorts of fossils we should find, and there are a large number of predicted fossils that are now in evidence.

Which is powerful evidence for evolution, but even more striking is the fact that there are no transitionals for things that shouldn't be, according to evolutionary theory. Never a duckagator, never a mammal with feathers. Never a beetle with bones. But we have platypuses, which are transitional between therapsid reptiles and eutherian mammals, Australopithecines which are transitional between other apes and modern humans, dinosaur-birds, and so on.

But never one that shouldn't be, according to theory.

The truth is, microbiologists have always used different criteria for taxonomy. One of my degrees is in bacteriology, and it's quite interesting how genetics has revolutionized bacterial taxonomy; my old Bergey's Manual from 1978 is now no more than a historical curiosity.

(from your definition of species)
Unfortunately, in practice, this definition is plagued by ambiguities. To begin, this definition is not relevant to organisms (such as many types of bacteria) that are capable of asexual reproduction. If the definition of a species requires that two individuals are capable of interbreeding, then an organism that does not interbreed is outside of that definition.

Another difficulty that arises when defining the term species is that some species are capable of forming hybrids. For example, many of the large cat species are capable of hybridizing. A cross between a female lions and a male tiger produces a liger. A cross between a male jaguar and a female lion produces a jaglion. There are a number of other crosses possible among the panther species, but they are not considered to be all members of a single species as such crosses are very rare or do not occur at all in nature.

Surprise. You should have read past the first sentence.

Here's a good definition from Biology Online:

Speciation

Definition

noun, plural: speciations

The process in which new genetically distinct species evolve usually as a result of genetic isolation from the main population.


Supplement

Due to Genetic Isolation, the differences in gene pools among species become so great that they cannot reproduce through interbreeding. As a result, new species are formed with a genome that is genetically distinct from the main population.

The ways in which new species are formed are as follows:

Allopatric speciation
Peripatric speciation
Parapatric speciation
Sympatric speciation

Read and learn.

(reference to "Doug from Scrubs")

Sorry, don't watch much TV. Try to put an argument together; it will be much more impressive to everyone.

My definition of Species is;

A group of Animals With Like Characteristics, Which are Capable Of Interbreeding.

No, that's wrong. Species is a concept not just for animals. Read and learn.

Here is the Article I Referenced Before, that Explains Simply some Bit of the "Species Problem"

Actually, this was first pointed out by Darwin. It's been a thorn in the side of creationists ever since. If creationism is true, there should be no intermediate cases. But there always are. Some, like the ICR or "Answers in Genesis", try to save the farm by claiming that there is some speciation, but not too much.

According to My Personal Definition of Species, Lions And Tigers are Actually both the Same Species

Same genus. Because lions and tigers never interbreed in the wild, and because the occasional offspring in captivity has characteristics that make it unlikely to survive in the wild, they are two species, albeit closely related.

Given they are Capable of Interbreeding. Given the Simplicity of my Species Definition, I believe that Donkeys and Horses are of the Same Species, because they Can Have Mules, Even though Most Hybrids, are Very Infertile.

So if two humans are capable of reproduction, but for any of a number of reasons, are incapable of reproducing with each other, you consider them to be separate species?

If a leopard frog in Minnesota can't reproduce with an apparently identical leopard frog from Alabama, you think they are two different species, but lions and tigers are the same species?

The Very Fact that Hybrids are Infertile,

Many are not. There are even instances of speciation by hybridization, wherein the hybrids cannot reproduce with either parent species, but can reproduce with other hybrids.

Proves the Idea of Speciation Unreasonable.

It's been directly observed. And even many creationists now admit that speciation is a fact.

If an Animal Deviates Enough From it's Own Original Potent DNA, it will Loose the Ability to Reproduce.

So your argument is that Chihuahuas don't exist?

Given this Observation, Speciation as a Mechanism of Evolution is Completely Impossible.

See above. It's a fact.

Even many of your fellow creationists admit it. The Institute for Creation Research has touted John Woodmorappe's Ark Feasibility study as evidence that new species, genera, and families of organisms evolved after the Ark landed, in just a few thousand years. So you're kind of out on that limb by yourself.

Which is why Mutation could never lead to Better, or More Complex Organisms With New Anatomical Features

Directly observed. In just a few decades, lizards evolved a new digestive organ to help them digest plant material. Because there were few insects in their new island, natural selection favored changes that made it more effective for them to eat plants.

because Mutation Through Reproduction, is only Ever a Destructive Force, when you consider the Genome.

See above. You've been had on that one.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Hmm... lots of misconceptions here. The ol' Gish Gallop is a tradition with creationists, but I'm a very patient guy...

Barbarian explains why the difficulty in defining "species" is a major problem for creationists:
In science, it has a number of meanings. Necessarily so, since evolution means there will generally not be discrete species, but all sorts of half-species, quarter-species, and so on. Darwin discussed the issue, and in spite of the best efforts of creationists, there is no single, all-encompassing definition.

