Scientists get a better picture of how reptles lost their limbs...

[WinterBorn]

You're all over the place and most of us know what to do if we have appendicitis. I have the hard evidence while you present opinions.

I am not all over the place. I have simply said there are vestigial limbs in some species of snakes. You can Google it and see the x-rays of these limbs.

You have presented no hard evidence. You have simply denied something that is known to exist.

 

[Cougarbear]

That's right. That's how scientists talk. Once again, you are confused by a lifetime of living among charlatans and magical thinkers who assert things as absolutely true without evidence. Proofs are for mathematics. This has been examined to you as if you are 5 years old. I don't know how to explain things to a 2 year old, so I think you are out of luck, here.
Because it gave individuals in an isolated population of reptiles a breeding advantage over the other individuals in the population somehow. In no way would it be required that every lizard population evolve the same way, or that this would be an advantage in all environments, or would even come to dominate another population under the same selective pressures.

Glad you acknowledge your fuzzy speech. Some call it double-talk. Actually, people without any proof talk that way sounding like they know what they are talking about but in reality, have no facts or proof. Just conjecture, no real evidence and a bunch of fuzzy words. I know how to write proofs. Taught college prep and honor's geometry for 16 years. I see statements with no factual reasons. Just fuzzy words and a whole lot of guess work.

Your second paragraph starts out with no fact or proof that the population was isolated nor why they had breeding advantages over more maneuverable lizards. Also, while these lizards were losing their mobility, they were then much more huntable by predators to kill them to extinction. That's something none of you take into account. While there is a structural change, creatures would become more hunted and killed by predators until they gain enough mobility and able to defend themselves. Same with Chimps. As they began to stand on two legs and lost their tails, they began to lose their mobility in the trees. They would have been extinct well before they gained enough brainpower to make weapons and hunt in packs.
I also noticed another fuzzy word "somehow." Just a wishful hope of things not seen. Sounds like a religious belief of faith. Except, I use no fuzzy words. I "know" God the Father lives. Jesus Christ "is" the Son of God, our redeemer. And, the Holy Ghost "does" bear witness to me of this I "know."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Glad you acknowledge your fuzzy speech. Some call it double-talk.

And some examine the evidence, like honest intellectuals, in order to understand why scientists think something is likely or possible.

I will leave it at that. This is a hurdle you are not going to clear. I am not going to argue the semantics of the speech. No scientist asks you to take their word for it, in the end. Argue against the evidence. Good luck, there is a LOT.

 

[james bond]

I am not all over the place. I have simply said there are vestigial limbs in some species of snakes. You can Google it and see the x-rays of these limbs.

You have presented no hard evidence. You have simply denied something that is known to exist.

You really don't say much in describing these snakes. Again, there are no vestigial limbs. Snakes could have used their hind limbs for mating.

And why do I have to Google for you, you lazy and wrong basturd. Why are you so afraid to say what you are saying in some kind of detail so I and us creationists know what you are talking about. Two legs? Four legs? Hind legs? Explain yourself and show us your evidence. You are too nebulous for me. Give me your evidence. I gave you mine.

 

[WinterBorn]

You really don't say much in describing these snakes. Again, there are no vestigial limbs. Snakes could have used their hind limbs for mating.

And why do I have to Google for you, you lazy and wrong basturd. Why are you so afraid to say what you are saying in some kind of detail so I and us creationists know what you are talking about. Two legs? Four legs? Hind legs? Explain yourself and show us your evidence. You are too nebulous for me. Give me your evidence. I gave you mine.

You gave me nothing. You simply denied the existence of a documented piece of snake anatomy.

 

[james bond]

You gave me nothing. You simply denied the existence of a documented piece of snake anatomy.

I'm going to claim VICTORY as you have no links or evidence to back up your claim while I provided one and the evidence of the appendix is not a vestigial organ. Also, snakes hind legs are used to facilitate mating. Moreover, you are the STUPIDEST AS FUCK and a MOST WORTHLESS BASTURD for asking me to google for your side . Let's just say you're a worthless lazy scumball in regards to science. Maybe R&E is a better forum for you. You can go run along now lazy ass WorthlessBorn.

 

[WinterBorn]

I'm going to claim VICTORY as you have no links or evidence to back up your claim while I provided one and the evidence of the appendix is not a vestigial organ. Also, snakes hind legs are used to facilitate mating. Moreover, you are the STUPIDEST AS FUCK and a MOST WORTHLESS BASTURD for asking me to google for your side . Let's just say you're a worthless lazy scumball in regards to science. Maybe R&E is a better forum for you. You can go run along now lazy ass WorthlessBorn.

Hostility and ignorance are your debate skills? lol

And as for the legs being used to facilitate mating, that would be difficult considering the vestigial organs I am talking about do not project outside the skin.

And I did provide a link from the American Natural History Museum. That you chose to ignore it is not my problem.

