Help a (creationist) brother out?

[SkyWriting]

Did you just call me a surgeon?

I think he said "Spurgeon".

 

[Shemjaza]

Utter nonsense.

Then please explain it.

This is your original comment:

You only think creation can't be true because you hold that God is not true. Atheism as far as I can see only leaves you with one view, that everything came to be through naturalistic means. People who believe in God have a wider range of explanations and possibilities to draw upon. Some do hold to the belief that God used evolution. I disagree with that but that is due to scripture not science.....

You stated that Bradskii only thought that creation can't be true because they held that God is not true.

That's an absolute statement, that leaves no other explanations for accepting evolution... then in the same paragraph you discuss individuals who definitely do hold that God is true, but also accept evolution.

Please explain why the initial statement isn't false?

You either believe life came from non life and went from one cell to man through naturalistic means or you don't. It really is that simple.

That quote on 'hypothesis of abiogenesis' is simply a copy paste from the first link that shows up on Google.
First link: Abiogenesis
If you don't like their explanation maybe you should contact them and have it out with them.

I'm not posting on that board, and personally I think that definition has a lot of baggage that distract from the concept.

First sensible question.
A variety of things determine beliefs including past held beliefs and ideas, education, personality, life experiences, lack of Biblical teaching to false biblical teaching. Lastly to a genuine disagreement over scripture because we are fleshy imperfect people.
Just because someone has done a prayer of repentance and asked Jesus into their life and found a church to attend does not automatically make them Bible scholars. Even if the church they attend holds to creation they don't tend to run classes on it, its simply stated and assumed.

Many people put a high level of trust in scientists and doctors. If a doctor or scientist has said something then it must be true and other things will be adjusted to fit including scripture. Theistic Evolutionist and Old Earth Intelligent Design Proponents are trying desperately to combine scripture and science. They grasp onto these ideas because it makes sense to both sides of their belief system.

I am a young earth creationist as this is what scripture says. This is what God says. Who am I going to pick, God who I trust completely or the words of fallen evil men?
Exodus 20
And God spoke all these words:
1 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Unlike the Theistic Evolutionist or OEISP who trust the findings of science I came from a background of mistrust in doctors. I may have become a Christian and gone over to TE but that was simply because I was your average garden variety evolutionist before that. Try taking a camera and mic out on the street and asking each passer by what hypothesis of abiogenesis is.
What kind of answers do you think you will get?
All it took was some good solid Bible teaching to show me that scripture all points to 6 day creation and no death before sin and I switched from TE to YEC. This is what many people are lacking, solid Bible teaching.

As to Flat Earth believers, they are creationists who believe the world is flat, that is all.
I have left a 1% chance open to that possibility even though I don't think they are correct. I have nothing against flat earth, I just don't think they have made a solid case from scripture for it because most of the scripture verses they use is poetry. Doctrine should not be based on poetry.

Do you acknowledge that OEC and TE Christians see your literal interpretations as basing doctrine on poetry just like you do to the Flat Earth believers?

 

[coffee4u]

To the first point, I only need to ask why. Why would God make a star that you say is 6,000 years old yet give it all the properties of one that has existed for billions of years? You say that God tells us in Genesis exactly how He created everything and now you are suggesting that He's trying to hide the very same information from us by some subterfuge. Does God move in mysterious ways, so we'll never know why He is deceiving us? Or do you have an answer?

But he isn't hiding it. He says he created the stars, gave a name to each one and stretched them out.
Isaiah 45:12
“It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it.
I stretched out the heavens with My hands
And I ordained all their host.
God isn't concerned with our understanding, like the ancients and their hygiene laws.
Just because mankind discovered germs doesn't mean we can know everything.

Who says that time is what people even think it is, perhaps it bends the further it goes away from the earth and what looks to you like 6 billion years actually isn't and if you could travel to the ends of the universe maybe that would become clear.

A quick Google.
PS. If you also don't like the definitions given then take it up with your buddies who make these websites. That does say NASA though, surely they are good enough.
Quote: Astronomers estimate the age of the universe in two ways: 1) by looking for the oldest stars; and 2) by measuring the rate of expansion of the universe and extrapolating back to the Big Bang.
WMAP- Age of the Universe

1) Assumption made that they could ever measure and know the age of the oldest star.
2) The Big bang is an assumption.
3) Expanding universe is yet another assumption.

None of this is testable, repeatable and observable on its own, but replies yet again on more assumptions.

And as to the second, I have never said that God does not exist, I don't say it now and I never will say it. His existence or non-existence and my belief in either of those two options has literally nothing to do with how old stars are.

Yes it does, you are in agreement with the assumptions that science has based all of this off because from a purely naturalistic point of view it's the only theory that fits.

Your label says Atheist. Atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities/gods/God exist. If you change the definition don't expect me to keep up.[/QUOTE]

 

[coffee4u]

Then please explain it.

This is your original comment:


You stated that Bradskii only thought that creation can't be true because they held that God is not true.

That's an absolute statement, that leaves no other explanations for accepting evolution... then in the same paragraph you discuss individuals who definitely do hold that God is true, but also accept evolution.

Please explain why the initial statement isn't false?

Starting from the two positions:

God doesn't exist:
1) Everything must have occurred through natural means.

God exists:
1)He used special creation
2)He used some form of evolution ( TE means God-guided evolution)

What other position is there?

I'm not posting on that board, and personally I think that definition has a lot of baggage that distract from the concept.

Okay

Do you acknowledge that OEC and TE Christians see your literal interpretations as basing doctrine on poetry just like you do to the Flat Earth believers?

No that's not why they disagree.
TE are basing their belief on science. Because of what science has found they believe that Genesis and other verses should be taken as symbolic.

OEC believe that there was a pre-world where God created dinosaurs and primitive man and that God wiped that and then did 6 day creation on top of it. So they still believe in 6 days but things like old stars and dinosaur bones are from the pre-world. Others may have slightly different views to this but this is what the poster I was debating recently believed.

I don't base my doctrine on poetry. Poetry from Psalms and other places should be read with the understanding that poetic license may be used. It contains truth but not every word is going to be literal.

 

[Shemjaza]

Starting from the two positions:

God doesn't exist:
1) Everything must have occurred through natural means.

God exists:
1)He used special creation
2)He used some form of evolution ( TE means God-guided evolution)

What other position is there?

You are arguing with a completely different perspective.

Bradskii was discussing scientific conclusions about the universe, not whether God existed or not.

So it would be closer to describe it as this:

Science works as a method of examining the universe:
1) Everything must have occurred through natural means.
2) God used some form of evolution ( TE means God-guided evolution)

Science does not work as a method of examining the universe:
1) God used special creation

Just as with your examples they aren't actually exhaustive.

No that's not why they disagree.
TE are basing their belief on science. Because of what science has found they believe that Genesis and other verses should be taken as symbolic.

OEC believe that there was a pre-world where God created dinosaurs and primitive man and that God wiped that and then did 6 day creation on top of it. So they still believe in 6 days but things like old stars and dinosaur bones are from the pre-world. Others may have slightly different views to this but this is what the poster I was debating recently believed.

I don't base my doctrine on poetry. Poetry from Psalms and other places should be read with the understanding that poetic license may be used. It contains truth but not every word is going to be literal.

How exactly is the variations in interpretation different?

People literally think Genesis is poetic.

 

[Bradskii]

Who says that time is what people even think it is, perhaps it bends the further it goes away from the earth and what looks to you like 6 billion years actually isn't and if you could travel to the ends of the universe maybe that would become clear.

Ignoring the grasping at straws, the speed of light is constant. At least in the observable portion of the universe. Therefore we know the distance to stars and therefore their age.

1) Assumption made that they could ever measure and know the age of the oldest star.
2) The Big bang is an assumption.
3) Expanding universe is yet another assumption.

