Missing link was a lie (2)

[dad]

In the older thread, a supposed missing link was found out to be actually not one after all. The issue of evolving was raised, and where it started. This is a thread for discussion of the actual facts and basis for the claims. Since that does involve the laws and fabric of the past universe, and earth, at the time, relevant evidences regarding what we know of the laws at that time are also topical.

 

[dad]

Split Rock post

Sometimes truth is poetic.
​

Sometimes poetry isn't the truth. [/quote] Sometimes it is.

So you claim. Tell you what dad... you let us handle the natural and you can handle the supernatural... deal?

No can do, so called science has been foisting the present natural on the future, which involves the supernatural. They must be confronted.

I never claimed to be "brave." I only claim that you are not.

Easy to do, when you are not in the room. Whoopee do.
[/quote]I was specifically refering to "Sodom pride" parades, which you claim had something to do with atheism. Care to explain? Or is it impossible for you to stay focused?[/quote] I doubt bible believers advocate those Sodomy festivals. Sorry, you are on your own.

I don't have one, so you don't have to worry.

Yes, you do. Being aware is not a requirement. The god of this world doen't exactly open the eyes of those of the world, to what is going on.

LOL! The copout always used by right-wing Fundies. "I am a hypocrite 'cause my standards are soooooooo high I can't meet them!"

Christians are from the same Sin Ship that you are from. Hopefully God is working on us, and over time, we may make some small improvements. I think many of us pretend we are a little more improved than we currently may be.

So, the "Word of God" is silly? Glad to see one of you admit it.

It is silly, for example, to come down with leprosy, and present oneself to the synagogue, or maybe go wash in the pool of Siloam. The by laws of the Jews were for then. Also for them. Not for me, thanks.

 

[JustMeSee]

I wonder how many posts were related to the OP before the split.

 

[howlingwolf]

Originally Posted by LifeToTheFullest!

So what "kind" was Tiktaalik roseae?
​

Originally Posted by Dad
Well, I can only give an educated guess. I would say possibly from the cod fish kind. By the adaptations apparently evolved, it would likely be early in the migration from Eden, when a need existed to be able to traverse land and sea, or marshy sort of areas.

Tiktaalik is not even closely related to the cod. It is in the class Sarcopteryigii or lobe-finned fish, while the the cod is in the class Actinopterygii - the ray-finned fishes.

I would hope that the head and body are honestly together, because the thing was apparently not found by any man on earth with a name.

Actually, Tiktaalik was found by Edward Daeschler, Neil Shubin, and Farish Jenkins and their field crews.

"The specific name roseae cryptically honours an anonymous donor..."

The etymology of Tiktaalik states that "The species name honours a benefactor of Devonian palaeontology." (Not a fossil specimen donor, which is what the Wiki page seems to indicate.)

I'm not sure if someone not subscribed to Nature or linked to a University can access the paper, but (just in case someone is interested) the original paper citation is:

Daeschler et al. 2006. A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan. Nature 440, 757-763 (6 April 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature04639

Howlingwolf

 

[dad]

I wonder how many posts were related to the OP before the split.

Before the split? You know not what you say..

 

[dad]

Tiktaalik is not even closely related to the cod. It is in the class Sarcopteryigii or lobe-finned fish, while the the cod is in the class Actinopterygii - the ray-finned fishes.

OK, so let's move it over to that kind. Happy?

Actually, Tiktaalik was found by Edward Daeschler, Neil Shubin, and Farish Jenkins and their field crews.

The etymology of Tiktaalik states that "The species name honours a benefactor of Devonian palaeontology." (Not a fossil specimen donor, which is what the Wiki page seems to indicate.)

Fair enough. So no one glued the head on a fish from a croc, I guess. Great Let's chalk it up to evolving shall we?

 

[JustMeSee]

Before the split? You know not what you say..

But I know what I wrote. This thread went way off the tracks.

 

[dad]

But I know what I wrote. This thread went way off the tracks.

What were the "tracks"?

 

[JustMeSee]

What were the "tracks"?

The thread was derailed from the original topic. Train off the tracks = derailed.

Some nonsense about scientists allegedly lying about a transitional fossil allegedly being an ancestor of humans. You started the original thread.

Don't you remember?

 

[dad]

The thread was derailed from the original topic. Train off the tracks = derailed.

Some nonsense about scientists allegedly lying about a transitional fossil allegedly being an ancestor of humans. You started the original thread.

Don't you remember?

