Posted on 04/20/2015 8:43:34 AM PDT by fishtank
LOL!
My brain is still 18 but my body laughs at my delusional brain.
Indeed! Seeing as you’re a FReeper I’d say you’re already very well adapted!
Ok, you’ve got the body of a 21 year old...
It’s really hard to type, though.
All this running back and forth on the keyboard...exhausting.
And caps.
Don’t even wanna talk about caps.
:D
The men must have declared jihad on the monkeys.
It’s in the trunk of my car.
/badda bing
What a hilarous comeback....or something.
It’s being silly and wry. An evolution theory has other problems in this context too, such as the oddball men-monkeys not wanting to sabotage the movement but keeping faithful to the other oddball men-monkeys. Both men and monkeys like to roam... they don’t like to sit put in one place.
Once a salamander, always a salamander.................
“And you didn’t even address what I said, at all.”
Actually I did address what you had to say by simply noting everything you had to say was based upon a lie in the article you based your comments upon. You are acting as if you are simply too ignorant and/or stupid to reason and understand the subject, whether or not you choose to disagree. You wrote:
“For a scenario like that to work, your likely mutations and your requirements would have to line up very well.”
“It sounds positively providential, in fact. There really is no escape along those lines.”
In response, I wrote:
Those statements are bald faced lies, because there is a wealth of fossil evidence and current specimens of hundreds of distinctly different species of salamanders having radically different morphological and other biological characteristics, not to mention the vastly different forms of the thousands of collateral families, genera, and species. Among the existing salamanders alone radical differences in limbs, organs for breathing, and means of eating prey make them distinctly different and not at all the same animal species.
note how I emphasized the fact there are presently and were in the past hundreds of different species of salamanders with very different physical characteristics. This observation of real world facts refutes the lie in the original article:
“While evolutionists like to claim that variations in traits within a species are proof of evolution, salamanders have always been salamanders regardless of their size.”
The excerpt from the article says “salamanders have always been salamanders” while also saying “variations in traits within a species”, as if the author wanted to the readers to think he means all the variations of salamanders are supposed to be “variations in traits within a species” and only one species for all salamanders. As I pointed out, there are even presently some hundreds of very different species of salamanders, so you cannot even in your remotest imagination claim that sentence in the article is not a monumental falsehood and lie when it tries to imply there is but one species of salamander with only minor changes of traits in that one species of salamander. Since you cannot honestly hope to claim the lie in that article could possibly be true in any sense, then your own comment assuming there was but one species or even one type of salamander with only minor changes in trait is itself a monumental and foolish falsehood.
“Your approach in fact is a mirror of what your group is accusing YECs to do, namely to holler “BLASPHEMY! We do not need to hear any more!””
You made a false accusation, because I stated the specific evidence which demonstrates how and why the article’s comment, “salamanders have always been salamanders regardless of their size” is in impossible lie, given how there are in fact hundreds of species of salamanders with major differences in their physiology, not just traits; including major differences in their breathing organs.
“If in fact it IS to holler such, you might try not to ape it, monkey man.”
That is a personal insult which has no place in an honest debate. Given the gross and even delusional lack of honesty and respect from yourself and the ICR, it is no surprise you cannot behave like decent and honest people.
As for the evidence of the existence of hundreds of species of salamanders, you have no business being on the Internet at all if you cannot find something as simple as the web pages discussing their existence and many descriptions. no doubt you will try to deny their existence rather than apologize for your insulting behavior.
And they are all examples of micro-evolution. Even Darwin himself said,
‘If one does not finds thousands upon thousand of transitional fossils then my theory completely falls apart.’ paraphrased
From a mathematical standpoint thousands upon thousands could mean millions - ymmv - but so far evolution has gone back and forth trying to declare even one fossil as transitional.
“And they are all examples of micro-evolution. Even Darwin himself said,”
‘If one does not finds thousands upon thousand of transitional fossils then my theory completely falls apart.’ paraphrased
Darwin was speaking about all Life and not just one small branch of Life, so you are engaging in deceit with that misrepresentation of his comments to make it appear to apply only to the number of salamander fossils.
“From a mathematical standpoint thousands upon thousands could mean millions - ymmv - but so far evolution has gone back and forth trying to declare even one fossil as transitional.”
There you go again changing the subject away from the evidence which demonstrates your errors, dishonesty, and your deliberate neglect of the evidence which inconveniently disproves your imaginary claims. Deal with the inconvenient fact that salamanders are not just one species or even a few species. They and their close relatives are hundreds of species of salamanders and thousands of related other species comprising Genera, Families, Sub-Orders, and Orders in their phylogeny. In other words any and every attempt by the author of the article and/or yourself to misrepresent the salamander as a single species or even a few slightly different species with only small differences in “traits” or “micro-evolution” is nothing than a monumental lie. I know a number of Fundamental Christians who fervently believe in Creationism and the YEC who have agreed with me in the past that such dishonesty about the existence of other species like the salamander you are discussing here amounted to some very serious un-Christian-like behavior damaging to their own beliefs. At the bare minimum you should have the courage and decency to own up to the fact the article is dishonest in its misrepresentation of the number of species of salamander identified by biologists and the fact that their differences in morphology and physiology are quite profound and certainly not minor “traits” or only small differences in “micro-evolution”.
A successful organism has no need to evolve. When small differences make some members of a species more successful, those differences are bred into progeny more frequently than the less successful. All part of God’s plan.
Uh no there I didn’t go again, you are reading extra stuff
that just isn’t there - same as your evolution.
All kinds, all DNA, are devolving and all your different salamanders are simply examples of micro-evolution.
Different species but all are same kind.
Don’t bother posting again if you feel the need to misquote me and then claim something totally unsupported by my posts please.
“Uh no there I didn’t go again, you are reading extra stuff
that just isn’t there - same as your evolution.”
I quoted your words and the words of the article, so your denial is yet another lie.
“All kinds, all DNA, are devolving and all your different salamanders are simply examples of micro-evolution.”
Your above statement is yet another example of your monumental ignorance, stupidity, dishonesty, and self delusion; because it is self-evident in the words that you used when you said the salamanders are “devolving” and then said the exact opposite by claiming they are evolving by means of “micro-evolution.” In other words, you are saying anything and everything no matter how insanely irrational just to keep up the deceitful pretense.
“Different species but all are same kind.”
Different species are different kinds of species, so you are just playing a deceitful game of word play to misrepresent the real world facts. Salamanders are so different in kind that they most often cannot interbreed, use different organs to breathe, and have different numbers of limbs, and the limbs have different bones and bone structures when they are not absent altogether. So, you are just displaying more gross dishonesty.
So what? You’re still twisting my words to say what you prefer. There’s no reason for your anger nor your insults - I just choose to disagree with you’re interpretation of what is and is not evolution. There is still zero proof for ‘macro’ -evolution!
One could say all the same things about [’salamanders are so different in kind’] the dog or wolf kind. I’m not being deceitful, transitional fossils would be changes from one kind to another (i.e. monkey to dog to salamander = zero evidence). Changes with in a kind [aka species changes or what you think defines evolution] are natural selection [aka natural adaptation or micro-evolution].
Now please refrain from getting angry or insulting once again!
Oops re: my prior reply above...
Maybe not ‘all the same things’ - but every kind of animal displays many changes within a kind due to more than just their worldwide dispersal and separation. These micro changes I believe will eventually be shown to have been pre-programmed into each kind’s DNA. So no, still not macro-evolution, as they all still had natural adaptations from their original DNA kind - not from primordial soup and not from one kind magically into another.
This straw when firmly grasped will still prevent creo’s from drowning
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.