nebula Posted November 27, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted November 27, 2011 They would die as genetics doesn't allow limbs from fins in one generation, let alone solely with a parent generation. But alas, evolution doesn't tell us this is how it happened, nor would it allow such to happen. The "experiment" is a strawman. Indeed, if it did happen it would destroy modern evolution, like the idea of "hyper-evolution" by creationists to explain bio-diversity post-flood is simply too much evolution in such a short time, and this experiment would be looking for even a faster pace of evolution. We can know that fish evolved into terrestrial tetrapods because scientists can look at the evidence and are good at getting information from data, similar to how a forensics team can solve a murder without being there or running an experimental murder to see what would happen. Have you looked up Tiktaalik yet? It is a great transitional fossil showing fish to land evolution. How about this, D-9 . . . How would fish alive today produce descendents with limbs? How does the environment change significantly enough that "evolution" causes their bodies to change that dramatically yet slow enough that the changing environment does not kill them, yet makes the change more beneficial for survival? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted November 27, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted November 27, 2011 By "they" do you mean the schools or the Ph.D.'s you work with? As for schools, why do they not teach middle and high school and into. science college courses this way? "They" = individuals I'm not sure they do teach it the way you described. I do know that most of the "boys and girls" I know with M.S. or Ph.D. degrees don't think in way you noted. I have yet to encounter the "observation-based" method of learning in secondary education or intro. science courses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 S Dear Sam Just How Many Of Sam's Databases Are Crammed Full Of Measured And Tested Evolutionary Data I don't want to discuss my work here, but what I do affects millions of people every day, most likely everyone on this forum. While the folks I work with don't do research on evolution, we are aware and take into account how evolution affects our studies. If we did not, then we would be putting the health of many, many people at risk. IMO Every Time This Evolutionary Dogma Is Applied To Medicine, People's Lives Are Put In Jeopardy And Here We See The "Priesthood" Sounding Off It's Strange How They Assert That The Science Of Biology Is Senseless Without The Incantations Of Evolution Muttered Over It For The Belief In The interconnectivity of Fictitious Nature Is a Core Dogma Of These Most Zealous Of Religious Naturalists And Their Pontifications About Medical Education Sound Like Just So Much Anti-Design, Anti-Jesus Hokum To My Ears And "The Evolutionary Insights" Given By These Folks Could Just As Well Be "From Our Direct Observations" We Can Gain The Insights Needed Lewis agrees with Parsonnet that specific evolutionary medicine courses probably aren’t necessary, but that the basic biological principles on which medicine is based should be infused with evolutionary concepts. “If, as Theodosius Dobzhansky stated, ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,’ then all biology teaching must be done in the light of evolution to make it make sense,” he says. “Otherwise biology loses all its explanatory power and becomes little more than stamp collecting.” http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2006summer/evolutionary-medicine.html Therefore Dear Sam It Becomes Evident To Me That It's Just One's Faith Or Faithlessness That Turns One And That Science Or Scientific Data Have No Interlocking Relationship With Evolution Except For The "Faithful's" Desire To Out Their God From Any Credit For His Creation And His Wonderful Designs ~ And Here God's Revelation I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. Psalms 139:14 Sounds It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. Proverbs 25:2 Off Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Isaiah 45:9 ____________ _________ ______ ___ Believe For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16 And Be Blessed Beloved Love, Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted November 28, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted November 28, 2011 I don't want to discuss my work here, but what I do affects millions of people every day, most likely everyone on this forum. While the folks I work with don't do research on evolution, we are aware and take into account how evolution affects our studies. If we did not, then we would be putting the health of many, many people at risk. By "evolution" do you mean adaptation or do you mean common descent over millions of years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nChrist Posted November 28, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 438 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 2,947 Content Per Day: 0.54 Reputation: 300 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/28/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1949 Share Posted November 28, 2011 I personally don't think that saying man evolved from monkeys is indicative of intelligence or education, rather a matter of foolishness. As a contrast, I know beyond doubt that God's Word proves itself almost countless times from cover to cover, so I know that God's Word is true. I have a personal relationship with the Creator and I believe His Word beyond any doubt at all. It's just this simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pahu Posted November 28, 2011 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 157 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 88 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/05/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted November 28, 2011 Fossil Gaps 14 g. Evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved into reptiles, with either Diadectes or Seymouria as the transition. By the evolutionists’ own time scale, this “transition” occurs 35 million years (m.y.) after the earliest reptile, Hylonomus (a cotylosaur). A parent cannot appear 35 million years after its child! The scattered locations of these fossils also present problems for the evolutionist. [see Steven M. Stanley, Earth and Life Through Time (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1986), pp. 411–415. See also Robert H. Dott Jr. and Roger L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth, 3rd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981), p. 356.] It is true that skeletal features of some amphibians and some reptiles are similar. However, huge differences exist in their soft internal organs, such as their circulatory and reproductive systems. For example, no evolutionary scheme has ever been given for the development of the many unique innovations of the reptile’s egg. [see Denton, pp. 218–219 and Pitman, pp. 199–200.] h. “Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.” Thomas S. Kemp, Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319. [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted November 28, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted November 28, 2011 It could have come about by needing/wanting to get to the next lake or body of water over, Errr...and they knew about the next lake or body of water over . . . how? How much intelligence are you giving these fish? And ability to see up and over the land? or simply that they were exploiting the new niche of eating plants on land as there were plants long before animals on land, So their desire to eat the land plants caused them adapt fins into walkable limbs? Seriously - this is what you are saying! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nChrist Posted November 29, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 438 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 2,947 Content Per Day: 0.54 Reputation: 300 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/28/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1949 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Man evolved from monkeys = silly beyond reason. This is the ultimate question, and the answer is: IT JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollkiller Posted November 29, 2011 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 249 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/07/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted November 29, 2011 Man evolved from monkeys = silly beyond reason. This is the ultimate question, and the answer is: IT JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN. Cool reasoning there. I'll have a go. Humanity evolved from Adam and Eve 6000 thousand years ago and this explains the incredible diversity throughout life. IT JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN. or An asteroid landed 65 millions years ago and destroyed all dinosaurs. IT JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN. This new level of understanding can be used for everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nChrist Posted November 29, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 438 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 2,947 Content Per Day: 0.54 Reputation: 300 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/28/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1949 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Man evolved from monkeys = silly beyond reason. This is the ultimate question, and the answer is: IT JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN. Cool reasoning there. I'll have a go. Humanity evolved from Adam and Eve 6000 thousand years ago and this explains the incredible diversity throughout life. IT JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN. or An asteroid landed 65 millions years ago and destroyed all dinosaurs. IT JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN. This new level of understanding can be used for everything. I'm glad that you like it. Adam and Eve were Created PERFECT by Almighty God and were PERFECT from the start. Sin changed that and man was kicked out of the garden by Almighty God. So, man did the opposite of improve and went DOWNHILL. So, THIS IS WHAT DID HAPPEN. Refer to Genesis 1 and 2 for WHAT DID HAPPEN for the rest of creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts