Thread: On Climate Change and Evolution

Originally Posted by TexasBob

Yes that is interesting. Aside from a few sites that have an ax to grind, this woodpecker's tongue is considered remarkable but not outrageously so. Here is a quote from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wood...odpecker.html:
None of the other sites I found that give the various characteristics of that species of woodpecker bother to mention the tongue as a distinguishing feature, other than its length. This is because the rest of the description you give is "creative elaboration" to make it seem odder than it really is.

What we can read at the above link is that although that woodpecker's tongue is unusual it is no more than an "elongated version of that found in all birds" and has an obviously useful application -- getting insects out of deep holes.

There are many astonishing and unusual life-forms and of course not all of them are well understood. But the ones I've seen promoted by Creationists as refuting evolution usually rely on creative elaborations with a humorous tone in an attempt to make evolution seem silly.

The eye is a one of features presented in the past as being impossible. This has been so thoroughly explained by evolutionists (including examples of the "impossible" intermediate forms) that creationists no longer bring it up. As I hinted at above the mammalian eye is actually kind of a broken design. The nerves that come from the rods and cones project into the eye (!) instead of hanging off the back of it. This can be show to be a result of evolution where the intermediary stages this made sense but we are now stuck with this broken design.

I wonder why all birds didn't evolve into woodpeckers?" Two ways to answer:
1) God likes diversity so he,
2) Put many birds in many different ecological situations so they would adapt in diverse ways.

Not everyone agrees that 1) adds much to the hypothesis but it certainly doesn't detract from it. Nor does 2) make 1) any less viable.

Lots of animals (think insect eating lizards) have sticky or barbed tongues. Not hard to see how that could have evolved.

TIO has an obvious ax to grind. And of course they down play it or as with many facts they just ignore or even suppress it. The gov. schools in large stopped teaching how to think long ago and started to teach 'what' to think, that's why there are so many bots going around lapping up what ever the system tells them is true or 'accepts' as science the system is the hierarchy of the cult and that's why the brainwashed little followers defend it with unquestioning religious ferver, the never even question anything,they don't ever (because they have been trained that way) question why something obviously didn't 'evolve', they just accept it, it doesn't even enter their brain to question it and think the obvious - that it isn't really millions and millions of years old, they won't do that, they will do the panicked mental contortions that they were trained to do, it's just sad propogandist nonsense.
Your eyes don't work good?

Originally Posted by jcd

Are you Kent Hovind?

No, Are you?

Originally Posted by TexasBob

I wonder how long it took for the geological plate to rise that high?

I'm not sure how "flowing backwards" is relevant. Ever seen the Mississippi from the air?

You can respond to this if you want, but I am signing off on this discussion.

You know I'm sure there are hundreds of things you and I would agree on. It simply mystifies me that you (and so many others) think that the Good Lord, responsible for all of creation, is limited to such inelegant boring methods and has apparently made so many silly little errors. Let's hope He is not done with his work and will evolve his creation into something even finer. Perhaps he has been doing so for a while now. Hey, Creation is hard work! Let's give the Guy a chance!

Thanks for the discussion -- signing off.

What you see and live in is not what the good Lord originally created. It's the result of a curse that man brought upon the creation. It didn't use to be this way.

But I haven't even gotten started with asking questions.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

What you see and live in is not what the good Lord originally created. It's the result of a curse that man brought upon the creation. It didn't use to be this way.

But I haven't even gotten started with asking questions.

Start a thread.

I might even participate

im just stupid posting into this i guess...
the one thing you can actually see evolving of sorts are bacteria and viruses
then again ive never heard of it evolving further then to a new version of itself.
the possible reason for this is that it dosnt need to evolve any further to get good living conditions
and you could also apply that to the living fossils out there, if they can live well as they are why change?

My question has never been about whether evolution is fact or not (I dont see how we could possibly prove it as it requires a few leaps of faith to make certain connections) But rather what is behind the processes that brought us and all other life forms to their present condition

Originally Posted by jcd

You do know about Natural Selection right? I take it you're making a more subtle point about the plausibility of a magic being in the sky designing things?

This is indeed another embarassing problem for the evolutionist cult. Because they claim that all of the changes required for all the different life forms to 'evolve' came about by mutations to create new features (they just don't show you an example of it, as usual they speculate and show art work or examples of kinds of extinct creatures which they claim transitioned into another kind like it) which would require new genetic information - and their problem is that the mechanism of natural selection limits genetic information, it keeps extra information from getting in, so they would have you to believe that it doesn't always work like that (you know like when it is convenient for them to not have it work like that).

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

This is indeed another embarassing problem for the evolutionist cult. Because they claim that all of the changes required for all the different life forms to 'evolve' came about by mutations to create new features (they just don't show you an example of it, as usual they speculate and show art work or examples of kinds of extinct creatures which they claim transitioned into another kind like it) which would require new genetic information - and their problem is that the mechanism of natural selection limits genetic information, it keeps extra information from getting in, so they would have you to believe that it doesn't always work like that (you know like when it is convenient for them to not have it work like that).

Oh totally. If there were any examples of information getting into the genome, Evolution would be far less embarrassing.

For example, if there were a creature, lets say a bacteria, that learned to do something new and totally impossible, like digest a man-made substance (let's just pick nylon for this example), then that would be a great example of new information. They could even give it an unimaginative name like Nylonase.

But there is just nothing like that at all.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

This is indeed another embarassing problem for the evolutionist cult. Because they claim that all of the changes required for all the different life forms to 'evolve' came about by mutations to create new features (they just don't show you an example of it, as usual they speculate and show art work or examples of kinds of extinct creatures which they claim transitioned into another kind like it) which would require new genetic information - and their problem is that the mechanism of natural selection limits genetic information, it keeps extra information from getting in, so they would have you to believe that it doesn't always work like that (you know like when it is convenient for them to not have it work like that).

More lies.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

No, Are you [Kent Hovind]?

Oh no no. I'm just a fan.