Creation vs. Evolution

[Soggy]

Not debating, just stating a Scriptural principle related to something previously brought up.

You did more than that, you were "asking her to reconsider." Since the Catholic Church has no problem with mixed (religious) marriages, I don't see why you would have a problem with it enough to butt in where your opinion was not asked for.

Bigotry is not a Christian value. Where did you see such a thing?

Your encouragement of segregation is promotion of bigotry. It is no different than saying that white people should not marry black people.

 

[Bryan]

Mudskippers are interesting because they are a fish, but yet they spend most of their time on the land.

They still have gills, but they have pouches surrounding their gills that hold water which they breathe from... sort of like how a SCUBA diver takes air with them underwater: a mudskipper takes water with them above water.

They can also breathe cutaneously, like amphibians.

Interesting, huh?

Are they transitional forms? Have they been changing, and if so, from what? Weren't we told land animals came from fish, originally? Are these animals just late bloomers?

Some "living fossils" haven't changed much since first appearing in the fossil record... the horseshoe crab is one such critter... it first started appearing in the fossil record 435 million years go, we're told.

Fossil

Modern, Living Animal

It is so ancient, it has blue, copper-based blood, unlike the red, iron-based blood seen in higher, "more recent" species.

"The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperors' new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way" - Eldredge and Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p 45-46

 

[Thalassamania]

TDP: Let's try and keep it vagely on topic?

 

[Bryan]

Let's try and keep it vagely on topic?

Agreed. Discussing marriage between religions can be handled via PMs or on another board, if necessary.

 

[Thalassamania]

Mudskippers are interesting because they are a fish, but yet they spend most of their time on the land.

They still have gills, but they have pouches surrounding their gills that hold water which they breathe from... sort of like how a SCUBA diver takes air with them underwater: a mudskipper takes water with them above water.

They can also breathe cutaneously, like amphibians.

Interesting, huh?

Are they transitional forms? Have they been changing, and if so, from what? Weren't we told land animals came from fish, originally? Are these animals just late bloomers?

You have the mistaken view that things are static. They are not. Species is an almost useful concept only when viewing a snapshot, more accurately one must look at all animals as continuously adapting, as necessary, to changes in the volume of the n-dimensional hypervolume that describes their "niche." A given adaptation may occur only once, may arise numerous times in a single lineage or may arrive numerous times in disparate lineages. You are confusing analgous and homologus structures. The way in which a mudskipper “breathes” is quite different from the way in which the Sarcopterygian ancestors of the amhipia breathed (they transformed swim balder tissue to lunks and the gill arches went on to form other structures.

Some "living fossils" haven't changed much since first appearing in the fossil record... the horseshoe crab is one such critter... it first started appearing in the fossil record 435 million years go, we're told.

It is so ancient, it has blue, copper-based blood, unlike the red, iron-based blood seen in higher, "more recent" species.

This is the case, a few animals, “got it right” and have not made significant changes in a long time. These include:

Plants: Ginkgo tree (Ginkgoaceae), Horsetails Equisetum (Equisetaceae), Metasequoia Dawn Redwood (Cupressaceae; a borderline example, related to Sequoia and Sequoiadendron), Sciadopitys tree (Sciadopityaceae), Whisk ferns Psilotum(Psilotaceae), Welwitschia Wollemia tree (Araucariaceae; a borderline example, related to Agathis and Araucaria),

Animals

Vertebrates

Mammals: Cypriot mouse (Mus cypriacus), Laotian Rock Rat (Laonastes aenigmamus),
Monotremes (the Platypus and echidnas), Mountain Beaver (Aplodontia rufa),

Reptiles: Crocodilia (Crocodiles, Gavials and Alligators),

Tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus and Sphenodon guntheri)

Fish
Coelacanth (Latimeria menadoensis and Latimeria chalumnae), Queensland Lungfish (Neoceratodus fosteri),

Amphibians: Purple frog (Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis)

