badgerx16

I am getting fed up of repeating myself. Your brain is as impermeable as sheet steel.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word said: #1495 #1620

You give pedants a bad name. 1) You have back tracked on your original statement that no species can tolerate both environments. 2) Once again you choose to ignore the concept of a localised event being viewed in the context of an individual's life experience and understanding. 3) It bloody well rained,and rained, and rained again. 4) You asserted that larger bones are an adaptation to salt water. This is not the case, as I pointed out. Larger bones are found in larger fish, which tend to be found in the sea because it is a much more spacious environment. Given you are so keen on evolution, you can surely understand the effect of growing into a niche ? ( You don't find things the size of Basking or Whale Sharks in fresh water for a reason ).

If God made Man in his own image, which 'man' is a true representation ?

Do you accept that; 1) several species of fish can survive in both fresh and salt water ? 2) From a 'primitive' observer's perspective, a flood that covers the extent of his known environment is a global event ? 3) That if the Flood did take p!ace it would have been 'fresh' water that caused the oceans to cover the continents ? 4) That it is not a definite that oceanic fish have bigger bones than river fish ? All of these contradict and disprove posts you made.

You are also the embodiment of arrogance.

Rosevar is hardly an impartial commentator, and Darwin argued that although the eye would present an excellent example for 'argument by design', it was entirely plausible to show that eyes have 'evolved' if evidence of intermediate forms could be found. In the last century or so such examples have been found in the fossil record. https://www.newscientist.com/term/evolution-of-the-eye/

You are the embodiment of stubborn.

But it is not your place to point it out to them if that is what they wish to believe.

You mean nobody has surrendered in the face of your obstinacy. How many times have your 'facts' been shown to be erroneous, yet you keep rolling them out.

Matthew, go back and re-read my post #1552. Also, do you understand the word allegory ?

I have already tried to help him in post #1552.

Would it not be better for you to admit that your quest to bend everybody on here to your will is futile ? You keep driving us round and round the same hamster wheel, and every time somebody puts up viable counter arguments you hit the reset button and kick the whole thing off again. We all know your position, and respect it, but you fail to exhibit any acceptance that other people don't want to live their lives by your absolutist precept, as is their right.

But a scentific theory is not cast in stone and immutable. It can change as fresh interpretations of known phemonema arise, or advances in technology or understanding cause revisions of 'facts'. In science a Law is only a Law until it is disproved. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science

Catcher

There used to be 'evidence' that the Sun orbited around the Earth. What is accepted as fact is dependent on how far our knowledge and understanding of our surroundings evolves. But who is to say that what we discover, and can 'prove', is being surrepticiously guided by the hand of an unseen overlord who hides certain things from us as 'verboten' ?

It does, but you assert that it is not true.

No, your assertion is that salt water fish have larger bones because they live in salt water, which is patently untrue, as my full post points out. See, you can easily make 'facts' to support a falacious line of argument by selectively quoting.

That is a general statement that is not supported by fact. Fish skeletons across the range of aquatic environments vary by number of bones, and the structure of those bones, and can be affected by the niche environment within which the fish species lives. Bottom dwelling flat fish have smaller but more numerous bones than free swimming species, deep sea species will have thicker bones than surface dwellers to cope with vastly increased pressures. In general, the larger fish species tend to be ocean dwellers, so by default will have larger bones than their physically smaller fresh water cousins.

Q} How do you tell that from either the fossil record or DNA analysis ? A} You can't.

How do you definitively know from a fossil fish what environment it inhabited ? What part of the DNA sequence identifies the physiological adaptations necessary for a specific aquatic environment ?

Some people believe thay are skilled football managers because they play computer games.

Obviously not, or the churches and mosques would be empty.