Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Stripe]

Thank you! I apologize for my doubt on the coelacanth article. It was lovely

I agree in that article A LOT of speculation is made , but I am no coelacanth evolutionary expert in specific. But what they have there is just based on what we know about fish-to-amphibian evolution. I think that swim bladder could have easily started out that way, without first being a lung.

I don't see the problem ??

The problem is the lack of evidence. You thinking something is possible is not very compelling.

 

[Clete]

Thank you! I apologize for my doubt on the coelacanth article. It was lovely

I agree in that article A LOT of speculation is made , but I am no coelacanth evolutionary expert in specific. But what they have there is just based on what we know about fish-to-amphibian evolution. I think that swim bladder could have easily started out that way, without first being a lung.

I don't see the problem ??

How in the world can you not see the problem?

Seriously, I don't understand how people, whom I believe to be otherwise descent, well meaning people, can be so blind to something so completely obvious.
It's far worse than there being no evidence, as Stripe rightly points out in the post above, it's that there really isn't any compelling scientific reason to even search for such evidence, and even if there were, doing so is to run the scientific method in reverse! The scientific method is supposed to run from evidence to theory, not from theory to evidence. If you go the wrong way, you inevitably begin to favor evidence that fits your theory and ignore that which does not. The idea is that you're to find theories to suit the fact, not facts to suit the theory and the later is almost exclusively what Biological Evolutionists do (Cosmological Evolutionists as well, incidentally.) and as such, the so called Theory of Evolution is not a scientific theory.

The problem with the current state of Evoltionary "science" is stated most eloquently in the following short video...

 

[Right Divider]

How in the world can you not see the problem?

Seriously, I don't understand how people, whom I believe to be otherwise descent, well meaning people, can be so blind to something so completely obvious.
It's far worse than there being no evidence, as Stripe rightly points out in the post above, it's that there really isn't any compelling scientific reason to even search for such evidence, and even if there were, doing so is to run the scientific method in reverse! The scientific method is supposed to run from evidence to theory, not from theory to evidence. If you go the wrong way, you inevitably begin to favor evidence that fits your theory and ignore that which does not. The idea is that you're to find theories to suit the fact, not facts to suit the theory and the later is almost exclusively what Biological Evolutionists do (Cosmological Evolutionists as well, incidentally.) and as such, the so called Theory of Evolution is not a scientific theory.

Without a doubt.

 

[Greg Jennings]

How in the world can you not see the problem?

Seriously, I don't understand how people, whom I believe to be otherwise descent, well meaning people, can be so blind to something so completely obvious.
It's far worse than there being no evidence, as Stripe rightly points out in the post above, it's that there really isn't any compelling scientific reason to even search for such evidence, and even if there were, doing so is to run the scientific method in reverse! The scientific method is supposed to run from evidence to theory, not from theory to evidence. If you go the wrong way, you inevitably begin to favor evidence that fits your theory and ignore that which does not. The idea is that you're to find theories to suit the fact, not facts to suit the theory and the later is almost exclusively what Biological Evolutionists do (Cosmological Evolutionists as well, incidentally.) and as such, the so called Theory of Evolution is not a scientific theory.

The problem with the current state of Evoltionary "science" is stated most eloquently in the following short video...

The evidence, from geology/astronomy/physics/biology(genetics incl. here)/zoology/microbiology/paleontology/botany, POINTS to evolutionary theory's confirmation. As I told you, they just outlined WHAT WE KNOW about fish-to-amphibian evolution, using the coelacanth as an alleged transitional example.
The evidence absolutely points toward fish-to-amphibian evolution, but I cannot speak directly to coelacanth evolution <--- the point I was trying to make before

Do you really think evidence favors all creatures living on Earth together? Dinosaurs and man and cow and sheep? Then why could you provide NO evidence for such a thing?? Where is your evidence? Genesis discredits itself as literal history by saying ABSURD THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN PROVEN FALSE

 

[Greg Jennings]

The problem is the lack of evidence. You thinking something is possible is not very compelling.

