No what I said was,
There are many fish that live outside of water, these are not fish according to your requirements.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Why don't Darwinists say that birds are fish?
- Thread starter 7djengo7
- Start date
No what I said was,
There are many fish that live outside of water, these are not fish according to your requirements.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
False. You did say that--you did contradict yourself--by answering "Yes" to the question I asked you.
I don't dispute that you said that, also.
So when does your Winter break start, are your parents taking you anywhere this year?
Have you written your letter to Santa Clause yet?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You're angry now, I see. But it's not my fault you contradicted yourself by saying that something that lives wholly in water lives outside the water. Why bark at me? I'm just the messenger.
So, "Child of God", have you told God yet that you don't consider Him to be good?
Yeah. Santa Claus wrote back. He told me to tell you to stop being an idiot, and that you should learn how to spell correctly.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You know, you don't really need to keep posting replies in order to continue your conversation with yourself.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
| Nonetheless, both the popular press and many scientists continue to claim that birds are dinosaurs because they are descendents [sic] from ground dwelling theropods like dromaeosaurs. |
Note carefully that the Darwinist(s) who wrote that are, by their word, "because", telling you that for birds to be descendants of dinosaurs would be for birds to be dinosaurs. Similarly, the Darwinists who wrote the following:
And:
| birds are dinosaurs because they are descended from them |
And:
| birds are dinosaurs because they descended from the first theropod and the first dinosaur. |
What Darwinists are saying is that to be descended from B's would make A's B's. So, since Darwinists say that dinosaurs are descended from non-dinosaurs (such as fish), they are thereby saying that dinosaurs are non-dinosaurs -- in other words, Darwinists are saying that dinosaurs are not dinosaurs.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Show us what "good" you imagine it would be to read it, by using whatever you imagine you gleaned from reading it (if you, yourself, have even read it) to try to make a point. The title, itself, kind of sounds retarded and low-brow -- not much of an advertisement that the author desires to be taken seriously by rationally-thinking people.
I did read it some time ago. Shuben is a scientist. The book is in part about the discovery of Taktaalik and makes many references to the similarities in certain structures in fish to humans. You should read it and report back.
The original post here suggested that birds came from fish, not just from dinosaurs. As you will see if you read the book, your ancestors included fish.
So read it and then you can comment about whether it should be "taken seriously by rationally-thinking people.". If you don't read it then I don't think you can comment about its "rationality". Have fun.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
As it turns out, your descendants ancestors included retards
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
No it didn't, you either illiterate or lying clown.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
What you mean by that is that, if someone reads it, he/she will see one more Darwin-cheerleading idiot (the book's author) asininely claiming that humans descended from fish. Think about it, Professor: everyone already knows that Darwinists claim that -- and without having to ever read your stupid, irrational book (which I don't even believe you have read). The juvenile-delinquent Christ-haters have been advertising that false claim for decades with their stupid Christ-mocking fish-with-legs car ornaments, which feature the word "DARWIN".
not only did i read it in hard cover but listened to it on audible. it seems however you have not read it or intend to do so. again, unless you are willing to read it why bother to criticize it, since you do not know what it says?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Have fun trying to prove those claims, Internet Claim-maker. LOL @ thinking throwing in a detail like "in hard cover" will somehow prove your claim that you have read it. And, had you really read it, still it has proven useless to you, since you have still failed to make any point.
not only did i read it in hard cover but listened to it on audible. it seems however you have not read it or intend to do so. again, unless you are willing to read it why bother to criticize it, since you do not know what it says
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You already claimed that. So far, you've failed to prove it. But apparently you're silly enough to imagine that your mindless repetition of your claim proves your claim.
It doesn't seem you have read it, either. Especially in hard cover. It doesn't even seem you listened to it on Audible.
I did read it -- I read the title. You posted the title, remember? Remember that? That you posted the title? You posted the title, in a post you wrote, in this thread. And I read the title that you posted in your post, see? So, I read that much of the book. Not only that, but I read the author's name, too, since you posted the author's name. Remember that you posted the author's name? In your post. In this thread. Remember that? And I criticized the title, because it's a stupid title, see. Remember that? I pointed out that the title gives it away that the author desires to not be taken seriously by rationally-thinking people.
And, in addition to all that, you told me that the author says something really stupid: you said the author says "your ancestors included fish". That's you telling me that the author is a deranged imbecile. So, why throw a tantrum over my criticism of a book which you, yourself, told me was authored by a deranged imbecile?
So, then, when you told me that the book says...
...you were not telling me what the book says? Yes or No?
- Does the book say that fish are ancestors of humans? Yes or No?
- Did you tell me that the book says fish are ancestors of humans? Yes or No?
Wait... so, I'm somehow obligated to believe your claim, just because you make it, Internet Claim-maker? Of course I'm not obligated to do that. Duh. Think how stupid you sound: 1) I challenged you to try to prove your claim that you've read the book you claim you've read, 2) you have failed to prove your claim that you've read the book you claim you've read, and 3) now you are complaining about the fact that I won't believe your claim just because you're claiming it.
Right Divider
Body part
All of my ancestors are human.