Take a look at a giant aquatic salamander. Pretty much the same thing. Last time I checked salamanders were quite old. Me thinks this is a crock of shit.
I'm just trying to figure out why she is touting what is obviously a giant aquatic salamander as some sort of long lost transitional species between fish and tetrapods. And if I'm wrong, why am I wrong?
I'm just trying to figure out why you think your incredulity is capable of overturning Paleontology--especially since you've never studied the subject.
"...obviously a giant aquatic salamander..."
Come on, circus. Just say "God dunnit" and get it over with.
Aquatic salamander, look it up. As for a demonstration of evolution, that is laughable. They don't even propose a mechanism as to how supposed genetic transition took place, and from what to what. jbkgjbkg? What kind of username is that? Hack.
@circusOFprecision Well look it up then, the genetic transition that is. It's quite simple and really easy to understand :) What does my username have to do with anything? It's just a random formation of words that has nothing to do with anything.
I’m not sure if this is completely true but I’ve heard that the reason fishes developed finger like limbs hundreds of millions of years ago was so they could escape predators. If they were perused by predators they would climb out of the water to safety, and since there weren’t any land predators at that time, dry land would have been a safe haven. Over time they would develop lungs, allowing them to permanently get out of the water.
@mattnashisgay From what I understand it also has to do with the ever changing environment. As waters slowly receded, they left many pools and lakes, but with landmasses in between. If one fish could push itself up out of the water for a short time to get to another pool of water where the food was, this would be an evolutionary reason for the trait to continue.
Depending on the evolutionary tree, limbs both grew before & after coming onto land.
The video shows evidence of limbs growing before ( likely using the limbs to scurry along the bottom, and then brief excursions onto land to feed (alligators) ).
Search for: walking fish
That is evidence, still living, of a fish growing primitive lungs, and using its fins to walk on land from one pond to another in search of what it needs.
Evolution is not an all or nothing game, multiple paths were taken...
For a great, detailed, enjoyable book on Tiktaalik (one such 'fish with fingers') see Your Inner Fish: A journey into the 3.5 Million Year History of the Human Body by Neil Shubin .
@Stianchez This Carl Gallups person seems to have a real problem with his CAPS LOCK button. That right there is a red flag. However, I'll check out this video when I have some time and see what this is about. Also, someone who believes that the BP oil spill is fulfilling a Genesis prophesy, I'm not all that includes to take seriously.
@Stianchez Wow. Do you really expect anyone with any understanding of science at all to swallow that nonsense? As soon as I heard the word 'creation', that was it. I know you (or whoever made that video) has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. You have no say on science. Nothing. Not one word. Stick to your fairy tales and bronze age rule books, and please keep 100 feet from science at all times.
@thelotrfan100 Finding vertabrate creatures fossilised is difficult because they are spread out by many (sometimes hundreds ) of miles per individual . With marine invertabrates they are found packed together in rich sea communities where 10 square feet may yield thousands of fossils . Invertabrate evolution is verified by dozens of species with complete unbroken gapless fossil records . In other words evolution is an undisputable fact for marine invertabrates.
Ever noticed that videos that actually have some evidence and references allways allow comments while creationist videos that make up their own evidence dont? :P
I have just one quibble with this, they say at the beginning that the first creatures to leave the water gave rise to today's reptiles and other tetrapods. The arthropods were likely on land long, long before, when fish were still developing the jaw bone. Not to mention the arthropods still have us tetrapods, and even all vertebrates (most of which are still old-fashion water-dwelling fish) beat in terms of number of individuals, by a wide margin.
im not sure if early land creatures only came from evolved sea creatures. Earliest simple forms of life might have existed on land too and evolved from there, probably not in such numbers and slower than sea life.
How does she know for sure the fossilized creature had gills? It seems like more made up Evolution fairytales. Wasn't the Cocalenthe (sp?) supposed to have transitional organs but found out it didn't when they saw living ones?
"first mammals made there way from water..." ARE YOU SERIOUS??? this has got to be a blunder on your part... many animals made there way to land before mammals came about..
Oh, sorry. I thought only Americans were retarded enough to believe in creation. I didn't know that Thailand was suffering from the same epidemic of mental retardation.
goose pimples? Now why do you think humans still have that?
"Goose bumps are often a response to cold: in animals covered with fur or hair, the erect hairs trap air to create a layer of insulation. Goose bumps can also be a response to anger or fear: the erect hairs make the animal appear larger, in order to intimidate enemies."
Just more evidence for evolution buddy boy. You don't have to like hearing it.
Did you know there are creationists who actually disagree with you and believe the earth is older than 6000 years? So like which is it? theres a big difference, dont even answer that but the point is that your theory isn't as solid as you think it is....
As if fish would want to come out f the water in the first place unless there was some sort of intelligence behind them transforming into somethhing other than fish. Evolution isn't a random happening. The Earth was supposed to be filled with all different sorts of creatures. Think about it,, why would a fish bother to come out of an enviroment that it was perfectly suited to. I don't know how anyone can't see that the land the air and the sea was meant to be filled with all different creatures.
@Rob187ok During the Devonian period, the land had already been colonised by invertebrates and fish living in swamps had evolved fleshy, muscular limb-like fins and a flattened profile that helped them to push themselves past tree-roots and other obstacles in their swamp habitat and thrive in very shallow water. With the shoreline teeming with tasty bugs, fish that could more effectively exploit this food source were at an advantage, and passed on their increasingly amphibious traits.
@Rob187ok There are actually fish that bother to come out of the water today... like the mudskipper, which spends more time in land than on water, and the different species of lungfish, some of which even hibernate on land before returning to water. These fish are perfectly adapated to their enviroment, like all living creatures are. In this case, the environment is the frontier between water and land, between fish and amphibian
It astounds me that so many have accepted the idea that earth was created from the "big bang." For life on earth to even exist, so many things have to play a part. Here are just a few examples: the earth is the exact distance from the sun to support life without harming it, best place in the galaxy for scientific discovery, exact size of earth to support life, exact magnetic field needed to block sun's rays, perfect tilt of axis, exact thickness of atmosphere to support life, exact crust, etc.
@TBN4evr100 yea your thinking backwards though. The universe is so vast that it is an almost certainty a planet with the perfect properties to support life was created.
@FredJDouble Yes, but the probability of a life-supporting planet even forming by chance, even in a universe as huge as it is, is still miniscule. It is something like 1,000,000/1,000,000,000,000,000,000.... that's hardly almost certainly. And just the fact that the earth was planted in the best spot in the solar system and best spot in the galaxy for scientific discovery indicates that there is a Creator who wants us to explore and gain knowledge about the universe we live in.
@infinity730 I understand, but I said "something like..." I never said that was the exact number. But I do know that it is quite similar to that... I can find my source again if you want the specific number. and please do not verbally abuse me.
@TBN4evr100 Let's assume that each star has only one planet orbiting it, habitable or not. There around 200-400 billion stars in this galaxy, and another TRILLION (1,000,000,000,000) in the Andromeda galaxy. Those are only 2 galaxies, out of the BILLIONS that are in the universe (that we know of). So based on your number, there will be around a billion habitable planets, just like Earth, only in the part of the universe that we can watch
@danoso0931 Indeed, there are many stars and planets. But considering the extremely minute chance of even one planet or star being born of ultimate chaos, it is highly unlikely that there are more planets that are habitable. The numbers far outweigh your theory. Picture a house. After many years, the house does not rebuild itself. It deteriorates. How then, could nature perfect itself over time, when it in fact proves that the opposite happens? Just because you say it does not make it so.
@TBN4evr100 Minute chance of stars being born? You are probably not aware that stars are still being formed today. It is not just because I say so. Look it up anywhere. And I used your numbers, and still can come up with a billion habitable planets, so dont say that the "numbers outweight my theory".Take away another three zeroes if you want. It's a matter of statistics. Even if there is only 1 habitable planet for every 100 million galaxies, there still will be 170 million of them
I meant a minute chance of stars being born out of chaos, at the beginning of time. Think about the "big bang", ignoring the fact that there is no viable explanation for where the matter came from to allow it to occur. As you go throw the supposed steps of the big bang, the chances of each step occuring decrease exponentially. And an explosion big enough to expand matter throughout the known universe but not eradicate all life forms? If this is true, then the nuclear threat is false.
@TBN4evr100 an explosion big enough to expand matter throughout the known universe but not eradicate all life forms?
examine that statement. i'd hate to be the one to point out how worthy of ridicule it is. i think it could stand for a bit of revision. quickly, while you have the chance.
