Blasphemy and Duck Rape

He dear, getting personal now, you’re struggling aren’t you. Bless.

It is you that is struggling as you think a fish population can't evolve into another type of fish. Every creature on the planet is a transitional evolutionary form.

Yes it is ffs

 

Further evidence that you do not know what evolution is!

 

You say it is 'not hard Matthew' but you appear to not be able to understand the basics of biology.

:lol: this is brilliant keep ‘em coming. A fish staying a fish is evolution that’s something special even by your standards

I did not agree with you. The Bible talks of a global flood that covered mountains, Noah did not know about the animals living in the Americas, Australia and other parts of the world so could not have saved them.

Has it occurred to you that the noah and the ark story is a metaphor, not literal?

It is you that is struggling as you think a fish population can't evolve into another type of fish. Every creature on the planet is a transitional evolutionary form.

They haven’t evolved into another type of fish, they’re the same fish but they’ve adapted to their environment. To a much lesser extent A bit like when you go to the Caribbean on holiday, the first couple of days you sweat your knackers off, by the end of the two weeks you’re absolutely fine with the heat.

Q} How do you tell that from either the fossil record or DNA analysis ?

A} You can't.

A} There are skeletal differences between salt water and freshwater fish. Salt-water fish have larger bones to deal with the environment.

:lol: this is brilliant keep ‘em coming. A fish staying a fish is evolution that’s something special even by your standards

You

Do

Not

Know

What

Evolution

Is

Every creature on the planet is a transitional evolutionary form.

Has it occurred to you that the noah and the ark story is a metaphor, not literal?

Does the Bible come with a sticker that says 'do not take literally'? Millions of Christians do take the Noah ark story literally, just look at the Bible belt in the US where there have a theme park giving a literal flood story.

What is the metaphor? Don't **** god off or he'll commit another genocide?

You

Do

Not

Know

What

Evolution

Is

 

Every creature on the planet is a transitional evolutionary form.

You

Do

Not

Know

What

The

Difference

Between

Evolution

And

Adaption

Is

And you’re getting personal and angry so I’ll leave it there for tonight. Enjoy your night arguing about things you don’t believe ever happen. Never let it be said you don’t live a meaningful life ?

You

Do

Not

Know

What

The

Difference

Between

Evolution

And

Adaption

Is

You are further highlighting you haven't grasped even the basics of evolutionary biology. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of key words and processes.

You are further highlighting you haven't grasped even the basics of evolutionary biology. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of key words and processes.

Lost again, gotta hurt. x

Lost again, gotta hurt. x

I've never lost to you.

I'm now intrigued as to what you'd come up with for your explanation for the difference between evolution and adaptation.

A} There are skeletal differences between salt water and freshwater fish. Salt-water fish have larger bones to deal with the environment.

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.

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.

So you agree then...!

So you agree then...!

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.

man came from clay and woman came from a rib.

See, you can easily make 'facts' to support a falacious line of argument by selectively quoting.

man came from clay and woman came from a rib.

See, you can easily make 'facts' to support a falacious line of argument by selectively quoting.

Does the Bible not say that then?

Does the Bible not say that then?

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

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

I assert it is not true based on evidence. So why is that an issue?

Surely that is better than Chrisitans asserted it is true based on it saying so in an old book... isn't it?

...

What is the metaphor? Don't **** god off or he'll commit another genocide?

 

Contempt before investigation right there Matthew.

 

Google is your friend. Lots of stuff out there.

 

That Noah built the ark is far fetched to me. Just not possible. The story has to stand for something though.

 

Seemingly, one school of thought connects the story of the ark with the resurrection of Christ; the waters burying the old world but raising Noah to a new life. Or something.

 

Another theory is that the story of the ark is an almost exact parallel to the biblical report of the original Creation. There's loads of theories on that, and you'll find stuff about the fish being created, then surviving, and what that is said to represent.

 

However you look at it, there's those that believe in creation, others the big bang, others (I'm one) who couldn't give a monkeys as it changes nothing. We're all here f*cking up our planet, and how it all started won't change the future.

I assert it is not true based on evidence. So why is that an issue?

