Evolution? How?

I read the other day that scientists found a transitional fish recently that proves that land animals came from fish. Anybody else know about this<? Looks like creationists are gonna have a hard time with this new info. >LOL

0 Replies

Nope, they will say that this fish is excellent;y designed for both land and sea.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I read the other day that scientists found a transitional fish recently that proves that land animals came from fish. Anybody else know about this<? Looks like creationists are gonna have a hard time with this new info. >LOL

Here ya go - been mentioned a few times on this or a related thread over the past few days.

0 Replies

Story looks fishy to me. (Sorry Embarrassed

)

0 Replies

Real wrote:

Why do you assume that they did not exist?

These animals live is a specialized environment. They wouldn't survive in another. They live high up in mountains you claim didn't exist. I guess 30,000 feet of water covering the entire earth is even to much for you to accept.

By the way, how did all these specialized animals that lived in their particular environments find their way to their new environment if they were created after the flood. Remember, I'm a Jumping "Yeti" mouse and I can only survive in a particular environment. What am I suppose to do? Travel in all that mud left over from the flood towards India and wait for my new environment to be created? What am I going to eat. All the vegetation is dead? I'll starve.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I read the other day that scientists found a transitional fish recently that proves that land animals came from fish. Anybody else know about this<? Looks like creationists are gonna have a hard time with this new info. >LOL

Sounds like this too.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168265/?GT1=7938

I do agree with LightWizard however.

0 Replies

Sarcasm will get you anywhere.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Real wrote:
Why do you assume that they did not exist?

These animals live is a specialized environment. They wouldn't survive in another. They live high up in mountains you claim didn't exist. I guess 30,000 feet of water covering the entire earth is even to much for you to accept.

By the way, how did all these specialized animals that lived in their particular environments find their way to their new environment if they were created after the flood. Remember, I'm a Jumping "Yeti" mouse and I can only survive in a particular environment. What am I suppose to do? Travel in all that mud left over from the flood towards India and wait for my new environment to be created? What am I going to eat. All the vegetation is dead? I'll starve.

Your assumption that these critters who live on a mountain would have a tough time making it in the valley is pretty funny.

Seems reasonable that there would be more food and less extreme conditions.

0 Replies

Yes, that's why there are so many creatures today that live in the mountains but not in the valleys.
You really are clueless.

0 Replies

Re: both?

Setanta wrote:

I'm the other one wrote:
Setanta wrote:
aperson wrote:
Hi i'm new.

This may have been suggested (I havn't checked all the pages), but why can't you believe in evolution and god simultaneously? I know someone who believes in what science can explain, and let's God explain what science cannot.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this thesis. A theory of evolution does not stipulate cosmic origins. Young earth creationists would have everyone believe that it does, because the geological time scale which is one of the foundational assumptions of a theory of evolution is in direct contradiction to a young earth creationism view point, i.e., that the world's age numbers in thousands, and not billions, of years. Therefore, the more fervent of the fundamentalist young earth creationists attempt to rabble rouse by claiming that "the big bang" is essential to a theory of evolution, and that science wants to disprove the existence of god. They want to alarm the faithful.

It is entirely possible to believe that a deity created the cosmos, and that evolution is the mechanism which said deity employed to develop life forms on this planet. Religion and science can co-exist, except when the religion is unswervingly devoted to a young earth creationist view.

I had no idea you felt this way Set.

And you have no reason to assume anything about what i personally do or do not believe based on what you are pleased to describe as how i feel. You are construing from this statement on my part that i "believe" what i've described. I do not. I have no reason to believe that your, or anyone else's, imaginary friend exists. Acknowledging that a theory of evolution does not stipulate cosmic origins, and that it is possible for people to believe in their imaginary friend of choice, and accept a theory of evolution as the explanation for the diversity of known life forms on this planet does not constitute an endorsement of said imaginary friend beliefs.

Quote:
Well then...that canges things.

Absolutely nothing about the state of my understanding of a theory of evolution, nor my attitude toward (an attitude of contempt) imaginary friend superstitions, has changed since you appeared in this thread. (EDIT: Other than that i've learned interesting details from Pauligirl's links about decaying radioactive isotopes.)

Quote:
So...do you think it possible that when things were created such as flowers, the sun, etc...it was done thousands of years in between?

I have no good reason to think that any of these which you mention were "created."

I didn't use the word "since" I appeared in this thread. I've done nothing to even try and change you, so why would you even use that?

Then, leave out the word "created" and put in "appear" and please answer the question.

0 Replies

Not to denigrate the discovery of the Tiktaalik Roseae, but doesn't the (both living) Mudskipper and the Coelacanth make the transition evidence pretty plain already as per the fallacy of Creationism?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Amigo wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Religious obscurantism and the will to disbelief . . .
I guess your right, technically.

Do you beleive in God?

I see no reason to do so . . . nor to deny that somebody's imaginary friend exists. Having no reason to believe that anyone's imaginary friend exists, there is no good reason to conduct a discussion from the premise that such a being exists and that it created the cosmos. Which comes closer to being germane to the subject of evolution than about half the drivel which has been posted in this thread.

You mean your drivel?

Now relax, I'm just kidding. Smile

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Yes, that's why there are so many creatures today that live in the mountains but not in the valleys.
You really are clueless.

