A Missionary Posted May 21, 2007 Group: Members Followers: 2 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 19 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/12/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/11/1964 Share Posted May 21, 2007 This is like the third similar story in recent weeks... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::; Fox News Story Indonesian Fisherman Catches Rare Ancient Fish AKARTA, Indonesia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted May 21, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted May 21, 2007 This is like the third similar story in recent weeks... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::; Fox News Story Indonesian Fisherman Catches Rare Ancient Fish AKARTA, Indonesia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondeve Posted May 21, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 117 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,276 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/02/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/21/1986 Share Posted May 21, 2007 (edited) Personally, I would think this speaks against evolution/naturalism. Wouldn't 65 million years be long enough for this creature to mutate into something else? I realize this specimen hasn't been studied yet, but they did identify it as a species they thought was long extinct. So that tells me they recognize it right off from fossils. What arguments are evolutionists using to explain why ferns, mullosks, clams, etc remain unchanged from the fossil record? Animals don't 'evolve' for the sake of it, or just because they've been around a long time. They evolve if and when individuals possessing or lacking a set trait of disadvantage or advantage in the environment begin to die out because of that deficiency, leaving behind a genepool devoid of the negative characteristic or full of the good one. Over long periods of time, with multiple such changes, this process is termed evolution. If, however, a species is able to survive without evolving - that is to say, their environment doesn't change enough to merit such an adaptation - then it's perfectly reasonable to assume they wouldn't evolve. Personally, though, I think the find can be looked at in a reverse light. I've met plenty of Christians on Worthy who think that dinosaurs never existed despite the fossil evidence, and presumably, until a live one of these fish was found, it fell into the same category. But if we can now see that the fish actually existed all that time ago, then why shouldn't that suggest that perhaps dinosaurs did, too? Edited May 21, 2007 by secondeve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubal-Cain Posted May 21, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 448 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1981 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Personally, I would think this speaks against evolution/naturalism. How come? And note there is a difference between evolution and naturalism, not that this affects either as far as I can tell. Wouldn't 65 million years be long enough for this creature to mutate into something else? The theory of evolution does not require all organisms to evolve or to evolve at a specific rate. I realize this specimen hasn't been studied yet, but they did identify it as a species they thought was long extinct. So that tells me they recognize it right off from fossils. Coelacanths were first found in 1938 so this is not a first. Moreover, the coelacanths that have been caught are Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae, while the fossilized coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae. What arguments are evolutionists using to explain why ferns, mullosks, clams, etc remain unchanged from the fossil record? An organism that is fit for its environment can stay on the earth for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted May 22, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted May 22, 2007 Personally, though, I think the find can be looked at in a reverse light. I've met plenty of Christians on Worthy who think that dinosaurs never existed despite the fossil evidence, and presumably, until a live one of these fish was found, it fell into the same category. But if we can now see that the fish actually existed all that time ago, then why shouldn't that suggest that perhaps dinosaurs did, too? Why on earth would anyone believe that dinosaurs never existed? There's no reason to suggest they existed; they did! No one doubted the existence of this fish; it was thought to be extinct. I don't think this article is even remotely connected to evolution. Sharks have existed, pretty much unchanged for sixty five million or so years too. This article is about finding a fish, thought to be extinct, it neither proves nor disproves anything about evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondeve Posted May 22, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 117 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,276 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/02/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/21/1986 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Personally, though, I think the find can be looked at in a reverse light. I've met plenty of Christians on Worthy who think that dinosaurs never existed despite the fossil evidence, and presumably, until a live one of these fish was found, it fell into the same category. But if we can now see that the fish actually existed all that time ago, then why shouldn't that suggest that perhaps dinosaurs did, too? Why on earth would anyone believe that dinosaurs never existed? There's no reason to suggest they existed; they did! No one doubted the existence of this fish; it was thought to be extinct. I don't think this article is even remotely connected to evolution. Sharks have existed, pretty much unchanged for sixty five million or so years too. This article is about finding a fish, thought to be extinct, it neither proves nor disproves anything about evolution. Hey, don't get me wrong - I believe dinosaurs existed. But I was referring to the people I've met on Worthy - and obviously you're not among them, but they still exist - who think there never were dinosaurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted May 22, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted May 22, 2007 Hey, don't get me wrong - I believe dinosaurs existed. But I was referring to the people I've met on Worthy - and obviously you're not among them, but they still exist - who think there never were dinosaurs. Oh, that is just too strange! I thought everyone had been to at least one dinosaur exhibit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondeve Posted May 22, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 117 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,276 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/02/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/21/1986 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Hey, don't get me wrong - I believe dinosaurs existed. But I was referring to the people I've met on Worthy - and obviously you're not among them, but they still exist - who think there never were dinosaurs. Oh, that is just too strange! I thought everyone had been to at least one dinosaur exhibit. If so, then presumably different conclusions were drawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
systemstrike_7 Posted May 22, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 12 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 540 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/07/1987 Share Posted May 22, 2007 One of the weirdest radical Christian explanations of the existence of dinosaurs that I have heard came from one of my friends. Basically he said this: "I believe God put the fossils in the Earth to trick humans into thinking there were dinosaurs a long time ago." Isn't that just silly? p.s. I didn't even care to argue with him. Honestly, how could you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondeve Posted May 22, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 117 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,276 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/02/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/21/1986 Share Posted May 22, 2007 One of the weirdest radical Christian explanations of the existence of dinosaurs that I have heard came from one of my friends. Basically he said this: "I believe God put the fossils in the Earth to trick humans into thinking there were dinosaurs a long time ago." Isn't that just silly? p.s. I didn't even care to argue with him. Honestly, how could you? I've heard that one, too. But then again, regardless of religious inclinations, people can believe some pretty weird stuff. I once came across a whole bunch of people online who believed that sentient lizard-men who had evolved from dinosaurs were living in crystal caves under the Earth, and man did they get mad if anyone suggested that things might be otherwise. In primary school, one of my best friends believed that Sonic the Hedgehog lived in our school cross country track (I remember her forceful defence that people wouldn't make a video game about him if he wasn't real). There's more than one person I've met who belives that dinosaurs were actually dragons, or that dragons lived at the same time as dinos, or somesuch variant. Point being, I think human imagination often has more to do with belief than we feel comfortable in acknowledging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts