Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (93573)	1/13/2005 4:57:54 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

"...some of the horses I talked about were transition horses." Yeah, but they all had differing opinions about it, didn't they. Check your notes.

To: average joe who wrote (93573)	1/13/2005 5:08:03 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Maybe I am giving the wrong impression here, Joe. I don't deny that evolution occurs. Duh. When you look at the replica of the Mayflower, you can appreciate how much bigger we are than our ancestors of just a few hundred years ago. With the horses, I have seen the charts that illustrate the evolution of that animal over a much longer period. As to the tapir, it is clearly in the horse family. So I am not denying evolution, and I regret if I have seemed to do so. In your analogy of tracing the horse backward, my problem comes at the point where you talk of a horse-ancestor that no longer looks anything like a horse. Well, what DID this creature look like? And what DID the creature that preceded that one look like? And what did all the transitioning creatures in bewteen these two look like (the ones that were half one specie and half another specie, or one quarter and three-quarter)? Why do we find no fossilized examples of any of these creatures that were part one specie and part another? It seems to me that we have no logical explanation for this.

To: average joe who wrote (93573)	1/13/2005 6:12:58 PM
From: redfish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

"Evolution does not take away or add from the Gods or your free-will" I don't think that creationists object to evolution because it nullifies god, but rather because it puts man on the same plane as the other animals. That is unacceptable, because Christianity teaches that god made man in god's image and gave us dominion over all the animals on earth. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."