@TBN4evr100 Plus, how do you know we are in the best spot in the galaxy for scientific discovery? From how many other spots have we watched in order for you to make the comparison? You cannot make a claim based on a sample size of 1. And our spot is hardly helpful... we cannot watch a full quarter (or more) of the milky way because it is blocked by gas and dust
I belong to the oldest fossil club in the USA . I have made many videos of beginners fossil classes , field trips and paleontologists lectures just 4 you fossil lovers . Just search under Dry Dredgers or Cincinnati fossils .New videos added monthly !
@stormyandcold: None. The hair (most of it) was lost well before clothing was probably developed. The theory that I've heard is that the hair was lost when man came down from the trees and began hunting for meat. The one way that man is a successful hunter (besides developing weapons) is to use his stamina to run down game over long distances. This would have put a premium on a good cooling mechanism. Man (and horses) are the only animals who sweat sufficient for cooling purposes.
Tetrapods came from fish... mammals are tetrapods... humans are mammals... if you go back far enough (like 360-400 million years) you had fish ancestors.
Evolution as in "adaption" is true. Even that has strict limits and has barrier walls that it cannot pass, to the point of creating a different animal-Adaption is true...Morphing is not.That's only a silly fairytail-
@shotsxxx: What is the basis for your assertion? Speciation has been observed in the lab and in nature.
What are these "strict limits" and "barrier walls"? What is the mechanism? How can they be characterized so you can predict where these limits occur, say, between a couple of butterflies, or between a camel and a llama, or any two given animals?
We have two fewer chromosomes then the great apes, leading to the conclusion that two of out chromosomes must have gotten fused...This fused chromosome has been identified in us...Even with DNA at it's infancy, it has proved that all life is connected and all evolved.
rogan71- We have two more chromosomes than bats.Does that mean two were fused and bats came from humans?- "MUST HAVE gotten fused"-again another biased want stated as a fact-No that has not been proved a true fact of science-Not even a scientific fact-The morphing aspect has not been proved a true fact-
If 96% of our genetic make up resembled bats, and we looked and appeared to be part of the bat family, then yes. In this case having fused chromosomes would be further evidence...You love taking things out of context.
The religious compartmentalize information. This is why they usually give you two choices like - everything must have a creator or it came out of chance from nothing. - This is due to the limited imagination and in-the-box thinking of your average follower.
rogan71- For one don't tell me what Christians think or how they are.I know that better than you-So what you are saying is because we LOOK so close to apes your fairytale must be true-You have a set of rules when it benefits you and change them when you get in a corner-Unbiased science does not work that way-You are silly-You are not smarter than Believers just because you say so, or because they dont believe your fairy tails-
shotsxxx - Talking with you is like talking to a dog. You repeat the same action thoughtlessly and instinctively. You haven't registered a word anyone's said, and repeat the same empty rhetoric, that gives you away as a non-thinker.
How do you equate provable, observable science with fairy tales, yet put your faith in something unprovable, inelegant and fundamentally flawed....To me this is a form of mental illness. Belief is one thing, idiotic repetition of unprovable myths is something else.
rogan71-Ok since you are not smart enough to answer a simple question I will answer it for you- The horseshoe crab did not evolve or go extinct because your theory is a load of crap- You are everything you accouse me of- You are a loser !
rogan71- You are still avoiding the horseshoe crab question...Why did the horseshoe crab not evolve or go extinct?- Do you realise how stupid you looked by your last post?
I know piltdown man was a long time ago and we just should ignore it ever happened. That proves science has been flawed at least from the time of piltdown- So that we would call a silly fairy tale a fact-Evolutionist want evolution to be fact so bad, they have corrupted science-It is against scientific method to call a theory a fact-They are not the same-I can't imagine what other "evidence" science has distorted or even completely made up, and call fact-
This Human "tail" is yet another fine example of how people that claim they base their beliefs on the facts of science,because science "proved" it-Disregards true facts that science really does prove-Because it conflicts with their fairy tales-Science is the excuse-Agenda is the reason-
How can it be said that the presence of this "tail" brings us tangibly and inescapably to the reality of evolution if we cannot exclude the possibility that it is nothing more than a dermal appendage coincidently located in the caudal region? As a matter of fact ,even a superficial reading of Ledley's article makes clear that this so-called tail was no tail at all but was nothing more than an anomalous growth coincidentally located in the caudal region.
see "Evolution and the Human Tail" by Dr. Fred D. Ledley--- This was refuted in 1982 as a tail.Ledley tried so hard to get the tail accepted as evidence for evolution.He failed-All scientist concluded that it is only a growth and not a tail and has absolutely nothing at all to do with evolution-No "new" evidence can change this conclusion-People like fairy tales I guess-
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with REPEATED TESTING. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. A hypothesis is not a theory and a theory is not a fact.-
Another thing, When I get sick and go to the doctor, he does not give me medicine that is only still in the theory stage. He gives me medicine that has been proven a true fact that cures whatever illness I may have. Medicine that has been proved through testing, experimentation,and observation.- It is illegal to administer medicine that is still in the theory/experiment stage-Theres a reason for that..........theories can be incorrect-Do not call a theory,a fact.
People assume the "creepy crawley creatures" that walked on the earth includes reptiles- Read Genesis one again carefully and check out the Hebrew interpretation of whale- If researched correctly, real science does indeed back the Bible-
TheRationalizer- Read the Bible instead of memorizing what fools think it says-You look foolish-The Bible clearly states that the "heavens" were made before the earth-It does not say they were created at the same time-The opening line is a perfect start-but how would you know, you haven't read it for yourself. And if you did read it, it's apparent you did not understand what you read. You try to look like an intellect but you look ignorant-
That's 66% into the current life of the Universe the Earth came along. In what way does that represent "in the beginning"? It is more than half way through the life of the universe at the point the bible was written.
I like animals, they're cool but readin about their genetics isn't very interestin to me. I'm not sure how many things I can say about an upside down pouch. What other animals have an evolutionary flaw? What type of primate did we supposedly evolve from and does that type of primate still exist?
1: Every mammal has a nerve that goes from its neck to its larynx, but one side goes around the heart. In a Giraffe that's a 15 foot detour!
2: Blue,Finn,Hunchback whales have fused leg bones on their pelvis.
3: Male mammals have nipples.
You only need one imperfection to prove a perfect entity didn't create a perfect creation.
We evolved from chim-like creatures, they are now extinct but their descendants exist (us and chimps), we have plenty of fossil evidence, why would god make those?
Us coming from a certain type of monkey that is now extinct or any type of monkey for that matter just don't make sense to me. I don't understand we all ultimately come from a fish. How could humans come from a fish? I'm not tryin to be disrespectful but imperfection #3 is sorta comical to me. I mean I know male mammals have nipples and all but for some odd reason it struck me as comical
"Like". They looked like monkeys, but were not monkeys OR humans.
To change a chimp to look like a human.
1: Lose most of the hair.
2: Change the bone proportions.
Did you know we share the exact same skeleton? Just the sizes of the bones change. Did you know that the skull consists of 33 parts. Did you know the chimp has exactly the same? And horses, and all other mammals too?
They are the same skeleton, with the sizes reproportioned (mutated).
@TheRationalizer hey rationalizer we havent talked in a while. I was just lettin you know I never got that book however I respect your opinion about evolution and wont go around claiming that it doesn't exist at all
@TheRationalizer I didnt mean it that way lol if i were to study a science it would be chemistry. I'm not sure why but I always liked the idea of mixing chemicals and makin different things.
Then you should buy a chemistry book. I did last year, was very interesting.
However, the fact is that you seem to know little of the scientific theory in question or the mountains of evidence supporting it, yet out of your ignorance on the subject you decide it is false....because a really old book says something else.
Are you really happy to argue from a position of ignorance?
@TheRationalizer I suppose I am I mean I cant just throw away something that I've been taught all my life. I understand u look at that as brainwashin and if thats the case well then I'm brainwashed. I'm a Christian but I dont look down on folks who arent all I'm supposed to do is tell folks about Jesus Christ and what u do from there is ur business and i wont judge u for it. Look at us we pickin up on a year old conversation lol it is good talkin to u again :)
>I can't throw away something that I've been taught all my life
A biologist lecturer at a university used to tell their students that evolution of the cell is impossible because of X,Y,Z. One day a biologist specialising in the field of cell biology did a lecture at the university. At the end of the talk the first lecturer shook his hand and said "Thank you, I have been wrong all these years".