 

Surely that is better than Chrisitans asserted it is true based on it saying so in an old book... isn't it?

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' ?

Lol. Turkish is all over the place.

The more he posts, the more it is absolutely clear that he doesn't, probably never has, believed in any god of any kind. His sole purpose on this thread is to be as obnoxious as possible to MLG to continue to try and wind him up. If MLG says something is white, Turkish will say it's black just for the sake of the argument.

That's 'mental'.

Lol. Turkish is all over the place.

 

The more he posts, the more it is absolutely clear that he doesn't, probably never has, believed in any god of any kind. His sole purpose on this thread is to be as obnoxious as possible to MLG to continue to try and wind him up. If MLG says something is white, Turkish will say it's black just for the sake of the argument.

 

That's 'mental'.

Far from it, i'm simply responding to MLGs ever more desperate attempts to find the answers he is looking for. I quite clearly told him a football forum is not the place to look for the answers he seeks, but he still keeps insisting, i am trying to help the troubled soul, i sense he wants to believe and who am I to deny that from him?

I've never lost to you.

 

I'm now intrigued as to what you'd come up with for your explanation for the difference between evolution and adaptation.

13 years undefeated pal.

It's quite simple, adaption is a first step so like a fish still being a fish, evolution is an end result like a fish become a completely different specie. Not my fault you dont understand it.

I like how you’re actually debating the story of Noah’s Ark, as if it were in any way possible for an old man to round up a breeding pair of every animal (I think there are about half a million known beetles alone). Even the Christians I know don’t really believe that bit.

Whereas fitting the entire universe into a pinhead is so much more believable.

Whereas fitting the entire universe into a pinhead is so much more believable.

Correct. It's not only believable but there is strong evidence behind it as well. In fact I believe is as much empty space, relatively speaking, in an atom as there is in our galaxy. Even the densest known elements in the periodic table are about 99.99999995% empty space.

Whereas fitting the entire universe into a pinhead is so much more believable.

- There is demonstrable/testable evidence to support the 'big bang'

- There is not demonstrable/testable evidence to support a god creating a universe

13 years undefeated pal.

 

It's quite simple, adaption is a first step so like a fish still being a fish, evolution is an end result like a fish become a completely different specie. Not my fault you dont understand it.

Oh dear

Yet again you have proven you you haven't a clue what evolution is. Every creature is a transitional evolutionary form, there is no 'end result' of evolution.

Did you fall asleep during biology lessons?

 

Oh dear

 

Yet again you have proven you you haven't a clue what evolution is. Every creature is a transitional evolutionary form, there is no 'end result' of evolution.

 

Did you fall asleep during biology lessons?

Yet again you prove you don't know the difference between evolution and adaption. And you're get all personal again, a sure sign that you're angry and struggling.

Yet again you prove you don't know the difference between evolution and adaption.

It is you that has not grasped it, not me. Adaptation come through evolution by natural selection.

You stated that evolution is 'an end result' which is quite simply nonsense. Evolution is not an end result... there is no 'end result' to evolution, it is a continual process.

And you're get all personal again, a sure sign that you're angry and struggling.

I'm merely doing what you've done for years. Until now I haven't bothered, but your constant claims of nonsense deserve it. You really haven't a clue regarding biology and have got it completely wrong.

- There is demonstrable/testable evidence to support the 'big bang'

- There is not demonstrable/testable evidence to support a god creating a universe

No there isnt. The earliest evidence dates to 400,000 years after. Everything about what happened prior to then is supposition, guess work and theories.

It is you that has not grasped it, not me. Adaptation come through evolution by natural selection.

 

You stated that evolution is 'an end result' which is quite simply nonsense. Evolution is not an end result... there is no 'end result' to evolution, it is a continual process.

 

 

 

I'm merely doing what you've done for years. Until now I haven't bothered, but your constant claims of nonsense deserve it. You really haven't a clue regarding biology and have got it completely wrong.

It’s you that’s talking non stop nonsense, things you say get proven wrong over and over again but you’re too arrogant to even see it. Your genes are somewhat behind many others in the evolutionary process Matthew.

