Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition

[Baggins]

In large part, the conclusion that Tiktaalik is the 'missing link' arises from the initial conclusion that it was a fish in the process of turning INTO a crocodile. There appears to be no speculation that the find was a fossil of a previously-undiscovered crocodile-like species of fish, or fish-like species of crocodile, something I find interesting

This bit is rubbish, it is not a missing link between fish and crocodiles, they just said its head looked a bit like a crocodile, it is a transitional species between fish and tetrapods

 

[Baggins]

In large part, the conclusion that Tiktaalik is the 'missing link' arises from the initial conclusion that it was a fish in the process of turning INTO a crocodile. There appears to be no speculation that the find was a fossil of a previously-undiscovered crocodile-like species of fish, or fish-like species of crocodile, something I find interesting

This bit is rubbish, it is not a missing link between fish and crocodiles, they just said its head looked a bit like a crocodile, it is a transitional species between fish and tetrapods

And it goes down hill into a bizarre rant from there.

 

[Grizzly]

Blindly believing the past was as the present is not emperical! It doesn't produce airplanes!

Well, I've got 1000 blessings that says the sun will come up tomorrow, just like it did today, and yesterday. Are you in?

It turns out that we live in a fairly regular world.

Neither does applying the same method to the future produce ought but dreams! No one cares what the present produces, when it comes to orgins of man. That was not in the present. Of course it is the same process, except misapplied if you try to apply it to the past or future.

Do you have any evidence that the laws of physics were somehow different in the past or will be different in the future? Or the laws of biology? Photosynthesis?

I could look at the modern method of surgery. But I can't apply it to the surgery God did on Adam, cause I don't see any surgeuns producing cute, grown women from our ribs.

You can't apply it to the surgery that God did on Adam because, well, it never happened. You are trying to take an ancient manuscript written by shepherds and use it as a scientific document. It's not.

"A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or emprically based, that is, dependent on evidence that is observable by the senses."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical

That which our senses observe does not include the future or far past. For that, we use a DIFFERENT method, it's called guessing.

It's called predicting (hypothesizing) followed by searching for evidence (hopefully looking for evidence against). No matter how you slice it, it is science.

 

[Split Rock]

Yes, look into it. I explained it well, the geneologies bring us up to modern history pretty close. The sons of Adam up to Noah, then on down from there.

Too bad it misses about 4.5 billion years of history shown in the earth itself.

A lot of things are open to interpretation. A lot aren't. Some things are absolute, as any Christian would know. . .That Jesus, for example died and rose again on the third day. All Christians believe that.

OK.

As for bible interpretation, Jesus spoke of the flood, and the time of the garden. Those who say the bible is poetry and fables, and moralizing, etc are not really bible believers. I think it is mainly their interpretaion that you think is at odds with creationists. Of course it is. They don't believe it. At least hardly any of it.

No they aren't "bible-believers," they believe in Jesus instead.

Among bible believers, the range is really not that wide as to opinions of Eden, and the flood, etc. It is fairly clear cut.

So was the geocentric model of the Solar System.


It all comes down to what You believe dad. That just isn't good enough for science class.

 

[USincognito]

More Than a Link Is Missing. ..

Speaking of links, in the future could you post one instead of spamming the board and not contributing any original thought or commentary? At the very least you could have snipped out all the stuff that was unrelated to Creation and Evolution and just stuck to the straw men (fish into crocodile) or factually incorrect (this is the first transitional unearthed - it is not) portions.

 

[dad]

Well, I've got 1000 blessings that says the sun will come up tomorrow, just like it did today, and yesterday. Are you in?

It turns out that we live in a fairly regular world.

Everyone knows that, pretty well. No one is talking about tommorow, or yesterday, or the sun coming up. It will come up forever, by the way, and never burn out. See, another example acience doesn't know what it is talking about when it ventures too far from the little fishbowl of the present!!! Hasn't a clue!
Were genetics the same in the garden? Was the light that was made before the sun and stars the same as sunlight? Will there be decay in the new heavens? These are the kinds of things we are talking, not last week, we know all about that!

Do you have any evidence that the laws of physics were somehow different in the past or will be different in the future? Or the laws of biology? Photosynthesis?

Every bit as much as you have they were the same!!!!!! Which means none from science. Dig?

You can't apply it to the surgery that God did on Adam because, well, it never happened.

Well, of course it did, I can't take YOUR word for it, and you have no science to muster, so what do you have? Nothing. Try and remember that.

You are trying to take an ancient manuscript written by shepherds and use it as a scientific document. It's not.

It is far better than a mere physical only science document, but it covers a bit of that stuff as well. More than science presently has acheived, as a matter of fact! For example, I can tell you if our present universe is finite or infinite, which science cannot do. I know they just recently leaned to the universe being infinite, but that is sheer PO present based what ifing. It is temporary, according to the bible.

It's called predicting (hypothesizing)

Right, like predicting our galaxy will smash into another, the sun will burn out, and that the whole universe was in an are smaller than a coffee cup, at one point! The only predictions of science worth their salt deal close to the present, up to aboy 4400 years ago. Everything else is false false false!!!!

 

[dad]

..
Too bad it misses about 4.5 billion years of history shown in the earth itself.

Purest of pure assumptions only, and belief, no substance whatsoever.

That's a miracle, not "hyper-evolution." It's also a story made up by Bronze-Age Goat-herders trying to explain why snakes have no legs.

Your education is showing.

No they aren't "bible-believers," they believe in Jesus instead.

He is the central issue of the bible, He comes with the territory.

So was the geocentric model of the Solar System.

I couldn't tell you I wasn't there, I have heard another side, though, to that coin.
I believe in a geocentric universe, the only reason we can't see it now, is because it includes the whole universe, spiritual and physical. We just see the physical part now. We are the cat's meow, the hub, center, raison d'aitre, live center, soon to be the home of God Himself forever. They were right if they thought that, and maybe the ancients had stories passed down from before the split, that they got the idea from, far as I'm concerned!

It all comes down to what You believe dad. That just isn't good enough for science class.

Not a class where they still teach the greatest hoax in history, the old age beliefs. That will end soon. If not voluntarily, by force, as Jesus soon rules the world with a rod of iron.

 

[Grizzly]

In order for the Bible to be scientifically true

1) The speed of light must be variable
2) Atomic decay must not adhere to normal rates
3) Continents must have moved at miles per hour speed
4) All of the dead animals must have magically fossilzed at different depths. Otherwise we would have been fooled into believing that they didn't all live at once.
5) Magic water must have appeared out of no where, flooded the earth, and then magically vanished.

And I am sure there are many more. All of this twisting and turning is simply unecessary. There are simpler explanations.

 

[dad]

In order for the Bible to be scientifically true

1) The speed of light must be variable

No. It was different light. Ours was the same.

2) Atomic decay must not adhere to normal rates

False. It adheres. It never used to decay at all.

3) Continents must have moved at miles per hour speed

Yes. Good thing merged matter loses heat fast, and there was no gravity!

4) All of the dead animals must have magically fossilzed at different depths. Otherwise we would have been fooled into believing that they didn't all live at once.

No, most were PRE FLOOD.

5) Magic water must have appeared out of no where, flooded the earth, and then magically vanished.

In the merged universe, and world, a canopy of sorts was possible, as well as taking water off the planet fairly easily. Where do you think the water in the solar sytem/planets came from?

And I am sure there are many more. All of this twisting and turning is simply unecessary. There are simpler explanations.

Don't think so. This puts all the ducks in line.

 

[Nathan Poe]

False. It adheres. It never used to decay at all.

True enough. It only started to decay last Thursday

Yes. Good thing merged matter loses heat fast, and there was no gravity!


No, most were PRE FLOOD.

If that flood was supposedly before last Thursday, then I'm afraid this theory is refuted.

In the merged universe, and world, a canopy of sorts was possible, as well as taking water off the planet fairly easily. Where do you think the water in the solar sytem/planets came from?

Last Thursday?

Don't think so. This puts all the ducks in line.

Indeed it does. Through intervention of the Spiritual, it can be irrefutably said that all matter came into being last Thursday!

 

[Split Rock]

Purest of pure assumptions only, and belief, no substance whatsoever.

No dad, its based on radioisotope dating methods that have been shown to be accurate.

Your education is showing.

Why thank you!

He is the central issue of the bible, He comes with the territory.

Yes, but some people worship the Book instead of the Man.

I couldn't tell you I wasn't there, I have heard another side, though, to that coin.
I believe in a geocentric universe, the only reason we can't see it now, is because it includes the whole universe, spiritual and physical. We just see the physical part now. We are the cat's meow, the hub, center, raison d'aitre, live center, soon to be the home of God Himself forever. They were right if they thought that, and maybe the ancients had stories passed down from before the split, that they got the idea from, far as I'm concerned!

Well sure, throw out the heliocentric solar system while you are at it! How about throwing out the other Big Lie, that "Earth is Round" nonsense atheist scientists preach?

Not a class where they still teach the greatest hoax in history, the old age beliefs. That will end soon. If not voluntarily, by force, as Jesus soon rules the world with a rod of iron.

I just love the "Rod of Iron" part. Will he be wearing a velvet glove too?

 

[caravelair]

OK, your official opinion is noted.

it's not opinion, it's fact! and you can't prove otherwise!

 

[dad]

No dad, its based on radioisotope dating methods that have been shown to be accurate.

Only in that things now decay, not in that they DID in the far past. Nothing like that is 'shown'. Of course things now decay, but they won't in the future, and unless you can prove otherwise I have to assume they never in the past.

Why thank you!

You're welcome. I can usually see the anti bible, God attitute they instill in kids, that remains later in life. (." It's also a story made up by Bronze-Age Goat-herders trying to explain why snakes have no legs.)

Yes, but some people worship the Book instead of the Man.

Believe the book as well as the man you mean! Many believe in the man, but not the book that much. Jesus told us to believe His words. He also quoted scripture, and fulfilled it. He actually is the word.

Well sure, throw out the heliocentric solar system while you are at it! How about throwing out the other Big Lie, that "Earth is Round" nonsense atheist scientists preach?

The earth, I thought was spherical? Are you claiming it is a circle? As for the flat stuff, that is silliness, the bible knows better than that.

I just love the "Rod of Iron" part. Will he be wearing a velvet glove too?

I think the gloves may be off then.

Psalms 2: 8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. 11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him

 

[Grizzly]

No. It was different light. Ours was the same.


False. It adheres. It never used to decay at all.


Yes. Good thing merged matter loses heat fast, and there was no gravity!


No, most were PRE FLOOD.



In the merged universe, and world, a canopy of sorts was possible, as well as taking water off the planet fairly easily. Where do you think the water in the solar sytem/planets came from?


Don't think so. This puts all the ducks in line.

Hi dad,

Thanks for your responses. It's clear that refuting your theory of the world will not be possible using existing evidence (or any evidence for that matter). I will leave you to your version of events.

Cheers

Grizzly

 

[Nathan Poe]

Only in that things now decay, not in that they DID in the far past. Nothing like that is 'shown'. Of course things now decay, but they won't in the future, and unless you can prove otherwise I have to assume they never in the past.

"The past" being everything that allegedly happened before last Thursday, something all believers know is plainly impossible.

You're welcome. I can usually see the anti bible, God attitute they instill in kids, that remains later in life. (." It's also a story made up by Bronze-Age Goat-herders trying to explain why snakes have no legs.)

Couldn't help but notice to including Bible and God in the same breath -- just because you consider them virtually one and the same doesn't mean other believers do as well.

Believe the book as well as the man you mean! Many believe in the man, but not the book that much. Jesus told us to believe His words. He also quoted scripture, and fulfilled it. He actually is the word.

No -- Jesus, according to Christian mythos, is the Word (Logos), not the "word" which is the Bible.

Really, dad, your theology is every bit as flawed and self-serving as your science. Seeing as you call yourself a believer, perhaps it would do you some good to study up on what you profess to believe?

The earth, I thought was spherical? Are you claiming it is a circle? As for the flat stuff, that is silliness, the bible knows better than that.

Then perhaps the Bible should say sperical instead of circle.

 

[Jet Black]

The earth, I thought was spherical? Are you claiming it is a circle? As for the flat stuff, that is silliness, the bible knows better than that.

no, the earth is not spherical, science proves it! Next thing you know, you will be telling me something silly like the universe existed before last thursday.

 

[Split Rock]

Only in that things now decay, not in that they DID in the far past. Nothing like that is 'shown'. Of course things now decay, but they won't in the future, and unless you can prove otherwise I have to assume they never in the past.

How God could have created a functioning planet without decay is beyond me. By the way, where in the bible does it say there was no decay before the Fall? I suppose in the same place it says the earth is 6,000 years old and animals "hyper-evolved" after the Flood....

You're welcome. I can usually see the anti bible, God attitute they instill in kids, that remains later in life. (." It's also a story made up by Bronze-Age Goat-herders trying to explain why snakes have no legs.)

Ha, HA, dad! You continue to make me laugh. I know of no time that I was taught anything anti-God, or even anti-bible. Maybe anti- your interpretation of the bible, but that hardly counts.

Believe the book as well as the man you mean! Many believe in the man, but not the book that much. Jesus told us to believe His words. He also quoted scripture, and fulfilled it. He actually is the word.

Yes, most Christians believe he is the word, but unfortunately, he wrote nothing in the bible.

The earth, I thought was spherical? Are you claiming it is a circle? As for the flat stuff, that is silliness, the bible knows better than that.

Really? It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that the earth is spherical. In fact, I know of no great truth about the physical world that Bronze-Age Goat-herders didn't already know, that is written in the bible. Why do you think that is, dad?

I think the gloves may be off then.

Psalms 2: 8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. 11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him

More dire warnings from dad....

 

[awesome liver]

no, the earth is not spherical, science proves it! Next thing you know, you will be telling me something silly like the universe existed before last thursday.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/

 

[dad]

Hi dad,

Thanks for your responses. It's clear that refuting your theory of the world will not be possible using existing evidence (or any evidence for that matter). I will leave you to your version of events.

Cheers

Grizzly

Evidences do not tell us how it will be or used to be.

 

[dad]

Couldn't help but notice to including Bible and God in the same breath -- just because you consider them virtually one and the same doesn't mean other believers do as well.

I assume you are not talking about bible believers?

No -- Jesus, according to Christian mythos, is the Word (Logos), not the "word" which is the Bible.

Take God's word for it, Jesus is the word, and not a word about that please.

Then perhaps the Bible should say sperical instead of circle.

What is the 'circle of the earth'? Is it an orbit of the saphire throne of God? Is it the created state (pre split) of the earth? Or...? Do not assume God knows not wherof He speaks.