Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Ktoyou]

Creationists. Some creationists are Chrsitians, but not all of them. YE creationists see evidence as a vampire sees a crucifix.

You mock without forethought. The Bible was divinely inspired by God and given to man. Would it have made any sense to use an explanation other than days? No, it would not have been understandable, and therefore, useless.

Would God have ever explained, as in a footnote, a half billion years? No, He would not. People read scripture as it was meant to read.

 

[iouae]

I don't understand your question.

Many animals died in the flood and many of these are what you find in the fossil record. Other animals have died throughout history, most of which you will not find any fossil record since fossils do not form in the vast majority of cases. Bones of dead things normally just dry out and turn to dust.

So how do you explain the worldwide sorting of fossils, with, for example, fossilised fish (from the Devonian) all buried deepest, because, as one knows, fish would drown first in a flood.

 

[iouae]

They were on the ark... 2 of each kind... lots of room. That's why we have legends of dragons such as that of Marco Polo... cave drawings... description by Job, etc.

Thanks for at least understanding the question 6days. Right Divider is acting like he cannot understand the question as to why fossils are sorted, worldwide.

We have books today on dinosaurs. They had cave paintings. Maybe God boasted about dinosaurs to Job. Still does not mean dinosaurs were alive and walked with humans. Its such a long stretch of wishful thinking to believe some ancient manuscript from someone claiming to see dinosaurs. Its like the folks who forever are seeing aliens, or flying saucers. BTW I do believe THEY see them. Problem is nobody else does.

The Bible has a reference to flying, fire-breathing flying dragons in Numbers 21:6.

The KJV translates Strong's H8314 in the following manner: fiery serpent (3x), fiery (2x), seraphim (2x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
serpent, fiery serpent
poisonous serpent (fiery from burning effect of poison)
seraph, seraphim
majestic beings with 6 wings, human hands or voices in attendance upon God

If Marco Polo or Josephus saw dinosaurs, please, you search for this reference on "AnswersinGenesis" and post it here.

 

[False Prophet]

When hemlines rose in the 1920's.

 

[6days]

as one knows, fish would drown first in a flood.

Dead fish, jellyfish, whales etc are consumed / destroyed by scavengers and oxidation. They don't become fossilized. However, the fossil record is likely 95% marine creatures. Fossilized fish, jellyfish and whales is consistent with the global flood model.

 

[6days]

We have books today on dinosaurs. They had cave paintings.

Awesome! Did they draw pictures of humans?

If Marco Polo or Josephus saw dinosaurs, please, you search for this reference on "AnswersinGenesis" and post it here.

Josephus saw dragons? And I'm not sure why you want a link to Answers in Genesis? (They do have some very good articles but it is not a site I usually link to). Marco Polo however did describe a dragon..."Here are found snakes and huge serpents, ten paces in length and ten spans in girth [that is, 50 feet long and 100 inches in girth]. At the fore part, near the head, they have two short legs, each with three claws, as well as eyes larger than a loaf and very glaring. The jaws are wide enough to swallow a man, the teeth are large and sharp, and their whole appearance is so formidable that neither man, nor any kind of animal can approach them without terror. Others are of smaller size, being eight, six, or five paces long.


Polo continued his chapter by explaining how the local citizens of the area hunted and killed the creatures. He noted that the creatures were nocturnal (assisted by “eyes larger than a loaf”), dwelling in “caverns” during the day to avoid the heat. After the creatures killed their prey, Polo wrote that they would find a water source such as a lake, spring, or river. The serpents’ massive bodies left “deep impressions” in their paths “as if a heavy beam had been drawn along the sands” . (Apologetics Press)

 

[Silent Hunter]

It is really up to YOU to prove all life DIDN'T arise from inert matter and energy resulting in life as it exists today and that your preferred deity is entirely responsible.

No it isn't and the reason is summed up in one word.

Science!

You claimed "Goddidit!!!" earlier and seemed eager to submit evidence. Have you changed your mind?

Spontaneous order sorting itself out from universal explosive chaos, resulting in abiogenesis and apes that type, is insane.

Bald assertion. Your argument(s) from personal incredulity STILL isn't (aren't) persuasive.

 

[iouae]

Awesome! Did they draw pictures of humans?

Josephus saw dragons? And I'm not sure why you want a link to Answers in Genesis? (They do have some very good articles but it is not a site I usually link to). Marco Polo however did describe a dragon..."Here are found snakes and huge serpents, ten paces in length and ten spans in girth [that is, 50 feet long and 100 inches in girth]. At the fore part, near the head, they have two short legs, each with three claws, as well as eyes larger than a loaf and very glaring. The jaws are wide enough to swallow a man, the teeth are large and sharp, and their whole appearance is so formidable that neither man, nor any kind of animal can approach them without terror. Others are of smaller size, being eight, six, or five paces long.


