Jump to content


Photo

A Science Class On The Halibut Fish.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
67 replies to this topic

#1 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 16 May 2008 - 02:05 PM

Simply Watch the Video, and express your thoughts please.

http://www.liveleak....=de7_1191895313

#2 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 16 May 2008 - 03:38 PM

Simply Watch the Video, and express your thoughts please.

http://www.liveleak....=de7_1191895313

View Post


It´s like saying that a Photograph is more perfect than a Picasso.

It´s a ridiculous reasoning and expected from Richard Dawkins.

#3 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 16 May 2008 - 05:57 PM

Here is a close up look of the Picasso:

Posted Image
Image courtesy of: http://www.seawater.no

Maybe there is an intelligent design for why the mouth seems to make a permanent sneer in the leftward direction. But I doubt it. I think the argument seems reasonable.

#4 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 16 May 2008 - 11:27 PM

Here is a close up look of the Picasso:
Snip: So picture does not need to load twice slowing down dial up users.

Maybe there is an intelligent design for why the mouth seems to make a permanent sneer in the leftward direction.  But I doubt it.  I think the argument seems reasonable.

View Post


Using existing DNA template, how would you create a fish that swims on it's side and still have everything else the same?

#5 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 17 May 2008 - 06:11 AM

Using existing DNA template, how would you create a fish that swims on it's side and still have everything else the same?

View Post

:lol: The intermediates, it would seem, should have swum tilted at 15 deg. then 30 deg. then 45 deg. until they reached 90 deg. Should be easy to spot in the fossil record.

Don't forget - this too is an "intermediate". Guess eventually they'll swim upside-down (180 deg.).

#6 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 17 May 2008 - 06:34 AM

Here is a close up look of the Picasso:

Posted Image
Image courtesy of: http://www.seawater.no

Maybe there is an intelligent design for why the mouth seems to make a permanent sneer in the leftward direction.  But I doubt it.  I think the argument seems reasonable.

View Post


1 - I dont know your concept of perfection, but the fish didnt have any problem for surviving.

2 - I doubt Richard Dawkins or any other evolutionist is capable of going into a lab and create a fish like that.How can anyone criticize a thing if he can´t do any better ? It´s typical of evolutionists being arrogant like that.

#7 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 18 May 2008 - 05:16 PM

Just a few remarks.....

1. Richard Dawkins once again reverts to Lamarkian evolution for his explanation of the halibut transformation. First the fish lay down on it's side and then it realized that it had one eye in the sand. :lol: :o We need to recognize that this is not TOE. First there must have been a random mutation that caused the change in the eye. Then that would have to have been beneficial to the extent that it gave a reproductive advantage. And there would have been a multitude of these mutations. None of this is reasonable. But it is a nice fairy tale for young children. He doesn't even understand the theory he preaches.

2. Any distortions in the skull are more likely explained by negative mutations that occurred in large populations from pollutants on the sea floor. The mutations did not get selected out, because there was no reproductive advantage for the populations without the negative mutations.

3. God didn't design just a Hallibut. He designed an entire universe and this world and an entire ecosystem in which the Hallibut was just an microscopic part. The design of the Hallibut was perfect in the beginning until evolution got ahold of it in the last 6000 years. And God knows every colored scale on each Hallibut.

4. How does Dawkins know what a good design for a Hallibut would be? He's never designed a thing in his life.

5. And all of Satan's people said...Amen. Folks this is blatant religion and evangelistic preaching. This is not science.

Eph 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

#8 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 18 May 2008 - 09:54 PM

Just a few remarks.....

1.  Richard Dawkins once again reverts to Lamarkian evolution for his explanation of the halibut transformation.  First the fish lay down on it's side and then it realized that it had one eye in the sand. :lol:  :o We need to recognize that this is not TOE.  First there must have been a random mutation that caused the change in the eye.  Then that would have to have been beneficial to the extent that it gave a reproductive advantage.  And there would have been a multitude of these mutations.  None of this is reasonable.  But it is a nice fairy tale for young children.  He doesn't even understand the theory he preaches.

View Post


C'mon that is a stretch - Lamarkian evolution promoted by Dawkins? He is smarter than that. In the video you will notice that he is explaining this to children. I have read a few of his books and he never puts forth Lamarkian evolution - in explaining it to children simplification of something as complicated as natural selection can sound like it though. He is not implying that the ancestor fish needed to not have one eye in the sand and therefore willed it so - I would be interested in seeing the rest of the video and I wouldn't be surprised if Dawkins explains how natural selection selects beneficial traits in the ancestor populations descendants. I am quite sure that Richard Dawkins understands the TOE much better than anyone on this forum including those of us who accept evolution.

