Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-24-2019 8:59 PM
22 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, JonF, Theodoric (6 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,376 Year: 15,412/19,786 Month: 2,135/3,058 Week: 509/404 Day: 24/89 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
12Next
Author Topic:   A Logical account of creation
onifre
Member (Idle past 1183 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 61 of 173 (515830)
07-21-2009 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by traste
07-21-2009 4:18 AM


Re: you are ignorant
Hi traste,

Iam,paying that is why I was able to asked excellent question.

No you are not!

You asked for a fossil that was an intermediate form between fish and amphibians, you asked that question in a reply to a post that gave you the intermediate fossils that you were requesting.

Now, either you don't actually care to see the fossils or you don't think it represents an intermediate form. If you don't think it does represent an intermediate form, then explain why, and be specific.

What is it about that fossil that I linked for you that you feel does not represent an intermediate form between fish and amphibian?

And what is your evidence the lung fish?

Here is the fossil THAT YOU REQUESTED...again: Tiktaali

Here's the quote...again:

quote:
Tiktaalik represents an intermediate form between fish and amphibians. Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, Tiktaalik's 'fins' have basic wrist bones and simple fingers, showing that they were weight bearing. Close examination of the joints show that although they probably were not used to walk, they were more than likely used to prop up the creature’s body, push up fashion. The bones of the fore fins show large muscle facets, suggesting that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex like a wrist joint. These wrist-like features would have helped anchor the creature to the bottom in fast moving current.
Also notable are the spiracles on the top of the head, which suggest the creature had primitive lungs as well as gills. This would have been useful in shallow water, where higher water temperature would lower oxygen content. This development may have led to the evolution of a more robust ribcage, a key evolutionary trait of land living creatures. The more robust ribcage of Tiktaalik would have helped support the animal’s body any time it ventured outside a fully aquatic habitat. Tiktaalik also lacked a characteristic that most fishes have - bony plates in the gill area that restrict lateral head movement. This makes Tiktaalik the earliest known fish to have a neck. This would give the creature more freedom in hunting prey either on land or in the shallows.

What a wishful speculations and boundless optimsm! Do you think your bounless optism would turned those primative fish into amphibians?

My optimism hopes to turn *you* into someone who actually reads links and provides an intelligent argument for or against the evidence.

But I'm slowly becoming pessimistic about that...

mammals become humans

I'm not going to reply to your ridiculous questions, however, are you saying that humans are not mammals?

Actually, Im notignorant of this subject butI guess you are.

Perhaps, but you have failed to show how and where I'm being ignorant.

- Oni


If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by traste, posted 07-21-2009 4:18 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by traste, posted 08-18-2009 11:53 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3161 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 62 of 173 (516239)
07-24-2009 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by AZPaul3
01-12-2007 1:02 PM


AZPaul3 writes:

Well, as one data point in the argument against such a creation there are these facts of the first appearance of these "kinds":

amoeba "kind" - Achaean period
plant and fish "kinds" - Vendian period
arthropod "kind" - Pre-Cambrian period
amphibian "kind" - Devonian period
reptile "kind" - Carboniferous period
mammal "kind" - Triassic period
ignorant creationist "kind" - Cenozoic period

Seems to me that if these "kinds" were created at the beginning then we should see all of them in the Achaean period.

your list above has no conflict with the bible account.

the Genesis account merely covers the major events in a progressive way, describing what things were formed, the order in which they were formed and the time interval, or 'day,' in which each first appeared.

it was the 1st and 2nd creative periods or 'days' that speak of the atmosphere being created and the dry land being brought together into one place

then it was the in the 3rd creative period that three broad categories of land plants appeared. "Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds..."

in the 5th creative period or 'day' came first the sea creatures, then the flying creatures. "Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens"

finally it was the 6th creative period or 'day' that land animals began to appear...the last of them being 'mankind'
"Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind."

so isnt this order of creation is in line with scientific fact...if not whats missing ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2007 1:02 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by lyx2no, posted 07-24-2009 10:09 AM Peg has responded
 Message 64 by bluescat48, posted 07-24-2009 2:44 PM Peg has responded
 Message 67 by AZPaul3, posted 07-24-2009 8:19 PM Peg has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2948 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 63 of 173 (516243)
07-24-2009 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Peg
07-24-2009 9:27 AM


No number 36,997
so isnt this order of creation is in line with scientific fact...if not whats missing ?

