God, the Bible, and religion - a Kong search for truth page 205

So, fish hopped up on land, over and over till he developed lungs?

Now, how about we skip the foreplay, get to whatever point you think is your killer argument that the world’s experts on the subject could not answer.

I think part of the problem is that his parameters for what counts as an answer are incredibly limiting. Even though we’ve got most of this recreated in a laboratory setting, it can just be brushed aside because it isn’t convenient for him to acknowledge it.

Originally posted by jakedasnake8:

So, fish hopped up on land, over and over till he developed lungs?

No. Nobody ever said that.

Let me break it down for you. Fish respirate via gills (which are incredibly inefficient). By freak chance, one fish was born with a mutation that gave it small, largely redundant, lunglike structures, that allow it to respirate using an oxygen/nitrogen mixture that we commonly refer to as “air”.

At some point down the line, this (as it wasn’t detrimental, the prelung structures wouldn’t be selected against. Therefore, they’d maintain a presence, if not a large one, in the population) became beneficial. Perhaps the water dried up, or oxygen stopped getting mixed into the water (for instance, if the water stagnated). All of the sudden, the pre-lungfish has a higher chance of survival than the lungless fish, and thus, is selected for, making lungs more prominent. After many thousands of generations, the lung structures improved, giving rise to lungs capable of supplying oxygenated blood to the entire fish’s body, without support from the gills. This is how the modern lungfish works.

This conveys a massive evolutionary advantage.

So now we have lungs. But what about legs? Well, perhaps some fish gets born with fins that are more muscular than normal. These become (again, after thousands of generations, through a process that I loosely described above), the first legs.

This is how evolution by natural selection works.

Bleh, forget this. Jake clearly isn’t interested in actually having a discussion, he just wants to preach and feel like he won. I’m going to sleep.

Originally posted by jakedasnake8:

So, fish hopped up on land, over and over till he developed lungs?

It’s much more complicated than that.

So, fish hopped up on land, over and over till he developed lungs?

Other way around, lungs are a useful adaption to costal or swampy environments, where the water can become stagnant and poisonous to fish. As are limbs developing from fins.

I sense the fanatic is getting totally PWNED.

Originally posted by jakedasnake8:

So, fish hopped up on land, over and over till he developed lungs?

Oh, please!
We had our fun. Until you actually provide a point that could be said to attribute to your argument I will simply hold on to that old saying
obvious troll is obvious.

Jake, try thinking more along this track:

Fish —> Amphibians —> Land Dwellers

Fuzzybacon, just being helpful: The first lung was probably a modified “air bladder” a sac filled with air inside the fish that helped it be buoyant.

Jake,you must be as dense as brick.

Your beliving that some little book came up,and had a bunch of scientific theroys that proved ’’God’’ and ’’Jesus’’es existance.It has no legitmate proof at all,and then your saying he is right about God is real,just because we can’t answer a nearly impossible question.Something dosen’t need a reason to exist,but some common sense.

Now, now, no need to resort to insults. The best way to back up a claim of being the more intelligent is to actually act more intelligently, punkdude.

So, Jake – You’ve already been introduced to the lungfish. Let me introduce you to another remarkable creature: The mudskipper. Not only are they fairly cute, they also represent a link between amphibians and fish. They spend extended periods of time on dry land (well, in the mud, but anyway), yet they do not have lungs. The lungfish way is much less likely to have occurred in our lineage, since it is only useful in the pretty special situation that critter is in. The mudskipper’s way of life is useful pretty much anywhere, though.
So, the assumed way it went is as follows: Fish discover that spending some time on land is a nifty thing to be able to do (understand that at this point there was virtually no danger on the land whatsoever, but abundant plant life), and anything that can prolong these periods is likely to be selected for. Fish have air bladders, and had them at the time. It really isn’t any kind of leap to make a connection here.

Actually, there is a separate thread to discuss this very thing. How about we take it over there?

I’ve already posted this before but since most people don’t even bother reading the entire thread now I will post it again. Evolution for dummies. Explore the entire website, read up every page, and if you still think you have an argument, then feel free to post in the appropriate thread.

Originally posted by RMcD:

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

You can’t add the 8 to infinity because if it’s infinity, you can never reach the end to add it on.