Polo continued his chapter by explaining how the local citizens of the area hunted and killed the creatures. He noted that the creatures were nocturnal (assisted by “eyes larger than a loaf”), dwelling in “caverns” during the day to avoid the heat. After the creatures killed their prey, Polo wrote that they would find a water source such as a lake, spring, or river. The serpents’ massive bodies left “deep impressions” in their paths “as if a heavy beam had been drawn along the sands” . (Apologetics Press)

All this says is that Marco Polo saw a big snake. Big deal.

 

[iouae]

Dead fish, jellyfish, whales etc are consumed / destroyed by scavengers and oxidation. They don't become fossilized. However, the fossil record is likely 95% marine creatures. Fossilized fish, jellyfish and whales is consistent with the global flood model.

Huh? Fish would be last to drown in Noah's flood. Yet the Devonian era is wall to wall fish fossils, fossilised early (low down).

 

[The Barbarian]

You mock without forethought.

Hindsight. That's the difference in behavior we see.

The Bible was divinely inspired by God and given to man.

Young Earth creationism, on the other hand, is a modern revision of God's word.

Would it have made any sense to use an explanation other than days?

Billions of years, natural selection, and genetics would have confused everyone, and it wasn't what the Bible is about, anyway.

No, it would not have been understandable, and therefore, useless.

So some things are in parables and allegories in the Bible. Truth doesn't have to be in the form of history.

Would God have ever explained, as in a footnote, a half billion years? No, He would not. People read scripture as it was meant to read.

It's not meant to tell us about the windows in a solid dome of the sky. Those who focus on such things are avoiding the message He's giving us.

 

[The Barbarian]

Awesome! Did they draw pictures of humans?

Josephus saw dragons? And I'm not sure why you want a link to Answers in Genesis? (They do have some very good articles but it is not a site I usually link to). Marco Polo however did describe a dragon..."Here are found snakes and huge serpents, ten paces in length and ten spans in girth [that is, 50 feet long and 100 inches in girth]. At the fore part, near the head, they have two short legs, each with three claws, as well as eyes larger than a loaf and very glaring. The jaws are wide enough to swallow a man, the teeth are large and sharp, and their whole appearance is so formidable that neither man, nor any kind of animal can approach them without terror. Others are of smaller size, being eight, six, or five paces long.


Polo continued his chapter by explaining how the local citizens of the area hunted and killed the creatures. He noted that the creatures were nocturnal (assisted by “eyes larger than a loaf”), dwelling in “caverns” during the day to avoid the heat. After the creatures killed their prey, Polo wrote that they would find a water source such as a lake, spring, or river. The serpents’ massive bodies left “deep impressions” in their paths “as if a heavy beam had been drawn along the sands” . (Apologetics Press)

There were, on mainland Asia, much bigger versions of this "dragon" (which is what Asians call them).

The tracks Polo spoke of?

 

[Right Divider]

So how do you explain the worldwide sorting of fossils, with, for example, fossilised fish (from the Devonian) all buried deepest, because, as one knows, fish would drown first in a flood.

You are using a false premise, therefore your conclusions are also false.

 

[iouae]

You are using a false premise, therefore your conclusions are also false.

Explain this using any premise you like, especially the layer of fish fossils, which mainstream science calls the Devonian period. Why would fish drown in the flood, at all, or so soon as to be deposited first?

 

[Right Divider]

Explain this using any premise you like, especially the layer of fish fossils, which mainstream science calls the Devonian period. Why would fish drown in the flood, at all, or so soon as to be deposited first?

Pretty pictures are NOT facts. They are based on some opinions that cannot be verified (though many will scream that they are "facts").

I told you why fish would die in the flood, but you don't listen. The flood was not some gentle rising of water levels around the globe.

 

[iouae]

Pretty pictures are NOT facts. They are based on some opinions that cannot be verified (though many will scream that they are "facts").

I told you why fish would die in the flood, but you don't listen. The flood was not some gentle rising of water levels around the globe.

This was what you said...
"Many animals died in the flood and many of these are what you find in the fossil record. Other animals have died throughout history, most of which you will not find any fossil record since fossils do not form in the vast majority of cases. Bones of dead things normally just dry out and turn to dust."

My apologies. That was a brilliant three liner explanation of the geologic column.

 

[Silent Hunter]

... or not. Is this red herring successfully now at an end?

It never was a red herring, but thanks for asking.

Well, yes it was and is but I’m certain you’re not through using it, are you?

Its the definition of The Scientific Method, if you have a problem with it I'm not the person with which you have issue. If you have a better method I'm sure the Nobel Committee would enjoy hearing from you.

Your "definition" is not validated by the great respect that you have for this organization.

Well, no, my “respect” for the Nobel Committee doesn’t validate anything. The Scientific Method is validated by the international prestige of the Nobel Committee, never mind that The Scientific Method is the most useful tool available for investigating the natural universe in the last 300 years.

Materialism is NOT required to acquire knowledge (science).

Is this from a page in “The 6days Strawman Playbook”? Certainly knowledge can be gained without The Scientific Method. However, The Scientific Method is useful, nay, necessary, to validate the source of the knowledge gained.

