Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-13-2010, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,559 posts, read 37,160,046 times
Reputation: 14017

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559 View Post
I believe whales were always sea creatures.

wholphin

zonkey

zorse information

liger

tigon
Whales are known to be descendants of land mammals via several physical characteristics: bones in their flippers which resemble the forelimbs of land mammals, vertical (up-and-down) movement of their spines which resembles a running terrestrial animal, and the fact that they must breathe air. They also carry the remains of hind limbs.

http://www.squidoo.com/whale-evolution
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-13-2010, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,088,210 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk View Post
Noah did not take species of animals on the ark! He took "kinds" of animals. What are kinds? like dog/wolf kind or Horse/Donkey kind. From the original two dogs we get the variety of dogs (species as you will) that we have today, but if you look at all of these variants, they are still dogs! Put them all in the same room and after two or three generations they will all look like original dog.
What I love about this is that you are now not just admitting that evolution is true, you are saying it is blindingly fast.

After all, humans and chimpanzees are far more closely related genetically than horses and zebras. Since those are both included by creationists in the "Horse" kind, you are admitting more evolution in the last 4000 years or so than evolutionists would ever claim for millions of years.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2010, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,088,210 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559 View Post
I believe whales were always sea creatures.


Apparently not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2010, 06:27 PM
 
1,932 posts, read 4,794,128 times
Reputation: 1247
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Whales are known to be descendants of land mammals via several physical characteristics: bones in their flippers which resemble the forelimbs of land mammals, vertical (up-and-down) movement of their spines which resembles a running terrestrial animal, and the fact that they must breathe air. They also carry the remains of hind limbs.

http://www.squidoo.com/whale-evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post

Apparently not.
Once again, it depends on how you interpret the evidence (fossils)

- Overselling of Whale Evolution -
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2010, 07:15 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,559 posts, read 37,160,046 times
Reputation: 14017
Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559 View Post
Once again, it depends on how you interpret the evidence (fossils)

- Overselling of Whale Evolution -
I do not read biased and dishonest fundy sites, sorry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2010, 07:30 PM
 
295 posts, read 320,688 times
Reputation: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by inspiringmind View Post
Yum huh?

I asked a friend whom I go to church with about the whole ideal about that if Adam and Eve were the only people on earth then how did their children populate the earth without incest? She called her Mom who said that Adam and Eve were created in God's image, but that there were other humans who already lived on the earth.

Even if we take this as truth, I have a few other questions.

Why were the people on the earth already not considered to be living in sin if they were made in God's image? Did someone other creator make them?

How then did Noah and his family repopulate the earth without incest? Definitely can not say that there was any one else on the earth after the flood.

And then why do people keep telling me that God said later that incest was not ok and is now a sin, but way back when he started Adam and Eve and the whole flood thing with Noah he thinks it is okay?

I never liked the answer I got from people though on that.

Cause God can do anything he wants.

Sounds like some child who wants to play a game and then change the rules right in the middle to fit his need to win.
Your response has my approval but I do not dislike any persons desire to worship and I too find it hard to believe a GOD said let there be light and we are aglow and born!

My point, the Milky Way our own galaxy contains so many different stars or suns that any child could realize that we are not Gods creation but I will not say that God does not exist, I have no proof nor do the scientists but to think some SUPER-HUMAN BEING created us, give me a break!

My final question is and this is the most bizarre of them all but then who created GOD???

I already heard that GOD is God and he's always been around but to me non-sense and by the way I don't think the scientists can come up with a clue who created who!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2010, 07:37 PM
 
295 posts, read 320,688 times
Reputation: 124
When man leaves our planet Earth on that trip to the next SUN-STAR then and and only then will Humans find we are not alone, that our Sun is an incubator of life as we know it and as we Human beings multiply that the UNIVERSE is so enormous that we Humans will run out of room on little planet Earth and need to expand our horizons by leaving and finding another hospitable STAR-SYSTEM!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2010, 07:43 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,088,210 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559 View Post
Once again, it depends on how you interpret the evidence (fossils)
Not if your interpretation is honest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2010, 07:54 PM
 
1,932 posts, read 4,794,128 times
Reputation: 1247
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
I do not read biased and dishonest fundy sites, sorry.
So it's biased and dishonest because it doesn't tow the line on the ToE?? What a double standard. The article quotes evolutionists who disagree with the presentation of whale evolution... so it's automatically and categorically wrong according to your standards? Okay then. Who is biased?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Not if your interpretation is honest.
And how do you interpret honesty? How do you determine what is honest and what is not? My version of honest and your version of honest appear to differ. Why do you suppose that is? According to the ToE, we each react to the chemical impulses in our brains.. so we could both be right because in the evolutionary scheme of things, there are no absolutes. What's right or honest for me may not necessarily be right or honest for anyone else, but that's acceptable from the evolutionary standpoint. So what is the problem?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2010, 09:26 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,559 posts, read 37,160,046 times
Reputation: 14017
Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559 View Post
So it's biased and dishonest because it doesn't tow the line on the ToE?? What a double standard. The article quotes evolutionists who disagree with the presentation of whale evolution... so it's automatically and categorically wrong according to your standards? Okay then. Who is biased?
No, the bias is obvious. Have you ever seen a creationist site that laid out and attempted to prove creation, or ID? The only option they have are their lame attempts to somehow make creationism seem valid by trying to discredit science. That is dishonest.


Quote:
And how do you interpret honesty? How do you determine what is honest and what is not? My version of honest and your version of honest appear to differ. Why do you suppose that is? According to the ToE, we each react to the chemical impulses in our brains.. so we could both be right because in the evolutionary scheme of things, there are no absolutes. What's right or honest for me may not necessarily be right or honest for anyone else, but that's acceptable from the evolutionary standpoint. So what is the problem?
Not exactly..Science requires evidence, review, testing and re testing...All you have is what you have been told by others....That is not even thinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:30 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top