No.

Birds do not come before land animals.

Land plants do not come before sea creatures.

AZPaul3's list (no number 36,996) does conflict with the biblical account.

The biblical account has nothing in common with reality. It won't even shoehorn into reality.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
— Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Peg, posted 07-24-2009 9:27 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Peg, posted 07-24-2009 7:32 PM lyx2no has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2421 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 64 of 173 (516312)
07-24-2009 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Peg
07-24-2009 9:27 AM


Peg writes:

AZPaul3 writes:

plant and fish "kinds" - Vendian period


then it was the in the 3rd creative period that three broad categories of land plants appeared. "Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds..."

Except for the fact that the "Vendian" plants were not land plants.The land plants first appear no earlier than the Devonian

Edited by bluescat48, : typo


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Peg, posted 07-24-2009 9:27 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Peg, posted 07-24-2009 7:39 PM bluescat48 has responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3161 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 65 of 173 (516394)
07-24-2009 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by lyx2no
07-24-2009 10:09 AM


Re: No number 36,997
lyx2no writes:

Birds do not come before land animals.

have you got any references I can go to that explains this?

genesis lists 10 major stages in this order:

1 a beginning to the universe
2 a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water
3 light
4 an expanse or atmosphere
5 large areas of dry land
6 land plants of all sorts
7 sun, moon and stars discernible, and seasons begin
8 sea creatures and flying creatures
9 wild and tame beasts, mammals
10 mankind

what's illogical or impossible about this order? Its seems like it could work. Light would need to come before plants. Plants would need to come before animals


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by lyx2no, posted 07-24-2009 10:09 AM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by lyx2no, posted 07-24-2009 8:27 PM Peg has responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3161 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 66 of 173 (516397)
07-24-2009 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by bluescat48
07-24-2009 2:44 PM


bluescat48 writes:

Except for the fact that the "Vendian" plants were not land plants.The land plants first appear no earlier than the Devonian

but the genesis account does not specify the specific types of plants. It simply presents the order of the major groups as they appeared.

it says only they appeared on 'earth' and does not specify whether is they appeared on the land under the seas or land above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by bluescat48, posted 07-24-2009 2:44 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by bluescat48, posted 07-24-2009 11:27 PM Peg has responded
 Message 79 by Blue Jay, posted 07-25-2009 1:37 PM Peg has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4432
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 67 of 173 (516410)
07-24-2009 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Peg
07-24-2009 9:27 AM


so isnt this order of creation is in line with scientific fact...if not whats missing ?

Other than reality?

The time periods involved.

This was a specific answer to a specific question.

Read the OP. And when you re-read my response keep your tongue pressed firmly against your cheek.

Edited by AZPaul3, : Felt the burning need.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Peg, posted 07-24-2009 9:27 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2948 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 68 of 173 (516414)
07-24-2009 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Peg
07-24-2009 7:32 PM


Re: No number 36,997
have you got any references I can go to that explains this?

You've go to be pulling my leg.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
— Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Peg, posted 07-24-2009 7:32 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Peg, posted 07-25-2009 2:14 AM lyx2no has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2421 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 69 of 173 (516435)
07-24-2009 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Peg
07-24-2009 7:39 PM


Peg writes:

but the genesis account does not specify the specific types of plants. It simply presents the order of the major groups as they appeared.

Gen1:11 writes:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so

It would seem that this would mean plants on land.