1. The further we look, the further back in time we can see. Stars have life stages so we know young stars from old ones. All this is known, observable and can be tested against closer and younger stars.
2. Space is expanding. You've heard of the Doppler effect? It can be measured in relation to light as well as sound. It proves it's expanding. So run the clock backwards and you have a universe that started off a lot closer together. Hence the Big Bang. There have been no discoveries or any mathematical models produced or theories proposed that contradict this.
3. See 2.

None of this is testable, repeatable and observable on its own, but replies yet again on more assumptions.

You can test the expansion of space against all visible objects. Stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies etc and repeat the observations with different methods on different objects at different distances and for different ages of objects and observe that the answers all agree with each other.

Your label says Atheist. Atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities/gods/God exist. If you change the definition don't expect me to keep up.

You got something right. It's any combination of a rejection of the belief in gods, a lack of belief in gods or, at a stretch, a disbelief in gods. Although you may get an atheist claiming 'No gods exist', none of those three definitions include a necessity for doing so.

 

[Psalm 27]

An hour long lecture from an organisation known for dishonest publications is a bit of a time investment right now.

Does she explain the genetic remnants in reminiscent of families in modern animals?

Does she explain how animals genetically varied so quickly into modern animals after the flood?

Does she explain creationist genetic information and if it can be objectively measured?

Dishonest publications?
'Adaptation'
'genetic mutation' (after the fall)

 

[Hark]

I dont need to look it up.
Basic geology covers uplift, tectonics,
mountain building.

Ive found fossil shells a thousand miles and thousands of feet up
from the ocean.
The NYT article i cant open, i dont know exactly what it says.
But sure, whale bones far from the sea, everyone knows about
that.

Interesting that you can't know exactly what it says failing to open. It allows readers to read it and then blocks it when reading it a second time so as to solicit subscribers.

YOU, though, said, " suddenly, trapping" . That is the false
part. Where do yiou find that? Not from any scientist.
So where did you get it?
So, score one news of the well known, and score two
for falsehoods.

That is what the article originally says in explaining how those fossilized whale bones got up there on the mountains by rising suddenly from the sea which is the evolutionist's explanation for obscuring the obvious that it is evidence of a global flood.

Anyway, two false claims from you. Want to do more.

And i got the nyt article
No sudden. No explanation for he land animals,
didnt even try?
Note how you didnt even read the article?
Its right there. Simple and makes sense.

So you did not know what the article says but now you do? Did you subscribe? I find it dubious when you have a conflicting post within the same post. You are the one that provided me information for why your claims are false.

Looks like you got some more explaining to do.

Prove to me that you read the article by sharing how the evolutionist explained how that fossilized whale bones winded up on that mountaintop in the Andes if it wasn't by how the mountains rose suddenly from the sea? This is an article written in favor of the evolution theory & you wanted proof that it had existed and so it did.

If you are able to read the article after subscribing, then that is your evidence of the Biblical global flood as covering the mountains regardless of the evolutionist's poor attempt for explaining how those fossilized whale bones got up there. Indeed, I read no explanation for how fossilizied land animals were found with them buried together where all they had to do in some places, was bend over and pick them up.

Although they "tried" to explain it away for the Andes, amazing how marine fossils are found all over the world at other mountaintops.

This is false science taking "evidence" but only applying it towards the evolution theory, because seeing it as evidence of the Biblical global flood will only make them lose their funding. You know that they would.

So that's your false science right there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting that you can't know exactly what it says failing to open. It allows readers to read it and then blocks it when reading it a second time so as to solicit subscribers.



That is what the article originally says in explaining how those fossilized whale bones got up there on the mountains by rising suddenly from the sea which is the evolutionist's explanation for obscuring the obvious that it is evidence of a global flood.



So you did not know what the article says but now you do? Did you subscribe? I find it dubious when you have a conflicting post within the same post. You are the one that provided me information for why your claims are false.



Prove to me that you read the article by sharing how the evolutionist explained how that fossilized whale bones winded up on that mountaintop in the Andes if it wasn't by how the mountains rose suddenly from the sea? This is an article written in favor of the evolution theory & you wanted proof that it had existed and so it did.