Most evolutionists would agree that the Himalayas have not always been there. The area was once under water. Notice there is coral and sedimentary rock at the very top of Everest, the world's tallest mountain.

So are you going to tell me that the creatures who live on mountains DID NOT EXIST until there were mountains with scarce food, extreme weather conditions and rugged terrain for them to live in? And how do you propose to prove they did not exist? (this should be fun)

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Sarcasm will get you anywhere.

Good.

0 Replies

Re: both?

I'm the other one wrote:

I didn't use the word "since" I appeared in this thread.

This is a meaningless sentence. You had written, and i quote you directly: "Well then...that canges things."--which was written after you had quoted my response to Aperson's speculation on a concordance of a theory of evolution and theism. Therefore, i simply pointed out that nothing about my understanding of or attitude toward either a theory of evolution or imaginary friend supersitions has changed since you appeared in this thread. From that, it would not be unreasonable to infer, and i thought (apparently, without good reason) that you'd prove sufficiently intelligent to understand that the only thing which could have changed would be your understanding.

Furthermore, as your changed understanding lead you to question me about what might have been created and under what circumstances--it is reasonable for me to infer that your changed understanding lead you into an erroneous assumption that what i had described in my response to Aperson described my personal understanding of a theory of evolution and my personal belief about putative deities--it does not.

Quote:

I've done nothing to even try and change you, so why would you even use that?

See above--you were the one who alleged that "things" had changed.

Quote:

Then, leave out the word "created" and put in "appear" and please answer the question.

Are you familiar with the conundrum of a presumptive question? It is most commonly referred to as the "have you stopped beating your wife" conundrum. Whether someone answers yes or no to such a question, the simple act of responding constitutes a tacit acceptance of an illicit premise--in that case, that the party question is or in the past has been in the habit of beating his wife.

Here is your question, directly quoted:

So...do you think it possible that when things were created such as flowers, the sun, etc...it was done thousands of years in between?

That question falls into the presumptive conundrum category, because no matter the response, it accepts a premise that such things were "done"--that implies agency, rather than random causation. Simply changing the verb from to be created to appear does not change the implication of agency. As i have no good reason to assume a deity, i do not have any reason to assume agency, and therefore, will not answer the question as posed.

0 Replies

Another non sequitur. How many of those have you got in your bag of tricks? Again, clueless.

0 Replies

I'm the other one wrote:

You mean your drivel?

Obviously not--of course, i refer to drivel such as you seem intent on posting.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

real life wrote:
Lightwizard wrote:
real life wrote:
Your assumption that these critters who live on a mountain would have a tough time making it in the valley is pretty funny.

Seems reasonable that there would be more food and less extreme conditions.

Yes, that's why there are so many creatures today that live in the mountains but not in the valleys.
You really are clueless.

Most evolutionists would agree that the Himalayas have not always been there. The area was once under water. Notice there is coral and sedimentary rock at the very top of Everest, the world's tallest mountain.

So are you going to tell me that the creatures who live on mountains DID NOT EXIST until there were mountains with scarce food, extreme weather conditions and rugged terrain for them to live in? And how do you propose to prove they did not exist? (this should be fun)

Another non sequitur. How many of those have you got in your bag of tricks? Again, clueless.

A little difficult to defend your statement, eh?

0 Replies

xingu wrote-

Quote:

Yes they do if they're going to push ID! If creationist and ID'ers are going to tell us that God created all of the universe and life in it then show me the God. If you can't present the God you have no argument. If there is no evidence for a God then there is no evidence anything was created by a God.

I never said there was.What does exist is that some believe there's a God and some don't.Personally I don't give a shite one way or the other who is right and who is wrong.But what is true is that is that each of the sides must have motives for the position they take.I can't imagine there not being a motive behind these contrary philosophies although I must admit that I'm at a loss to imagine what it might be.

It can't be whether there's a God or not because nobody knows or ever will know.

I think it's a pose myself but I'm prepared to listen to other explanations.

Money is the sane explanation or sex.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:
Yes, that's why there are so many creatures today that live in the mountains but not in the valleys.
You really are clueless.
Most evolutionists would agree that the Himalayas have not always been there. The area was once under water. Notice there is coral and sedimentary rock at the very top of Everest, the world's tallest mountain.

Correct. Plate tectonics, a process which takes millions of years.

real life wrote:

So are you going to tell me that the creatures who live on mountains DID NOT EXIST until there were mountains with scarce food, extreme weather conditions and rugged terrain for them to live in?

Yes. They evolved to survive in the habitat available to them. They exist because the environment exists.

real life wrote:

And how do you propose to prove they did not exist? (this should be fun)

Simple, nothing can exist before the conditions necessary for its survival exist. Wasn't that fun.

But once again, you're missing THE POINT, which is that the fairy story of noah's flood is impossible without invoking magic to make it all work. So why not go ahead and just say "God can do anything and he made it happen and that's that", you win, nobody can defeat that argument. Why do you insist on trying to support the fantasy with science instead of simple theological imperative? You seem enamored with the power of science as a tool for assessing reality, and yet you are clearly afraid to play by its rules. Your entire stance is irrational.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know