re: Coelocanths: The "discovered" coelocanth ancestor is simply a
member of an ancient order (family) called the
Sarcopterygii,
not the same species. Like crocs and alligators being related. Wow, huh?
This was
clearly identified in the very link you provided, as simply having similar physiological adaptations which clearly shows it's
ancestry, but
so what as far as you're concerned huh? The depths of your research on any technical topic you flaunt as another irrefutable proof is telling and predictable. You always leave out or disregard the important stuff, or mis-interpret it, you being a scientifically dumb reader.
Note: when the trail goes cold on the
ongoing research of an organism's lineage, such as it's apparent disappearance from the geological column or fossil record, that does
not mean a later adapted species version of it could not have existed in some deep dark, previously unexplored niche, as was found with this relative.
Not that the ongoing research might not ever uncover a later and related ancestor. So what? What does this "prove" to you again?
Example: The existence of modern elephants does not mean that woolly mammoths didn't go extinct, though a comparison of their skeletal remnants would show remarkable comparisons. So what? Even if we found an exact replica of the older species, so what?
Science is always happy to adapt and improve it's knowledge. Then we publish it and you dutifully mis-interpret and mis-quote it. Even when it's an early initial conservative commentary, you then tell us that
"all the world's scientists now agree!" Tripe, certified.
Your conclusion that a recent finding means,
de-facto, that the original fish
didn't exist in the time determined, or was strictly "modern", is of course vacant any logic, background or evidence. Typical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the flood story is found all over the world in oral traditions? You keep saying the Middle East as if that was the only place. You also keep ignoring that the Sumerian Original as you call it, places the ark on a mountain 200 miles south of Mt. Ararat. Yet all Ark sightings to date come from the Biblical location.
However the topic is about snakes once having legs. So I believe we need to say on topic.
|
Again, you ignore my question: show us the exact non-"oral tradition" link where the contemporaneous, and culturally advanced
written culture of China and Japan, mentioned an inundating 180 month Everest-topping flood. A similar cultural documentation from East India, or any other written culture, would also be interesting. BTW, I already did this exercise, and could find
nothing in summaries of Chinese or Japanese history that completely bracketed your impossible YEC chronology, preceding it by many millenia. What gives, Tom?
So again, apparently they could operate underwater. a Godly entitlement? Atlantus defined, but one that never saw fresh air, and only existed under water? Gilled
(species-adapted) hominids? Wow! You may have something here, Tom! Another new species. I'll claim it as
homo sapiens (sub) riflemanii
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
The Hebrew wording of the time was limited. So they used the wording that worked best for them. However that being said, snakes do take dirt into their mouth as a necessary part of survival. Inside the roof of their mouths are two cavities known as Jacobson's organ. As they crawl, they take in dirt with their tongue and put it in this cavity in order to smell their surroundings.
|
What? your literal bible's wording was "limited" and subject ot interpretation? What's this?
NOTE: your snake physiology discussion is:
Biological, physiological hogwash. Coincidental intake of micro dust particles at best, and not necessary for their existence. Obviously.
Your point is an
epic fail.
In fact, most snakes do not live in dusty environs. Your fabrications know no bounds, do they?
Sanspeur is so right. According to your literalist denialism, they must be living on dirt alone, as their benevolent Creator mandated in the bible. Which we are not to necessarily take literally. Unless you insist we do. Or the situation requires it. Or not.
It's
all impossible, as are
all your nonsense and imaginary prognostications. And on top of that, we all see them now for what they are. Your wonderous "arguments" are now officially specious and vacuous. BTW, Let me know if I need to provide definitions of words over one syllable.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Coelocanth Fables