This makes me able to explain it a bit better. If you are to add an 8 to the otherwise infinitely continuing amount of 9s in 0.9999…, you would make the number finite, since it has an end now.

It doesn’t have an end. If it did it would be 8.

There are. Since you could make 0.999…8 infinite as well. Count the number of decimals you have to add to make the number infinite. Well, it’s an infinite amount.

It is infinite.

There is a solution at Syneil’s thread.

For people who don’t believe anything in the Bible or The Book of Mormon: they are registered as a piece of history…so…are you saying that you don’t believe any history at all? If its on paper, its not true? Right…

So, if you believe in the Bible, by your logic does that mean that you believe everything ever written as true?

Originally posted by Arbitor165:

So, if you believe in the Bible, by your logic does that mean that you believe everything ever written as true?

No. First, there is common sense: dragons, faires, etc. Second, are any of those fiction books been registered as historical books? Hmm?

Yes, a wizard living in the sky is much more logical than dragons and fairies.

Troy; firstly, I want a source that says it is labeled as a historical document? Because the Smithsonian says that it isn’t.

Also, you are using a logical fallacy: If A is B, and A is C; then all B are C.

Originally posted by EPR89:

From at least 5 on it’s pure bullshit.
You want to say that God came from nothing?

I’m going for greek god mythology. No I don’t believe in Zeus. Let me explain:

Ages. The titans was the age before our Zeus and Poesidon. Maybe it’s the same with our god, if their gods aren’t real.

Now, the fist god… hmm… good question. not sure.

EPLANATION: God at the moment is the son of, say, A god called jimmy? He’s the son of another god, say bob. etc.

Darver, isn’t that Zoroastrianism?

Originally posted by Captain_Catface:

Darver, isn’t that Zoroastrianism?

I dunno. I don’t know the technical terms i.e

Originally posted by Captain_Catface:

Zoroastrianism

To cut theese 200 pages short: Are we actually trying to prove/disprove religion/christianity here?

Or, are people just throwing their own oppoinions at eachother?

Trying to prove/disprove religion is like trying to eat water. You cant, because they named it “religion” for that specifik reason, that its not about knowing, its about believing. From a scientific point of view though, it is possible to prove or at least enforce it, if you are able to provide proof of miracles etc. Until that day, dont bother.

Throwing feces at science is another matter though.

I know I’m a little late, but in response to fuzzybacons link on the miller-Urey experiments, they are so full of holes you cant possibly imagine to use it as support for life to have just popped out of nowhere

http://othello.alma.edu/~07tmhopk/millerurey.html

Originally posted by jjuanksta:

I know I’m a little late, but in response to fuzzybacons link on the miller-Urey experiments, they are so full of holes you cant possibly imagine to use it as support for life to have just popped out of nowhere

http://othello.alma.edu/~07tmhopk/millerurey.html

To destroy your source:

The methane and ammonia concentrations were not chosen to reflect any perceived concentrations in the early earth atmosphere.

That simply isn’t true. It is well known that the earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere.

suffice it to say that a methane-ammonia atmosphere would prevent life rather than create it.

Plenty of cell can survive or even thrive in similar environments, such as extremophiles

He also explains that older sedimentary rocks contain no evidence of a methane-ammonia atmosphere

Not true

he addresses the fact that the early earth atmosphere contained heavy xenon and krypton gases which escaped from the atmosphere.

[citation needed]
Also note that he is not a geochemicist, as the site claimed, but a physicist.

“intelligently designed” section

Of course they designed the experiment to increase yield. They do not have several billion years, as the earth did, to produce monomers. Say that only 100 monomers are created every day, and that only .000001% of monomers reach the ocean. After 300,000,000 years (approximate time from the formation of a rock surface – first cells) 109,500 monomers are formed. I’d say that is plenty.

see also

Interesting fact, Religion means to reveil, or hide knowledge. This sounds like a a bad thing, but in fact it serves the purpose of making a practitioner work for a gain. On another facet, whether there is a God or not does not really matter. One could call religion a way of life and it would still help as much. I have studied all of the worlds religions in great detail so I do feel that I know what I’m talking about and not just spouting off.

But, theistic religions are inherently dangerous.

For that matter, any false belief is inherently dangerous.