Homosexuality and Evolution: God's Will and Human Belief

[BilliardsBall]

None of them should be half-formed if evolution is true. It seems that you don't understand what the theory of evolution is.

You're right! I forgot it does Disney-styled MAGIC so that never in Earth's history did evolution make a fossil with half a wing or half a limb that died and was fossilized...

 

[BilliardsBall]

Huh?

Do you know of any fossils showing half a wing?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Ah, good, you mentioned "half formed" or as is also said, "partially formed".

I have several times asked people to explain what they mean by this. I have never gotten any sort of explanation. Obviously you / t hey have something in mind, so I will ask you.

Could you try to explain it? What would the half formed organism look like that you could recognize it
if it were there?

Honestly puzzled, so it would be a big help to both of us here, if you would give this a good try.

There are two possibilities we can start with:

1. Fossils show over time land-bound animals than winged animals. No fossils show any in-between from the many generations between. There should be some fossils showing partial wings, so that we can find multiple specimens of the same species, some with half-formed parts whose descendants had fully formed wings.

2. Feathers are thought to have descended from scales. However, feathers, which contain up to a million individual parts inside a single feather today, are more akin to hair. Regardless, we can find only fossils of scaled animals and feathered animals. We find no fossils of half-feathered animals, feathers on some, not all parts of wings, etc., etc.

3. As we consider the web of descent, we only see fully formed species. Every time someone points out a transitional species, I cannot see any fossils between.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You're right! I forgot it does Disney-styled MAGIC so that never in Earth's history did evolution make a fossil with half a wing or half a limb that died and was fossilized...

Evolution doesn't say we should find "half-formed" creatures, in the sense you're talking about.
But it does say we should find creatures like mudskippers ...

Mudskipper - Wikipedia
The evolution of fins to limbs in the land invasion race

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, reading comprehension. Talking to other people claiming to be eyewitnesses does not make Luke's story an eyewitness account. In the same way that claiming that 500 people were there with you doesn't constitute 500 eyewitness accounts. We've been over this.

His own words belie your claims.



My agenda is to believe as many true things as possible, and to not believe as many false things as possible. I have you telling me that "Luke's" words say something that they don't actually say. So I see no reason to believe that what you are telling me is a true thing. Especially when the written words don't jibe with what you're telling me.

Your agenda appears to be making sure everything in the Bible makes sense. I have no skin in the game either way on that one. I'm willing to believe whatever is most likely and most convincing about anything.


I see no reason to believe that God wrote anything. I see all the reasons in the world to believe that human beings wrote the books.

Fair enough. I admit my agenda is a severe one to carry, if one scripture is off, the Bible stops being inerrant, univocal. However, I've needed few gyrations to think of reasonable explanations for the many contradictions posed to me over the years.

It's as if friends put an extra hard standard against the Bible. Even Trump and Clinton's books are vetted less thoroughly for truth and lies than the Bible. It must be that the Bible poses as existential threat to people and not just a sociopolitical one.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's a point for evolution then, because evolution does not predict that we should find "half-formed anything in the fossil record."
Thanks for sharing.

This I know, yet I keep thinking, "where are the fossils between scales and feathers" and so on.

 

[Audie]

There are two possibilities we can start with:

1. Fossils show over time land-bound animals than winged animals. No fossils show any in-between from the many generations between. There should be some fossils showing partial wings, so that we can find multiple specimens of the same species, some with half-formed parts whose descendants had fully formed wings.

2. Feathers are thought to have descended from scales. However, feathers, which contain up to a million individual parts inside a single feather today, are more akin to hair. Regardless, we can find only fossils of scaled animals and feathered animals. We find no fossils of half-feathered animals, feathers on some, not all parts of wings, etc., etc.

3. As we consider the web of descent, we only see fully formed species. Every time someone points out a transitional species, I cannot see any fossils between.

What might a "half formed" bird wing look like?
Try to be a specific as you can, re bones, feathers etc.

It was a long time ago when feathers were thought to be derived from scales.
Catch up already.

As for scales and feathers on the same animal? Behold the chicken.

As for what you can or cannot see, first, I doubt you could even reliably
distinguish between a reptile skull and a mammal skull.

But hey lets try. What do you think these are?

Sign in - Google Accounts

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You're right! I forgot it does Disney-styled MAGIC so that never in Earth's history did evolution make a fossil with half a wing or half a limb that died and was fossilized...

Does this land dwelling fish have half a fin?

What about the ostrich? Half a wing?

What about the seal? Half a fin?

 

[Audie]

This I know, yet I keep thinking, "where are the fossils between scales and feathers" and so on.

This I know, yet I keep thinking, "where are the fossils between scales and feathers" and so on.

If all you do is think, and make no effort at looking for
answers, you wont get anywhere. Like you are still stuck on something that is like "what are the steps
between a battleship and a jet fighter"?

One does not come from the other!!

And btw, skin hair and feathers do not fossilize well.
Nobody knows yet if ye Velociraptor had scales or feathers or both.

 

[Audie]

Does this land dwelling fish have half a fin?

What about the ostrich? Half a wing?

