You've Probably Seen a Fish with Lungs in Person

Speedwell said:

Because it is not the sort of narrative one takes literally. Gen 1 has a cadenced quality, not quite formal Hebrew poetry, but very like hymnody. It certainly wouldn't occur to me right off to take the words of a hymn as 100% accurate literal history.

Click to expand...

I hardly ever even considered discernment of what's literal and what is not to be a problem till I came here, it was effortless for the most part. Then again, I've never seen people try to change the truth like I have here either. And that's not to say everyone who discerns is doing so to get the bible to say what they want, but I do find that interesting, and that there may be something to those two factors working together.

Kenny'sID said:

I hardly ever even considered discernment of what's literal and what is not to be a problem till I came here, it was effortless for the most part. Then again, I've never seen people try to change the truth like I have here either. And that's not to say everyone who discerns is doing so to get the bible to say what they want, but I do find that interesting, and that there may be something to those two factors working together.

Click to expand...

Yes, I see it both happening both ways: No essential point of Christian doctrine depends on Genesis being 100% accurate literal history, but opposition to the theory of evolution requires it.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Evolution 'as a whole' involves changes in the heritable characteristics of populations over successive generations. That's what it is.

Click to expand...

Evolution as a whole is also basically, man came from something completely different that we are now, and that was the explanation I had in mind in orders to make my point.

And you didn't answer the question, you just kind of moved over to something irrelevant.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

If you can't even get the claim you're disputing correct, it's no wonder you find it hard to accept

Click to expand...

What claim did I not get correct?

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Lol! No, it's been observed in a huge number of animal and plant species, including humans.

Click to expand...

Why was my essentially asking a question, the exact reason I made the comment, funny to you? Did you ever have to ask in order to know what was going on, and if so, did you get laughed at for doing so?

A little insecure with your point?

Kenny'sID said:

Evolution as a whole is also basically, man came from something completely different that we are now, and that was the explanation I had in mind in orders to make my point.

Click to expand...

Nothing "completely" different ever happens in evolution.

Speedwell said:

Yes, I see it both happening both ways: No essential point of Christian doctrine depends on Genesis being 100% accurate literal history, but opposition to the theory of evolution requires it.

Click to expand...

That's merely an opinion that you are touting as fact...of course it does. But I've given my opinion on that just as you have several times before just as you have, so no need to repeat myself.

Kenny'sID said:

That's merely an opinion that you are touting as fact...of course it does. But I've given my opinion on that just as you have several times before just as you have, so no need to repeat myself.

Click to expand...

It is a fact, unless you can point out to me why not. What tenet of any of the Ecumenical Creeds requires belief in the literal inerrancy of Genesis?

This is an interesting question for me. It is the single most important reason I hang around in these creationism forums: to get an answer to this question.

I grew up having no contact with believers in biblical literalism, being raised in a church which had never taught it. When I found out about it my reaction was,"They believe what??? about the Bible??? Why???" And I never have found out why. Never have gotten a credible answer as to why people believe something so goofy about Genesis. I've seen all the lame apologetics, "Jesus said so" and "otherwise Jesus died for nothing" etc. but never a substantive reason. Have you got one? Not just your opinion but real theology?

Kenny'sID said:

Evolution as a whole is also basically, man came from something completely different that we are now, and that was the explanation I had in mind in orders to make my point.

And you didn't answer the question, you just kind of moved over to something irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Nope. The whole of evolution is as I described. Perhaps you have difficulty associating relatively small genotypic changes with relatively large phenotypic changes, or appreciating evolutionary timescales...

What claim did I not get correct?

Click to expand...

"See, this little thing evolve? That's evolution in action and that means man came from an ape/monkey."

Why was my essentially asking a question, the exact reason I made the comment funny to you? Did you ever have to ask in order to know what was going on, and if so, did you get laughed at for doing so?

Click to expand...

I lol'd out of surprise, because asking whether I was talking about a virus seemed absurd coming from someone who supposedly has more than a passing knowledge of the subject - although it might have been a sarcastic joke.

A little insecure with your point?

Click to expand...

A little sensitive about sounding ignorant?

Kenny'sID said:

Evolution as a whole is also basically, man came from something completely different that we are now...

Click to expand...

No it's not. First off evolution doesn't have some myopic focus on humans. We are on minuscule branch on the great tree of life. That said, humans didn't " come from something completely different tha(n) we are now".
Humans are sill Hominids
humans are still Catarrhines
humans are still Simiformes
humans are still primates
humans are still Euarchontoglires
humans are still etc. etc. etc.

USincognito said:

No it's not. First off evolution doesn't have some myopic focus on humans.

Click to expand...

First, I'd challenge you to prove i said it did.

Secondly, unless you are saying humans did not evolve, you either just have an empty argument, just for the sake of argument, or you misunderstood my post, or it's context.

Thirdly, well there is no thirdly, because for obvious reasons, I saw no reason to read the rest of your post. But thank you for the opportunity to waste my time even though there wasn't a thing wrong with my post.

Kenny'sID said:

But thank you for the opportunity to waste my time even though there wasn't a thing wrong with my post.

Click to expand...

The statement "man came from something completely different that we are now" is, as it written, technically incorrect.

This is why you should take a course on this stuff.

pitabread said:

The statement "man came from something completely different that we are now" is, as it written, technically incorrect.

This is why you should take a course on this stuff.

Click to expand...

You're wrong, again , you're having trouble with context, but it's hardly worth the trouble to explain again.

I'm flattered, I really am, that I evidently get to you to the point you are so desperate/determined to find me wrong you pick at most petty things, yet still can't seem to find a problem. I'd highly recommend you take a course in something/anything to occupy your time.

Kenny'sID said:

You're wrong, again , you're having trouble with context, but it's hardly worth the trouble to explain again.

Click to expand...

Oh, I've read the context and it's just the usual run of mis-characterization of what evolution actually is. And when you say things like "man came from something completely different that we are now", either you mean something different than what you have stated or you are stating something that is technically incorrect.

This is again the problem of trying to argue about something without a base line understanding of that something.

I'd highly recommend you take a course in something/anything to occupy your time.

Click to expand...

Now, now. I'm here as much for the time-wasting arguments as you are.

PsychoSarah said:

I find it funny that people constantly demand fossil intermediates for various traits when there are living proofs of concept.

Click to expand...

What is the evidence that this fish is not created (unique, no evolution ancestor)? What is the "common ancestor" of this fish and (what?) ?