The duckagator meme was invented by atheists to make fun of creationist misconceptions about transitionals. As you know, scientists have made many predictions about the sorts of fossils we should find, and there are a large number of predicted fossils that are now in evidence.

Which is powerful evidence for evolution, but even more striking is the fact that there are no transitionals for things that shouldn't be, according to evolutionary theory. Never a duckagator, never a mammal with feathers. Never a beetle with bones. But we have platypuses, which are transitional between therapsid reptiles and eutherian mammals, Australopithecines which are transitional between other apes and modern humans, dinosaur-birds, and so on.

But never one that shouldn't be, according to theory.

The truth is, microbiologists have always used different criteria for taxonomy. One of my degrees is in bacteriology, and it's quite interesting how genetics has revolutionized bacterial taxonomy; my old Bergey's Manual from 1978 is now no more than a historical curiosity.

(from your definition of species)
[FURCOLOR="DarkRed"]Unfortunately, in practice, this definition is plagued by ambiguities. To begin, this definition is not relevant to organisms (such as many types of bacteria) that are capable of asexual reproduction. If the definition of a species requires that two individuals are capable of interbreeding, then an organism that does not interbreed is outside of that definition.

Another difficulty that arises when defining the term species is that some species are capable of forming hybrids. For example, many of the large cat species are capable of hybridizing. A cross between a female lions and a male tiger produces a liger. A cross between a male jaguar and a female lion produces a jaglion. There are a number of other crosses possible among the panther species, but they are not considered to be all members of a single species as such crosses are very rare or do not occur at all in nature.[/COLFOR]

Surprise. You should have read past the first sentence.

Here's a good definition from Biology Online:

Speciation

Definition

noun, plural: speciations

The process in which new genetically distinct species evolve usually as a result of genetic isolation from the main population.


Supplement

Due to Genetic Isolation, the differences in gene pools among species become so great that they cannot reproduce through interbreeding.

Right, that is what YOU Believe, Now show me Some Proof of it.

Read and learn.
(reference to "Doug from Scrubs")
Sorry, don't watch much TV. Try to put an argument together; it will be much more impressive to everyone.
No, that's wrong. Species is a concept not just for animals. Read and learn.
Actually, this was first pointed out by Darwin. It's been a thorn in the side of creationists ever since. If creationism is true, there should be no intermediate cases. But there always are. Some, like the ICR or "Answers in Genesis", try to save the farm by claiming that there is some speciation, but not too much.
Same genus. Because lions and tigers never interbreed in the wild, and because the occasional offspring in captivity has characteristics that make it unlikely to survive in the wild, they are two species, albeit closely related.
So if two humans are capable of reproduction, but for any of a number of reasons, are incapable of reproducing with each other, you consider them to be separate species?
If a leopard frog in Minnesota can't reproduce with an apparently identical leopard frog from Alabama, you think they are two different species, but lions and tigers are the same species?

No, I believe that Frogs are A Kind or Form of animal, and therefore are Capable of reproduction with Each other.

Many are not. There are even instances of speciation by hybridization, wherein the hybrids cannot reproduce with either parent species, but can reproduce with other hybrids.

Show Me. Hybrids are normally Completely Infertile with each other.

It's been directly observed. And even many creationists now admit that speciation is a fact.
So your argument is that Chihuahuas don't exist?
See above. It's a fact.
Even many of your fellow creationists admit it. The Institute for Creation Research has touted John Woodmorappe's Ark Feasibility study as evidence that new species, genera, and families of organisms evolved after the Ark landed, in just a few thousand years. So you're kind of out on that limb by yourself.
Directly observed. In just a few decades, lizards evolved a new digestive organ to help them digest plant material. Because there were few insects in their new island, natural selection favored changes that made it more effective for them to eat plants.
See above. You've been had on that one.

I have no Problem Defining Species. It is the Biologists that are Trying to Cram all the Micro Organisms into the Same Class System as Man, Animals, and Plants.

My Definition of Species is Actually the Old One, and I believe it is More Accurate than the Several Differing Definitions that Various Evolutionists Try To Push off as Truth.

See Here;

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

=M=

You believe that a Wolf and A Dog, are Two Separate Species; However, they are Capable of Reproducing, and their Children are not Hybrids, they have Fully Functional Reproduction abilities.

https://www.google.com/search?q=are...+Same+Species?&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Why does Google Say you Are Wrong?

===================================

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

Is this your Amphicyonidae?

Cause that is a Bear.

Please Post a Picture of the Amphicyonidae Fossils, which you believe Are Proof that Dogs Emerged From Bears.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, and there are Many Woes ahead, Especially For you Evols;

He's also the Being that Created you, and thereby you should Love and Fear Him.

