Bolshevik

I wonder if the opposum has ever been bred with one of the Australian marsupials. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opossum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoll That would be more interesting than the cama (camel + llama)

I don't think it is presumptuous. They group animals together that are alike, esp if they can breed together. Like with the swine mentioned earlier, it simplified things. All animals belong under a kind. How's it less scientific than Linnaean taxonomy? I like it. Just because some scientists do things one way, doesn't mean the rest have to. Linnaean taxonomy has its limits, since deciding how to distinguish how organisms are different can get hairy at times. Grouping animals into simple those they can or could possibly breed with, seems to help avoid gray areas. (for now at least). Don't make the mistake of deciding that because it doesn't flow exactly with the previous way of thinking that it is wrong. Neither way is wrong or right, just different. I haven't put my head into the geology so much. They did spend a good amount of time showing video of actual events that demonstrate that geological processes once thought to take a long time (i.e. thousands/millions of years) can actually happen very rapidly (hours or days). Another thing to look at more next time.

I say kind because that is what the museum presented. They were kinda making it synonymous with family. Remember the classification system is constantly changing, adding suborders, supra phyla etc. Even Kingdoms are in dispute. The evolutionists even like to think of it as a continuum. Even they don't consider the classification system as final, just a little helpful. The plate movement is the rate now. If I tell you I drove from here to there, 60 miles away, in 60 minutes, do you assume that I constantly drove 60 mph from start to finish? No, I accelerated and decelerated, above and below 60 mph.

YIdon'tgotochurch . . . becomes . . . YID. Evolution in action. Amazing. Hi YID Look forward to your posts.

But what if. . . you just happened to have . . . by chance . . . and you didn't know why . . . and you were in the area . . . A potato launcher?

But the work on plagerism. How would I know otherwise? It connects the dots. Helps put the pieces together.

The continents split, according to this museum, after the flood, there was plenty of time for animals to disperse. Don't overestimate the time it takes for microevolution to occur. It can happen fast. Within your lifetime perhaps. Phylum, orders, are man-made. The Bible say "kind". So bears are a kind, giraffes are a kind, etc. These "kind" can diversify, like people can, but they are all of the same "kind". Like the coqui, it has diversified from its ancestors, but is still of the same kind. Frogs.

The Ark took 100 years to build, plenty of time for insects to incorporate. I beleive there are about 30 million species of beetle. Did Noah collect the "creeping things" or did they come on their own? I would think insects are the easiest to keep. They would live in the wood and on the animals, in whatever. Like I stated, a representative species for each type. They had many modes of animal disperion. If an island suddenly appeared now in the middle of the specific, it would only be a matter of time (not thousands of years) before it is populated. The birds on Galapogas, I answered this. Animals spread and diversified. The coqui (a frog?) is a (frog?) so it descended from frogs from the Ark. It became a coqui by microevolution. It is still a frog. The marsupials are supposed to travel fast or something than placental mammals. I want to look into that one more on my second trip.

http://www.physorg.com/news88139040.html Recent article that mention Neanderthal and people interbreeding. People, like animals, prior to the flood probably had more ability to diversify, since their gentic blueprints were "closer to the original." Skulls that look slightly different than our own were probably people (neanderthal, homo hablis, etc.). Those skulls that look like apes, were apes. Human evolution link: http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/

It shows a working model that doesn't contradict the Bible, and can honestly incorporate the variety of species we see. A question I had was would the Ark need to carry for instance, polar bears, brown bears, black bears, and other bear spieces. The answer is no, just a couple bears. So, God makes two bears in Eden. Those bears diversify into a variety of species. Two(or seven?) representitive bears stay on the Ark. Then leave the Ark and would diversify into the bears we know. The bears found in the fossil record not like ones we know were varieties that developed after the Fall and in killed in the Flood. This could also answer someone's question about penguins. There are penguins today that live in warmer climates than Antartica. (New Zealand, Chile). There could very well have been penguins, not from colder climates, on the Ark. Those penguins would not need a refridgerator unit. I believe I've heard of giant, or just big, penguins in the fossil record. So this model accounts for the animals from a variety of climates, since the animals coming off the Ark would eventually adapt to new places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeding_back I've heard of people trying to recreate the evolution of dogs from wolves by taking tamer wolves and breeding them. (Dogs and wolves are sometimes considered the same species.) Apparently, attempts have been made to re-evolve extinct animals by taking a related species and selectively breeding.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html Here's an interesing article. Especially about the ribs of horses. They make mention of the okapi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi The okapi was once used to show the evolution of the horse. Take a look, it's obvious to me it is related to a giraffe. I bet a okapi-giraffe hybrid is possible.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/04...1/fulltext.html Here's another problem I run into. I keep marine fish. I know, that the most specialized fish are extremely hard to keep. Also folks get upset about destroying places like the rain forest because species get wiped out, because that's the only place they can live. I don't see how a population adapted to specific places can become new species entirely (as in the difference between felines and canines). It seems that when species get too different, they get more fragile (unless kept in their specific habitat.) Unless of course huge changes in large areas become more like their microenvironment. I'm not convinced this would result in macroevolution. What the creationists are postulating is that each animal type was made. That animal type contained the ability to adapt to many environments. So like with bears, you have tropical bears and polar bears. But they are all still bears. (The ark would have had bear representitives, so a refrigerator for polar bears was unneccesary.)

I don't get it either. Oldies, I was taught in twi that the women is supposed to be the "crown". A reflection of her husband. There's a lot of tarnished crowns in twi.

You just accused me of being another VPW. I can no longer discuss any matter with you.

It wasn't until a few months ago that I even knew there was a creationist side. (Other than the simple "It not true" argument of a lot of Christians). It seems to me, if anyone is hiding information, its the evolutionists. They didn't mention this at the University. Just like when I leave twi and find there is more to the trinity than they told me. The creationist side needs a look-see. What is happening now in Dayton, TN?

No, I'm not turning a blind eye. I just came from the gulag. Why would I delibritely want to lie to myself again?

no need, it is still sucking the life out of the majority of people. vpw is still the authority of the Bible and God Almighty.

Yes, heresy doesn't guarantee correctness. Now, if you'll be so kind as to explain the other side of the argument? Yes the museum covers those. For now I'm focusing on the genetic side of things, since that is where I am most knowledgeable. I'm new to the creation stuff and want to give it an honest look. If there are serious problems, I will find them. Doesn't take an Einstein to see the problems with isotope dating. (are there 12,000 year old trees?) Do you know what the assumptions are? Anyway, breed an ape with a human, I'll probably start seeing things your way.

small mouse-like creatures evolve into baleen whales, people, and llamas . . . single-celled organism gives rise to T-rex and oak trees . . . how? nobody knows . . .

Well its degrading to straight, married women anyway.

I don't understand Oldies, you don't stand with twi, but you defend them? I was with twi almost my whole life, I don't need websites or anything to convince me something is terribly wrong with twi. There were no "good times" for me to look back on (I missed the 70s). What are you defending? (It's just no making sense to me)

birds are technically considered dinosaurs. Ask an evolutionist. Man coexisted with monstrous sized mammals, no one has a problem with that. But coexisting with dinosaurs is silly, why? Because they were big? What's the reasoning? What that about?

Actually, sucking up to vpw is still the fast-track to the inner circle. He's a god now, passed on to the other side. He is always with us . . .

How does evolution work Garth?