If you are able to read the article after subscribing, then that is your evidence of the Biblical global flood as covering the mountains regardless of the evolutionist's poor attempt for explaining how those fossilized whale bones got up there. Indeed, I read no explanation for how fossilizied land animals were found with them buried together where all they had to do in some places, was bend over and pick them up.

Although they "tried" to explain it away for the Andes, amazing how marine fossils are found all over the world at other mountaintops.

This is false science taking "evidence" but only applying it towards the evolution theory, because seeing it as evidence of the Biblical global flood will only make them lose their funding. You know that they would.

So that's your false science right there.

Your attempted explanation of how scientists explain the whale bones is quite the strawman. And if you understood the concept of scientific evidence you would know that there isn't any for the flood.

I can explain to you how we know that never happened.

 

[Bradskii]

Although they "tried" to explain it away for the Andes, amazing how marine fossils are found all over the world at other mountaintops.

Can you tell us how you think mountains are formed?

 

[Hark]

Your attempted explanation of how scientists explain the whale bones is quite the strawman. And if you understood the concept of scientific evidence you would know that there isn't any for the flood.

I can explain to you how we know that never happened.

Jesus referred to the global flood & even Sodom & Gomorrah to warn believers to be ready or else.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. 32 Remember Lot's wife. 33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. 34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.

The ruins of Sodom & Gomorrah has been found. You can do your own internet search for that.

It is the world by that false science that would hide the truth from you to ignore His waning that another calamity is coming on the earth.

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

Now do you want to continue with that false science or will you wake up & repent by believing in Him to be saved and trusting Him as your Good Shepherd to help you to abide in truth & to follow Him before He comes?

 

[Hark]

Can you tell us how you think mountains are formed?

Belaboring the obvious, are we not?

Evolutionists explains that a global flood had to tap that capacity for the explosions in the fossil record "supposedly" deemed by him of having occurred back in the Cambrian period. Although evolutionists argued with me that Gould never said that the global flood covered the mountaintops, yet marine fossils can be found on mountaintops all over the world. So go figure & stop belaboring the obvious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ignoring the grasping at straws, the speed of light is constant. At least in the observable portion of the universe. Therefore we know the distance to stars and therefore their age.



1. The further we look, the further back in time we can see. Stars have life stages so we know young stars from old ones. All this is known, observable and can be tested against closer and younger stars.
2. Space is expanding. You've heard of the Doppler effect? It can be measured in relation to light as well as sound. It proves it's expanding. So run the clock backwards and you have a universe that started off a lot closer together. Hence the Big Bang. There have been no discoveries or any mathematical models produced or theories proposed that contradict this.
3. See 2.



You can test the expansion of space against all visible objects. Stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies etc and repeat the observations with different methods on different objects at different distances and for different ages of objects and observe that the answers all agree with each other.



You got something right. It's any combination of a rejection of the belief in gods, a lack of belief in gods or, at a stretch, a disbelief in gods. Although you may get an atheist claiming 'No gods exist', none of those three definitions include a necessity for doing so.

Also, one should talk to a physicist if want wants to know the endless problems of changing the speed of light.

Jesus referred to the global flood & even Sodom & Gomorrah to warn believers to be ready or else.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. 32 Remember Lot's wife. 33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. 34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.

The ruins of Sodom & Gomorrah has been found. You can do your own internet search for that.

It is the world by that false science that would hide the truth from you to ignore His waning that another calamity is coming on the earth.

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

Now do you want to continue with that false science or will you wake up & repent by believing in Him to be saved and trusting Him as your Good Shepherd to help you to abide in truth & to follow Him before He comes?

Jesus often spoke poetically. If he was who Christians believe he was that explains what he said. When a person says about someone "She is as old as the hills" they are not lying. They are merely being poetic to get an idea across.

Once again, real science tells us that there was no flood. The same sort of science that allows you to read this.

 

[Bradskii]

Now do you want to continue with that false science or will you wake up & repent by believing in Him to be saved and trusting Him as your Good Shepherd to help you to abide in truth & to follow Him before He comes?

