Comments on: Fossil Shows Fish Evolving Surf-To-Turf
Skull, Shoulders And Pelvis Found Of Most Primitive 4-Legged Creature In History
Add a Comment See all 149 Comments
People, remember that the tetrapods and worms and bacteria... all life, according to evolution... came from "rain on the rocks".
Posted by caliengineer at 01:29 PM : Jun 26, 2008
You%u2019re confusing evolution with Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth emerged from non-lie. Evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. It has nothing to do with how life started. As far as the origin of life on Earth there have been several hypotheses proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism first) and the RNA world hypothesis (genetics first).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis- Reply to this comment
- nic1234567
I''m don''t follow your arguement. There is no truely solid physical evidence of ''time'' because it is a part of our concept of existance, but I believe it exists the same as I believe evolution exists. God can also be thought of as a concept of part of our existance. Because you have some evidence of evolution does not make it so. - Reply to this comment
- and as far as the Creator Himself is concerned jon2012, He made His appearance on earth 2,000 years ago in Israel. Perhaps you''ve heard of Him, His name is Jesus Christ
- Reply to this comment
- Creationism, because it is unsupported by evidence,
posted by jon2012
Jon, God''s Magnificent Creation is all around you. Look in the mirror at your own unique design and then step outside for once and look up at the universe and this magnificent earth.
God has made it too easy for you. You just refuse to believe in Him because of humanism. - Reply to this comment
- Wow! They extrapolated all this from an entire skull! Usually, they make their fictions with much, much less.
People, remember that the tetrapods and worms and bacteria... all life, according to evolution... came from "rain on the rocks".
Posted by caliengineer at 01:29 PM : Jun 26, 2008
Darwin''s evolution is a product of the same scientific method that gave us a universe in which we occupy but a small part and the earth revolving around a star, the vaccines and antibiotics, the atomic bomb, DNA, stem-cell therapy, etc. You think this is fiction? Is that what you want to teach American kids?
On the other hand, what does the Bible tell us. That eating shellfish is an abomination. Anything else? Something I can use here and now? - Reply to this comment
What is not true about the statement? If there is such proof that completely rules the other out, then present the irrefutable proof that rules out one but not the other. I would like to know. If you have such knowledge and do not share it then shame on you! Because you and you alone are the only one who does possess such knowledge. Posted by shaggydo
I guess it depends on your definition of irrefutable. I guess if simply ignore the volumes of evidence supporting evolution and claim it not true then you can claim you%u2019re refuting it. However if you don%u2019t provide any physical evidence that can be scientifically verified to back up your counter claim then shame on you?- Reply to this comment
- One thing I would like to comment on here is that All genetic mutations are not passed on to future generations. Some are deletorius (hope I spelled that right). Some genetic mutations simply won''t support life. Some cause the progeny to die prior to reproduction.
Some are passed on after reproduction, but later cause harm or death to the individual possessing them. One such case is Sickle Cell Anemia. This mutation occurred as a response to malaria in Eastern Africa. Individuals with the trait didn''t die from malaria, once infected, but those without the trait did. This mutation proved favorable for those that possessed it in the malaria prone regions and, hence, was passed onto their progeny. It is however unfavorable to the individual that possesses it. - Reply to this comment
- Neither the creationist not the darwinians have irrefutable proof that rules out the other yet they both do so. Posted by shaggydo
That''s essentially correct. It''s a question of probability. Darwinian evolution has a high probability of being true, better than 95%, and conversely, creationism has a low probability of being true, less than 0.0001%, the difference reflecting the amount of evidence amassed in favor of evolution and the absolute dearth of the same for creationism.
Creationism, because it is unsupported by evidence, is on the same probability level as, say, the statement "An invisible pink elephant created the universe." Neither has any data on which basis to support or totally reject. Now, why accept and teach creationism when the pink elephant theory is equally plausible? - Reply to this comment
- Posted by caliengineer at 01:29 PM : Jun 26, 2008: "Wow! They extrapolated all this from an entire skull! Usually, they make their fictions with much, much less.
____________________________________
No, actually, if you have read the above article, you would have seen that the scientists determined this from; "The 365 million-year-old fossil skull, shoulders and part of the pelvis of the water-dweller, Ventastega curonica, were found in Latvia. Evidently you went straight for the bloggers. The quote appears in the second paragraph. - Reply to this comment
- What is not true about the statement? If there is such proof that completely rules the other out, then present the irrefutable proof that rules out one but not the other. I would like to know. If you have such knowledge and do not share it then shame on you! Because you and you alone are the only one who does possess such knowledge.
