Christian Evolutionist:

[Magic Man]

The reproduction of DNA and RNA is not the issue here. DNA and RNA is essential for life to exist in the first place. So if the evolution theory starts from the basis of DNA and RNA existing already, we cannot say that evolution is how life started, because DNA and RNA has to be present at the same time and work together to sustain life.

Now, you're catching on! That's it exactly. We can't say that evolution is how life started. That's not what the theory is about. The theory of evolution starts after life appeared, and makes no claim about how it did start, only what happened afterwards.

 

[Heneni]

You can be a Christian and believe in evolution. In fact, most pure creationists are dimwitted when I debate them and show how it is impossible to have no evolution. Even the smallest form. God created creatures, and they evolved over time.
I DO NOT believe that "earth is 6000 yrs old" crap due to the evidence in radiometric dating. I have studied evolutionary science, and radiometric systeming, along with ancient Greek, Latin, and Coptic manuscripts for the bible. I have also studied in the areas of historical and theological backgrounds of the bible.

Let me get this straight....why is there a creationism vs. evolution thread in the first place, if evolution is not considered to be the opposite to creationism?

1. Christians believe that God created everything, so no, no one is saying evolution is how life started.
2. Evolution of that sort would take millions of years, thus, your making fun of it just shows that you really don't understand what you're talking about.
3. It wouldn't turn into legs if it weren't necessary, conditions of the environment
cause these things to happen over periods of time.

And now...noboby is saying that evolution is how life started, but creationism says god started it.... :faint:

How long would it take a fish to develop legs? Millions of years maybe? So did the fish know...millions of years before that millions of years in the future there would be no water, or something like that, and therefore it had better get itself some legs.

wow...and some think fish have a memory span of three seconds.

 

[Magic Man]

HE HE...thanks for the cigar. So your saying that evolutionists DONT say they know how life started? Only how life progressed. Do you think a fish..while devoloping a leg was wondering at any point in time....why is this thing growing out from the side of me. Or why is my fins changing into feet? It slows me down....darn...now im going to get eaten!!! Or maybe there werent any preditors around to eat it...and then you have to wonder...if the fins changing into legs were really necessary in the first place.

Or maybe their fins turned it legs because the legs helped them get around in marshy areas and get into places where the predators couldn't get to them, thereby helping them survive. (That is the truth about how it happened)

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

Let me get this straight....why is there a creationism vs. evolution thread in the first place, if evolution is not considered to be the opposite to creationism?



And now...noboby is saying that evolution is how life started, but creationism says god started it.... :faint:

How long would it take a fish to develop legs? Millions of years maybe? So did the fish know...millions of years before that millions of years in the future there would be no water, or something like that, and therefore it had better get itself some legs.

wow...and some think fish have a memory span of three seconds.

Your logic goes with the same reasoning that frogs never had gills!
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AMPHIBIANS!!!!:sarcastic
Evolution doesn't care about what creatures think or know, evolution is a process!
Fish didn't KNOW they were going to gain legs millions of years before! This statement(again) shows your lack of understanding of evolution.

wow...

 

[Heneni]

Your logic goes with the same reasoning that frogs never had gills!
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AMPHIBIANS!!!!:sarcastic
Evolution doesn't care about what creatures think or know, evolution is a process!
Fish didn't KNOW they were going to gain legs millions of years before! This statement(again) shows your lack of understanding of evolution.

wow...

so did the fish get the legs because......

 

[Heneni]

Or maybe their fins turned it legs because the legs helped them get around in marshy areas and get into places where the predators couldn't get to them, thereby helping them survive. (That is the truth about how it happened)

And if that was true for every creature there would never be a food chain, because animals would all try to evolve in order not to get eaten.

And...what was the 'preditors in the water'. Another fish? Who did not think it smart to get legs to get onto the marshes so that it too could survive, since its food would be flapping around on the ground.

Ding dong...

 

[Magic Man]

Let me get this straight....why is there a creationism vs. evolution thread in the first place, if evolution is not considered to be the opposite to creationism?

Because creationists don't believe in evolution. Very simple.

And now...noboby is saying that evolution is how life started, but creationism says god started it.... :faint:

Yes. Creationism says not only that God started life and everything else, but also that he created it just the way it is today. Creationism says that the start of the universe and life with it happened exactly as told in the Bible. It leaves no room for evolution.

How long would it take a fish to develop legs? Millions of years maybe? So did the fish know...millions of years before that millions of years in the future there would be no water, or something like that, and therefore it had better get itself some legs.

Nope. Again, you're mischaracterizing it. We don't choose evolution, it just happens. It's called natural selection. The fish didn't choose to grow legs, it happened because it aided the fish in surviving. As I just explained in my previous post, when fish developped legs, it was to help them maneuver through marshy areas where swimming was pretty much impossible, areas their predators couldn't get to with fins, which helped the fish with legs survive.

 

[Heneni]

Nope. Again, you're mischaracterizing it. We don't choose evolution, it just happens. It's called natural selection. The fish didn't choose to grow legs, it happened because it aided the fish in surviving. As I just explained in my previous post, when fish developped legs, it was to help them maneuver through marshy areas where swimming was pretty much impossible, areas their predators couldn't get to with fins, which helped the fish with legs survive.

And which would mean the death of the predator. If the weak evolved to get away from predators, then no predator would ever have a bite to eat. Why did the predator not evolve to go where the food goes?

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

How about you read something on evolution seriously and then you will have your answers.