#9 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 19 May 2008 - 02:42 AM

C'mon that is a stretch - Lamarkian evolution promoted by Dawkins?  He is smarter than that.  In the video you will notice that he is explaining this to children. I have read a few of his books and he never puts forth Lamarkian evolution - in explaining it to children simplification of something as complicated as natural selection can sound like it though.  He is not implying that the ancestor fish needed to not have one eye in the sand and therefore willed it so - I would be interested in seeing the rest of the video and I wouldn't be surprised if Dawkins explains how natural selection selects beneficial traits in the ancestor populations descendants.  I am quite sure that Richard Dawkins understands the TOE much better than anyone on this forum including those of us who accept evolution.

View Post


What a faithful follower :lol:

#10 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 19 May 2008 - 05:34 AM

What a faithful follower :lol:

View Post



Sarcasm doesn't make it so :o

I am not a "follower" of Dawkins - in fact I find his bluntness counter productive. However, which part of my response suggests that I am a "follower" of Dawkins? I mean logic dictates that Dawkins, an Oxford University professor, knows the difference between Lamarkian evolution and Darwinian evolution - don't you agree?

#11 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 19 May 2008 - 05:40 AM

Sarcasm doesn't make it so  :lol:

I am not a "follower" of Dawkins - in fact I find his bluntness counter productive. However, which part of my response suggests that I am a "follower" of Dawkins?  I mean logic dictates that Dawkins, an Oxford University professor, knows the difference between Lamarkian evolution and Darwinian evolution - don't you agree?

View Post


I dont know if he really knows, but that video suggests he doesnt

#12 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 19 May 2008 - 05:52 AM

C'mon that is a stretch - Lamarkian evolution promoted by Dawkins?  He is smarter than that.  In the video you will notice that he is explaining this to children.   I have read a few of his books and he never puts forth Lamarkian evolution - in explaining it to children simplification of something as complicated as natural selection can sound like it though.  He is not implying that the ancestor fish needed to not have one eye in the sand and therefore willed it so - I would be interested in seeing the rest of the video and I wouldn't be surprised if Dawkins explains how natural selection selects beneficial traits in the ancestor populations descendants.  I am quite sure that Richard Dawkins understands the TOE much better than anyone on this forum including those of us who accept evolution.

View Post

The only stretch is yours and his imagination. Please offer me evidence that there is a reasonable explantation of reproductive advantage at any stage from the hallibut lying on it's side to the finished product. Every stage from the first until the eyes were completely moved to the other side would be a reproductive disadvantage.

This is nothing more than imagination. Folk lore. Mysticism. Evangelism. And out right lies to children. Get it out of the schools. Shameful hypocracy!

And no, this is not a stretch from the great evangelist Dawkins. He uses Lamarkian evolution every time he is faced with irreducible complexity in the animal kingdom. (The evolution of the eye????) (And remember, the eye evolved independently some sixty + times in the evolutionary tree. But noooooooo!, the hand and wrist and arm bones couldn't have evolved independently. :lol: :o ) The problem he and you have in your own theory is that each of a gazillion evolutionary steps along the way must be naturally selected as giving a reproductive advantage. If not, then no evolution. It's that simple.

For example is the A-l Milano mutation an example of a "beneficial mutation" that will be naturally sected though the population? What reproductive advantage does this mutation create?

#13 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 19 May 2008 - 06:10 AM

Sarcasm doesn't make it so  :lol:

I am not a "follower" of Dawkins - in fact I find his bluntness counter productive. However, which part of my response suggests that I am a "follower" of Dawkins?  I mean logic dictates that Dawkins, an Oxford University professor, knows the difference between Lamarkian evolution and Darwinian evolution - don't you agree?

View Post


You are correct. He does know the differece. But his own logical reasoning processes declare the impossibility of Darwinian evolution to his mind, so his mind then reverts to Lamarkian explanations, because Darwinian explanations are unreasonable. It's his logic that is the problem for him. His religion over powers his logic.

That's why the scripture calls this foolishness.

#14 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 19 May 2008 - 06:20 AM

You guys have bought up some good points.

My main concern for the video was not,

- That the fish layed side ways with one eye on the sand for thousands of years for no reason until it's eye moved around :lol:

What got me fired up about the video was Dawkins Strike against Creation.