Fine. Do you have any "knowledge" useful to the present conversation? Your replies are glaringly bereft of anything more than bluster.

Says the king of bluster who thinks that "science" requires a materialist view-point.

So, your answer is, “No”, you have no “knowledge” useful to the present conversation and you'd rather continue down the man/god back to life rabbit trail, how disappointing.

Its THE definition/s that is/are agreed upon by the scientific community. Please explain why you are having such a huge problem with it/them.

I have a problem with anyone that thinks that:

• Science requires a materialistic point of view.
• That God is excluded from "science" because your cannot measure Him.

I have a problem with anyone that thinks that:

• Science can study the immaterial, you know, things that don’t exist.
• That someone’s personal concept of deity is immune from The Scientific Method.

This looks like a quote from "The musterion Playbook" and I only respond to acknowledge the source.

Wonderful.

I’m willing to bet you’re not yet finished using TmP.

Back to the question I'm now asking for a THIRD time:
When should I expect you will be blessing us with your vast knowledge and explain how The Scientific Method studies the immaterial Universe? Any idea?

I guess that YOUR materialistic "science" cannot teach you all things. That's too bad for you.

As far as I know, there are no investigative methods available to “teach” anyone about immaterial things.

Once again, you might start by acknowledging the fact that a man names Jesus came back from the dead.

As predicted, there’s that Red Herring again. Why should anyone buy into the christian “dead man came back to life” myth? It lacks objective evidence and is based COMPLETELY and TOTALLY on anecdote.

Does your "science" not allow you to examine the evidence for this?

It is estimated that over 100,000,000,000 (100 billion) humans have ever lived. Except for the many “dead man came back to life” myths from ancient cultures (Egypt, Norse, Aztec, and Japanese, to name a few, all of which I’m certain you reject), there is no record of anyone ever doing what the christian myth claims. Is your “dead man came back to life” myth “true” because you have a “holy” book written by mostly anonymous authors or for some other “special” reason?

Or is it your feeble mind that cannot accept what you don't like?

A quote from The musterion Playbook. See, I told you you weren’t finished.

Back to the question you keep avoiding and I'm now asking for a FOURTH time:

When should I expect you will be blessing us with your vast knowledge and explain how The Scientific Method studies the immaterial Universe? Any idea?

 

[Right Divider]

Well, yes it was and is but I’m certain you’re not through using it, are you?

Well, no, my “respect” for the Nobel Committee doesn’t validate anything. The Scientific Method is validated by the international prestige of the Nobel Committee, never mind that The Scientific Method is the most useful tool available for investigating the natural universe in the last 300 years.

Is this from a page in “The 6days Strawman Playbook”? Certainly knowledge can be gained without The Scientific Method. However, The Scientific Method is useful, nay, necessary, to validate the source of the knowledge gained.

So, your answer is, “No”, you have no “knowledge” useful to the present conversation and you'd rather continue down the man/god back to life rabbit trail, how disappointing.

I have a problem with anyone that thinks that:

• Science can study the immaterial, you know, things that don’t exist.
• That someone’s personal concept of deity is ummune from The Scientific Method.

I’m willing to bet you’re not yet finished using TmP.

As far as I know, there are no investigative methods available to “teach” anyone about immaterial things.

As predicted, there’s that Red Herring again. Why should anyone buy into the christian “dead man came back to life” myth? It lacks objective evidence and is based COMPLETELY and TOTALLY on anecdote.

It is estimated that over 100,000,000,000 (100 billion) humans have ever lived. Except for the many “dead man came back to life” myths from ancient cultures (Egypt, Norse, Aztec, and Japanese, to name a few, all of which I’m certain you reject), there is no record of anyone ever doing what the christian myth claims. Is your “dead man came back to life” myth “true” because you have a “holy” book written by mostly anonymous authors or for some other “special” reason?

A quote from The musterion Playbook. See, I told you you weren’t finished.

Back to the question you keep avoiding and I'm now asking for a FOURTH time:

When should I expect you will be blessing us with your vast knowledge and explain how The Scientific Method studies the immaterial Universe? Any idea?

Poor lost little child.

Science does NOT require a materialistic world-view no matter how many times you repeat that ignorance.

 

[Right Divider]

This was what you said...
"Many animals died in the flood and many of these are what you find in the fossil record. Other animals have died throughout history, most of which you will not find any fossil record since fossils do not form in the vast majority of cases. Bones of dead things normally just dry out and turn to dust."

My apologies. That was a brilliant three liner explanation of the geologic column.

There is NO reason to believe that the earth has layers of rocks laid down successively on top of each other.

 

[The Horn]

This question is nothing but a non sequitur . How does the existence of legs disprove evil;union in any way ? You're cherry-picking reasons to question evolution .

 

[Right Divider]

This question is nothing but a non sequitur . How does the existence of legs disprove evil;union in any way ? You're cherry-picking reasons to question evolution .

You have completely misunderstood the OP.