[Hindsite]

Hindsite. You simply do not understand the creation story. Let me lead you through it and fill in the blanks.

We can forget about the first couple of days because was busy "moving above the firmaments and such. BORING. Even for him. All that nice firmament and heavens and what did he see when he looked at it?

You can't forget about any of the days, if you want to understand the creation story. The earth, water, physical heaven, and light came into being in the first two days.

And God called the light day and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
(Genesis 1:3)

And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
(Genesis 1:8)

The third day:

And now we haaave? Bupkes. Literally beans. And trees and grass and all. And here is where it gets confusing. We have light and darkness. Not days yet. Why not "days"? Read on McDuff.

Well, we do have days and nights (See Genesis 1:3 and 1:8 quoted above).

Now we have days! But before there were days look at all that went on.

On day one God was creating water and the formless earth in the darkness until He called light into being.

We also have astrology. Look at the purpose of the lights. (And oh by the way a boon to all of the plants he made before there were days.

Those lights are the sun, moon, and the stars and they were to give light on the earth and to allow man to tell time once he is made, as well as to provide sunlight for the vegetation. God expanded the space of heaven as he placed the stars. This occurred on the fourth day.

We have fish. And a shit ton of them if this is to be believed. And (who knew) birds came from the ocean! Now we have a world with fish and birds. Modern Paleontology is down with this. Because birds are descended from dinosaurs and dinosaurs from fish this works well.

I think his proves the stupid theory of evolution is wrong.

I think contemplating this will be good for you. It is not hard so I think you will find it stimulating. Get back to me with what you figure out. I am too busy being a Christian to worry about what Jews were doing 6,000 years ago. If it weren't for the pretty pictures I wouldn't give much of a fuck about the cave paintings either.

You obviously don't understand the creation story. And those cave paintings are not 35,000 years old. That is complete nonsense.

[B0ycey]

Have I been reading that people are calling humans fish? @anasawad, is completely correct. Fish is a descriptive term. We might have evolved from a specific creature that was categorised as a fish many years ago but the does not mean humans are fish. Little clue... we're mammals. What next? Should I call my computer silicon because that is what the microchips are made of?

[Godstud]

I have been to the Smithsonian and I believe they try to do the best they can, but I could be wrong.

You are wrong, not the Smithsonian. They believe in science and knowledge, not pushing dogmatic religious beliefs that contradict real science and evidence. You will also not being able to provide evidence that they are pushing propaganda, because you are so very wrong.

No, I am not being willfully ignorant, so I am not stupid.

You are pushing an agenda that dismisses science, facts, and evidence, in favour of religious dogma. That's willful ignorance.

You don't want to believe the science and facts, because you THINK it will diminish your beliefs/faith. This assumption that science interferes with your belief system is where you are fundamentally wrong.

[Hindsite]

Have I been reading that people are calling humans fish? @anasawad, is completely correct. Fish is a descriptive term. We might have evolved from a specific creature that was categorised as a fish many years ago but the does not mean humans are fish. Little clue... we're mammals. What next? Should I call my computer silicon because that is what the microchips are made of?

(1 Corinthians 15:37-40)
And what you sow is not the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or something else. But God gives it a body as He has designed, and to each kind of seed He gives its own body. Not all flesh is the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another, and fish another. There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. But the splendor of the heavenly bodies is of one degree, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is of another.
Praise the Lord.

[Godstud]

Using Bible passages to combat scientific arguments = stupid

[Potemkin]

Have I been reading that people are calling humans fish? @anasawad, is completely correct. Fish is a descriptive term. We might have evolved from a specific creature that was categorised as a fish many years ago but the does not mean humans are fish. Little clue... we're mammals. What next? Should I call my computer silicon because that is what the microchips are made of?

We are indeed mammals, and mammals too are fish. Cladistically speaking.

In fact, it's worse than that - I've also called humans dinoflagellates too. That's right, we are just colonies of eukaryotic micro-organisms who have deluded themselves that they are a cut above the other microbes. The 'human' microbes have moved to a posh area, put on a fake upper-class accent, and whenever they meet their former friends they cut them dead. Lol.

[Hindsite]

Using Bible passages to combat scientific arguments = STUPID.

It is from the HOLY Bible. Praise the Lord.

[B0ycey]

We are indeed mammals, and mammals too are fish. Cladistically speaking.

Well that is fine, but all you are doing is making the term 'fish' and 'mammal' redundant. They are terms used to help describe living organisms and not to be used to mistakenly identify a creature by ancestry. Apart from that, I would agree with 90% of what you have written.

[Potemkin]

Well that is fine, but all you are doing is making the term 'fish' and 'mammal' redundant. They are terms used to help describe living organisms and not to be used to mistakenly identify a creature by ancestry.

Yet this is what professional biologists do every day of the week. Maybe you should pester the biology department of your local university by phoning them up every day and telling them that they are doing it all wrong. I'm sure they'd be grateful for your help. Lol.

Apart from that, I would agree with 90% of what you have written.

Then you are 90% right, B0ycey.

[foxdemon]

Well that is fine, but all you are doing is making the term 'fish' and 'mammal' redundant. They are terms used to help describe living organisms and not to be used to mistakenly identify a creature by ancestry. Apart from that, I would agree with 90% of what you have written.

