Carnivores in Creation

Mike:Who peer-reviewed - or even investagated at all - this story, which defies all science? Is this your standard of peer-review? Blind flat reporting from a book? Please If there *was* a vegetarian lion, it would be big news. Please, explain why it isn't. Do you think there's some sort of conspiracy of zoologists now?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

'If there *was* a vegetarian lion, it would be big news.'Well, could you have missed this news? Or are the facts down to Rei's
opinion on websites?

Irrelevent, Mike. We would still expect to find evidence of herbivorous 'carnivores' somewhere - but, suprisingly, none have been found yet.Hmmm... creationists have almost been caught out here. So - pre-fall, all animals were herbivorous. After the fall, sin and decay sets in and changes them to become carnivores - however, this kind of drastic change in eating habits counts as one species changing into another - EVOLUTION! Woohooooo!Sorry, feeling a bit silly today.The Rock Hound

'Hmmm... creationists have almost been caught out here.'Well, good to hear from you Rockhound. I don't think I'm too bothered about the lion story - too much, because ofcourse I am not claiming carnivores are not carnivores, remember before sin and decay they were herbivores. What I said firstly though (qouted from Answers in Genesis is that the bible suggests God changed the animals. Whether he used your idolic and highly acclaimed 'evolution' to do this really doesn't bother me.

Mike, do you not accept that things that make news virtually always have a presence on the internet as well? Let's pick a random event of equal remarkability here without checking first to see how common it is... let's try the discovery of a random extrasolar planet (not the first, none with anything particularly remarkable). Let's pick a seemingly unremarkable one... how about "GJ 3021". What do we find when we search for it? We get 239 hits, from sources ranging from NASA to observatories to university reports to astrophysics journals.Please. Name something that made *any* sort of news of the quality of finding a *vegetarian lion* that didn't make it to the internet. Most newspapers have web sites - worldwide. Many magazines. Chat groups on all topics reference articles. If Answers In Genesis itself wanted to show itself to be reputable on this issue, it could have cited such a reputable source. As far as we can tell, however, this simply comes from a single author's word from their book, published by a non-reviewed source.Explain: *WHY* is there not a single report out there from *any* veterinary or zoological study? And explain why you would trust a single, unconfirmed report that reads like a Jack Chick tract?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

P.S. - are you going to address my question about where you cut off micro->macro evolution, given what I mentioned in my initial post?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

No

It has to be good to know that your position is so defensible that you can't defend it. I wish I couldn't defend *my* positions like you can't yours.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

It was a joke as indicated by the smiley face. I believe animals can adapt and change - yes. Just not into other animals. You can breed numerous chickens, yet at no time will they become a dog. You can have many apes but at no time will they become a human. Now the qoute I qouted said that the Bible suggested God changed the animals. Personally I'll have to look that one up myself. But shouldn't you be happy that I suggested some kind of evolution. Could it be mike the wiz is not afraid of the word evolution, like the evolutionists have suggested?

So, you admit the possibility of change. But you have no evidence of a mechanism to limit that change. Species are fluid, Mike. They change in our lifetimes. That one person can't live long enough to see a genus or family-level change is zero justification for insisting they don't.I don't understand how you get into debates on these issues and then hide behind smiley faces when someone calls you on your errors... if you don't know enough to debate productively, go learn it and then offer your two cents. Until then, what's the point?

quote:

---

believe animals can adapt and change - yes. Just not into other animals.

---

But you didn't answer the question: So where's the cut-off, then? Are you saying that a new species cannot form from another species?

'So, you admit the possibility of change.'Ofcourse.'But you have no evidence of a mechanism to limit that change. 'Is there evidence to show animals turning into other animals?'I don't understand how you get into debates on these issues and then hide behind smiley faces when someone calls you on your errors... 'There is no real error, the view is clear. I have admitted there is a possibility of small change, afterall who am I to know God's tools?
However I don't think that means chickens can become dogs and apes can become men.'if you don't know enough to debate productively,'well I was only really giving an answer to the first question, and the poster was satisfied so what is there to debate?

By the way, I didn't know I was hiding. All these posts I have posted seem to indicate the opposite. Maybe you just don't like what I am saying. Maybe I should be banned from the e.v.c because of this[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-05-2003]

LOL, Mike.
That's because the cut off question has been asked a lot of times. There is no answer for it that I've seen on any creationist site. It is left as fuzzy as heck because if they dare to pin it down it becomes falsifiable.

What would you consider to be evidence? What reasonable request could you make? Since large scale change, between families say, obviously requires a lot of speiciation events it is clearly not reasonable to ask to see it done in the lab. But evidence of the changes actually havening occured has been posted to this formum a number of times.It is pretty clear that any evidence that can reasonably expected to be available will not satisfy you. Don't bother asking the question. Just state that you don't believe any of the enormous amount of interlocking evidence. Tell us that you don't believe it, not because there is any logical argument against it, but because you simply don't like the conclusions.