Chinese farmer Fu Haiwen has a strange duck: it has chicken feet and is afraid of the water!
Fu said he bought the duck in June but did not notice its unusual feet for ten days, reports Laibin News.
It was only after he noticed it acting differently to the rest of the ducks that he examined it closely and was surprised to see it did not have webbed feet.
"It never went with the other ducks to swim in the river," he explained.
He was too chicken!
What is the duck's name? Cluck?
Great. Why do I even believe you? Baby formula anyone?
Just crawl your Troll ass back under there and shut the fuck up.
The bird has scar tissue all over its' feet. Do the work before you troll again.
(Kirk Cameron is giving creation science a bad name. Probably because he doesn't seem to actually know anything about science.)
Mutations are always BAD for the animal, DUH
Let's teach both sides of the issue in science class - a great first step to doing that is a vote for Palin and McCain 2008!
Hey Darwinists...how long will it take you to breed my pig into a dog? Oh, that's right...YOU CANT!!!
Christians, lets put Jesus first, fight for our country and put the right people in office this november. John McCain knows how to sock it to the Muslims and I hope he keeps his word to fight islamofascist Iran with every tooth and nail.
Make a desicion about who you vote for based on the policies he proposes to implement, not on his family, or his race.
Pious: Evolution does not postulate that a pig can be bred into a dog.
Also, mutations are not always bad. For instance, there's a family in Italy who have a mutation that makes them more resistant to heart disease. The mutation arose a few hundred years ago, and has since slowly spread through the populous, just as evolution predicts it will. Get you facts straight.
dogrun81: You won't find any creation science proponents who actually do know something about science, because creation science isn't science. If it was, creationists wouldn't have to try to force it into the classrooms through lawsuits, it would emerge as the most likely answer on it's own. It doesn't, because it doesn't have a shred of evidence to support it.
OT: Poor ducky. Someone should apply a pair of scissors to the feet of whoever did that.
You take this worthless shit some where else. Fucking republicans! Gahhhhh.
And creation science doesn't get forced into the classroom. It has been forced out of the classroom. The books are banned. There are thousands of creation scientists who are just as qualified as the other side. There just aren't as many.
Also, show me the thousands of scientists, their experiments, and their observations. Are any of them recent? Are any of their hypotheses viable as science?
Evolution says animals produce minor variations, those more suited to their environment survive, and thus we get variety. I agree. Evidence and logic supports that. The difference is that Darwin says all had a common ancestor, and life sprang up randomly from nonlife. That is where the evidence is lacking and the theorizing kicks in. Darwin has no viable mechanism for life coming from nonlife, nor for the Cambrian explosion to produce the different kinds of animals. Creation provides this mechanism, and there are various studies on why it works. There is not "proof" of creation or for darwinian origins. We can theorize and find indirect, circumstantial evidence.
I know most of the articles try to show why Darwin is wrong instead of why creation is right, but that's because it's kind of hard to scientifically prove God.
The start of life, and the emergence of life from non-life is a seperate study known as abiogenesis. This is a fairly new study, and therefore there is not nearly as much evidence for it as for evolution. Just because Darwin didn't come up with such a mechanism doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I've (briefly) checked out creationworldview.org.
The site calls itself Creation Worldview [i]Ministries[/i] and has a massive cross on the main page. This does not bode well for science.
The articles rely on a misrepresentation of science. It uses the word 'evolution' in everything that isn't evolution, like astronomy.
It tries to put the supernatural in science, even though science deliberately excludes the supernatural simply because it can not be studied, proven, or disproven. You yourself said it doesn;t have any evidence for god, becuase he can't be proven.
It relies on a false dychotomy between Darwin and God. They state that id Darwin was wrong about even the tiniest detail of his theory, god must be true. Science doesn't work that way. If Darwin was off at some detail, then this detail will be corrected, and the result is a theory that conforms better to reality.
They misrepresent an article about a slight variation in the speed of light near the beginning of the universe as proof that earth is only 6000 yers old. This is outright dishonesty.
I'm not impressed by creationworldview.org, to say the least.
Now, you can presuppose a single common ancestor, then find some evidence to support it.
But you can also presuppose a supernatural creation, then find some evidence to support it.
There is evidence to fit both theories. There is some disagreement as to which fits better. But because of the implications of creationism, it is automatically ruled out. We don't have to study the supernatural to find supporting evidence of creation.
The article doesn't claim to "prove" 6000 years. It simply shows evidence that points to the universe being much younger that billions of years (which fits with a 6000 years theory.)
Until there is direct scientific evidence of one or more gods the theory of evolution remains the best explanation for the diversity of life.
Creationism also doesn't further our understanding of why things are the way they are. Evolution does this by proposing a mechanism through which the diversity of life came about. The closest thing creationism comes to an explanation is "god did it", but it doesn't go further than that. It is never explained how god did it, why he did it, what processes were involved, etc.
In the scientific community there is no debate about this. Creationist promoters such as Kent Hovind and creationworldview.org like to imply discord amongst scientists by claiming there is a controversy, but that is mere deception. Kent Hovind and those like him are lying to you, because it will get them publicity, and publicity will generate money. They are not out to inform you, they are after the money in the pockets of a large gullible audience.
Also, the modern theory of evolution is a heck of a lot more complete than Darwin's proposal. Over the last 150 years evolution has been the most scrutinised theory in all of science, and it still stands strong. In fact, it stands stronger than ever before because of all the scrutiny. All the errors and misconceptions have been weeded out quite thoroughly.
I suggest you pick up a book called "the blind watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. It contains a reasonable explanation of the modern theory of evolution. Just ignore the atheist bit.
Why would you require direct evidence of God when no such standard is required of evolution (or many scientific theories for that matter).
As for the lack of support in the scientific community, there a various lists you could find online of creationists with various degrees, none that are exhaustive as far as I know. But many scientists are afraid to let on what they believe for fear of retribution from colleagues. Ben Stein's movie talks about this. If you were head of a science department, would you want people under you supporting creationism? Or do you think you might want to keep them from giving you a bad name?
The examples they have are: a little horse turning into a bigger horse; a crocodile-like creature that they say is like a whale; and a fish that is supposed to link amphibians and other fish; along with a few supposed proto-humans.
Shouldn't we have thousands of examples by now after 150 years of searching?
Abiogenesis doesn't invoke unexplained entities. That makes it the better explanation, even when it's currently incomplete. Research is continueing. More will be learned. The origin of life will be explained without the need for god.
The fossil record is direct evidence for evolution, as is DNA, and chromosomes, and taxonomy, and the various ring species, all of wich are explained by evolution. The phrase "god did it" explains nothing.
If you want tranitional fossils, do a google search. You will never find a complete list, becuase scientists have som many fossils that it's impossible to determine whether a fossil is a new species, or a member of an existing species with mere slight variation, like all living humans are slightly different from each other. Scientists now have too many fossils to catalog using the existing system. scientists have more transitional fossils than they know how to handle. We have thousands of tranitional fossils. Hell, we have fossils of fifteen thousand species of trilobites! If you want a corckaduck, don't bother. Evolution postulates no such nonsense.
The wikipedia page on transitional fossils is not complete. It says so on the page. Do more research. Find more complete lists of fossils. It's not hard to do.
The beginning of the universe is not part of evolution. The beginning of the universe is part of cosmology. Scientists do not know how it all started yet. Maybe the LHC will shed some new light on it. Just because we don't know yet how the universe started doesn't mean that "goddidit".
Life transitioning to other forms of life have been observed. Single-cell organisms producing multi-cellular organisms have been observed. Changes to different Genus have been observed over many generations, just as evolution predicts.
Ben Stein's movie is a blatant propaganda piece, designed to pull money from the pockets of a gullible audience. It equates science with nazism. It's a great, big, fat, lie. Take it's claims with a truck-load of salt. Do research of your own regarding it's claims, and do so beyond creationist websites.
If I were head of a scientific research facility, I would want people who ask questions based on the evidence rather than based on their religious convictions, so, no, I would not want to have creationists under me. There is no evidence for creationism. All the arguments for creationism have been crushed over and over again. Find something new already. We are getting tired of debunking the same old arguments agian and again.
Find holes in all of your own beliefs, and correct them. This will make you a better person. This advise goes out to everyone, creationist or otherwise. It's how science works.