You've Probably Seen a Fish with Lungs in Person

[The IbanezerScrooge]

What was it and what did it become and why is it still here.

All great questions. How do you suppose we could investigate that? Can we ask the designer? Would it actually give us an answer? Or maybe there's some other, more reliable method to find the answers to those questions... some kind of methodology that deals with how nature works.... hmmm....

 

[d taylor]

Vacuous rhetoric unless you can support your contention. Tell us, what are the supposed lies? Numerous transitional fossils? Evolutionary patterns in endogenous retroviruses and shared pseudogenes? Genetic similarity? Molecular and anatomical vestiges and atavisms? Don't leave us hanging. Tell us what the "lies" are.

Your evidence is man manufactured, i will admit they have created unique system of lies. But like it is said, tell a lie big enough and people will believe it.
I guess that is the purpose of large numbers used in science.
So the average man will just have to accept what is said, they bow to the perceived intelligence of the presenter. Say it convincingly enough and it will not be questioned just accepted.

Like i said what is sad, is the christian playing the same game and even worse trying to make the Bible support these lies.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Your evidence is man manufactured, i will admit they have created unique system of lies. But like it is said, tell a lie big enough and people will believe it.
I guess that is the purpose of large numbers used in science.

I have to ask, taylor, since I get asked all the time by Christians why I'm on a Christian forum in the first place, why are you in this thread? If all you're going to do is come in and accuse all evolutionary biologists and life scientists, professors, research scientists that study and teach evolution of being "liars" and paraphrase a literal Nazi in your disparaging tirade against something you clearly have no grasp of... why are you here? It's obviously not to make an attempt to learn anything or even have any sort of productive conversation. You're not even making an argument FOR your position. Why should we listen to you? What do you know about what you actually believe and how is it relevant to the reality we observe around us?

Like i said what is sad, is the christian playing the same game and even worse trying to make the Bible support these lies

You even question other Christians' faith because they might disagree with you as if you're the model Christian.

So the average man will just have to accept what is said, they bow to the perceived intelligence of the presenter. Say it convincingly enough and it will not be questioned just accepted.

You're projecting. This is what you and your fellow parishioners do every Sunday. Science doesn't work that way. The only authority is the evidence. The most renowned scientist can be shown to be wrong with evidence. I wonder if you'd argue with your pastor about some scripture that you think he's wrong about, but more importantly, how would you actually show him he's wrong?

 

[pitabread]

I guess that is the purpose of large numbers used in science.
So the average man will just have to accept what is said, they bow to the perceived intelligence of the presenter. Say it convincingly enough and it will not be questioned just accepted.

Arguably the opposite is true. There are inverse correlations between acceptance of evolution and knowledge of science and/or general education attainment. Basically, the less people know about science and evolution, the more likely they are to reject it and accept creationism instead.

Education and knowledge are creationism's weakness.

 

[USincognito]

Your evidence is man manufactured, i will admit they have created unique system of lies. But like it is said, tell a lie big enough and people will believe it.

I'm sorry but as I already informed you blustery, vacuous rhetoric doesn't address the evidence or make it go away. Stomping one's feet and shouting "lies" doesn't make them so. You need so exhibit a command of the evidence in question and then show why it isn't evidence.

I guess that is the purpose of large numbers used in science.
So the average man will just have to accept what is said, they bow to the perceived intelligence of the presenter. Say it convincingly enough and it will not be questioned just accepted.

Who the heck is talking about large numbers? I'm talking about the evidence for evolution and specifically "Numerous transitional fossils? Evolutionary patterns in endogenous retroviruses and shared pseudogenes? Genetic similarity? Molecular and anatomical vestiges and atavisms?" Do you even know what those things are?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I say "probably" because I don't know the future. I cannot say for certain that the selection criteria which that creature is subjected to will not change, resulting in evolution or extinction. The "how" you are looking for is, I suppose, randomly distributed variation and natural selection.

Suppose?

I think we're done here.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I mean what would a transitional species be to you?

Non existent.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That monitor lizard just ate evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

Your evidence is man manufactured, i will admit they have created unique system of lies. But like it is said, tell a lie big enough and people will believe it.
I guess that is the purpose of large numbers used in science.
So the average man will just have to accept what is said, they bow to the perceived intelligence of the presenter. Say it convincingly enough and it will not be questioned just accepted.

You think evolution is not just wrong, but a lie. That is, an intentional falsehood. You are accusing the entire scientific community of participating in concocting an intentional falsehood. If you are going to make such a sweeping accusation you need to give us some kind of motive. Why would scientists engage in such a silly conspiracy?

Like i said what is sad, is the christian playing the same game and even worse trying to make the Bible support these lies.

Why is that sad?

 

[Speedwell]

Suppose?

I think we're done here.

So if my supposition about what you wanted is wrong, what do you want?

 

[Kenny'sID]

So if my supposition about what you wanted is wrong, what do you want?

OK, if you insist on doing this to yourself....I wanted to "know" "how", nothing more nothing less. I was very clear with the original question, so all i can suggest is look up for yourself what the terms means.

Hint: I did not want supposition.

If it's any help, this is the part where they often attack the question.