What about the seal? Half a fin?

The mudskipper has half a leg in the sense that it has a long way to go to be a good leg for serious land dwelling.

It is, though, fully functional.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Fair enough. I admit my agenda is a severe one to carry, if one scripture is off, the Bible stops being inerrant, univocal. However, I've needed few gyrations to think of reasonable explanations for the many contradictions posed to me over the years.

It's as if friends put an extra hard standard against the Bible. Even Trump and Clinton's books are vetted less thoroughly for truth and lies than the Bible. It must be that the Bible poses as existential threat to people and not just a sociopolitical one.

Honestly, I don't think the Bible needs to be 100% accurate in every single way, in order for someone to take meaning away from it.

It only really matters if a person is claiming that it's the 100% inerrant word of God. Then you're going to run into problems. But to me, the Bible was obviously written by human beings in a particular time in history, and it demonstrates that to us itself in the form of the limited knowledge the people of that day apparently possessed and shared within it. They knew no more or less than people of that time period would have known. In other words, they didn't seem to possess any great knowledge that they couldn't have known at the time, that could only have been handed down to them from some God. Which is exactly what I would expect to find if human beings wrote the Bible.

The Bible doesn't pose any more of an existential threat to me than the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad Gita poses to you.

 

[metis]

Do you know of any fossils showing half a wing?

 

[BilliardsBall]

What might a "half formed" bird wing look like?
Try to be a specific as you can, re bones, feathers etc.

It was a long time ago when feathers were thought to be derived from scales.
Catch up already.

As for scales and feathers on the same animal? Behold the chicken.

As for what you can or cannot see, first, I doubt you could even reliably
distinguish between a reptile skull and a mammal skull.

But hey lets try. What do you think these are?

Sign in - Google Accounts

Statements like these that you've made: "As for what you can or cannot see, first, I doubt you could even reliably distinguish between a reptile skull and a mammal skull," are so offensive and inappropriate, demeaning and insulting, they show you don't want to discuss--or even tolerably debate--these issues.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Evolution doesn't say we should find "half-formed" creatures, in the sense you're talking about.
But it does say we should find creatures like mudskippers ...

Mudskipper - Wikipedia
The evolution of fins to limbs in the land invasion race

I am aware that there are mudskippers and many other in-between and crossover species, sure. But the concept of enough mutations accruing to pop a new species into place is merely storytelling power, as these scientists understand: Home | The Third Way of Evolution

I'd like your opinion of that site. I need to learn more.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Honestly, I don't think the Bible needs to be 100% accurate in every single way, in order for someone to take meaning away from it.

It only really matters if a person is claiming that it's the 100% inerrant word of God. Then you're going to run into problems. But to me, the Bible was obviously written by human beings in a particular time in history, and it demonstrates that to us itself in the form of the limited knowledge the people of that day apparently possessed and shared within it. They knew no more or less than people of that time period would have known. In other words, they didn't seem to possess any great knowledge that they couldn't have known at the time, that could only have been handed down to them from some God. Which is exactly what I would expect to find if human beings wrote the Bible.

The Bible doesn't pose any more of an existential threat to me than the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad Gita poses to you.

I appreciate your perspective, however, I keep finding scientific, moral, personality, relationships, and many other utterly true statements in the Bible. For this and other reasons, I see inerrancy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Does this land dwelling fish have half a fin?

What about the ostrich? Half a wing?

What about the seal? Half a fin?

 

[BilliardsBall]

These are all fully formed parts. None of these are half parts, and they may be analogous to many other species' parts that are now passe to call useless or vestigial.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

These are all fully formed parts. None of these are half parts, and they may be analogous to many other species' parts that are now passe to call useless or vestigial.

There is no such thing as a "half part" in evolution, every transitional step is functional and represents an improvement or an increase in function over the prior step. Evolution is incremental. It doesn't decide "This species needs a fourth leg with a join in it", and thus start producing a stump with the useless knee bone in the hopes of eventually reaching a full leg. That's not how evolution works.

 

[Audie]

Statements like these that you've made: "As for what you can or cannot see, first, I doubt you could even reliably distinguish between a reptile skull and a mammal skull," are so offensive and inappropriate, demeaning and insulting, they show you don't want to discuss--or even tolerably debate--these issues.

No offense was intended, and i am wondering how you were able
to find offense in it. But please do report to the mods, if you feel so,
and if they agree, well,I take full fault in the matter.

You will note, that it is standard fare for Christians to
"demean, insult etc" nor Christians, saying we are unable to understand scripture. We get by w/o outrage.

You were of course, talking about what you see-so you introduced your
abilities / perception into the discussion, in support of your
ideas.

So how did you do? Did you know what those two skulls are?
Coz if not-

 

[Audie]

I am aware that there are mudskippers and many other in-between and crossover species, sure. But the concept of enough mutations accruing to pop a new species into place is merely storytelling power, as these scientists understand: Home | The Third Way of Evolution

I'd like your opinion of that site. I need to learn more.

In bold is actually creationist storytelling.

If you get your info from creationist sites, that is the sort of pap they serve.