If I could remember the source of this true-life story I'd cite it :-) The only logical approach to knowledge is to accept that facts are facts, and that according to the facts ideas are more/less probable. No matter how good the hypothesis, it should be abandoned if the facts show it is wrong.
There's nothing wrong with being wrong, only in continuing to be wrong. In admitting you WERE wrong you are no longer wrong.
Change of stance is a liberating experience, stagnation is delusion.
@TheRationalizer Would it satisfy u if I just said ok i'm wrong ur right? Its not a matter to me as to who is wrong or right what matters to me is what I believe to be right and its something that is embedded in my heart, mind, and soul so I can't just up and do away with it suddenly nor do I want to
Not really :) I actually don't care if I was right at the start, I only care that if I was wrong at the start I know it by the end.
Of course you are free to believe whatever you want, but I do find it odd that you would continue to believe something is true despite the evidence to the contrary just because it makes you feel happy. Can you explain that to me?
@TheRationalizer I'll try I mean its sort of a faith believing thing meaning that one would believe in God without actually seein God but knowin that He exists because of the different things that we have such as the air we breathe or the beautiful natural scenery such as the blue sky or the sunset on the mountains or because of different happenings such as someone prayin for a blessing and suddenly getting it when they had absolutely no way of gettin it themselves beforehand or how I could
There is a big difference between believing in god (deism) and believing you know what god wants (theism).
Would god want you to deny an undeniable fact in order to believe something? Trust me, evolution is an undeniable fact as you will see when you read a good book about it.
*IF* god exists is one thing, whether it has a religion is a different one. Christianity is clearly man made, even Genesis 1 is scientifically inaccurate - that's not a good start is it? :)
@TheRationalizer sorry I took so long. I know u tryin to help and lead me in the right direction and I appreciate u for it but the fact is I believe in Jesus not just because it makes me happy but it gives me a sense of purpose. Whats the point in living if theres nothing to live for or nothing to strive for? Theres unfailing love and purpose with Jesus. I hate to think of it any other way
If you believe in something that is not true because it makes you feel a sense of purpose, does that make it true?
Do you think there is no purpose in the lives of everyone who does not believe in Jesus? I have a wife and 4 kids, they are my purpose, I get a lot more love from them than I ever did from Jesus (and I really did love Jesus.)
As for unfailing love. He certainly fails to love those he burns in hell.
@TheRationalizer as i've said before Im not judgin anybody. If u have a sense of purpose in ur family then thats cool with me Im not askin u to believe what I believe all Im sayin is that I get a sense of purpose from Jesus and whether anybody else does or not isn't my business. To answer ur question I agree with u just because I believe in or feel something that gives me a sense of purpose doesnt make it true. Those who burn in hell make their own decision.
There are some lyrics from a song I like "Just because you feel good, doesn't make it right" :)
Any purpose you feel you get from Jesus you can have without Jesus. The *only* thing you cannot get is the feeling that there is something infinitely better than you which loves you. However, what I found was instead I no longer get the feeling I am infinitely imperfect. I am just average, normal.
The fact is, the bible is wrong, so why believe any of it?
@TheRationalizer Jesus says that whoever calls on him and asks him into their heart will be saved from hell and to live as such until they die. Those who don't call on him wont be saved but if u dont believe in any of that its cool with me. I'm sorry if I offended u man.
Are you not at all suspicious that the condition by which you can avoid eternal torture is "Believe this thing"?
The religion paints god as an evil unjust torturer that is easily angered. This threat is then used to propagate the religion by saying "Just accept Jesus."
Your religion exists with the interest of spreading your religion, nothing else.
And why believe without evidence when this causes people to believe "wrong" religions? Couldn't god do better than those man made religions?
@TheRationalizer 1. I'm not sure but I wouldn't want anything to do with such an unmerciful entity. I mean if I worshipped an unmerciful god I wouldnt be very merciful myself. 2. I would say that heaven would be more than just an absence of torture. Its also a place that I look foward to goin when I die. 3. No one would want to worship such an unmerciful entity. 4. Yes I am a bit suspicous of it when it comes to something that I know doesn't line up with the Bible.
@TheRationalizer I'm not just going to believe in anything. 5. Jesus is pretty simple when it comes to accepting him. You either accept him or not and just because you don't accept him don't mean that he's gonna get mad and kill you. Jesus don't force himself on anybody its these folks goin around tryin to shove Jesus and the Bible down people's throats is what makes everybody think that Christians are annoyin and I agree those that do that are annoyin and theyre pushin everybody away.
@TheRationalizer 6. Faith: The substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Yes God could do better and he has. Don't science tell us that everything in the solar system is set perfectly? If the earth was slighty closer to the sun we would burn up or if the moon was slightly closer it would also cause destruction. What I'm askin is through the vastness of the universe how everything just fell into the right place the first time as the result of a big bang.
@Dawnnywadebritches If "everything in the solar system is set perfectly" why do we have impact craters on this planet from meteors/asteroids/comets? Those and other events have caused multiple mass extinction events in earth's history.
Define "slightly". We are near the closest edge of the habitable zone. It is believed to extend about as far as Mars.
@TychoCelchu things can be set perfectly and still be destroyed. Just because its set perfectly don't mean its protected. I didn't know about all the cosmic evidence of a possible previous universe. That's pretty cool. I'll define "slightyly" as slightest although I could be wrong.
@Dawnnywadebritches The idea of our solar system being perfect for life on earth, just doesn't fit with the fact that the solar system and our own planet have made repeated attempts to wipe out life here. Ice ages, too.
The previous universe stuff is worth a read. There's also interesting work being done on what is thought to be other universes interacting with our own. We're pretty insignificant in this universe, now imagine possibly billions of other universes too. Mind blowing stuff.
@Dawnnywadebritches This may not have been the first big bang and the first universe. Recent work looking at cosmic microwave background radiation suggests the possibility of at least 1 previous universe. There are also a few variations around multiple universe theory.
This would mean that it didn't need to fall into "the right place the first time". Plus there are over 100 billion stars and an estimated 50 billion planets in our galaxy alone with about 1% in the habitable zone.
@TheRationalizer suddenly feel confident after prayin to God when before I had fear in my heart and so on and so forth. It makin me happy isn't the only reason I believe in it theres more to it. It gives me hope that one day when I die I'll go to Heaven and see my saved family and friends that have died before me. It gives me something to look forward to rather than just death.
It's your religion which tells you that you will never die, your religion requires a god to fulfil its promises. If Christianity is wrong (which it is) then there is a distinct possibility there is a god which does not grant you eternal life. It's possible this entity has the kind of attachment to us a biologist does for a bacteria culture growing in a jar - caring for the outcome but not the individual.
@Dawnnywadebritches Not to be rude or to interrupt, but your reason to believe makes you sound gullible enough to fall for scams like the Nigerian letters just because you would like the hope of looking forward to getting those 100 milion after paying the nigerian 50k to help him out of trouble with the paperwork so he can get his enheritance :s
Religion generally operates on much the same way as the Nigerian scam letters, ponder it for a bit if you are courageous ;)
@GronTheMighty Its all good man u aint interupted anything :) I believe in Jesus and the Bible but I'm certainly not gulible enough to fall for something like that nor am I rich enough lol but I know what u mean man and I appreciate u for tryin to help :)
@Dawnnywadebritches I'm glad you didn't take it as badly as most other people tend to :s
I also hope though that you can keep your sense of purpose even if one day your faith may shatter - i managed it, and you seem capable to be sure of the same ;)
@Dawnnywadebritches: You do realize, I presume, that your lack of understanding, and your sense of humor or lack thereof, has no standing on the truth of evolution, do you not?
@puncheex what did I say that was so funny? or not funny? Ok let me think here, we all come from a cotton pickin fish right? sounds understandable to me. Good luck askin a fish about our ancestry.
@Dawnnywadebritches: Yeah, the fish evolution you find comical. I was making the point that your sense of comedy doesn't have any influence on the truth of the paleontological evidence.
In Hebrew the word, "whale" translates into "dragon" which translates to "reptile"- With this and according to Genesis, Ocean dwellers were first to live, then reptiles, then birds- Science only assumes Genesis goes from ocean dwellers to birds. Genesis = ocean dwellers + reptiles + birds + etc....
I thought the word in the bible that described the creature that swallowed Jonah meant "Big Fish", and it was only translated into Whale by people translating it who mistakenly believed a fish big enough to swallow a human must be a whale.
