Yes , soon all whitetail bucks will have antlers like elk and a body that resembles an angus bull. They will develop an aggressive attitude toward humans and hunting will take on a whole new dimension.

Shooting a SOOS cull buck may or may not have any influence on a deer herd, but it damn sure makes me feel better. Besides, I like sausage.

Only if one trusts the man assigned ages to the layers of the geological column, man assigned ages to the fossil record and the general unbelief in a much younger earth and lack of a global flood catastrophe event. ..only with that worldview would it seem readily observable as not coexisting.

If a global water flood and upheaval catastrophic event were to have happened, what would we see?

Billions of dead things buried in sediments laid down by water all over the earth. Jumbled piles of bones ripped and broken in mass low point mass graveyards. Roots, stumps and trunks cutting through multiple sediment layers supposedly representing millions of years. Curved sediment layers showing upheaval while layers were still wet and soft. Soft tissue from animals still preserved.

All logical right?

And that is EXACTLY what is found world wide. The fossil record does support the argument. But one's worldview has to be open to the concept to even consider the possibility.

Not wanting to be antagonistic but I can not seem to find a single instant were modern animals bones e.g. deer bones have been found in context with what we call dinosaurs. If all creation coexisted there should be plenty of modern plant and animal remains intermingled (without intrusion) with fossilized fauna and flora. I am open to any examples that can be cited and verified. There are examples that some use to attempt to reinforce their position but they have not stood up to detailed scrutiny. There are many anomalies that crop up when trying to reconcile many of the theories that we use to try to explain our observable world , it does not mean that there are no physical explanations .

Science, among other things, is a continuously evolving examination of the physical world. What was consider "fact" a few years ago is often replaced or modified as more details are revealed. To that end, I very reluctantly use "scientific fact" to describe any particular observation or examination.

I will openly admit to not being a an expert on just about any topic. I will say that I have spent a good deal of my life trying to reconcile some seemingly conflicted concepts (evolution vs. creationism). What works for me is the realization that things written 2000 - 3500 years ago can only be understood from that perspective in time and the "understanding" of the age.

Many times during Jesus's ministry he used "parables" to explain concepts of morality or desired behavior. Why should I question whether the "inspired word of god" of the Old Testament might not contain the same concept ? The message is more important than the story itself.

We probably need another thread to discus this subject, apologies to OP.

I'd say stop the discussion here , and pray to your creator!

https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=hkodTydUR0E

THIS

I have considered this argument before and in my attempt to apply this concept (Entropy) to living organisms there is one huge obstacle. Entropy (The second law of thermodynamics) makes an assumption that a given amount of energy is initially applied or converted and the phenomenon is isolated from any other source of energy. A biological organism requires a continuous supply of energy to exist and reproduce. One of the reasons we start out relatively small and grow into adults. Until a biological organism ceases to function (dies) entropy is not at play. Does this apply to genetic mutations ? We as humans, have genetic mutations occurring while we live. It sometimes surfaces as cancer. The cancer itself can mutate several times. Sometimes the genetic profile of a particular cancer will in fact become more complex (or abnormal).

Yet it is ALWAYS a loss of genetic information from the original, not a gain of genetic information. Changes and mutations occur, we can all agree. Complexity increasing, as in cancers or even virus, doesn't equate to new genetic information being created....just different after the mutation, which is always a loss...so far.

Edit: Correction needed: Not always a loss as it might be a gene reshuffling or shifting w/o a loss specifically, ...the main point that there has never been any documented observable gain of new genetic information in mutations. Wanted to clarify.

The OP is nonsensical obviously, but I just wanted to add this because it is the most important thing related to this thread, and a few have kind of hit on this a little but the bulls eye has not been hit and it needs to be.

The problem revolves around terminology. Specifically, the word "evolution." Unfortunately, the term is constantly misused. And atheist evolutionists love that and are the one's most often misusing or misrepresenting the word/term.

I prefer that the terms "Micro Evolution" and "Macro Evolution" be used. One is fact. The other is myth and total nonsense and unscientific.

Micro Evolution is fact. It is the scientific reality of adaptation of a species and variation amongst species. That is the reality of this world, and is subject to the scientific method (observable, testable and repeatable). Animals are designed to adapt to their environment and there are also many types (variation) of particular animals (lots of different cows and dogs for example) Also, the term "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" relates to Micro Evolution. I believe God created Micro Evolution and is another proof of his genius and creative power.

By contrast, Macro Evolution is not subject to the scientific method, and is in fact contrary to science. Macro evolution is the theory that the entire Universe created itself out of nothing. And that one species of organism can evolve into a completely different species (like amoeba into fish, fish into monkey and monkey into man). That theory is pure baloney. It contradicts not just common sense, but also the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics (as was mentioned above), as well as the laws of biology, genetics and chemistry. It is the biggest fairy tale ever invented. And one of the Devil's biggest lies and deception.

The problem is that when people use the word "evolution" they are confusing and mixing both of the above concepts together which is a big mistake. And the atheist evolutionists (who promote secular humanism, Marxism, moral relativism, atheism, liberalism, etc.)always use proofs of Micro Evolution as proof of Macro Evolution - which is intellectually dishonest as well as a big fat non sequitur, as Micro is not scientific proof of Macro in any way whatsoever. And they know that. And doing so is the main way that the Radical Left deceives and misleads people - grown ups as well as students (especially high school and college students).

Sorry for the long post but hope it edifies. If anyone has children, teenagers, college age kids, teach them the above so they can be armed and equipped to not fall for the slick deception of the adversary.

And I quote from the wonderful Wikipedia: "Macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different scales."

Doesn't sound nonsenical to me.

Actually that Wikipedia quote is scientific bs and anyone with a brain or just simple common sense can see that.

Your OP post was screwed up and nonsensical from the beginning because you mixed up the two completely different scientific theories.

Grow up.

Still going on huh.

Good night, the OP never said he felt that if you thought you could manipulate a deers genetic expresssion of antler characteristics that you believed in the big bang theory. Lighten up folks

[img:center][/img]

I would say that were true Jawbone but that would be degrading to monkeys. I hope my wife never reads some of this stuff I post on here.