Fish finger fossils show the beginnings of hands

Subduction Zone said:

This is merely an argument from ignorance. It amounts to "I don't know, therefore God".

Click to expand...

I can turn that one around and make the same claim about evolutionists: "I don't know there is a God, therefore science."

Subduction Zone said:

Then why does all of the scientific evidence support evolution and only evolution?

Click to expand...

It's still called the "Theory" of Evolution, which is not true. It is not empirical science, sense the original elements are guessed at. The conditions and elements aren't observable, can't be used in any observable science experience, so they infer junk that isn't there. Darwin was a cracked pot.

Subduction Zone said:

One serious question, do you want to know, or are you just looking for excuses?

Click to expand...

Do you want to know God or are you just looking for excuses? Evolution is an act of rebellion towards God, you gather around your support system, the paleontologists, biologists and astronomers and lean on each other for excuses not to believe in God. The strict theory of evolution has no God in it's original structure, therefore the Theistic Evolutionists have been deceived thanks to this junk science that has been forced down the throats of kids in school for decades.

durangodawood said:

Ouch. Debating with creationists...again?

The persistence of this clearly maladaptive behavior almost falsifies evolution by natural selection for me.

Click to expand...

Creationists never really do change, do they? Just the same boilerplate arguments and general lack of understanding of the sciences.

Ronald said:

Evolution is an act of rebellion towards God, you gather around your support system, the paleontologists, biologists and astronomers and lean on each other for excuses not to believe in God.

Click to expand...

False dichotomy. Many Christians also accept evolutionary science. This is just another poor attempt to turn the discussion in Christianity vs atheism, which is better suited for the Apologetics forum. You're clearly in the wrong discussion forum.

Ronald said:

I can turn that one around and make the same claim about evolutionists: "I don't know there is a God, therefore science."

Click to expand...

Nope, that is not our claim. Evolution does not deny God. That is an error on your part. All that scientists are doing is trying to understand how life came about.

It's still called the "Theory" of Evolution, which is not true. It is not empirical science, sense the original elements are guessed at. The conditions and elements aren't observable, can't be used in any observable science experience, so they infer junk that isn't there. Darwin was a cracked pot.

Click to expand...

You do not understand the meaning of the word "theory". A scientific theory is nowhere close to the usage that people use in casual conversation. Theories do not become Laws in science, though some Laws are replaced by theories. If anything a theory is above a law in the sciences. And you do not seem to understand observation either. We can observe the evidence for evolution in quite a few different ways. The fossil record is only a small part of the evidence. And really, name calling. He does have an advantage over Moses, he was not fictional.

Do you want to know God or are you just looking for excuses? Evolution is an act of rebellion towards God, you gather around your support system, the paleontologists, biologists and astronomers and lean on each other for excuses not to believe in God. The strict theory of evolution has no God in it's original structure, therefore the Theistic Evolutionists have been deceived thanks to this junk science that has been forced down the throats of kids in school for decades.

Click to expand...

Now now, dodging a question is the same as admitting that you are wrong. How could evolution be an act of rebellion? And there is a reason that God does not appear in the theory of evolution. Why do you complain about that? God does not appear in the theory of gravity either. Are you trying to claim that when someone falls down that they are in rebellion against God? You are making some very odd arguments.

Any musicians here want to join my nu band Fish Finger Death Punch?

Occams Barber said:

I don't get the link between Fish Fingers and 'no coming judgement'.

Can you explain in words an old atheist can understand?
OB

Click to expand...

To be fair, it didn't make any sense to this middle-aged Christian either.

-CryptoLutheran

Subduction Zone said:

Nope, that is not our claim. Evolution does not deny God. That is an error on your part. All that scientists are doing is trying to understand how life came about.



You do not understand the meaning of the word "theory". A scientific theory is nowhere close to the usage that people use in casual conversation. Theories do not become Laws in science, though some Laws are replaced by theories. If anything a theory is above a law in the sciences. And you do not seem to understand observation either. We can observe the evidence for evolution in quite a few different ways. The fossil record is only a small part of the evidence. And really, name calling. He does have an advantage over Moses, he was not fictional.