TheRationalizer-Because you commented me... I'm not sure.I am just getting into translations.I know for a fact whale in Genesis (which is in Hebrew) Translates into dragon and dragon translates back into English as reptile-So In Genesis,reptiles were actually created before birds,just like science has said-
Ok thats what I just said.Whale = dragon.Leviathan is a dragon.I only accept absolute true facts.Not guesses or opinions.Most of evolution is true.I am not finished with my researches.I am not biased.I don't want to believe anything but absolute truth as fact-No you can't flatter me.I am a truth seeker.I have comfort.I am not looking to be accepted-That would be personal.I don't include my "personals" in my research.What is wrong with you?
There was another part that went with the first comment I made to you today,my computer is being retarded and it wouldn't post.I was trying to say maybe you are correct.Don't be a jerk-
I'm not being a jerk, I am just looking at what you say. My Isreali friend assures me that in the Torah it is referring to a whale, not a dragon (which by the way is a mythical creature).
You should consider PM'ing me instead if you want to, these comments don't allow you to copy/paste what each other said for context etc.
Ok. The old testiment is written in hebrew. It is translated from, Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English-....In Hebrew the word whale translates to dragon and that ,to reptile. When the English word for whale is translated back into Hebrew, it translates to monster. The word dinosaur was first used in 1841, 4000 years after Bible was written. When Bible says dragon, that translates to dinosaur.
When I wrote, Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English.... I was only stating a fact in the order the Bible was translated- If you want to find the root translations you have to translate starting with English and translate in reverse to get the true root meanings.Sure there are quicker and easier ways to translate this back but it will not be as accurate as the origional. Order of operations- It makes a big difference in the order we choose-
Scientists know of not one but several very primitive non trilobites that are almost trilobites (transitional fossils) .Which one became the granddaddy of trilobites?
The individual fossils do not line up in a row like they are waiting in line for photograper . The rock layer does show more species increasing with every succesion .
Look at the fossil record alone and you´ll get your answer, but of course anything that can be argued in favor of sudden appearence and stasis is discarded without one regret, that´s not the way science works, not at all.
Open your eyes, look at reality objetively, don´t let other tell you what to believe in, investigate, free your mind from oppresive and stupid indoctrinations, run the business for yourself not by others.-
107 ppl are dumbass christian rapists lol.
riskoish 3 weeks ago
I love fish fingers (Findus, not Bird's Eye).
250Gory 3 weeks ago
Koo koo.......
xterminatorSD 3 months ago
lolz its dad from fallout 3 =D
danielc0d 3 months ago
Take a look at a giant aquatic salamander. Pretty much the same thing. Last time I checked salamanders were quite old. Me thinks this is a crock of shit.
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision You sound like a moon shine,swilling hill-billy
ScottyDavid1964 3 months ago
@ScottyDavid1964
And you just sound like an asshole.
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
You quack like a duck.
ID is speculation.
Evolution is a fundamental axiom of Biology.
odinata 3 months ago
@odinata
I'm just trying to figure out why she is touting what is obviously a giant aquatic salamander as some sort of long lost transitional species between fish and tetrapods. And if I'm wrong, why am I wrong?
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
I'm just trying to figure out why you think your incredulity is capable of overturning Paleontology--especially since you've never studied the subject.
"...obviously a giant aquatic salamander..."
Come on, circus. Just say "God dunnit" and get it over with.
Your "arguments" are really just slop.
odinata 3 months ago
@odinata
So it isn't the fossil of a giant aquatic salamander? It's some "lesser" tetrapod that demonstrates evolution? How is it different?
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Are you going to assert your own nomenclature and analysis to the animal?
Why do you think you are more capable than say, oh, somebody who actually studies the matter?
odinata 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
Why do you feel that your religious opinions are more valid than the science of Biology?
odinata 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision Since when did salamanders have gills like that? + it shows that a fish can evolve into something looking a lot like a amphibian.
jbkgjbkg 1 week ago
@jbkgjbkg
Aquatic salamander, look it up. As for a demonstration of evolution, that is laughable. They don't even propose a mechanism as to how supposed genetic transition took place, and from what to what. jbkgjbkg? What kind of username is that? Hack.
circusOFprecision 1 week ago
@circusOFprecision Well look it up then, the genetic transition that is. It's quite simple and really easy to understand :) What does my username have to do with anything? It's just a random formation of words that has nothing to do with anything.
jbkgjbkg 1 week ago
I’m not sure if this is completely true but I’ve heard that the reason fishes developed finger like limbs hundreds of millions of years ago was so they could escape predators. If they were perused by predators they would climb out of the water to safety, and since there weren’t any land predators at that time, dry land would have been a safe haven. Over time they would develop lungs, allowing them to permanently get out of the water.
mattnashisgay 4 months ago
@mattnashisgay From what I understand it also has to do with the ever changing environment. As waters slowly receded, they left many pools and lakes, but with landmasses in between. If one fish could push itself up out of the water for a short time to get to another pool of water where the food was, this would be an evolutionary reason for the trait to continue.
roont 4 months ago
Depending on the evolutionary tree, limbs both grew before & after coming onto land.
The video shows evidence of limbs growing before ( likely using the limbs to scurry along the bottom, and then brief excursions onto land to feed (alligators) ).
Search for: walking fish
That is evidence, still living, of a fish growing primitive lungs, and using its fins to walk on land from one pond to another in search of what it needs.
Evolution is not an all or nothing game, multiple paths were taken...
looncraz 5 months ago
@fuck192ass me first!
roflc0pt3r99 6 months ago
For a great, detailed, enjoyable book on Tiktaalik (one such 'fish with fingers') see Your Inner Fish: A journey into the 3.5 Million Year History of the Human Body by Neil Shubin .
roont 7 months ago 2
@roont /watch?v=1D1JXqKdkrs It's not your inner fish after all ;)
Stianchez 4 months ago
@Stianchez This Carl Gallups person seems to have a real problem with his CAPS LOCK button. That right there is a red flag. However, I'll check out this video when I have some time and see what this is about. Also, someone who believes that the BP oil spill is fulfilling a Genesis prophesy, I'm not all that includes to take seriously.
roont 4 months ago
@roont Thank you for checking it out.
God bless you!
Stianchez 4 months ago
@Stianchez Wow. Do you really expect anyone with any understanding of science at all to swallow that nonsense? As soon as I heard the word 'creation', that was it. I know you (or whoever made that video) has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. You have no say on science. Nothing. Not one word. Stick to your fairy tales and bronze age rule books, and please keep 100 feet from science at all times.
roont 4 months ago
Fish with fingers!
fuschiadea 7 months ago
@ATBINTC not sure if trolling or just stupid.
fluffywafflez 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RUBBISH AND LIES!
Evolution is science fiction!
ATBINTC 8 months ago
@ATBINTC rofl
evolutionisscience 8 months ago
This is cool, but evolutionists say the evolutionary process is really slow, so there should be millions of these things
thelotrfan100 11 months ago
@thelotrfan100 Ya mean fossils? there are millions of em, but fossilisation is a rare phenomena and they are kinda hard to find.
Sweddude 10 months ago
@thelotrfan100 Finding vertabrate creatures fossilised is difficult because they are spread out by many (sometimes hundreds ) of miles per individual . With marine invertabrates they are found packed together in rich sea communities where 10 square feet may yield thousands of fossils . Invertabrate evolution is verified by dozens of species with complete unbroken gapless fossil records . In other words evolution is an undisputable fact for marine invertabrates.
flyingscience 5 months ago
Ever noticed that videos that actually have some evidence and references allways allow comments while creationist videos that make up their own evidence dont? :P
Sweddude 1 year ago
I have just one quibble with this, they say at the beginning that the first creatures to leave the water gave rise to today's reptiles and other tetrapods. The arthropods were likely on land long, long before, when fish were still developing the jaw bone. Not to mention the arthropods still have us tetrapods, and even all vertebrates (most of which are still old-fashion water-dwelling fish) beat in terms of number of individuals, by a wide margin.
CallMeNiel 1 year ago
im not sure if early land creatures only came from evolved sea creatures. Earliest simple forms of life might have existed on land too and evolved from there, probably not in such numbers and slower than sea life.
anditstruetoo 1 year ago
excellent...and so very interesting...search: the dawn of intelligence by kerry craig walker
superwhuffo1 1 year ago
lol how does a reptile grow hair and wings? this must be a delusion myth
TJBRaw777 1 year ago
@TJBRaw777 You must be a religeous guy.