Kind of Like, a Good Father Figure.

=M=

Woe of Woes, to those That deny their Obvious Creator.
There is a Reward in Secret, waiting Just For You.

[Psalms 46:2 KJV] 2 Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea;

[Psa 46:1, 6 KJV] 1 [[To the chief Musician for the sons of Korah, A Song upon Alamoth.]] God [is] our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. ... 6 The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: he uttered his voice, the earth melted.

Apparently a "father figure" who intentionally gives babies diseases and makes them suffer. If this god were real and here, it'd be brought up on crimes against humanity charges.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Apparently a "father figure" who intentionally gives babies diseases and makes them suffer. If this god were real and here, it'd be brought up on crimes against humanity charges.

Oh, the Funny things you God Haters Say.

LOL!!!!

=M=

You don't fear God Now, But you Will.

Woe Of Woes to the Man, that Kills Ten Thousand of My Sheep, when He Could have Squashed the Bug.

======================================

Music!

Modest Mouse - The Ocean Breathes Salty

Modest Mouse - Dashboard

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh, the Funny things you God Haters Say.

I may be funny, but I'm not the one going around saying I believe in a god that deliberately creates diseases to infect babies. That's not funny at all...it's sick.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

I may be funny, but I'm not the one going around saying I believe in a god that deliberately creates diseases to infect babies. That's not funny at all...it's sick.

My God Created All things And Allows all things That Happen; My God is the God of the Living, not the God of the Dead.

=M=

Call it whatever your Narrow Minded Evol Mind Wants to.
It's What I Know.

=========================================

Music!

Built to Spill - Carry The Zero

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't have to call it anything. The fact that you believe in a god that deliberately and intentionally creates pathogens so they can inflict horrible suffering speaks for itself.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

I don't have to call it anything. The fact that you believe in a god that deliberately and intentionally creates pathogens so they can inflict horrible suffering speaks for itself.

Yes, and New Forms of all these Evil little bugs, are being Created Everyday; In a Lab Near You.

Do you get Heart Burn, holding in all that Hate?

=M=

God has a reason for Everything, God also Placed Lymph Nodes in your Body, that Fight Disease.

+ and -

He's Just So Awesome And Perfect!!!!!

Oh I Love IT!!!! : D
He holds my Hand, through all this.

[II Peter 3:1-18 KJV] 1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in [both] which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 [Seeing] then [that] all these things shall be dissolved, what manner [of persons] ought ye to be in [all] holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15 And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18 But grow in grace, and [in] the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him [be] glory both now and for ever. Amen.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Mark,

I know you are quite busy, but could you find some time to post about my Post #4782? It's all very important. It's much more important than a crocoduck by far, because it deals with our Lord God. I know you are tired of trying to keep up with Barbie. Take out some time to check out what's really more important, to be honest (tbh). Well, looking for some input from you!

God Be With You As You Read!!

Michael

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

I think, Barbie Finally Realized that Biologists Recognize That Wolves and Dogs are the Same Species, and Felt Ashamed that She Believes a Lie.

https://www.google.com/search?q=are...+Same+Species?&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Maybe;

=M=

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Barbie?

Oh, there she is at the Bottom, again, I guess She was Just Waiting on the Wall, for me to Be Done Pretending to Read the Paper?

=M=

 

[alwight]

The duckagator meme was invented by atheists to make fun of creationist misconceptions about transitionals.

It seems that the ubiquitous crockaduck is rather new to Mark, surely not?

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Kudos to you, AL.

Barbie, and Other Evols, don't usually use such Good Diction.

=M=

 

[The Barbarian]

I have no Problem Defining Species.

All creationists have a serious problem with it. Some have tried (you were apparently unaware of this) to solve the problem by admitting a little evolution, but not too much. They claim that new species, genera, and families evolve, but that's it. ICR and "Answers in Genesis" have both retreated to that position, because of the difficulty with defining what a "species" is.

It is the Biologists that are Trying to Cram all the Micro Organisms into the Same Class System as Man, Animals, and Plants.

No. Those are all in different classes. You've been misled about that, too.

However, it was a creationist (Linnaeus) who first put all living things in one classification system. It was only after Darwin that people figured out why the system worked so well.

My Definition of Species is Actually the Old One, and I believe it is More Accurate than the Several Differing Definitions that Various Evolutionists Try To Push off as Truth.

Nope. It's just something you made up to cover some problems with your ideas. It was never the way taxonomy worked in biology. Linnaeus was the first to attempt a taxonomy, and he included all living things in one tree.

And yet a creationist. Read up and learn why.

You believe that a Wolf and A Dog, are Two Separate Species;

Nope. I showed you that they were sub-species, not two separate species. That's why they have the same genus and species names.