Technically speaking @Potemkin is correct. We are amoebas (Last common ancestor for hetrotropic eukaryotes, eg: humans and mushrooms). That’s about as far back as we can reasonably go at this point.

[B0ycey]

Yet this is what professional biologists do every day of the week. Maybe you should pester the biology department of your local university by phoning them up every day and telling them that they are doing it all wrong. I'm sure they'd be grateful for your help. Lol.

Then I will do a PoD and ask for you to provide the evidence for this statement. I have never known any biologist refer to a human as a fish. They might have referred to fossils of creatures that were categorised as a fish in the past to explain the evolution of the jaw but never actually state that humans are fish. Only you have done that.

[Ganeshas Rat]

Of course, Potemkin isn't right. Species exist only because the links extincted. You can use the word "fish" because it's a separated entity of modern organisms. In the whole tree of life it wouldn't have no sense because how would you determine that some organism isn't yet fish and some already is?

[mikema63]

The dominant species concept in evolutionary biology is the evolutionary ditches concept is the evolutionary species concept which includes the life history and trajectory of a species in the definition of that species.

Because there are no cases of a fish giving birth to a non fish, just a very slightly different fish, all fish descendents must therefore be differentiated fish. Just as we are still apes despite being differentiated apes and still mammals despite being very different than our mammal ancestors.

This is how biologists think of species because it is how they actually are.

[B0ycey]

Technically speaking @Potemkin is correct. We are amoebas

We are amoebas!!! The last time I checked I had more than one cell.

Listen, I understand your point, we follow a link on the tree of life. But when you start categorizing something that clearly isn't in that catagory you both sound stupid (at least it's on topic) and make the actually meaning of those words redundant. So please, let's agree humans are not fish and bring sanity to this thread.

[B0ycey]

The dominant species concept in evolutionary biology is the evolutionary ditches concept is the evolutionary species concept which includes the life history and trajectory of a species in the definition of that species.

Because there are no cases of a fish giving birth to a non fish, just a very slightly different fish, all fish descendents must therefore be differentiated fish. Just as we are still apes despite being differentiated apes and still mammals despite being very different than our mammal ancestors.

This is how biologists think of species because it is how they actually are.

If this was true (which it isn't), why would Biologists use clandistics to describe organisms? Just call everything bacteria and be done with it.

[Ganeshas Rat]

This is how biologists think of species because it is how they actually are.

Um, no? My opinion is based on the words of Dawkins who said something like this: "The finding of all extinct organisms as fossils would be a catastrophe for classification as there would be no way to split them into species".

[mikema63]

Except from the perspective of a biologist we are extremely similar to our ameboid ancestor. Particularly on a cellular level where this is more apparent. All of the apparatuses of the nucleus and cell division are derived from our single celled evolutionary history which makes us eukaryotes.

That we refer to ourselves as eukaryotes and not amebas most of the time hides the fact that we have been referring to ourselves like this for a very long time now in biology.

If this was true (which it isn't), why would Biologists use clandistics to describe organisms? Just call everything bacteria and be done with it.

If you are going to simply refuse to believe it I'm not sure it's possible to convince you of it besides forcing you to take a few bio courses.

We aren't just bacteria from an evolutionary point of view. What we are contains our entire evolutionary history which must include prokaryotic ancestors but must also include everything else. Nothing can be excludes from the definition of a living organism.

The fact that this in unintuitive for a lot of people is why people teach a slightly incorrect but simpler and more intuitive version in introductory courses. Kinda like how we teach the bohr model of the atom.

Um, no? My opinion is based on the words of Dawkins who said something like this: "The finding of all extinct organisms as fossils would be a catastrophe for classification as there would be no way to split them into species".

Please don't quote Dawkins at me. The man is quote mined to death. Fossils are helpful for figuring out some specifics of the history of life but are actually the least important lines of evidence overall despite people's endless obsession with them.

[B0ycey]

If you are going to simply refuse to believe it I'm not sure it's possible to convince you of it besides forcing you to take a few bio courses.

Call a human a fish if you like. What do I care. And perhaps I have taken a few bio courses.

[Potemkin]

This is like travelling back in time and trying to explain the theory of evolution to somebody from 1243 AD. Beyond a certain point, they're just going to stare at you with their mouth agape, unable to believe what they're hearing. Lol.

At least Hindsite is more honest. He doesn't like what he's heard of these newfangled ideas, so he just rejects it all tout court in favour of Biblical revealed truth. He is at least self-consistent. I can respect that.

[B0ycey]

This is like travelling back in time and trying to explain the theory of evolution to somebody from 1243 AD. Beyond a certain point, they're just going to stare at you with their mouth agape, unable to believe what they're hearing. Lol.

At least Hindsite is more honest. He doesn't like what he's heard of these newfangled ideas, so he just rejects it all tout court in favour of Biblical revealed truth. He is at least self-consistent. I can respect that.

Nobody is arguing evolution Pote or that a human ancestor was a fish. But I do not refer to a human as a fish. And Cladistically speaking there are other links before and after fish anyway.