Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Right Divider]

Yup, the sort of flood that deposits desert and forest and shallow sea beach and river delta layers one after the other and repeated. That sort.

No flood deposits a desert. Cute....

 

[iouae]

You can't be referring to the Genesis flood in Scripture. That flood was extreme covering the highest mountains, destroying the earth 'that was', and eliminating all humanity, other than those in the ark. That flood covered the earth for many months. The reverberations of the Genesis flood likely lasted a couple hundred years. (seismic activity, tsunamis, inland seas / lakes draining)

God's Word, and the fossil record show you are wrong.

6days, there were humans living before the flood and after the flood. So let's look for rocks which have human fossils in them and see what other fossils are found with them. Does that sound fair, that humans get buried with what is with them? Let's limit our search to just these rocks because these rocks with human fossils buried in them are pre-flood human fossils. Let's look at what is found with these to know for certain we are looking at folks drowned in the flood.

 

[iouae]

The flood was violent enough to make things like the Grand Canyon and the ark was quite sea-worthy.

Why do you think that there are any fish fossils in the first place? What nature process produces fish fossils?

There are layers of Devonian rock full of fish fossils, and ones with bony armour such as we don't see today.

Then there are layers with aquatic reptile fossils, of reptiles not found today. These too would have loved water, because the seas were filled with them.

You asked "What nature process produces fish fossils?"

YEC say that the flood produced almost all fossils. So that is not really a question I can answer for you.

But if earth is old, and geologic column shows multiple mass extinctions from meteors striking earth, volcanic eruptions or who knows what - then its easy to explain fish fossils.

By comparison, the Biblical flood was a gentle rain which left hardly any impression on the geologic column. A Noah-type flood of water without meteor, comet strike, volcanoes, a nuclear winter with thick dust is not going to kill fish. Fish are very susceptible to chemicals and poisons. Here is how fish will get killed in future, and probably were in the past...

Rev 8:8
¶
And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;
Rev 8:9
And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.

The above type scenario would produce fish fossils.

 

[iouae]

The other thing to explain is why aquatic animals like fish, and aquatic reptile fossils, are so sorted such that not one is found in the other's layer.

 

[Right Divider]

There are layers of Devonian rock full of fish fossils, and ones with bony armour such as we don't see today.

Then there are layers with aquatic reptile fossils, of reptiles not found today. These too would have loved water, because the seas were filled with them.

You asked "What nature process produces fish fossils?"

YEC say that the flood produced almost all fossils. So that is not really a question I can answer for you.

Once again, what natural means creates fish fossils without a catastrophe like a world-wide flood?

But if earth is old, and geologic column shows multiple mass extinctions from meteors striking earth, volcanic eruptions or who knows what - then its easy to explain fish fossils.

No, it does not. Volcanic eruptions? Volcanic eruptions destroy bones and does not fossilize them.
Fossilization does not occur except under very certain conditions, like sudden burial in a global flood.

By comparison, the Biblical flood was a gentle rain which left hardly any impression on the geologic column. A Noah-type flood of water without meteor, comet strike, volcanoes, a nuclear winter with thick dust is not going to kill fish. Fish are very susceptible to chemicals and poisons. Here is how fish will get gilled in future, and probably were in the past...

Nonsense. Look into the fountains of the deep.

Rev 8:8
¶
And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;
Rev 8:9
And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.

The above type scenario would produce fish fossils.

That has nothing to do with this discussion as it has not happened yet anyway .... non-sequitur.

 

[iouae]

Fossilization does not occur except under very certain conditions, like sudden burial in a global flood.
That has nothing to do with this discussion as it has not happened yet anyway .... non-sequitur.

Take a guess why God never told Noah to take fish onto the ark.

 

[6days]

6days, there were humans living before the flood and after the flood. So let's look for rocks which have human fossils in them and see what other fossils are found with them. Does that sound fair, that humans get buried with what is with them? Let's limit our search to just these rocks because these rocks with human fossils buried in them are pre-flood human fossils. Let's look at what is found with these to know for certain we are looking at folks drowned in the flood.

Ok... sure! Let's look.
But do you wish to look through the lens of God's Word, and the global flood? Or, the lens of secular beliefs, and no flood?

 

[Right Divider]

Take a guess why God never told Noah to take fish onto the ark.

I never said that ALL FISH died in the flood.