It’s the same thing that has been going on in the past and is going on today. In the MainStream Scientific Community(As some like to say), in schools, on TV and in our everyday lives.

Merging and thwarting words and definitions to mean what you want/need them to mean in order to justify your own belief system.

This video is a pure example of Evolutionary Evangelism.

By using Dawkins Logic on the Halibut Fish, we should also be led to believe that there were poodles on Noah’s Ark. :o

If Dawkins is giving a science lecture why would Dawkins seal the deal with the last statement in the sentence when he said this:

"..so this is an imperfection in design, which is just the kind of thing you would expect to see if these creatures had evolved, but very much not the kind of thing you would expect to see if these creatures had been created".


Is Dawkins teaching Religion in Sunday School or is he teaching Science Class ?

Why would he even throw that in there? Perhaps he is just doing what pastors do best. Spreading the word.

In Any case it’s very clear that Dawkins is indeed trying to inject something bigger then what we can see on the surface. I thought Science was blind, and it is what it is?

All in all, Dawkins gives us another clear view of how the Religion of Evolution works.
" Blah, blah Blah,...blah, blah. And that's what the Mainstream Sceintists Super Smart People say happen Kids, So Don't question it, Just shut up and listen !"

If Evolution were real science he could have left out the anything to do with creation. Dawkins, The Atheists god himself could have easily described to these children the science behind the fish, but he couldn’t. So he had to try and point out some kind of underhanded strike against God. Proving once again that the ToE is indeed "On Trial" and must stand against it's alternative by any means necessary.

"My Poodle Reference"
Just as Poodles were NOT created during the "6 Day Creation" what makes you think this Hallibut fish was too ?
After the Creation week, the Original Kinds were "Very Good" as stated in Genesis. No Flaws. BUT Since the Bible tells us that Mutations entered the world through Sin, All the Original Kinds from Then until Now have been subject to random mutations that follow right along with what Science tells us today. Always on the Downward slope.
So for an Evo-Athe to say that the fish was of Bad design, refering that God was a Bad designer, is completly Off base and only shows Dawkins Ignorance as well as his followers ignorance on what Science and the Bible are really saying.

The Halibut is a fish, tainted by hundreds of years of mutation which came AFTER Mutations entered the world.

Therefore God did not create the Halibut as one of the "Very Good" kinds in the beginning of Time.

Evolution nor Creation can exist on just Science. They both require Faith.

The Real question is what do you put your faith in ?

Of course this is all My Opinion, other Christians might not agree ....

#15 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 19 May 2008 - 04:09 PM

The only stretch is yours and his imagination.  Please offer me evidence that there is a reasonable explantation of reproductive advantage at any stage from the hallibut lying on it's side to the finished product.  Every stage from the first until the eyes were completely moved to the other side would be a reproductive disadvantage.

View Post


Why would it be a disadvantage? It is not clear to me.

I am no expert on fish but I would imagine judging from the picture that the reproductive advantage is that the fish is better camaflouged against predators and better able to bottom feed food from the sea floor.

It seems to me that you think that the TOE claims that the fish made an intellectual choice to start swimming on its side and then evolved to fit that configuration. I think the scenario is that the ancestor fish population started hanging around the bottom of the sea floor because they found more food or safety there and the offspring who were slightly more tilted had higher chances of survival because they were better able to hide themselves. The strange facial geometry evolved in the same manner perhaps in tandum once the tilt was significant enough.


But like I said I don't know anything about fish really except that they taste good.

#16 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 19 May 2008 - 05:03 PM

You guys have bought up some good points.

My main concern for the video was not,

- That the fish layed side ways with one eye on the sand for thousands of years for no reason until it's eye moved around  :lol:

What got me fired up about the video was Dawkins Strike against Creation.

It’s the same thing that has been going on in the past and is going on today. In the MainStream Scientific Community(As some like to say), in schools, on TV and in our everyday lives.

Merging and thwarting words and definitions to mean what you want/need them to mean in order to justify your own belief system.

This video is a pure example of Evolutionary Evangelism.

By using Dawkins Logic on the Halibut Fish, we should also be led to believe that there were poodles on Noah’s Ark.  :o

If Dawkins is giving a science lecture why would Dawkins seal the deal with the last statement in the sentence when he said this:
Is Dawkins teaching Religion in Sunday School or is he teaching Science Class ?

Why would he even throw that in there? Perhaps he is just doing what pastors do best. Spreading the word.