Edited by bluescat48, : missing line


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Peg, posted 07-24-2009 7:39 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Peg, posted 07-25-2009 2:18 AM bluescat48 has responded
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 07-25-2009 9:57 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3161 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 70 of 173 (516443)
07-25-2009 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by lyx2no
07-24-2009 8:27 PM


Re: No number 36,997
lyx2no writes:

You've go to be pulling my leg.

havnt you heard there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by lyx2no, posted 07-24-2009 8:27 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by lyx2no, posted 07-25-2009 9:03 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 07-25-2009 10:18 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 87 by traste, posted 08-19-2009 12:08 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3161 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 71 of 173 (516444)
07-25-2009 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by bluescat48
07-24-2009 11:27 PM


bluescat writes:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so

It would seem that this would mean plants on land.

it only says 'earth'

as far as i'm aware, the land under the sea is still part of the earth unless scientists have decided otherwise

there are many diffferent types of plants that yield seed and a fruit tree isnt confined to apples and oranges.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by bluescat48, posted 07-24-2009 11:27 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by bluescat48, posted 07-25-2009 11:41 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2948 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 72 of 173 (516460)
07-25-2009 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Peg
07-25-2009 2:14 AM


Heard a Lot of Things
havnt you heard there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers
You asked for a reference on land animals preceding birds. How' does ICR strike you?

"A favorite evolutionary claim these days is that land-dwelling dinosaurs evolved into birds.
What does the Bible say? Birds on Day Five and land animals on Day Six."
— John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Edited by lyx2no, : Punc.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
— Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Peg, posted 07-25-2009 2:14 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by ICANT, posted 07-25-2009 10:16 AM lyx2no has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 73 of 173 (516463)
07-25-2009 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by bluescat48
07-24-2009 11:27 PM


Re plants
Hi cat,

Peg this is also for you.

bluescat48 writes:

Peg writes:

but the genesis account does not specify the specific types of plants. It simply presents the order of the major groups as they appeared.

Gen1:11 writes:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so


It would seem that this would mean plants on land.

It also says that the plants came from the seed which was already upon the earth.

Where did those seed come from?

Could it have been the plants God made in Genesis 2:9 produced the seed that God refered to in Genesis 1:11.

That would solve the problem as the only thing created on earth before those plants was one man.

Yea I know that makes things be out of order. But hey man has been arranging things in the wrong order since the beginning of time.

But to the title of the topic 'A Logical account of creation'.

If things were created by God. I believe they were.

The plants had to be created before they could produce seed.

Therefore the seed in Genesis 1:11 had to come from the plants created in Genesis 2:9.

Because it is not said God created the seed of the plants.

Is that Logical?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by bluescat48, posted 07-24-2009 11:27 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by greentwiga, posted 07-25-2009 10:21 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 80 by Peg, posted 07-26-2009 8:33 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 74 of 173 (516466)
07-25-2009 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by lyx2no
07-25-2009 9:03 AM


Re: Heard a Lot of Things
Hi lyx2no,

lyx2no writes:

You asked for a reference on land animals preceding birds. How' does ICR strike you?

"A favorite evolutionary claim these days is that land-dwelling dinosaurs evolved into birds.
What does the Bible say? Birds on Day Five and land animals on Day Six."
— John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Who says ICR or Mr Morris is correct in what they believe?

Especially when they disagree with what the Bible says.

Everything was created in the first light period,(as recorded in Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 4:24) that ended with the evening found in Genesis 1:2 as darkness had come. In verse 5 God declares that evening and the end of that darkness the following morning as the first day.

Then the six days of Moses is described.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by lyx2no, posted 07-25-2009 9:03 AM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by lyx2no, posted 07-25-2009 12:04 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 75 of 173 (516467)
07-25-2009 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Peg
07-25-2009 2:14 AM


Re: Stupid question
Hi Peg,

Peg writes:

havnt you heard there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers

cavediver told me the only stupid question is the question that is never asked.

I agree with him.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Peg, posted 07-25-2009 2:14 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
67
...
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019