PijnigeR 1 year ago
Actually man and other animals are still evolving. What or when will it stop.
MrJohnnyrace 1 year ago
@MrJohnnyrace It doesn't. Evolution doesn't stop. As long as there is life, living things will evolve.
roont 4 months ago
is there any more information about this fossil besides this video?
PrizeFighter 1 year ago
How does she know for sure the fossilized creature had gills? It seems like more made up Evolution fairytales. Wasn't the Cocalenthe (sp?) supposed to have transitional organs but found out it didn't when they saw living ones?
vizion24 1 year ago
@vizion24 You mean the order of Coelacanths, i guess.
Evolution is not determined by one single innovation in a particular time
Serpico261 1 year ago
"first mammals made there way from water..." ARE YOU SERIOUS??? this has got to be a blunder on your part... many animals made there way to land before mammals came about..
revskull 1 year ago
WTH?
OF COURSE The leg-like fins had to develope before moving on land.
They need a form of mobility if they want to get food. But even before the legs, they need to have evolved lungs that can breath in the air.
EpicAthiest 1 year ago
@EpicAthiest Some fish that live mostly on land today do not have lungs, so that adaptation could have come at a much later time.
hornetpalooza 1 year ago
Comment removed
EpicAthiest 1 year ago
Hey ummm where is the whole series?
dodobirdies 1 year ago
what a joke- anyone who would believe that this stuff is true, is one lost soul.
man has only been around for 6ooo yrs.
999Thip 1 year ago
@999Thip
LOL, troll.
YourGodAnswersToMe 1 year ago
@YourGodAnswersToMe ร กนืะ ีืกำพหะฟืก ไ้ฟะ ันี ะฟสารืเ ฟินีะขหน แนีสก ันี ยสำฟหำ กนืะ ีหำ ารกห หะีดด นื ันี ะีิำใใ หน เพนไ ีย ยสำฟหำใ
ไ้ฟะ รห ะพนสสใ what is troll ???
keep in mind you tube is world wide, and child play is not understood around the world-- how do you americans say it- oh yea-GROW UP LITTLE BOY...
999Thip 1 year ago
@999Thip
Oh, sorry. I thought only Americans were retarded enough to believe in creation. I didn't know that Thailand was suffering from the same epidemic of mental retardation.
YourGodAnswersToMe 1 year ago
@YourGodAnswersToMe i should not be so happy to know that you will spend eternity in hell, but i do get goose pimples..
999Thip 1 year ago
@999Thip Which hell? Tartarus, Aralu, Gimokodan, Hetgwauge, O le nu'u-o-nonoa, Mictlan, Adlivun, or Sheol?
lhvinny 1 year ago
@lhvinny hell dude.
999Thip 1 year ago
@999Thip
goose pimples? Now why do you think humans still have that?
"Goose bumps are often a response to cold: in animals covered with fur or hair, the erect hairs trap air to create a layer of insulation. Goose bumps can also be a response to anger or fear: the erect hairs make the animal appear larger, in order to intimidate enemies."
Just more evidence for evolution buddy boy. You don't have to like hearing it.
YourGodAnswersToMe 1 year ago
@YourGodAnswersToMe just keep thinking the way you do for eterniy bro
this wont give you eternal life with jesus christ,
learn the ways of jesus, he is your way to salvaltion.
not being a progressive socialist liberal kool aid drinker like you are.
god speed.
999Thip 1 year ago
@999Thip
What? Evolution is progressive socialist liberal now? HAHAHA, give me a break. Stop acting like a nut.
YourGodAnswersToMe 1 year ago 6
@YourGodAnswersToMe are you saying your not a liberal??
999Thip 1 year ago
@999Thip
Did you know there are creationists who actually disagree with you and believe the earth is older than 6000 years? So like which is it? theres a big difference, dont even answer that but the point is that your theory isn't as solid as you think it is....
Asure86 1 year ago
@Asure86 to let you know -who really cares about how old it is,
it wont pay your rent..
im focused on whats going to happen when i die,
i sure dont want to spend eternity in hell..
999Thip 1 year ago
@999Thip
You should care about how old it is, because it's what makes the very foundation of your argument. It also happens to be the easiest to debunk.
Asure86 1 year ago
@Asure86 the only thing i really care about is doing the right thing,
so when i stand before god almighty and give an account for my words, my actions
i will be able to look at him,
and not hide my face in shame.
999Thip 1 year ago
As if fish would want to come out f the water in the first place unless there was some sort of intelligence behind them transforming into somethhing other than fish. Evolution isn't a random happening. The Earth was supposed to be filled with all different sorts of creatures. Think about it,, why would a fish bother to come out of an enviroment that it was perfectly suited to. I don't know how anyone can't see that the land the air and the sea was meant to be filled with all different creatures.
Rob187ok 1 year ago
@Rob187ok During the Devonian period, the land had already been colonised by invertebrates and fish living in swamps had evolved fleshy, muscular limb-like fins and a flattened profile that helped them to push themselves past tree-roots and other obstacles in their swamp habitat and thrive in very shallow water. With the shoreline teeming with tasty bugs, fish that could more effectively exploit this food source were at an advantage, and passed on their increasingly amphibious traits.
Peter5930 1 year ago
@Rob187ok There are actually fish that bother to come out of the water today... like the mudskipper, which spends more time in land than on water, and the different species of lungfish, some of which even hibernate on land before returning to water. These fish are perfectly adapated to their enviroment, like all living creatures are. In this case, the environment is the frontier between water and land, between fish and amphibian
danoso0931 1 year ago
evolve.
granddad2002 1 year ago
It astounds me that so many have accepted the idea that earth was created from the "big bang." For life on earth to even exist, so many things have to play a part. Here are just a few examples: the earth is the exact distance from the sun to support life without harming it, best place in the galaxy for scientific discovery, exact size of earth to support life, exact magnetic field needed to block sun's rays, perfect tilt of axis, exact thickness of atmosphere to support life, exact crust, etc.
TBN4evr100 1 year ago
@TBN4evr100 Total fail.
infinity730 1 year ago
@TBN4evr100 yea your thinking backwards though. The universe is so vast that it is an almost certainty a planet with the perfect properties to support life was created.
FredJDouble 1 year ago
@FredJDouble Yes, but the probability of a life-supporting planet even forming by chance, even in a universe as huge as it is, is still miniscule. It is something like 1,000,000/1,000,000,000,000,000,000.... that's hardly almost certainly. And just the fact that the earth was planted in the best spot in the solar system and best spot in the galaxy for scientific discovery indicates that there is a Creator who wants us to explore and gain knowledge about the universe we live in.
TBN4evr100 1 year ago
@TBN4evr100 Pulling numbers directly out of your ass makes you look even more ignorant than you already are.
infinity730 1 year ago
@infinity730 I understand, but I said "something like..." I never said that was the exact number. But I do know that it is quite similar to that... I can find my source again if you want the specific number. and please do not verbally abuse me.
TBN4evr100 1 year ago
@TBN4evr100 Let's assume that each star has only one planet orbiting it, habitable or not. There around 200-400 billion stars in this galaxy, and another TRILLION (1,000,000,000,000) in the Andromeda galaxy. Those are only 2 galaxies, out of the BILLIONS that are in the universe (that we know of). So based on your number, there will be around a billion habitable planets, just like Earth, only in the part of the universe that we can watch
danoso0931 1 year ago
@danoso0931 Indeed, there are many stars and planets. But considering the extremely minute chance of even one planet or star being born of ultimate chaos, it is highly unlikely that there are more planets that are habitable. The numbers far outweigh your theory. Picture a house. After many years, the house does not rebuild itself. It deteriorates. How then, could nature perfect itself over time, when it in fact proves that the opposite happens? Just because you say it does not make it so.
TBN4evr100 1 year ago
@TBN4evr100 Minute chance of stars being born? You are probably not aware that stars are still being formed today. It is not just because I say so. Look it up anywhere. And I used your numbers, and still can come up with a billion habitable planets, so dont say that the "numbers outweight my theory".Take away another three zeroes if you want. It's a matter of statistics. Even if there is only 1 habitable planet for every 100 million galaxies, there still will be 170 million of them
danoso0931 1 year ago
I meant a minute chance of stars being born out of chaos, at the beginning of time. Think about the "big bang", ignoring the fact that there is no viable explanation for where the matter came from to allow it to occur. As you go throw the supposed steps of the big bang, the chances of each step occuring decrease exponentially. And an explosion big enough to expand matter throughout the known universe but not eradicate all life forms? If this is true, then the nuclear threat is false.