You are in the wrong section, Hark. This is for discussing science. I think proselytising is not allowed. But I may be wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

...yet marine fossils can be found on mountaintops all over the world.

Yes, we know that. So do you know how mountains are formed? If you do then you'll have a reason for marine fossils being found on them. In fact you'll have a reason for it being almost impossible that they're not.

On the other hand, if you don't know how they are formed, I can explain.

 

[Hark]

Yes, we know that. So do you know how mountains are formed? If you do then you'll have a reason for marine fossils being found on them. In fact you'll have a reason for it being almost impossible that they're not.

On the other hand, if you don't know how they are formed, I can explain.

As if you were there when God formed the foundation of the world... not.

Thank you for the offer but I pass.

You are still belaboring the obvious of the plain evidence of the global flood by how there ae marine fossils all over the world on mountaintops and not just a few places of fossilized whale bones on mountaintops.

Even a shark tooth was found on mountaintops in Mexico.

So we are not talking sea sells or how mountains are formed but how fossilized marine life are found buried with fossilized land animal bones on those mountaintops in the Andes as an example of the Biblical global flood as covering the mountains all over the world.

Only God the Father can draw you unto the Son to believe in Him to be saved. It may take the rapture event for you to believe in Him & call on Him to be saved when you see that fiery destruction coming for only then will you realize that sinners in that false science were lying to you, keeping you in the dark.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As if you were there when God formed the foundation of the world... not.

Thank you for the offer but I pass.

You are still belaboring the obvious of the plain evidence of the global flood by how there ae marine fossils all over the world on mountaintops and not just a few places of fossilized whale bones on mountaintops.

Even a shark tooth was found on mountaintops in Mexico.

So we are not talking sea sells or how mountains are formed but how fossilized marine life are found buried with fossilized land animal bones on those mountaintops in the Andes as an example of the Biblical global flood as covering the mountains all over the world.

Only God the Father can draw you unto the Son to believe in Him to be saved. It may take the rapture event for you to believe in Him & call on Him to be saved when you see that fiery destruction coming for only then will you realize that sinners in that false science were lying to you, keeping you in the dark.

We understand very well how they got up there. The fact that those facts contradict your personal beliefs does not in make those facts an attack on God.

 

[Bradskii]

As if you were there when God formed the foundation of the world... not.

Thank you for the offer but I pass.

Ah. So you don't know. Or rather you think they were created as-is. I guess plate tectonics is not worth discussing then. Do you know much about geology at all?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Kind of almost like ironic that our science deniers pounce on
a " law" to prove their point.
As if.
Pasteur, "law of bio" only saythat every experiment so far
has failed to produce life.

Someone could have made a similar law about electric light bulbs

They typically seem either to be made up 'Laws', or misinterpretations of real laws. Ironically, the only defence against dishonesty in using them is ignorance, i.e. the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There are no evidence of transitional fossils in the fossil records.

All fossils are transitional - all populations evolve continually.

Evolutionist Gould admits this by noting the huge gap of transitional fossils in the fossil record for why he postulated punctuated Equilibrium or Rapid Macroevolution because gradual macroevolution cannot be true.

No. Gould pointed out that long periods of slow evolution (relative stasis) are punctuated by short periods of geologically rapid evolution. It helps if you read what he actually said - see 'Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered' by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.

Gould even stated that for that explosion in the fossil record to occur back in the Cambrian period, a global flood had to tap that capacity.

Citation? Got a quote for that?

The Andes Mountains has fossilized whale bones found with other fossilized marine life BURIED TOGETHER with fossilized land animal bones. But as evolutionists in the news article rationalized that the mountains rose suddenly from the sea trapping marine life, they fail to explain how the fossilized land animal bones were found buried together with them.

Citation?

Plus they fail to explain how marine fossils are found on other mountaintops all over the world.

I'm not a geologist, but even I know that severe uplift (orogeny) can create mountains from old seabeds.

I did notice that you failed to directly address my point on the repurposing of fins as limbs - it's quite common among littoral & pelagic zone fish and seafloor fish.