 

[Speedwell]

OK, if you insist on doing this to yourself....I wanted to "know" "how", nothing more nothing less. I was very clear with the original question, so all i can suggest is look up for yourself what the terms means.

Hint: I did not want supposition.

If it's any help, this is the part where they often attack the question.

I'm not trying to attack your question, I am just trying to understand it.

Transitional species? And you know they will finish transforming, how?

You appear to be asking, how do we know that Polypterus Senegalus will "finish transforming?" Is that right? If that is your question, then the answer is, we don't know. If Senegalus is in an ecological niche with stable selection criteria it may well stay more or less the same indefinitely. The reason it would stay the same is because of random variation and natural selection.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm not trying to attack your question, I am just trying to understand it.

I didn't say you were...take another look at the post.

I've been very clear throughout, and again in the last post, I wasn't asking for supposition...period, that's all, nothing more.

I tried to save us the time here and get you to just admit you have no answer, plus, I hinted, I don't like seeing you do this to yourself, yet here we are still.

I gave you every opportunity, you have no answer, and for some reason you are stalling.

 

[Speedwell]

I didn't say you were...take another look at the post.

I've been very clear throughout, and again in the last post, I wasn't asking for supposition...period, that's all, nothing more.

I tried to save us the time here and get you to just admit you have no answer, plus, I hinted, I don't like seeing you do this to yourself, yet here we are still.

I gave you every opportunity, you have no answer, and for some reason you are stalling.

I gave you an answer. If you don't understand it, ask more questions. That's how discussion works.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I gave you an answer. If you don't understand it, ask more questions. That's how discussion works.

Ah, the classic, "it's your fault I failed"... that's how *your* discussions work.

Does no one take responsibility for there own actions anymore.

 

[Speedwell]

Ah, the classic, "it's your fault I failed"... that's how *your* discussions work.

Does no one take responsibility for there own actions anymore.

It takes two people to fail at discussion. I fully acknowledge that I may not have understood your question correctly. Help me out.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It takes two people to fail at discussion. I fully acknowledge that I may not have understood your question correctly. Help me out.

You have got to be kidding, and do this all over again when I made myself perfectly clear more than once? It's all there with added detailed explanations, go back and read it if you like.

 

[d taylor]

I'm sorry but as I already informed you blustery, vacuous rhetoric doesn't address the evidence or make it go away. Stomping one's feet and shouting "lies" doesn't make them so. You need so exhibit a command of the evidence in question and then show why it isn't evidence.



Who the heck is talking about large numbers? I'm talking about the evidence for evolution and specifically "Numerous transitional fossils? Evolutionary patterns in endogenous retroviruses and shared pseudogenes? Genetic similarity? Molecular and anatomical vestiges and atavisms?" Do you even know what those things are?

Since evidence can not be found for humans and animals and such now the game is being moved to the viruses and genes.
If any thing is being seen in fossil remains, is that the corruption of all flesh (possibility fallen angelic corruption) and a word wide flood bringing this corruption to an end
This is easy as a believer the Bible describes a completely different creation and also states God's method of creating. Science is stating a completely different (Godless) creation process.
That can easily be seen in simple observed areas of our earth,world creation.
Science states the earth moves around the sun, the moon reflects the suns light, stars are suns light years away easily just to list a few. The Bible states many observed truths about creation that are opposed to the above science statements .
So if i believe the Bible is the true description and is diametrically opposed to science's statements why would i seek to further want to study into this system.
And this is not a blind faith, i see most days (when it is not cloudy) the raqia testifies to the truth, the sun moving over the earth. i see the moon giving its own light, i see stars are not suns, trillions of light years away and that they move also over the earth.

So if i believe drug abuse is bad, i do not need to become a drug addict, to confirm my observations

 

[d taylor]

You think evolution is not just wrong, but a lie. That is, an intentional falsehood. You are accusing the entire scientific community of participating in concocting an intentional falsehood. If you are going to make such a sweeping accusation you need to give us some kind of motive. Why would scientists engage in such a silly conspiracy?
Why is that sad?

It seems like i keep running into this question not sure if from the same people but i guess so (in a sense).
If you do not believe the Bible to be accurate, then what is the reason for me to post any statements from the Bible.
If this is true when written, then why is this now, not true 2000 years later.
We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.
Now if the whole world lies under the wicked one and this being (satan) has been stated by the Jesus to be a liar and the father of lies where no truth is found.
Why would a believer expect truth (about God's creation) to come from a worldly atheist scientist.

 

[Speedwell]

You have got to be kidding, and do this all over again when I made myself perfectly clear more than once? It's all there with added detailed explanations, go back and read it if you like.

Once again, here is your question:

"Transitional species? And you know they will finish transforming, how?"

and my answer:

"You appear to be asking, how do we know that Polypterus Senegalus will "finish transforming?" Is that right? If that is your question, then the answer is, we don't know. If Senegalus is in an ecological niche with stable selection criteria it may well stay more or less the same indefinitely. The reason it would stay the same is because of random variation and natural selection."

You may not like my answer; you may not understand my answer. But to assert that I have not given you an answer is a bald-faced lie.