 

[Heneni]

So..then are you sure that fishes had predators before they devoloped legs? What did the fishes eat? (Those who developed legs) Was there food in the marshes? If there was food in the marshes, how did this food evolve? And when the 'food' in the marshes realises it had better get the hell out of there before it gets eaten, then everything would have landed up......calculating....on rhodes island.

 

[camanintx]

Why did the predator not evolve to go where the food goes?

What makes you think that it didn't?

 

[Magic Man]

And if that was true for every creature there would never be a food chain, because animals would all try to evolve in order not to get eaten.

Not true. As you said, it happens over a long period of time. There's that plus the fact that the predators are also evolving.

And...what was the 'preditors in the water'. Another fish? Who did not think it smart to get legs to get onto the marshes so that it too could survive, since its food would be flapping around on the ground.

Ding dong...

Yes, it was another fish. It has nothing to do with what the fish thinks. Evolution doesn't happen voluntarily. It's not something an animal thinks about and decides to do. It's something the environment and the biology of the animal "decide". Also, its food was not flapping around on the ground. By the time animals made it to live on ground they had legs and lungs. Those particular predators continued to eat other fish. Very simple, actually.

 

[Magic Man]

And which would mean the death of the predator. If the weak evolved to get away from predators, then no predator would ever have a bite to eat. Why did the predator not evolve to go where the food goes?

No, it doesn't mean that. It means that this particular species evolved this way because of their environment. There were plenty of other species (including the stragglers from this one which stayed the way they were) to be eaten by that predator.

The predator did evolve. Every species evolves.

 

[Heneni]

What makes you think that it didn't?

What makes you think that they did? If the predator developed legs to go after the fish....did they realise that ooppss my food is growing legs and is going to be gone in the next few thousand/million years so it had better get itself some legs as well.

All the while the predator has a predator....were they all conspiring to get on land together? Why would there be any fishy things left in the ocean after millions of years then?

Also...why have antelope not developed wings so that the lion doesnt get to them?

There is always a 'looser' in the food chain. Imagine if all plankton evolved into whales...

 

[Heneni]

No, it doesn't mean that. It means that this particular species evolved this way because of their environment. There were plenty of other species (including the stragglers from this one which stayed the way they were) to be eaten by that predator.

The predator did evolve. Every species evolves.

Every species evolve......any proof of that? How do you know that we are STILL evolving?

 

[Magic Man]

Every species evolve......any proof of that? How do you know that we are STILL evolving?

Because you can actually see the changes. If you took some time to go out and learn some of this stuff instead of making us explain it all to you, you'd understand. Scientists constantly watch species, including us, evolve.

 

[Magic Man]

What makes you think that they did? If the predator developed legs to go after the fish....did they realise that ooppss my food is growing legs and is going to be gone in the next few thousand/million years so it had better get itself some legs as well.

Why would the predator need to grow legs? It had plenty of other prey right there in the water.

All the while the predator has a predator....were they all conspiring to get on land together? Why would there be any fishy things left in the ocean after millions of years then?

Because those others didn't evolve that way. They weren't in the same situation as those which did grow legs, so they evolved differently.

Also...why have antelope not developed wings so that the lion doesnt get to them?

Because they're just not designed for that. Antelope have evolved to where they are very good at hearing so that they can hear a lion or other predator coming, and they are extremely quick, so that they can usually get away from a lion. They don't need wings.

There is always a 'loser' in the food chain. Imagine if all plankton evolved into whales...

Yeah, and? Those lowest on the food chain have their own ways of surviving and multiplying.

 

[Heneni]

No, it doesn't mean that. It means that this particular species evolved this way because of their environment. There were plenty of other species (including the stragglers from this one which stayed the way they were) to be eaten by that predator.

The predator did evolve. Every species evolves.

This fish and its predator is in the same enviroment. Accept, the fish growing legs would be less effective in the water while its fins are changing into legs, and therefore would become considerably weeker and far worse at 'swimming' and hence fish food far more often, which makes their chances of getting on to land terribly small. They would be the weaker specie to the ones who dont develop legs in the water. And hence they would be evolving legs to their own detriment.

 

[Heneni]

Why would the predator need to grow legs? It had plenty of other prey right there in the water.

The same argument could be given for the fish...Why would the fish that grew legs, grow them, if there was plenty of food for it in the water?

And not only would it have to develop a set of legs to feed on land, it would have to change its intestines to cope with the new diet.

How would the intestines of the fish evolve over thousands of years and still be able to digest the food the fish is getting from the water, while at the same time evolving to cope with the plants or other proteins it would eat on land?

 

[Magic Man]

This fish and its predator is in the same enviroment. Accept, the fish growing legs would be less effective in the water while its fins are changing into legs, and therefore would become considerably weeker and far worse at 'swimming' and hence fish food far more often, which makes their chances of getting on to land terribly small. They would be the weaker specie to the ones who dont develop legs in the water. And hence they would be evolving legs to their own detriment.

Not exactly the same environment. The fish that grew legs found getting into the marshy lands useful, while the predator didn't. The predator had other prey and didn't need to pursue the species evolving legs that much.

The rest of this just doesn't make sense. They didn't grow legs to try to get onto land. They grew legs to get through branches and various other things that impeded swimming, but they still stayed in the water at that point. They were stronger in that way because that predator was then not able to follow them into that area. If they had stayed in the ocean with legs instead of fins, they would have been weaker, but they didn't.