TBN4evr100 1 year ago
@TBN4evr100 an explosion big enough to expand matter throughout the known universe but not eradicate all life forms?
examine that statement. i'd hate to be the one to point out how worthy of ridicule it is. i think it could stand for a bit of revision. quickly, while you have the chance.
ashxlon 1 year ago
@TBN4evr100 Plus, how do you know we are in the best spot in the galaxy for scientific discovery? From how many other spots have we watched in order for you to make the comparison? You cannot make a claim based on a sample size of 1. And our spot is hardly helpful... we cannot watch a full quarter (or more) of the milky way because it is blocked by gas and dust
danoso0931 1 year ago
The first fish fingers! XD
MrNick2D 1 year ago
Is this a science-fiction docu ?
ExperiencedGhost 1 year ago
OH YEAH!!! E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N is T-R-U-T-H!!!...
TheJoshJman 1 year ago
I belong to the oldest fossil club in the USA . I have made many videos of beginners fossil classes , field trips and paleontologists lectures just 4 you fossil lovers . Just search under Dry Dredgers or Cincinnati fossils .New videos added monthly !
flyingscience 1 year ago
A question for evolutionists.
How many years of wearing clothing do you think went by before "man" lost most of his body hair?
stormyandcold 1 year ago
He he he... no, he almost certainly lost his body hair first.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@stormyandcold: None. The hair (most of it) was lost well before clothing was probably developed. The theory that I've heard is that the hair was lost when man came down from the trees and began hunting for meat. The one way that man is a successful hunter (besides developing weapons) is to use his stamina to run down game over long distances. This would have put a premium on a good cooling mechanism. Man (and horses) are the only animals who sweat sufficient for cooling purposes.
puncheex 1 year ago
i always wanted to be a mermaid lol
xXshirenuXx 1 year ago 3
if you there trying to say we came from fish now fuck these guys lol
xXshirenuXx 1 year ago
Tetrapods came from fish... mammals are tetrapods... humans are mammals... if you go back far enough (like 360-400 million years) you had fish ancestors.
jrblack83 1 year ago
@xXshirenuXx: You got it. In spades, with bells on. Incredulity is a logical fallacy, probably the biggest phallacy you possess.
puncheex 1 year ago
Evolution as in "adaption" is true. Even that has strict limits and has barrier walls that it cannot pass, to the point of creating a different animal-Adaption is true...Morphing is not.That's only a silly fairytail-
shotsxxx 1 year ago
@shotsxxx: What is the basis for your assertion? Speciation has been observed in the lab and in nature.
What are these "strict limits" and "barrier walls"? What is the mechanism? How can they be characterized so you can predict where these limits occur, say, between a couple of butterflies, or between a camel and a llama, or any two given animals?
puncheex 1 year ago
We have two fewer chromosomes then the great apes, leading to the conclusion that two of out chromosomes must have gotten fused...This fused chromosome has been identified in us...Even with DNA at it's infancy, it has proved that all life is connected and all evolved.
rogan71 1 year ago
rogan71- We have two more chromosomes than bats.Does that mean two were fused and bats came from humans?- "MUST HAVE gotten fused"-again another biased want stated as a fact-No that has not been proved a true fact of science-Not even a scientific fact-The morphing aspect has not been proved a true fact-
shotsxxx 1 year ago
If 96% of our genetic make up resembled bats, and we looked and appeared to be part of the bat family, then yes. In this case having fused chromosomes would be further evidence...You love taking things out of context.
The religious compartmentalize information. This is why they usually give you two choices like - everything must have a creator or it came out of chance from nothing. - This is due to the limited imagination and in-the-box thinking of your average follower.
rogan71 1 year ago
rogan71- For one don't tell me what Christians think or how they are.I know that better than you-So what you are saying is because we LOOK so close to apes your fairytale must be true-You have a set of rules when it benefits you and change them when you get in a corner-Unbiased science does not work that way-You are silly-You are not smarter than Believers just because you say so, or because they dont believe your fairy tails-
shotsxxx 1 year ago
shotsxxx - Talking with you is like talking to a dog. You repeat the same action thoughtlessly and instinctively. You haven't registered a word anyone's said, and repeat the same empty rhetoric, that gives you away as a non-thinker.
How do you equate provable, observable science with fairy tales, yet put your faith in something unprovable, inelegant and fundamentally flawed....To me this is a form of mental illness. Belief is one thing, idiotic repetition of unprovable myths is something else.
rogan71 1 year ago
rogan71-Ok since you are not smart enough to answer a simple question I will answer it for you- The horseshoe crab did not evolve or go extinct because your theory is a load of crap- You are everything you accouse me of- You are a loser !
shotsxxx 1 year ago
rogan71- You are still avoiding the horseshoe crab question...Why did the horseshoe crab not evolve or go extinct?- Do you realise how stupid you looked by your last post?
shotsxxx 1 year ago
I know piltdown man was a long time ago and we just should ignore it ever happened. That proves science has been flawed at least from the time of piltdown- So that we would call a silly fairy tale a fact-Evolutionist want evolution to be fact so bad, they have corrupted science-It is against scientific method to call a theory a fact-They are not the same-I can't imagine what other "evidence" science has distorted or even completely made up, and call fact-
shotsxxx 1 year ago
This Human "tail" is yet another fine example of how people that claim they base their beliefs on the facts of science,because science "proved" it-Disregards true facts that science really does prove-Because it conflicts with their fairy tales-Science is the excuse-Agenda is the reason-
shotsxxx 1 year ago
How can it be said that the presence of this "tail" brings us tangibly and inescapably to the reality of evolution if we cannot exclude the possibility that it is nothing more than a dermal appendage coincidently located in the caudal region? As a matter of fact ,even a superficial reading of Ledley's article makes clear that this so-called tail was no tail at all but was nothing more than an anomalous growth coincidentally located in the caudal region.
shotsxxx 1 year ago
see "Evolution and the Human Tail" by Dr. Fred D. Ledley--- This was refuted in 1982 as a tail.Ledley tried so hard to get the tail accepted as evidence for evolution.He failed-All scientist concluded that it is only a growth and not a tail and has absolutely nothing at all to do with evolution-No "new" evidence can change this conclusion-People like fairy tales I guess-
shotsxxx 1 year ago
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with REPEATED TESTING. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. A hypothesis is not a theory and a theory is not a fact.-
shotsxxx 1 year ago
Another thing, When I get sick and go to the doctor, he does not give me medicine that is only still in the theory stage. He gives me medicine that has been proven a true fact that cures whatever illness I may have. Medicine that has been proved through testing, experimentation,and observation.- It is illegal to administer medicine that is still in the theory/experiment stage-Theres a reason for that..........theories can be incorrect-Do not call a theory,a fact.
shotsxxx 1 year ago
People assume the "creepy crawley creatures" that walked on the earth includes reptiles- Read Genesis one again carefully and check out the Hebrew interpretation of whale- If researched correctly, real science does indeed back the Bible-
shotsxxx 1 year ago
Science backs the bible? Are you kidding?
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens AND the Earth.
This is utter rubbish. The "heavens" existed for billions of years before the Earth formed, they were not created together "in the beginning".
The opening line of the bible is easily proven to be false. That is NOT a good start, is it?
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
TheRationalizer- Read the Bible instead of memorizing what fools think it says-You look foolish-The Bible clearly states that the "heavens" were made before the earth-It does not say they were created at the same time-The opening line is a perfect start-but how would you know, you haven't read it for yourself. And if you did read it, it's apparent you did not understand what you read. You try to look like an intellect but you look ignorant-
shotsxxx 1 year ago
Right, so it contradicts itself.
Universe age approx 13.7 billion years.
Earth age approx 4.6 billion years.
That's 66% into the current life of the Universe the Earth came along. In what way does that represent "in the beginning"? It is more than half way through the life of the universe at the point the bible was written.
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
I like animals, they're cool but readin about their genetics isn't very interestin to me. I'm not sure how many things I can say about an upside down pouch. What other animals have an evolutionary flaw? What type of primate did we supposedly evolve from and does that type of primate still exist?
Dawnnywadebritches 1 year ago
1: Every mammal has a nerve that goes from its neck to its larynx, but one side goes around the heart. In a Giraffe that's a 15 foot detour!