The missing link that some claimed is an example of the lies thrust on us by so called science, yes. In looking at other missing links, and the topic of evolving in general, one gets into the premises and basis of the claims. In so doing, one must address the present state that is assumed by science to have existed, and the contrary realities of fact, evidence, bible and history.

That does give some latitude in the discussion. Relax.

Now, If we start discussing the price of tea in China, that would be another track.

 

[ukgrace]

In so doing, one must address the present state that is assumed by science to have existed, and the contrary realities of fact, evidence, bible and history.

There is no evidence to even assume things were different so what is science supposed to do? make it up?
What contrary realities of fact, evidence, bible and history? if you have any facts or evidence please show me or at least tell me where I can find them, I am also at a loss to understand why this is the first time I have ever heard of such a thing? where did you get such information and if it's true why has it been kept such a secret?

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no evidence to even assume things were different so what is science supposed to do? make it up?

Yes.

Take any pertinent noun in Genesis 1 -- study where Genesis 1 says it came from, then study where current science says it came from; in addition, study what came before that noun and what came after that noun.

See the difference?

 

[wolfwing]

Dad wrote this in the last one really early on and probably too late to get a response, but this has always bothered me.

((2TI 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: ))

This is zero proof that the bible is full inspiration at all, this was written many years before the bible was formed, and no one has any clue as to what he considerd scrpture, for all we know even if he's correct many of the books in the bible wouldn't be considered scripture by him, and many that are not may have been. You can't use a quote that was written before the bible was formed to prove the bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dad wrote this in the last one really early on and probably too late to get a response, but this has always bothered me.

((2TI 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: ))

This is zero proof that the bible is full inspiration at all, this was written many years before the bible was formed, and no one has any clue as to what he considerd scrpture, for all we know even if he's correct many of the books in the bible wouldn't be considered scripture by him, and many that are not may have been. You can't use a quote that was written before the bible was formed to prove the bible.

All Scripture means that -- all Scripture -- i.e. past, present, and future.

The book of Revelation, written by the Apostle John in AD 96, is the last of the books that eventually became what we call the Bible.

 

[wolfwing]

All Scripture means that -- all Scripture -- i.e. past, present, and future.

The book of Revelation, written by the Apostle John in AD 96, is the last of the books that eventually became what we call the Bible.

You have no evidence of this after all like I said the bible didn't exist, your only taking it on faith that he was refering to every book in the current bible and no others. Many books back then were considered cannon, the shepard, book of enoch, the appocalypse of Peter and so on. Some of wich were far more popular, plus there were questions of what books were cannon up till around 700 AD. Yes the cannon was founded around 300 AD, but some people took out books or added various others over time.

 

[dad]

There is no evidence to even assume things were different so what is science supposed to do? make it up?

The future will be different. Heard of the new heavens? So, in what way was Eden the same? Have you some proof of your hunch?? Let me know if I need to chuck history and the bible out.

What contrary realities of fact, evidence, bible and history? if you have any facts or evidence please show me or at least tell me where I can find them, I am also at a loss to understand why this is the first time I have ever heard of such a thing? where did you get such information and if it's true why has it been kept such a secret?

The reality of spirits among men. Of fast plant growth, of water over the earth, of water receeeding, or long life spans, etc etc...you new to the bible and history?

 

[dad]

Dad wrote this in the last one really early on and probably too late to get a response, but this has always bothered me.

((2TI 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: ))

This is zero proof that the bible is full inspiration at all, this was written many years before the bible was formed, and no one has any clue as to what he considerd scrpture, for all we know even if he's correct many of the books in the bible wouldn't be considered scripture by him, and many that are not may have been. You can't use a quote that was written before the bible was formed to prove the bible.

You think that quote was supposed to 'prove the bible'?? No.

 

[wolfwing]

You think that quote was supposed to 'prove the bible'?? No.

No you were trying to say that the bible was inspired by god, but the flaw is again that there is no way of knowing what he considered scripture.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have no evidence of this after all like I said the bible didn't exist...

Yes, the Bible did exist.

Its words are eternal, that means the Bible existed 'before' even the universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wolfwing, here's a good write-up on this:

The criteria the church used for recognizing and collecting the Word of God are as follows:

1) Was the book written by a prophet of God?
2) Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message?
3) Does the book tell the truth about God, with no falsehood or contradiction?
4) Does the book evince a divine capacity to transform lives?
5) Was the book accepted as God's Word by the people to whom it was first delivered?

SOURCE