You're like a little child.

 

[Silent Hunter]

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

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

What isn't persuasive is listening to a fool who believes dirt can think.

What is truly amazing is that you think misrepresentations (strawmen) and insults is effective argument.

 

[iouae]

I never said that ALL FISH died in the flood.

You're like a little child.

But you feel that some fish died in the flood and should be found alongside humans who died in the flood?

Otherwise, as you asked, how do fish get fossilised?

 

[Silent Hunter]

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

This would be true if layers of rock weren't found EVERYWHERE on Earth and extending for miles underground.

Just like you would find after a massive world-wide flood.

Do you contradict your self often or is this the first time?

Why do you think that layers of rock just keep piling up on top of each other year after year?

Have you ever been to Hawai'i? It happens all, the, time.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Since science rules out "goddidit" as an explanation (not a straw man) YOU (the creationist) must find some way to substantiate "logic" explains "goddidit". My guess is your explanation will include something similar to, "Abiogenesis without my personal concept of deity's involvement is impossible because life from non-life is so incredibly amazing, not understandable, and unimaginable it must be wrong".

If someone makes that argument you can challenge them on it. But to just keep repeating your 'argument' without any context is a straw man argument.

Good grief man you claim "science... proves god's word" (goddidit) every chance you get, so, yeah, I'm challenging you on it.

Nope... that is a straw man. If I have said that, then provide a quote and post number for context.

I didn’t quote you EXACTLY so you're going to cry "Strawman"?

Yes... if you don't like being accused of creating strawman arguments... stop making them. It's really quite simple.... If you want to argue against a persons actual position, then quote it or represent it honestly.

Have you or have you not said, in innumerable posts:

”Science helps confirm the truth of God's Word...”

How you can deny this doesn’t imply, “Goddidit!!!” is beyond comprehension.

You said:

"even if someone said 'God did it'; that would be more logical and more scientific than the atheist claim of 'nothing did it. (It is more logical and scientific to conclude an intelligence created everything vs the belief that nothing can create everything)"

Yes... I said that. That statement is correct.

Great!

Since science rules out "goddidit" as an explanation for natural phenomena then YOU (the creationist) must find some way to substantiate how "logic" explains "goddidit". My guess is your explanation will include something similar to, "Abiogenesis without my personal concept of deity's involvement is impossible because life from non-life is so incredibly amazing, not understandable, and unimaginable it must be wrong".

Atheists either have to believe NOTHING DID IT... or that the cause existed eternally. (It is more logical and scientific to conclude an intelligence created everything vs the belief that nothing can create everything)

This would be true if it is what “atheists” actually thought was the origin of the universe or the origin of life. You’ve been corrected on this strawman countless times but you keep using it anyway :sigh:.

The Universe as it is now was “caused” by what the Universe was like before the “Big Bang”. You make the “argument from ignorance” that because it is unknown what the intermediate “cause” was it must have been your chosen concept of deity, you know, “GODDIDIT!!!”

"Goddidit", by definition, IS NOT a natural cause.

If you don't like being accused of creating strawman arguments... stop making them. It's really quite simple.... If you want to argue against a persons actual position, then quote it or represent it honestly.

Is EVERYTHING a strawman to you?! How is noting “Goddidit!!!” is not a natural cause a strawman? :idunno:

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment." (Wikipedia)

Exactly!! evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past. We don't have a time machine to observe the formation of the universe...the creation of life etc. They are one time events in the past. We can observe evidence in the present, then make conclusions about the past.

So, because you can’t possibly conceive (argument from personal incredulity) the Universe to have had a natural cause, “Goddidit!!!” Check.

Why can’t you understand, “GODDIDIT!!!”, is the sum total of your “argument”?

"Goddidit" is NEVER a possible scientific explanation for ANY natural phenomena.

Who said that...context... You love those snowjobs and straw men.

I did. NATURAL phenomena have natural causes. If a phenomena has a supernatural cause then the phenomena itself is, by definition, supernatural as well.

As science advances it find "goddidit" becomes less and less of a viable explanation for the natural universe.

Science helps confirm the truth of God's Word... and helps show the folly of evolutionism (Useless appendix, junk DNA, simple cells, Neandertals, life from non life, nothing created everything...ETC)

Repeating your mantra doesn’t make it true.