2: Blue,Finn,Hunchback whales have fused leg bones on their pelvis.
3: Male mammals have nipples.
You only need one imperfection to prove a perfect entity didn't create a perfect creation.
We evolved from chim-like creatures, they are now extinct but their descendants exist (us and chimps), we have plenty of fossil evidence, why would god make those?
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
Us coming from a certain type of monkey that is now extinct or any type of monkey for that matter just don't make sense to me. I don't understand we all ultimately come from a fish. How could humans come from a fish? I'm not tryin to be disrespectful but imperfection #3 is sorta comical to me. I mean I know male mammals have nipples and all but for some odd reason it struck me as comical
Dawnnywadebritches 1 year ago
"Like". They looked like monkeys, but were not monkeys OR humans.
To change a chimp to look like a human.
1: Lose most of the hair.
2: Change the bone proportions.
Did you know we share the exact same skeleton? Just the sizes of the bones change. Did you know that the skull consists of 33 parts. Did you know the chimp has exactly the same? And horses, and all other mammals too?
They are the same skeleton, with the sizes reproportioned (mutated).
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
@TheRationalizer hey rationalizer we havent talked in a while. I was just lettin you know I never got that book however I respect your opinion about evolution and wont go around claiming that it doesn't exist at all
Dawnnywadebritches 1 year ago
@Dawnnywadebritches
It's not my opinion, it's an observed fact :-D
You really should read the book though. There is also "Why evolution is true", I have it but have not yet read it.
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
@TheRationalizer I didnt mean it that way lol if i were to study a science it would be chemistry. I'm not sure why but I always liked the idea of mixing chemicals and makin different things.
Dawnnywadebritches 1 year ago
@Dawnnywadebritches
Then you should buy a chemistry book. I did last year, was very interesting.
However, the fact is that you seem to know little of the scientific theory in question or the mountains of evidence supporting it, yet out of your ignorance on the subject you decide it is false....because a really old book says something else.
Are you really happy to argue from a position of ignorance?
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
@TheRationalizer I suppose I am I mean I cant just throw away something that I've been taught all my life. I understand u look at that as brainwashin and if thats the case well then I'm brainwashed. I'm a Christian but I dont look down on folks who arent all I'm supposed to do is tell folks about Jesus Christ and what u do from there is ur business and i wont judge u for it. Look at us we pickin up on a year old conversation lol it is good talkin to u again :)
Dawnnywadebritches 11 months ago
@Dawnnywadebritches
>I can't throw away something that I've been taught all my life
A biologist lecturer at a university used to tell their students that evolution of the cell is impossible because of X,Y,Z. One day a biologist specialising in the field of cell biology did a lecture at the university. At the end of the talk the first lecturer shook his hand and said "Thank you, I have been wrong all these years".
cont...
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
...cont
If I could remember the source of this true-life story I'd cite it :-) The only logical approach to knowledge is to accept that facts are facts, and that according to the facts ideas are more/less probable. No matter how good the hypothesis, it should be abandoned if the facts show it is wrong.
There's nothing wrong with being wrong, only in continuing to be wrong. In admitting you WERE wrong you are no longer wrong.
Change of stance is a liberating experience, stagnation is delusion.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer Would it satisfy u if I just said ok i'm wrong ur right? Its not a matter to me as to who is wrong or right what matters to me is what I believe to be right and its something that is embedded in my heart, mind, and soul so I can't just up and do away with it suddenly nor do I want to
Dawnnywadebritches 11 months ago
@Dawnnywadebritches
Not really :) I actually don't care if I was right at the start, I only care that if I was wrong at the start I know it by the end.
Of course you are free to believe whatever you want, but I do find it odd that you would continue to believe something is true despite the evidence to the contrary just because it makes you feel happy. Can you explain that to me?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer I'll try I mean its sort of a faith believing thing meaning that one would believe in God without actually seein God but knowin that He exists because of the different things that we have such as the air we breathe or the beautiful natural scenery such as the blue sky or the sunset on the mountains or because of different happenings such as someone prayin for a blessing and suddenly getting it when they had absolutely no way of gettin it themselves beforehand or how I could
Dawnnywadebritches 11 months ago
@Dawnnywadebritches
There is a big difference between believing in god (deism) and believing you know what god wants (theism).
Would god want you to deny an undeniable fact in order to believe something? Trust me, evolution is an undeniable fact as you will see when you read a good book about it.
*IF* god exists is one thing, whether it has a religion is a different one. Christianity is clearly man made, even Genesis 1 is scientifically inaccurate - that's not a good start is it? :)
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer sorry I took so long. I know u tryin to help and lead me in the right direction and I appreciate u for it but the fact is I believe in Jesus not just because it makes me happy but it gives me a sense of purpose. Whats the point in living if theres nothing to live for or nothing to strive for? Theres unfailing love and purpose with Jesus. I hate to think of it any other way
Dawnnywadebritches 11 months ago
@Dawnnywadebritches
If you believe in something that is not true because it makes you feel a sense of purpose, does that make it true?
Do you think there is no purpose in the lives of everyone who does not believe in Jesus? I have a wife and 4 kids, they are my purpose, I get a lot more love from them than I ever did from Jesus (and I really did love Jesus.)
As for unfailing love. He certainly fails to love those he burns in hell.
PS: You can believe in god without religion.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer as i've said before Im not judgin anybody. If u have a sense of purpose in ur family then thats cool with me Im not askin u to believe what I believe all Im sayin is that I get a sense of purpose from Jesus and whether anybody else does or not isn't my business. To answer ur question I agree with u just because I believe in or feel something that gives me a sense of purpose doesnt make it true. Those who burn in hell make their own decision.
Dawnnywadebritches 11 months ago
@Dawnnywadebritches
There are some lyrics from a song I like "Just because you feel good, doesn't make it right" :)
Any purpose you feel you get from Jesus you can have without Jesus. The *only* thing you cannot get is the feeling that there is something infinitely better than you which loves you. However, what I found was instead I no longer get the feeling I am infinitely imperfect. I am just average, normal.
The fact is, the bible is wrong, so why believe any of it?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer Jesus says that whoever calls on him and asks him into their heart will be saved from hell and to live as such until they die. Those who don't call on him wont be saved but if u dont believe in any of that its cool with me. I'm sorry if I offended u man.
Dawnnywadebritches 11 months ago
@Dawnnywadebritches
You haven't offended me, but I have questions.
1: What kind of an entity would create hell and would then send people there for eternity for NOT believing something for which there is no evidence?
2: Knowing these people are being tortured, is heaven really heaven or just an absence of torture?
3: Who would want to worship such an entity?
cont...
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
[2]
Are you not at all suspicious that the condition by which you can avoid eternal torture is "Believe this thing"?
The religion paints god as an evil unjust torturer that is easily angered. This threat is then used to propagate the religion by saying "Just accept Jesus."
Your religion exists with the interest of spreading your religion, nothing else.
And why believe without evidence when this causes people to believe "wrong" religions? Couldn't god do better than those man made religions?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer 1. I'm not sure but I wouldn't want anything to do with such an unmerciful entity. I mean if I worshipped an unmerciful god I wouldnt be very merciful myself. 2. I would say that heaven would be more than just an absence of torture. Its also a place that I look foward to goin when I die. 3. No one would want to worship such an unmerciful entity. 4. Yes I am a bit suspicous of it when it comes to something that I know doesn't line up with the Bible.
Dawnnywadebritches 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer I'm not just going to believe in anything. 5. Jesus is pretty simple when it comes to accepting him. You either accept him or not and just because you don't accept him don't mean that he's gonna get mad and kill you. Jesus don't force himself on anybody its these folks goin around tryin to shove Jesus and the Bible down people's throats is what makes everybody think that Christians are annoyin and I agree those that do that are annoyin and theyre pushin everybody away.
Dawnnywadebritches 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer 6. Faith: The substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Yes God could do better and he has. Don't science tell us that everything in the solar system is set perfectly? If the earth was slighty closer to the sun we would burn up or if the moon was slightly closer it would also cause destruction. What I'm askin is through the vastness of the universe how everything just fell into the right place the first time as the result of a big bang.
Dawnnywadebritches 11 months ago
@Dawnnywadebritches
1: Will you really enjoy he'll knowing I am burning in a lake of fire?
2: Jesus DOES punish you for not believing, in a lake of fire.
3: The Moon once crashed into our planet, it is still moving away at 3.8cm per year.
4: There are billions of galaxies, with billions of stars. Planets at our distance from the sun are inevitable.
