- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,178
- 52,653
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Would cud-chewing rabbits pwn evolution?
Even if the beast suggested is one with bulbous melancholy blue eyes on the bottom of its feet or bovine feet on the top of its bulbous head evolutionists would work feverishly to finally find some newfangled a way to fit it into their freakish scheme.
What do you consider to be the problem with the platypus?Why not? They haven't failed so far. Look at the platypus.
Why not? They haven't failed so far. Look at the platypus.
I don't have a problem with them at all.What do you consider to be the problem with the platypus?
That's good to hear. I was actually asking Radrook.I don't have a problem with them at all.
Please note that the one's who considered it problematic when they first saw and examine it were your evolutionist scientists not me. They even thought it was some type of a joke and searched for evidence of stitching of parts together because they initially fount it a very perplexing specimen in the evolutionary sense. After all, it has a duck like bill and webbed feet and lays eggs, which would be more appropriate to birds and reptiles while sporting a coat of fur with a beaver-like tail typical of mammals. It is also venomous which is rare among mammalsWhat do you consider to be the problem with the platypus?
When the platypus was first encountered by Europeans in 1798, a pelt and sketch were sent back to Great Britain by Captain John Hunter, the second Governor of New South Wales.[6] British scientists' initial hunch was that the attributes were a hoax.[7] George Shaw, who produced the first description of the animal in the Naturalist's Miscellany in 1799, stated it was impossible not to entertain doubts as to its genuine nature, and Robert Knox believed it might have been produced by some Asian taxidermist.[7] It was thought that somebody had sewn a duck's beak onto the body of a beaver-like animal. Shaw even took a pair of scissors to the dried skin to check for stitches.[8]
The unusual appearance of this egg-laying, duck-billed, beaver-tailed, otter-footed mammal baffled European naturalists when they first encountered it.
Platypus - Wikipedia
So what's your point? That science works? That the platypus fits right in there with echidnas where TOE would expect them to fit?Please note that the one's who considered it problematic when they first saw and examine it were your evolutionist scientists not me. They even thought it was some type of a joke and searched for evidence of stitching of parts together because they initially fount it a very perplexing specimen in the evolutionary sense. After all, it has a duck like bill and webbed feet and lays eggs, which would be more appropriate to birds and reptiles while sporting a coat of fur with a beaver-like tail typical of mammals. It is also venomous which is rare among mammals
But once they got over the initial shock they immediately set to work and fit it right in.
.
That evolutionists will find a way to fit any animal into the evolutionary scheme. Is that statement false?So what's your point? That science works? That the platypus fits right in there with echidnas where TOE would expect them to fit?
Well, if you're asking if they have fit all animals found to date into the scheme, the statement is true. But if you're asking if they would fit Kirk Cameron's crocoduck into things, then that statement is false. Do you understand why that is?That evolutionists will find a way to fit any animal into the evolutionary scheme. Is that statement false?
But I am not talking about photo-shopped absurdities. I am talking about real animals that they might discover with unusual features. Do you understand why that makes a difference?Well, if you're asking if they have fit all animals found to date into the scheme, the statement is true. But if you're asking if they would fit Kirk Cameron's crocoduck into things, then that statement is false. Do you understand why that is?
I don't understand your question.
BTW
I don't consider them cute.
Why haven't you got an option for "no"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?