There is plenty of evidence for fish-to-amphibian evolution (I'm sure you'll disagree, but when was the last time you were right about a scientific issue?)

I'm not certain about coelacanth evolution

 

[Stripe]

There is plenty of evidence for fish-to-amphibian evolution.

That's nice.

There's plenty of evidence that the universe is about 6,000 years old.

 

[Greg Jennings]

That's nice.

There's plenty of evidence that the universe is about 6,000 years old.

There is none. Your "evidence" is a genealogy list of 900 year old people. When is the last time you met someone over 120?

 

[JudgeRightly]

There is none. Your "evidence" is a genealogy list of 900 year old people. When is the last time you met someone over 120?

If that's all the evidence you think there is, then it's no wonder you aren't convinced.

Try THIS link for evidence... As well as HERE for a list of pages that contains lists of evidence AGAINST evolution, Darwinism, naturalism, etc.

 

[Right Divider]

There is none. Your "evidence" is a genealogy list of 900 year old people. When is the last time you met someone over 120?

The one that has so much to teach us and yet cannot even see that he is using a logical fallacy. :french:

 

[Greg Jennings]

If that's all the evidence you think there is, then it's no wonder you aren't convinced.

Try THIS link for evidence... As well as HERE for a list of pages that contains lists of evidence AGAINST evolution, Darwinism, naturalism, etc.

Pick any one of those topics. I'll dissect it for you

 

[Greg Jennings]

The one that has so much to teach us and yet cannot even see that he is using a logical fallacy. :french:

Clearly you are ignorant of the fact that we have observed speciation in real time.

 

[6days]

Pick any one of those topics. I'll dissect it for you

Ha

 

[6days]

Clearly you are ignorant of the fact that we have observed speciation in real time.

That my friend is the creationist model. Look for the thread titled 'Rapid Adaptation' Examples are provided of rapid 'speciation. (You confuse observational science with your beliefs about the past)

 

[6days]

There is none. Your "evidence" is a genealogy list of 900 year old people. When is the last time you met someone over 120?

Greg... Are you a Christian? (A believer that the shed blood of Jesus is necessary for the forgiveness of your sin) I ask because if you are I would answer your question first from a Biblical perspective, then from science.

 

[Right Divider]

There is none. Your "evidence" is a genealogy list of 900 year old people. When is the last time you met someone over 120?

Clearly you are ignorant of the fact that we have observed speciation in real time.

Clearly you don't even understand the fact that you used a logical fallacy.

According to your logic, George Washington did not exist.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Clearly you don't even understand the fact that you used a logical fallacy.

According to your logic, George Washington did not exist.

Dodge count: 1


So you've met someone who has lived longer than 120 years? Or even have proof of one?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Greg... Are you a Christian? (A believer that the shed blood of Jesus is necessary for the forgiveness of your sin) I ask because if you are I would answer your question first from a Biblical perspective, then from science.

Dodge count: 0

Yes. And I know that Genesis isn't all literal. And evolution has 0 bearing on my religious beliefs. Your world of vegetarian lions living alongside dinosaurs is pure fantasy according to most Christians, even.

And I have been out and seen the geological/paleontological evidence for myself.
Have you been out and seen the evidence in person? Or talked to experts yourself?

 

[Right Divider]

Dodge count: 1


So you've met someone who has lived longer than 120 years? Or even have proof of one?

Have you ever seen George Washington?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Have you ever seen George Washington?

Dodge count: 2

I've seen his grave, former estate, and of course portrait, and there are numerous sources from varying places documenting his existence (Britain, France, Virginia, Canada)

Are you implying that if you don't SEE something, it can't be? Did OJ Simpson kill his former wife, Nicole Brown-Simpson?

Have you ever met somebody or have proof of somebody being over 120 years of age?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Ha

You may also pick, if you'd like