I could never be happy in heaven knowing he'll exists, could you?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
That's Hell, not he'll...my iPad auto-corrects my spelling :)
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@Dawnnywadebritches If "everything in the solar system is set perfectly" why do we have impact craters on this planet from meteors/asteroids/comets? Those and other events have caused multiple mass extinction events in earth's history.
Define "slightly". We are near the closest edge of the habitable zone. It is believed to extend about as far as Mars.
TychoCelchu 11 months ago
@TychoCelchu things can be set perfectly and still be destroyed. Just because its set perfectly don't mean its protected. I didn't know about all the cosmic evidence of a possible previous universe. That's pretty cool. I'll define "slightyly" as slightest although I could be wrong.
Dawnnywadebritches 11 months ago
@Dawnnywadebritches The idea of our solar system being perfect for life on earth, just doesn't fit with the fact that the solar system and our own planet have made repeated attempts to wipe out life here. Ice ages, too.
The previous universe stuff is worth a read. There's also interesting work being done on what is thought to be other universes interacting with our own. We're pretty insignificant in this universe, now imagine possibly billions of other universes too. Mind blowing stuff.
TychoCelchu 11 months ago
@TychoCelchu i believe the universe has boundaries for other universes.
thelotrfan100 11 months ago
@Dawnnywadebritches This may not have been the first big bang and the first universe. Recent work looking at cosmic microwave background radiation suggests the possibility of at least 1 previous universe. There are also a few variations around multiple universe theory.
This would mean that it didn't need to fall into "the right place the first time". Plus there are over 100 billion stars and an estimated 50 billion planets in our galaxy alone with about 1% in the habitable zone.
TychoCelchu 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer suddenly feel confident after prayin to God when before I had fear in my heart and so on and so forth. It makin me happy isn't the only reason I believe in it theres more to it. It gives me hope that one day when I die I'll go to Heaven and see my saved family and friends that have died before me. It gives me something to look forward to rather than just death.
Dawnnywadebritches 11 months ago
@Dawnnywadebritches
It's your religion which tells you that you will never die, your religion requires a god to fulfil its promises. If Christianity is wrong (which it is) then there is a distinct possibility there is a god which does not grant you eternal life. It's possible this entity has the kind of attachment to us a biologist does for a bacteria culture growing in a jar - caring for the outcome but not the individual.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@Dawnnywadebritches Not to be rude or to interrupt, but your reason to believe makes you sound gullible enough to fall for scams like the Nigerian letters just because you would like the hope of looking forward to getting those 100 milion after paying the nigerian 50k to help him out of trouble with the paperwork so he can get his enheritance :s
Religion generally operates on much the same way as the Nigerian scam letters, ponder it for a bit if you are courageous ;)
GronTheMighty 11 months ago
@GronTheMighty Its all good man u aint interupted anything :) I believe in Jesus and the Bible but I'm certainly not gulible enough to fall for something like that nor am I rich enough lol but I know what u mean man and I appreciate u for tryin to help :)
Dawnnywadebritches 11 months ago
@Dawnnywadebritches I'm glad you didn't take it as badly as most other people tend to :s
I also hope though that you can keep your sense of purpose even if one day your faith may shatter - i managed it, and you seem capable to be sure of the same ;)
GronTheMighty 11 months ago
@GronTheMighty Thanks man :)
Dawnnywadebritches 11 months ago
@Dawnnywadebritches: You do realize, I presume, that your lack of understanding, and your sense of humor or lack thereof, has no standing on the truth of evolution, do you not?
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex what did I say that was so funny? or not funny? Ok let me think here, we all come from a cotton pickin fish right? sounds understandable to me. Good luck askin a fish about our ancestry.
Dawnnywadebritches 1 year ago
@Dawnnywadebritches: Yeah, the fish evolution you find comical. I was making the point that your sense of comedy doesn't have any influence on the truth of the paleontological evidence.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex I'm pretty sure it don't but it still makes me laugh
Dawnnywadebritches 1 year ago
In Hebrew the word, "whale" translates into "dragon" which translates to "reptile"- With this and according to Genesis, Ocean dwellers were first to live, then reptiles, then birds- Science only assumes Genesis goes from ocean dwellers to birds. Genesis = ocean dwellers + reptiles + birds + etc....
shotsxxx 1 year ago
I thought the word in the bible that described the creature that swallowed Jonah meant "Big Fish", and it was only translated into Whale by people translating it who mistakenly believed a fish big enough to swallow a human must be a whale.
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
TheRationalizer-Because you commented me... I'm not sure.I am just getting into translations.I know for a fact whale in Genesis (which is in Hebrew) Translates into dragon and dragon translates back into English as reptile-So In Genesis,reptiles were actually created before birds,just like science has said-
shotsxxx 1 year ago
I just asked my Israeli friend, he said
"Leviathan in English means Whale"
The link he showed me lists....
whale ; (biblical) leviathan, sea monster ; (colloquial) gangster chief, "big fish"
So you accept the parts of evolution that support what you want to believe, and discard all the other parts? That's a bit convenient isn't it?
I accept the one person who says I am beautiful and reject all those who say I am a bit weird looking, therefore I am gorgeous!
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
Ok thats what I just said.Whale = dragon.Leviathan is a dragon.I only accept absolute true facts.Not guesses or opinions.Most of evolution is true.I am not finished with my researches.I am not biased.I don't want to believe anything but absolute truth as fact-No you can't flatter me.I am a truth seeker.I have comfort.I am not looking to be accepted-That would be personal.I don't include my "personals" in my research.What is wrong with you?
shotsxxx 1 year ago
There was another part that went with the first comment I made to you today,my computer is being retarded and it wouldn't post.I was trying to say maybe you are correct.Don't be a jerk-
shotsxxx 1 year ago
I'm not being a jerk, I am just looking at what you say. My Isreali friend assures me that in the Torah it is referring to a whale, not a dragon (which by the way is a mythical creature).
You should consider PM'ing me instead if you want to, these comments don't allow you to copy/paste what each other said for context etc.
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
Ok. The old testiment is written in hebrew. It is translated from, Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English-....In Hebrew the word whale translates to dragon and that ,to reptile. When the English word for whale is translated back into Hebrew, it translates to monster. The word dinosaur was first used in 1841, 4000 years after Bible was written. When Bible says dragon, that translates to dinosaur.
shotsxxx 1 year ago
The word in Hebrew means a few things, such as "big fish" for example, you have to read it in context to know which meaning is being used.
Hebrew->Greek->Latin->English
That has got to be one of the weakest arguments I have ever seen, sorry :-D
Only the Hebrew is relevant, when you talk to me I infer the English meaning, what your words mean in Chinese is irrelevant.
For fun Google for BabelFish. Translate text to another language, then translate the translation back to English.
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
When I wrote, Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English.... I was only stating a fact in the order the Bible was translated- If you want to find the root translations you have to translate starting with English and translate in reverse to get the true root meanings.Sure there are quicker and easier ways to translate this back but it will not be as accurate as the origional. Order of operations- It makes a big difference in the order we choose-
shotsxxx 1 year ago
For Clarity sake : there are thousands of full time professional paleontologists (who often teach).Only a hand full of full time fossil hunters.
flyingscience 2 years ago
Erm, because there are so few fossils?
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
Scientists know of not one but several very primitive non trilobites that are almost trilobites (transitional fossils) .Which one became the granddaddy of trilobites?
flyingscience 2 years ago
The individual fossils do not line up in a row like they are waiting in line for photograper . The rock layer does show more species increasing with every succesion .
flyingscience 2 years ago
Just watch the video and learn the TRUTH>
gregrutz 2 years ago
So why did god make trilobites and let them live for millions of years and then kill them?
gregrutz 2 years ago
greg
I already told you, by every mean but not by evolution...that´s is my theory, that´s my explanation...
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
@chuyaventuras What other means besides evolution ? There is no other means known to science . Alien transportation ? God miracles?
flyingscience 2 years ago
flying
What other means beside evolution?
Look at the fossil record alone and you´ll get your answer, but of course anything that can be argued in favor of sudden appearence and stasis is discarded without one regret, that´s not the way science works, not at all.
Open your eyes, look at reality objetively, don´t let other tell you what to believe in, investigate, free your mind from oppresive and stupid indoctrinations, run the business for yourself not by others.-
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
Amateur fossil hunters make the bulk of discoveries because they far outnumber the few professionals .
flyingscience 2 years ago