In Any case it’s very clear that Dawkins is indeed trying to inject something bigger then what we can see on the surface. I thought Science was blind, and it is what it is?

All in all, Dawkins gives us another clear view of how the Religion of Evolution works.
" Blah, blah Blah,...blah, blah. And that's what the Mainstream Sceintists Super Smart People say happen Kids, So Don't question it, Just shut up and listen !"

If Evolution were real science he could have left out the anything to do with creation. Dawkins, The Atheists god himself could have easily described to these children the science behind the fish, but he couldn’t. So he had to try and point out some kind of underhanded strike against God. Proving once again that the ToE is indeed "On Trial" and must stand against it's alternative by any means necessary.

"My Poodle Reference"
Just as Poodles were NOT created during the "6 Day Creation" what makes you think this Hallibut fish was too ?
After the Creation week, the Original Kinds were "Very Good" as stated in Genesis. No Flaws. BUT Since the Bible tells us that Mutations entered the world through Sin, All the Original Kinds from Then until Now have been subject to random mutations that follow right along with what Science tells us today. Always on the Downward slope.
So for an Evo-Athe to say that the fish was of Bad design, refering that God was a Bad designer, is completly Off base and only shows Dawkins Ignorance as well as his followers ignorance on what Science and the Bible are really saying.

The Halibut is a fish, tainted by hundreds of years of mutation which came AFTER Mutations entered the world.

Therefore God did not create the Halibut as one of the "Very Good" kinds in the beginning of Time.

Evolution nor Creation can exist on just Science. They both require Faith.

The Real question is what do you put your faith in ?

Of course this is all My Opinion, other Christians might not agree ....

View Post

If the mutations that distorted the skull are an "oops" of a fallen world, then I think some evidence would help. Dawkins doesn't just pull his evolutionary explanation out of thin air. The embryonic development of the flatfish has actually been thoroughly studied. It turns out that the flatfish skull actually starts out symmetrical and normal. Then it twists and distorts later on in time, becoming the ugly-looking thing you see in adulthood. If the ugliness was caused by pollution or whatever else, then I guess the flatfish should count itself lucky that it caused both eyes to be facing upward. If God created the flatfish to have both both eyes facing upward, then the bad mutations you propose should be reflected in the embryonic development.

Don't take my word for it. There is a page with scientifically-published illustrations here:

http://pharyngula.or..._funny_looking/

And, if you are really serious, you can look up the original scientific works yourself at a local college library. Like this one:

Martinez GM, Bolker JA (2003) Embryonic and Larval Staging of Summer Flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) J Morph 255:162-176.

EDIT: You are in luck. The full study was published online as a PDF here:

http://www3.intersci...020088/PDFSTART

#17 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 20 May 2008 - 07:34 AM

If the mutations that distorted the skull are an "oops" of a fallen world, then I think some evidence would help. 

Dawkins doesn't just pull his evolutionary explanation out of thin air.

.  If God created the flatfish to have both both eyes facing upward,


Tempest,

You've merged a few things that I've said which is leading you to miss the point my friend.

1: Mutations are not an "oops" as you say. Mutations are a result of sin. This is why All mutations we see today are ALL Bad. The conclusion of the mutation might be benficial, but nonetheless is stilled classified as a mutation of losing something.

2: As I stated in my first reply:

My main concern for the video was not,

- That the fish layed side ways with one eye on the sand for thousands of years for no reason until it's eye moved around


3: Again you've missed the point. Please read my post again.
I do not believe the Halibut Fish was one of the Original Perfect Created Kinds.
This fish is a result of YEARS of Mutations.

TOPIC:
My main concern is why Dawkins would inject anything to do with ID while teaching a Science Class :blink: :o :lol:

Regards,

Dee :)

#18 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 20 May 2008 - 08:59 AM

Tempest,

You've merged a few things that I've said which is leading you to miss the point my friend.

1: Mutations are not an "oops" as you say. Mutations are a result of sin. This is why All mutations we see today are ALL Bad. The conclusion of the mutation might be benficial, but nonetheless is stilled classified as a mutation of losing something.

2: As I stated in my first reply:
3: Again you've missed the point. Please read my post again.
I do not believe the Halibut Fish was one of the Original Perfect Created Kinds.
This fish is a result of YEARS of Mutations.