Because you can’t possibly conceive (argument from personal incredulity) the Universe to have had a natural cause, doesn’t mean, “Goddidit!!!”, by default.

 

[Right Divider]

But you feel that some fish died in the flood and should be found alongside humans who died in the flood?

Otherwise, as you asked, how do fish get fossilised?

The flood was violent and not "gentle" as you seem to think. The entire surface of the earth was changed when the fountains of the deep were broken. It was not just a nice gentle rain.

Gen 7:11 (AKJV/PCE)​

(7:11) ¶ In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

​

Gen 8:2 (AKJV/PCE)​

(8:2) The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; ​

 

[Right Divider]

Do you contradict your self often or is this the first time?

The FIRST one was with respect to natural processes WITHOUT a global flood.

I'm conversing with another little child.... how fun!

 

[Right Divider]

Have you ever been to Hawai'i? It happens all, the, time.

A lot of fossils there, are there?

 

[Silent Hunter]

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

This would be true if layers of rock weren't found EVERYWHERE on Earth and extending for miles underground.

Just like you would find after a massive world-wide flood.

Do you contradict your self often or is this the first time?

The FIRST one was with respect to natural processes WITHOUT a global flood.

Well, volcanos ARE a natural process and layers of rock ARE successively laid down on top of each other by them that are miles thick so "the FIRST one" is factually incorrect.

Why do you think that layers of rock just keep piling up on top of each other year after year?

Have you ever been to Hawai'i? It happens all, the, time.

A lot of fossils there, are there?

Non sequitur.

I'm conversing with another little child.... how fun!

What is truly amazing is that you think insults are effective to civil discourse. It must be the only way creationist are able to have a discussion :sigh:.

 

[Right Divider]

Well, volcanos ARE a natural process and layers of rock ARE successively laid down on top of each other by them that are miles thick so "the FIRST one" is factually incorrect.

Volcano eruptions do not create fossils.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Well, volcanos ARE a natural process and layers of rock ARE successively laid down on top of each other by them that are miles thick so "the FIRST one" is factually incorrect.

Volcano eruptions do not create fossils.

Non sequitur.

You said: "There is NO reason to believe that the earth has layers of rocks laid down successively on top of each other... with respect to natural processes WITHOUT a global flood". I'm just pointing out that a "global flood" is unnecessary for the "layers of rock (being) laid down successively on top of each other".

 

[Right Divider]

Non sequitur.

You said: "There is NO reason to believe that the earth has layers of rocks laid down successively on top of each other... with respect to natural processes WITHOUT a global flood". I'm just pointing out that a "global flood" is unnecessary for the "layers of rock (being) laid down successively on top of each other".

I agree that some things do lay down layers of rock. That is NOT the same process that has made the many places where fossils are found. :jump:

 

[6days]

Have you or have you not said, in innumerable posts:
”Science helps confirm the truth of God's Word...”

Yup... and that is why it is a strawman / dishonesty when you try to argue the claim is 'science... proves god's word'

How you can deny this doesn’t imply, “Goddidit!!!” is beyond comprehension.

It does seem beyond your comprehension. I don't think you can be helped.

If I misrepresented every evolutionist argument with ' Evolution did it' instead of trying to address what someone was actually what's some one was actually saying, it would be a straw man and it would be dishonest.

Since science rules out "goddidit" as an explanation....

Haha.. If someone claims God created, then show the context...Until you do that, you just keep making logical fallacy arguments.

(You)must find some way to substantiate how "logic" explains "goddidit". My guess is your explanation will include something similar to, "Abiogenesis without my personal concept of deity's involvement is impossible because life from non-life is so incredibly amazing, not understandable, and unimaginable it must be wrong".

As you admit... you are imagining something, then arguing against it. It is the definition of a straw man.

This would be true if it is what “atheists” actually thought was the origin of the universe or the origin of life.

My claim was 'Atheists either have to believe NOTHING DID IT... or that the cause existed eternally. .


Ok... So, tell us what caused everything? Turtles all the way down?

The Universe as it is now was “caused” by what the Universe was like before the “Big Bang”.

So, the cause existed eternally?

You make the “argument from ignorance” that because it is unknown what the intermediate “cause” was it must have been your chosen concept of deity, you know, “GODDIDIT!!!”

You are having problems with logic. The claim is that either there is a cause which existed eternally....or, that nothing caused everything.