However, they are Capable of Reproducing, and their Children are not Hybrids, they have Fully Functional Reproduction abilities.

Not surprising. Many species have subspecies capable of interbreeding. You're wrong about humans being different subspecies, though. As you learned, there are no biological human races.

https://www.google.com/search?q=are+...en-US:official

Please Post a Picture of the Amphicyonidae Fossils, which you believe Are Proof that Dogs Emerged From Bears.

Amphicyon is often called a bear-dog; it had a bear-like body overall yet had wolf-like teeth.[4] In fact, because of the dog-like teeth, amphicyonids were thought to be dogs until about 1971.

Amphicyon ingens was digitigrade, like dogs, running on toes, instead of plantigrade, running on soles of the feet, like bears. The body was massive like a bear, and the front feet were bearlike, but the teeth were like that of a wolf.

In other words, pretty close to the predicted ancestor of dogs and bears. Your problem here is why we keep finding predicted transitionals, but we never find transitionals that shouldn't exist. Tell us about that.

Amphicyonids were as small as 5 kg (11 lb) and as large as 100 to 600 kg (220 to 1,320 lb)[6] and evolved from wolf-like to bear-like.[7] Early amphicyonids, such as Daphoenodon, possessed a digitigrade posture and locomotion (walking on their toes), while many of the later and larger species were plantigrade or semiplantigrade.[8] The amphicyonids were obligate carnivores, unlike the Canidae, which are hypercarnivores or mesocarnivores.

You probably want to avoid plagiarizing in the future. It's against the law, and I'm pretty sure Knight doesn't like it.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

All creationists have a serious problem with it. Some have tried (you were apparently unaware of this) to solve the problem by admitting a little evolution, but not too much. They claim that new species, genera, and families evolve, but that's it. ICR and "Answers in Genesis" have both retreated to that position, because of the difficulty with defining what a "species" is.

No. Those are all in different classes. You've been misled about that, too.

However, it was a creationist (Linnaeus) who first put all living things in one classification system. It was only after Darwin that people figured out why the system worked so well.

Nope. It's just something you made up to cover some problems with your ideas. It was never the way taxonomy worked in biology. Linnaeus was the first to attempt a taxonomy, and he included all living things in one tree.

And yet a creationist. Read up and learn why.

Nope. I showed you that they were sub-species, not two separate species. That's why they have the same genus and species names.

Not surprising. Many species have subspecies capable of interbreeding. You're wrong about humans being different subspecies, though. As you learned, there are no biological human races.

[YouDon't GETCOLOR="DarkRed"]Amphicyon is often called a bear-dog; it had a bear-like body overall yet had wolf-like teeth.[4] In fact, because of the dog-like teeth, amphicyonids were thought to be dogs until about 1971.[/COLOR]

Amphicyon ingens was digitigrade, like dogs, running on toes, instead of plantigrade, running on soles of the feet, like bears. The body was massive like a bear, and the front feet were bearlike, but the teeth were like that of a wolf.

In other words, pretty close to the predicted ancestor of dogs and bears. Your problem here is why we keep finding predicted transitionals, but we never find transitionals that shouldn't exist. Tell us about that.

You probably want to avoid plagiarizing in the future. It's against the law, and I'm pretty sure Knight doesn't like it.

I don't believe Different Humans are in a Different Sub Species. I don't use the Words "Sub Species", Given it has yet to be Defined.

Humans are a Group of Living Beings with like Characteristics, that are Capable of Interbreeding. Therefore, in my Definition of Species, Humans are one Species. So, you are Wrong, again.

The Evols are the Ones that Want to say, some races of Humans are Different Sub Species, and Some are more Evolved than Others. LOL Why would you even try this?

Evolutionists, will jump at every chance to put words in People's Mouths.

That is an Artist's Rendition of the Fossils;

See Here;

It is A Bear.

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

Amphicyon was the typical bear-dog amphicyonid with morphology similar to both bears and dogs. With its robust build and maximum length of 2.5 m (8 ft), the largest species looked more like a bear than a dog. It had a large heavy tail, thick neck, robust limbs and teeth like a wolf. It was probably an omnivore with a lifestyle comparable to that of the brown bear.

So, what is Dog about this Bear, Again?

=M=

Note How the Creatures Below Are Drawn to Resemble Dogs;

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

"Dog";

"Bear";

"Dog Bear"; Which I think is A Bear; Given It's Size, and Skull Shape.

Hey, they Look Kind Of Alike anyway right! That Means a Bear Gave Birth to a Dog, 30 Million Years ago; Leaping Lemur Logic.

LOL@U No Guru, and Barbie!

=M=

I Found out the Other Day Also, that they Believe that Hippos and Rhinos Came out of Whales!!!!!

Look at the Skull that Was Found of this Animal, Does it Look like a Bear Skull or a Dog Skull?

Dogs;