- Reply to this comment
- and for nic...the word ''''reproduce'''' infers a reproduction....not a contortion, unless birds are mating with fish. Posted by checkthepast
I have no idea what it is you think you%u2019re saying. Evolution is drive through errors in the genetic code (mutations) that occur during Reproduction. - Reply to this comment
- and for nic...the word ''''reproduce'''' infers a reproduction....not a contortion, unless birds are mating with fish. Posted by checkthepast
I have no idea what it is you think you%u2019re saying. Evolution is drive through errors in the genetic code (mutations) that occur during Reproduction. - Reply to this comment
- RESEARCH AS TO WHY SOME MEN ARE GAY IS A PRETTY GOOD EXAMPLE. SOME RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THAT THERE IS AN AREA IN THE BRAIN THAT GIVE A MALE THING THAT HE IS A WOMAN.
THE TROUBLE IS THAT THE DATA THAT I HAVE READ ON THIS SUBJECT WAS DONE BY MEDICAL DOCTORS THAT HAD NO PROBLEM WITH SAYING THAT THEY ARE GAY. - Reply to this comment
- Wow! They extrapolated all this from an entire skull! Usually, they make their fictions with much, much less.
People, remember that the tetrapods and worms and bacteria... all life, according to evolution... came from "rain on the rocks".
That''s right: If you believe in macro-evolution, you believe you are descended from a ROCK!
Micro-evolution, which does occur, is part of God''s wonderful plan to preserve the created type. Praise God. He thought of everything. - Reply to this comment
- nic1234567, thanks for that link about the bacteria. Very informative. How are the creationists explaining that one away? They have always asked to see evolution in the lab...well there it is.
- Reply to this comment
- Posted by checkthepast: "Let''''''''''''''''s see if I get this right...if I have a blue rock and a red rock, and then I find a purple rock, that proves the blue rock evolved into a red rock! WHAT?
It doesn''t prove but maybe, with more data, it could lead to something like what''s happening in the world of living things. You need consistent timelines showing the correct appearance of the rocks, for example. Dating that indicates the rocks were created at the same time, or in the wrong order, would probably invalidate your hypothesis right off the bat. And you need a theory to explain the progression, a mechanism that can be observed with other rock specimens.
Anyway, it''s a silly question. What do you expect? - Reply to this comment
- These arguments are tiresome. Rational people will NEVER convince the bible-thumpers. They have closed their minds to rational thinking. I don''t see a way to fix this, although there is some hope when the children they raised to think the bible is literally true, apply to a university. More and more of them are going to find their 14th century science education will have to be ripped out, and replaced by modern stuff. That''ll cost them time & money.
- Reply to this comment
- Neither the creationist not the darwinians have irrefutable proof that rules out the other yet they both do so. Posted by shaggydo
Even if your statement was true and it is not, it does not mean that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory. Science is the effort to discover, how the physical world works using observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding through experimentation under controlled conditions. The scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way. Once a hypothesis has survived testing, it may become adopted into the framework of a scientific theory. Creationism has not made that transition from hypothesis should not be considered a scientific theory. - Reply to this comment
- correct docpeter!
and for nic...the word ''reproduce'' infers a reproduction....not a contortion, unless birds are mating with fish. - Reply to this comment
- Speciation does occur as a documented type of evolution. Species lose complexity, or can be bred that way. But that always results in less complexity, some information is lost. That is why purebred dogs are more prone to disease or genetic defects. Evolution, on the other hand, is completely without proof. Species do not gain complexity. Even this new fish is not half fish half other animal that it eventually became, it is just an extinct, albeit unusual, fish. Frogs are amphibians as well and yet do not prove the veracity of evolution. The problem with evolution is that it is presented as fact in articles like this one, and yet there is no support for it in the fossil record. Sure, there are some finds that are promoted as ''evidence'' but the fossil record would be chock full of tangible transitions if this is truly the way mankind came to exist. The fact is, such a burden of proof does not exist. And the exceptions that are always thrown in our faces as proof are always disputable, as in this case. The evolutionists exhibit far more faith than the creationists, and it is not based in science, but rather a denial of God. It is obvious why the notion of God would be a stumbling block, having tripped on it myself. It is the love of God that should be explored more by the creationists posting here, and the character of God. To argue evolution here just makes you look narrow-minded.
- Reply to this comment