TOPIC:
My main concern is why Dawkins would inject anything to do with ID while teaching a Science Class  :blink:  :o  :lol:

Regards,

Dee  :)

View Post

OriginMan, I am sorry for the misunderstanding. Exactly how do you think the flatfish started out when it was created? Both eyes up but better looking? Or maybe one eye in the sand, and then the eye moved around to adapt? Or maybe it started out vertical, and then it evolved to become horizontal.

Maybe that isn't important. What really concerns you is Dawkins indoctrinating children against creationism. I don't know what context this video is in--private event, public school, US, UK, or whatever, so it is difficult to comment on the politics. But I think it is best to look at things from the perspective of Dawkins et al. From their perspective, young-Earth creationism is in the same scientific league as a flat Earth, or the theory that the four Platonic solids compose our environment. From that perspective, you would see it as a responsibility to take a stand against such deplorable falsehood. He is giving his views not with mere assertions, but with sound evidence, which I think is to be appreciated.

#19 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 20 May 2008 - 09:49 AM

OriginMan, I am sorry for the misunderstanding.  Exactly how do you think the flatfish started out when it was created?  Both eyes up but better looking?  Or maybe one eye in the sand, and then the eye moved around to adapt?  Or maybe it started out vertical, and then it evolved to become horizontal.

Maybe that isn't important.  What really concerns you is Dawkins indoctrinating children against creationism.  I don't know what context this video is in--private event, public school, US, UK, or whatever, so it is difficult to comment on the politics.  But I think it is best to look at things from the perspective of Dawkins et al.  From their perspective, young-Earth creationism is in the same scientific league as a flat Earth, or the theory that the four Platonic solids compose our environment.  From that perspective, you would see it as a responsibility to take a stand against such deplorable falsehood.  He is giving his views not with mere assertions, but with sound evidence, which I think is to be appreciated.

View Post


Sound evidence ?? is a subjective definition of perfection a sound evidence ? dont make me laugh

First , He must give a scientific definition of perfection.Second, he must show how the flatfish is classified into that definition.And in the end he must explain why God would not create the flatfish.

#20 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 20 May 2008 - 11:01 AM

Why would it be a disadvantage?  It is not clear to me.

I am no expert on fish but I would imagine judging from the picture that the reproductive advantage is that the fish is better camaflouged against predators and better able to bottom feed food from the sea floor. 

It seems to me that you think that the TOE claims that the fish made an intellectual choice to start swimming on its side and then evolved to fit that configuration.  I think the scenario is that the ancestor fish population started hanging around the bottom of the sea floor because they found more food or safety there and the offspring who were slightly more tilted had higher chances of survival because they were better able to hide themselves.  The strange facial geometry evolved in the same manner perhaps in tandum once the tilt was significant enough.
But like I said I don't know anything about fish really except that they taste good.

View Post


Fairy tales like this often amaze me, but it is a significant demonstration of how much faith there is in TOE. And its not just your tale, its Dawkins tale. Creationists have three basic stories that create the foundation of their faith in the scriptures of Genesis. The first is creation and the fall. The second is the flood of Noah. And the third is the Tower of Babel dispersion. "Science" advocates like to riddicule us for faith in such "folklore" and "mysticism.

All the while they have constructed a myriad of mysical sories that you would have to belive to adhere to TOE. One such as the fairytale just shared by you.

You see, God created the hallibut to show you evidence that TOE is wrong. The fish begins it's metamorphosis from symetrical fish to asymetrical fish after its first month of life. The process takes several weeks. During this time, this fish becomes greatly disfigured. Its skull deforms, and one eye begins the migration from one side to the other. The spots/camoflauge also don't appear until this time.

During this metamorphosis The fish has to be at a great competitve disadvantage in any environment. It is not fully camoflauged, it doesn't lay fully on the bottom of the ocean yet, it's skull is being deformed every day. And its eye is somewhere between symetrical and somewhere else along its pathway to its final resting place. But it does survive by design, not nature.

And we are to believe that this several week process is a competitive advantage for the hallibut. And the evolution fairy tale as presented suggests that a series of mutations for this entire metamorphosis happenned one by one over millions of years. And each one was naturally selected, because it generated some reproductive advantage in its environment.

I'm sorry but that just begs the reasoning process. Even my poorly trained scientific mind can't rationalize that one. And there are a myriad of such fairytales in TOE. The hallibut declares the glory of God. Maybe someday, you will open your eyes to see it. Without that glory, you will just stumble in the darkness of TOE.

I'll stick with the creation story and Noah's flood for now. They at least are reasonable IMHO.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users