Invertebrates

Insects: Cedar wood wasp (Syntexis libocedrii), Notiothauma reedi, a scorpionfly relative, Sikhotealinia zhiltzovae, a Jurodid beetle, Mymarommatid wasps (10 known species in genus Palaeomymar), Parasitic wood wasps (about 70 species in 16 genera), Peloridiid bugs (fewer than 30 species in 13 genera)

Crustaceans: Neoglyphea inopinata, N. neocaledonica, and Laurentaeglyphea neocaledonica ; three glypheoid lobsters, Triops cancriformis, a notostracidcrustacean

Other invertebrates
Crinoids
Horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus)
Lingula anatina, an inarticulate brachiopod
Neopilina galateae, a monoplacophoridmollusc
Nut clam (Ennucula superba)
Onychophorans, for instance Peripatus

"The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperors' new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way" - Eldredge and Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p 45-46

Eldredage and Tattersall were not arguing against evolution or supporting creationism, they were arguing for one concept of evolution, called “Punctuated Equilibrium.” They are two well know proponents of Darwinism and you’re quoting them way our of context.

 

[Bryan]

Eldredage and Tattersall were not arguing against evolution or supporting creationism, they were arguing for one concept of evolution, called “Punctuated Equilibrium.” They are two well know proponents of Darwinism and you’re quoting them way our of context.

Sorry... just trying to provide the requested goods.

It wasn't? I say it was. You got any evidence that is not circular?

Oh BTW: We're still waiting for your list of non-Christian scientists that have examined the 'evidence' for evolution and called it, "The Emperors New Clothes." Any progress on that?

Non-Christian (check)
Scientist (check)
Emperors New Clothes (check)
Examining Evidence (check)
Conclusions drawn... ok, that is up for debate.

 

[Uncle Pug]

they transformed swim balder tissue to lunks (lungs) and the gill arches went on to form other structures.

Since this transformation was not observed are you assuming this was the case because evolution is true and therefore it must have happened that way?

Which comes first: the fact of evolution or the interpretation of the *static snapshot*.

 

[H2Andy]

Which comes first: the fact of evolution or the interpretation of the *static snapshot*.

i already explained this logical fallacy to Snowbear

you take data. you gather your facts. you observe what is there.

then you posit theories to explain how it could have happened.

evolution is one such theory.

it has since been backed up by the fossil record, taxonomic studies, and, ultimately DNA

all life on earth comes from one single source, and all animals that exist today have evolved from that one source

that is the inescapable conclusion when you look at all the data

of course, since evolution is a scientific theory, it can be disproven. you are welcome to do so, Pug

 

[Uncle Pug]

Eldredage and Tattersall were not arguing against evolution or supporting creationism, they were arguing for one concept of evolution, called “Punctuated Equilibrium.” They are two well know proponents of Darwinism and you’re quoting them way our of context.

Of course they weren't supporting creationism... they couldn't do that because it is verboten... and of course they were trying to prop up evolution because it is the truly glorious belief.

They were merely attempting to provide the emperor with another set of clothes that would fit better... even if made of the same *cloth*.

 

[agilis]

bwerb, thanks for pointing out that misspelling of mine. Someone wiith less imagination might have looked at their keyboard and seen that the letters 'r' and 'e' are located next to each other, and assumed that I had inadvertently hit the wrong key. But not you. You immediately perceived that I needed some help with spelling 'the', that I had been spelling it 'thr' all these years, and could benefit from some tuition.

A less charitable person than I might think that you were upset and embarrassed by having your fundamental factual error pointed out, and retaliated by seizing upon my obvious typo and attempting to equate it with your ignorant mistake.

I'm not like that, though. I'd prefer to think that you failed to glance at the keyboard, and decided that I might need to have the correct spelling of 'the' clarified. Thank you for that intended kindness. It reflects character and illuminates the type of person you are.

I'm curious about what "the correct" is quoted from. It's an odd construct. Sometimes these turn up when a sentence is changed before posting, leaving a syntax problem unresolved. In any case, I read your profile for the first time a few minutes ago, and it seems you may not be in the word business after all. Another error on my part. I failed to see the ironic intent in the term "translator".