No there isnt. The earliest evidence dates to 400,000 years after. Everything about what happened prior to then is supposition, guess work and theories.

1) Yes there is.

Evidence of Big Bang = red shift of galaxies, measurement of cosmic radiation, amount of light elements produced by BBN plus others

Evidence of creator god = an old book by unknown authors and no external testable/demonstrable evidence

2) What do you think a scientific theory is? It isn't a mere guess like the colloquial usage of 'theory'. There is a difference between the two!

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

3) Where have you got the 400,000 years figure from?

It’s you that’s talking non stop nonsense, things you say get proven wrong over and over again but you’re too arrogant to even see it. Your genes are somewhat behind many others in the evolutionary process Matthew.

You are simply wrong in your description of evolution. There is no 'end result' of evolution. It is bizarre you think that is what it is. You are mixing up aspects of it and are confused, yet don't realise it.

You are simply wrong in your description of evolution. There is no 'end result' of evolution. It is bizarre you think that is what it is. You are mixing up aspects of it and are confused, yet don't realise it.

I understand it perfectly well thank you, I don’t need someone who thinks a fish can turn into a human but it’s impossible for a fish to stay a fish and adapt to the water it lives in to tell me I’ve got it wrong.

I understand it perfectly well thank you, I don’t need someone who thinks a fish can turn into a human but it’s impossible for a fish to stay a fish and adapt to the water it lives in to tell me I’ve got it wrong.

I've attempted to explain this before to you!

Can you really not understand how there is a huge difference in the 375 million years between humans and their common fish ancestor for changes to occur and fish instantly switching between freshwater and sal****er when the flood starts/ends?

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

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

 

I've attempted to explain this before to you!

 

Can you really not understand how there is a huge difference in the 375 million years between humans and their common fish ancestor for changes to occur and fish instantly switching between freshwater and sal****er when the flood starts/ends?

Was the flood salt or fresh water?

is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.[/color]

Hahaha. The person lecturing us on scientific knowledge and fact copied that definition from wikipedia, complete with font and all .

Was the flood salt or fresh water?

That is a nonsensical question as before you can ask that you'd need to prove there was a flood. There is no evidence that a global flood happened. The Chinese and Egyptian civilisations lived before, during and after the flood.

That is a nonsensical question as before you can ask that you'd need to prove there was a flood. There is no evidence that a global flood happened. The Chinese and Egyptian civilisations lived before, during and after the flood.

So you have no idea if the fish survived or not.

Are you disputing the existence of a Biblical flood?

Hahaha. The person lecturing us on scientific knowledge and fact copied that definition from wikipedia, complete with font and all .

Are you disputing what a 'scientific theory' is and that it differs from the colloquial usage of 'theory'?

So you have no idea if the fish survived or not.

That is a nonsensical as before you can ask that you'd need to prove there was a flood.

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.

Is it not better to go with a theory based on the best available information that is demonstrable and testable... compared to an old book which has no testable or demonstrable ability?

That is a nonsensical as before you can ask that you'd need to prove there was a flood.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2000/sep/14/internationalnews.archaeology

For those that believe in a global flood genocide & incest story a couple more questions...

1) where did the water come from and go afterwards?

2) how did the ark hold together as wooden ships are unable to be structurally capable of being the dimensions listed in the Bible? It would fall apart due to the stresses put on the structure

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2000/sep/14/internationalnews.archaeology

That is nonsense. The Chinese & Egyptians lived before, during and after the supposed global flood. They were not wiped out.

 

I've attempted to explain this before to you!

 

Can you really not understand how there is a huge difference in the 375 million years between humans and their common fish ancestor for changes to occur and fish instantly switching between freshwater and sal****er when the flood starts/ends?

Hahaha. The person lecturing us on scientific knowledge and fact copied that definition from wikipedia, complete with font and all .

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

That is nonsense. The Chinese & Egyptians lived before, during and after the supposed global flood. They were not wiped out.

The known world.

Odd that bible wrote about the flood thousands of years before science proved its existence dontchathink? given its all a made up fairystory according to you

Is it not better to go with a theory based on the best available information that is demonstrable and testable... compared to an old book which has no testable or demonstrable ability?

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.