The design and order of our universe, forming from nothingness, at the Big Bang proves it to me...but beyind that, I KNOW God personally, we are tight, so I don't even have to think about the science anymore.
Upvote
0
-
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.
So Darwin was wrong after all
- Thread starter choccy
- Start date
Stormy...buy this, you will like it.
http://www.incrediblecreaturesthatdefyevolution.com
Its full of examples of animals with organs that couldn't just appear...
Upvote
0
Mutation and selection, as per usual.
The different tongues of the woodpecker is amusing, though. Sort of like all those different beak sizes on Darwin's finches...whoops!
Upvote
0
What, you were hoping that I would set up a lab, find out the exact differences between duck cebaceous glands and other avian cebaceous glands, sequence their genomes and tell you exactly which genetic modifications made the differences, and which types of mutations at which loci were responsible for those modifications?
No.. I have explained the principles before. Since I am not a scientist, do not have the necessary funding, equipment, time, or background, I cannot carry out the research to apply those principles to duck evolution to get the technical answers you are interested in. I'm sorry to have failed you.
Upvote
0
Absolutely. And as proof, the data DOES show evolution to be wrong, and evolutionists can't see it.
Upvote
0
Thank God there are some geniuses in the world that are so much more perceptive than the dumb scientists who can point it out for us all! A shame they can never explain exactly WHY the data shows evolution to be wrong, but at least they can SEE that it does while everyone else remains stupid and blind!! Thanks for being here for us Nick. Do they give Nobel Prizes for such brilliant vision? You should be nominated.
Upvote
0
There is more reliable historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than there is for macroevolution. You can IMAGINE an explanation for two similar-looking fossils and call that IMAGINATION a fact. But you can't take the better evidence for the resurrection and IMAGINE that G~d may actually exist? Methinks you bet on the wrong horse.
Upvote
0
My pleasure. And I don't need a prize. It should be obvious to anyone with a brain and a spirit.
Upvote
0
nick,evolution is wrong??so this is just a worldwide conspiracy by scientists and learning institutions just to debunk the bible?Whats the motivation?
Upvote
0
Actually, I don't believe that is accurate. I have an Eclectus Parrot, and used to have cockatiels (until I realized I was allergic to them and had to give them away). During the preening process, they rub the oil from their "butt" on their head, and grab some with their hookbills and spread it on their feathers. I give these birds frequent showers, and many (but not all) of their feathers are extremely waterproof. And I assume it's because of that oil.
Upvote
0
I find this to be one of the most bizarre defenses of evolution, and people keep using it. Scientific theories have been proven MASSIVELY wrong over and over again, yet there was no conspiracy, and people weren't idiots who suddenly got smart. What makes you think evolution is immune to being just as wrong? When did today's scientists suddenly become superior to the ones who came up with the theories that we now consider absurd?
Upvote
0
But you're too modest!! It does seem obvious to some people that evolution is wrong, but then they look beyond the "obvious" and see all the evidence that it isn't wrong. It takes a true genius to look beyond the evidence and its clear fulfillments of the predictions of evolutionary theory, and even further beyond the fossil record of major transitions, and further even beyond the obvious observations of evolution still in progress that can be seen in our short life-spans, and see, with crystal clarity how all of that is bogus and the evidence shows evolution is wrong.
Forget Gould & Darwin. I'm worshipping Nick Petreley!!!
Hallelujah!
Upvote
0
Actually, a little searching located the fact that many birds have a preen gland (or uropygial gland), and ducks, just as do most birds, spend an awful lot of their time working the oil into their feathers.
Preening. Birds that lack it are forced to air-dry their feathers after getting wet.
It's worth noting that glands near the base of the tail are quite common in many species, and have been coopted for a variety of uses. Scent glands, musk glands....
Really? Name some.
Preening. Birds that lack it are forced to air-dry their feathers after getting wet.
It's worth noting that glands near the base of the tail are quite common in many species, and have been coopted for a variety of uses. Scent glands, musk glands....
Really? Name some.
Upvote
0
27,000 extant manuscripts and fragments, many of these mss include eyewitness testimony. And these mss are so close to the actual events that no corruption to the stories would have occurred. In fact, by purely secular standards, the NT is the most reliable historical document of atiquity that ever existed, and by such a wide margin that no other historical document comes within light years of having as much supportive evidence of being accurate, even as measured by SECULAR standards.
Upvote
0
Stormy, how much do you know about comparative avian physiology? That ability might seem amazing when you look at it on its own, but if you look at related taxa, it might not be suprising at all.
How did water-proofing evolve?
Mutation + natural selection. Mutations generated the ability to produce water-proofing excretions. Natural selection preserved and promoted them until the gene(s) for water-proofing were in every individual in the proto-duck population. Of course, further mutations could have improved upon the water-proofing which would in turn go to fixation under natural selection.
What was the selection advantage to water proofing?
The advantage was that it allowed proto-ducks to invade a new habitat (wet lands) and occupy new niches. With little competition, these birds did better than their dry land relatives.
Upvote
0
I tried to get some proto-duck at the supermarket and they said they didn't have any. What a shame - I was looking forward to some roast proto-duck with a sauce made of cranberry and port. Any idea where I can buy some proto-duck?
The fact is that the gland and oil is useful, period. For my bird, it's useful because dry primary wing feathers (the feathers that stay dry) allow her to fly away from predators even if it's raining.
Any connection between that and the oil of a duck is perfectly logical in that both have oil glands, and the oil glands are useful in both. Just like my watch and my radio both have batteries, and the batteries are useful in both.
The only way you can assume that one evolved into another is through --- you guessed it --- IMAGINATION. That's the formula for evolution. Take any two species, find anything they have in common which is useful to each, add a little Barney, and you have evolution. How scientific.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