Now now, dodging a question is the same as admitting that you are wrong. How could evolution be an act of rebellion? And there is a reason that God does not appear in the theory of evolution. Why do you complain about that? God does not appear in the theory of gravity either. Are you trying to claim that when someone falls down that they are in rebellion against God? You are making some very odd arguments.

Click to expand...

Actually the fall of man was an act of sin, a disobedient act of rebellion against God.
Gravity was discovered a God fearing man, Isaac Newton. And when a sparrow falls to the ground, God knows.
God shares with man how things work by giving him principals, formulas, ideas, etc. Man thinks he did it on his own, but the universe was designed for us. We sit back in awe and contemplate God's handiwork. It is finely tuned, the math, the physics and chemistry for the purpose of life on this planet. All the principals, contingent on each other point to intelligent design, not a chance accident. Natural has no creative ability, no intelligence by itself to select or order anything.
Hold on to your views if you will, they offer no happiness, hope, peace, promise, love, forgiveness, life. Look at guys like Richard Dawkins, do you see a light, a joyful enthusiasm? People who know the Lord are the most happy and content people. People of faith have a very much different perspective about life, purpose and meaning behind it all. To think that the universe and man are just accidents produced by chance is a dark path that leads to futility. It's empty! Don't you sense that something is missing?

DaveISBA said:

There are of coarse the claims of intermediates, if they're not outright frauds, when their history of existence is examined they appear abruptly then stasis and either go extinct or still in existence!

Click to expand...

is the fossil in the OP a fraud?

DaveISBA said:

When the amount of intermediates links should be "truly enormous" as Darwin stated then had to admit:
"Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory".

Click to expand...

lol, it isn’t 1850 anymore.

DaveISBA said:

Tiktaalik...this one and only flat as a pancake, partial fossil after 26 years of searching is a desperate imagination!

Click to expand...

Where on Earth are you getting this stuff from? No one will take you seriously if you’re demonstrating such an ignorance of basic facts.

DaveISBA said:

Tiktaalik's co-discoverer had to admit that for 26 years he found lots of fossils of fully fish and 4 legged animals but no links between the two!
Tiktaalik is described as a (lobe finned fish) and like all claimed intermediates, appears all at once in the fossil record then without changing into something else, apparently it went extinct! The fossil of the lobe finned fish coelacanth, as tiktaalik, was hailed an intermediate link until it was found still swimming around in the ocean!

Click to expand...

What is this nonsense? It was found swimming around?

DaveISBA said:

Behind the times? Don't know how much more recent you can get than this Phys.org article dated Feb 19, 2013 (New species appear to arise from sudden changes): "Evolutionary stasis is an alternative scientific interpretation to the widely accepted Neo-Darwinism. It means that most species show little evolutionary change through history, instead, evolution occurs more abruptly and it can result in one species becoming two different species. The theory originated among paleontologists who study fossils. (They found that no intermediate forms of fossils exist).”

Click to expand...

I’m confused, do you accept Folmer Bokma as authoritative voice on evolution? I assume you realise that those are not Bokma’s words, but those of an unknown article writer summarising an aspect of his work, rather sloppily. Bokma isn’t a palaeontologist anyway so I don’t know why you mention him when discussing fossils (although obviously you copied it from some creationist website without attempting to understand it). In Bokma’s words....
“ I have developed phylogenetic analyses that distinguish rapid evolution during speciation from gradual evolution over time in established species. The advantage of such methods is that they can detect “punctuated equilibria” using only present-day, biological species, and hence that they can be applied to traits such as gene expression that cannot be obtained from fossils, but that can provide valuable information about the mechanisms of rapid change during speciation” Folmer Bokma - CEES - Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis

If you are actually interested in learning about why he feels the fossil record offers only a limited insight into the rate of speciation have a read through this - Error - Cookies Turned Off

Ronald said:

Actually the fall of man was an act of sin, a disobedient act of rebellion against God.
Gravity was discovered a God fearing man, Isaac Newton. And when a sparrow falls to the ground, God knows.
God shares with man how things work by giving him principals, formulas, ideas, etc. Man thinks he did it on his own, but the universe was designed for us. We sit back in awe and contemplate God's handiwork. It is finely tuned, the math, the physics and chemistry for the purpose of life on this planet. All the principals, contingent on each other point to intelligent design, not a chance accident. Natural has no creative ability, no intelligence by itself to select or order anything.
Hold on to your views if you will, they offer no happiness, hope, peace, promise, love, forgiveness, life. Look at guys like Richard Dawkins, do you see a light, a joyful enthusiasm? People who know the Lord are the most happy and content people. People of faith have a very much different perspective about life, purpose and meaning behind it all. To think that the universe and man are just accidents produced by chance is a dark path that leads to futility. It's empty! Don't you sense that something is missing?

Click to expand...

Well, you’ve done your duty, now please Stop derailing the thread with your preaching.

Ronald said:

Actually the fall of man was an act of sin, a disobedient act of rebellion against God.
Gravity was discovered a God fearing man, Isaac Newton. And when a sparrow falls to the ground, God knows.
God shares with man how things work by giving him principals, formulas, ideas, etc. Man thinks he did it on his own, but the universe was designed for us. We sit back in awe and contemplate God's handiwork. It is finely tuned, the math, the physics and chemistry for the purpose of life on this planet. All the principals, contingent on each other point to intelligent design, not a chance accident. Natural has no creative ability, no intelligence by itself to select or order anything.
Hold on to your views if you will, they offer no happiness, hope, peace, promise, love, forgiveness, life. Look at guys like Richard Dawkins, do you see a light, a joyful enthusiasm? People who know the Lord are the most happy and content people. People of faith have a very much different perspective about life, purpose and meaning behind it all. To think that the universe and man are just accidents produced by chance is a dark path that leads to futility. It's empty! Don't you sense that something is missing?

Click to expand...

The "fall of man" is bad theology as written in the Bible. It does not portray your God in a good light. Let's leave that out of it right now and concentrate on the science.

If you accept gravity then by the same logic you should accept evolution. It does not matter what the religious beliefs are of the person that makes a scientific discovery, what matters is if it is supported by evidence. And the theory of evolution is supported by endless evidence. So much so that one is actually claiming that God is a liar if he says that the Genesis account must be interpreted literally.

And no, I do not sense anything empty about various atheists. I do see emptiness in people that have to portray their own God poorly. Let's try to focus on the science here.

Ronald said:

To think that the universe and man are just accidents produced by chance is a dark path that leads to futility. It's empty! Don't you sense that something is missing?

Click to expand...

You're still arguing against atheism, not the theory of evolution. Do you actually have any arguments against the theory of evolution which don't misrepresent it as atheism?

The theory of evolution does not claim "that the universe and man are just accidents produced by chance." No scientific theory does.

Speedwell said:

You're still arguing against atheism, not the theory of evolution. Do you actually have any arguments against the theory of evolution which don't misrepresent it as atheism?

Click to expand...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say... no.

Subduction Zone said:

The "fall of man" is bad theology as written in the Bible. It does not portray your God in a good light. Let's leave that out of it right now and concentrate on the science.

If you accept gravity then by the same logic you should accept evolution. It does not matter what the religious beliefs are of the person that makes a scientific discovery, what matters is if it is supported by evidence. And the theory of evolution is supported by endless evidence. So much so that one is actually claiming that God is a liar if he says that the Genesis account must be interpreted literally.

And no, I do not sense anything empty about various atheists. I do see emptiness in people that have to portray their own God poorly. Let's try to focus on the science here.

Click to expand...

Gravity is observable, so as far as empirical science, easy to demonstrate. I remember you from a few years back when I used to visit this section. We went back and forth about all of it and got nowhere. You are still pushing the same stuff and me too.
I see life differently. I've heard it said that it takes more faith to believe in Macro-evolution than it does to believe in God. Flawed dating methods, mindless nature selecting mutations (defects), absent transitional forms, ridiculous illustrations ... And then the Big Bang _ from an explosion to a mathematically fine-tuned, ordered universe _ to this planet with life _ by chance? Hogwash!

Ronald said:

Gravity is observable, so as far as empirical science, easy to demonstrate. I remember you from a few years back when I used to visit this section. We went back and forth about all of it and got nowhere. You are still pushing the same stuff and me too.
I see life differently. I've heard it said that it takes more faith to believe in Macro-evolution than it does to believe in God. Flawed dating methods, mindless nature selecting mutations (defects), absent transitional forms, ridiculous illustrations ... And then the Big Bang _ from an explosion to a mathematically fine-tuned, ordered universe _ to this planet with life _ by chance? Hogwash!

Click to expand...

Evolution is observable. One only needs a little bit of education to see it. And no, it does not take any faith to accept evolution. By the way, there is no micro and macro in evolution. It is all evolution.

And you are back to strawman arguments again. You are demonstrably wrong on all of your claims. Would you like to debate them properly? One at a time is the way to do it.

It is a pity that you have not learned anything in the years since we last spoke. Are you willing to do the honest thing and learn this time?

Ronald said:

Gravity is observable, so as far as empirical science, easy to demonstrate. I remember you from a few years back when I used to visit this section. We went back and forth about all of it and got nowhere. You are still pushing the same stuff and me too.
I see life differently. I've heard it said that it takes more faith to believe in Macro-evolution than it does to believe in God. Flawed dating methods, mindless nature selecting mutations (defects), absent transitional forms, ridiculous illustrations ... And then the Big Bang _ from an explosion to a mathematically fine-tuned, ordered universe _ to this planet with life _ by chance? Hogwash!

Click to expand...

Strange really. One of the habits I acquired when I was a practising Christian was a modicum of courtesy. It seems you feel that courtesy can take a back seat when it interferes with preaching. This is a thread about a transitional fossil. Would you kindly address the thread topic, or leave. Either would be the courteous thing to do.

Ronald said:

I see life differently. I've heard it said that it takes more faith to believe in Macro-evolution than it does to believe in God.

Click to expand...

You are still arguing against atheism rather than against the theory of evolution. Your persistence in that vein makes me tend to think you are doing so intentionally, dishonestly.

And then the Big Bang _ from an explosion to a mathematically fine-tuned, ordered universe _ to this planet with life _ by chance? Hogwash!

Click to expand...

It wasn't an explosion--maybe you should read about it. And "Big Bang" cosmology doesn't deny the existence of God, either.

Speedwell said:

You are still arguing against atheism rather than against the theory of evolution. Your persistence in that vein makes me tend to think you are doing so intentionally, dishonestly. It wasn't an explosion--maybe you should read about it. And "Big Bang" cosmology doesn't deny the existence of God, either.

Click to expand...

The Big Bang Theory was accepted largely due to the work of a Christian astronomer. That is why I am somewhat surprised when a Christian tries to claim it is anti-God.

Ophiolite said:

Strange really. One of the habits I acquired when I was a practising Christian was a modicum of courtesy. It seems you feel that courtesy can take a back seat when it interferes with preaching. This is a thread about a transitional fossil. Would you kindly address the thread topic, or leave. Either would be the courteous thing to do.

Click to expand...

Well, I've never addressed a recalcitrant procrastinating ape before, but why not. I apologize for going off the fish finger topic. I'll be leaving.

Ronald said:

Gravity is observable, so as far as empirical science, easy to demonstrate.

Click to expand...

Explaining gravity requires more than just dropping stuff, and coming up with a gravitational theory that explained that was Newton's accomplishment. BTW, Newton wasn't exactly a trinitarian.

And what does this have to do with fish fingers?

Ronald said:

Well, I've never addressed a recalcitrant procrastinating ape before, but why not. I apologize for going off the fish finger topic. I'll be leaving.

Click to expand...

You appear to be using the word "ape" as an insult. Technically it is not an insult since you are an ape. As is every other poster here. And I don't think you understand the word "recalcitrant" either.

Edit: I see that you were being polite and that I made an improper assumption. My apologies.