 

[james bond]

You gave me nothing. You simply denied the existence of a documented piece of snake anatomy.

No hostility. It has turned into pure comedy. Yet, you wanted me to google for you despite your false claims lmao. I am smart while you don't even know how to google what you want. How stupid as fark are you lol? No need to answer as you can't answer even the simpleton questions. Did you claim four legs like a reptile? You still have no answers, i.e. another answer, while I have the hind legs for mating. Losers lose. Winners win.

You can have the last word. It's worthless anyway, lazy ass WorthlessBorn.

 

[WinterBorn]

No hostility. It has turned into pure comedy. Yet, you wanted me to google for you despite your false claims lmao. I am smart while you don't even know how to google what you want. How stupid as fark are you lol? No need to answer as you can't answer even the simpleton questions. Did you claim four legs like a reptile? You still have no answers, i.e. another answer, while I have the hind legs for mating. Losers lose. Winners win.

You can have the last word. It's worthless anyway, lazy ass WorthlessBorn.

Oh ok. My mistake for thing "Moreover, you are the STUPIDEST AS FUCK and a MOST WORTHLESS BASTURD for asking me to google for your side " was hostility.

And, once again, I gave you a link to a very reputable source. You wanted more, so I suggested Google.

 

[Cougarbear]

And some examine the evidence, like honest intellectuals, in order to understand why scientists think something is likely or possible.

I will leave it at that. This is a hurdle you are not going to clear. I am not going to argue the semantics of the speech. No scientist asks you to take their word for it, in the end. Argue against the evidence. Good luck, there is a LOT.

I agree. Same with religion as well. But, when you use those fuzzy words, you are in fact stating you don't really know. Is there a problem with stating your observation? Only if you try to push your opinions as empirical facts. You will notice when I post my beliefs and how I know, I don't push them on you. I answer your question on how I know and how you could know too. But you guys jump up and down throwing temper tantrums, calling me names and demand 100% acceptance of your fuzzy thoughts. No.

 

[WinterBorn]

I agree. Same with religion as well. But, when you use those fuzzy words, you are in fact stating you don't really know. Is there a problem with stating your observation? Only if you try to push your opinions as empirical facts. You will notice when I post my beliefs and how I know, I don't push them on you. I answer your question on how I know and how you could know too. But you guys jump up and down throwing temper tantrums, calling me names and demand 100% acceptance of your fuzzy thoughts. No.

In the scientific world, unless you witnessed an event you do not say it as if it were fact. It is not "fuzzy talk". It is allowing for future evidence to add to or disprove the Theory.

 

[Cougarbear]

In the scientific world, unless you witnessed an event you do not say it as if it were fact. It is not "fuzzy talk". It is allowing for future evidence to add to or disprove the Theory.

I agree with most of that. But, you can see just from the post of atheists that they are demanding this small legged lizard turned in to snakes. And, if there is any disagreement, well, you are stupid and unworthy of their mighty superior big brains. Unless a person has seen the Father or angels or anything of heaven, it's all based on faith logic and line of reasoning. We don't claim there is or will be empirical evidence until the 2nd Coming of Christ. God sends us signs of these last days. But, not everyone can recognize them and that's okay. I don't call them stupid. But, those words "could be," "may be," "Possibly be," "perhaps" and so on are fuzzy words. Now, if you can get these hypocrites in here to stop saying evolution is fact...

 

[Hollie]

I agree with most of that. But, you can see just from the post of atheists that they are demanding this small legged lizard turned in to snakes. And, if there is any disagreement, well, you are stupid and unworthy of their mighty superior big brains. Unless a person has seen the Father or angels or anything of heaven, it's all based on faith logic and line of reasoning. We don't claim there is or will be empirical evidence until the 2nd Coming of Christ. God sends us signs of these last days. But, not everyone can recognize them and that's okay. I don't call them stupid. But, those words "could be," "may be," "Possibly be," "perhaps" and so on are fuzzy words. Now, if you can get these hypocrites in here to stop saying evolution is fact...

Evolution is a fact. That populations of biological organisms change over time is a fact.

 

[Cougarbear]

Evolution is a fact. That populations of biological organisms change over time is a fact.

See, you are doing it again. No. As WinterBorn said clearly, "In the scientific world, unless you witnessed an event you do not say it as if it were fact." I guess you aren't in the scientific world. Or, maybe you are god and witnessed all the events since the dawn of time.
Also, stating evolution is the same as populations of biological organisms change over time is incorrect. Evolution has obviously metamorphosis into more than one definition. You stated it as survival of the fittest when atheist use it as apes becoming humans. There is no absolute nor close fact this happened. And, since you didn't witness it, it can't be fact.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But, when you use those fuzzy words, you are in fact stating you don't really know.

Yes, it is being stated that something is not known with 100% certainty.

What you are doing is playing (?) dumb and trying to pretend 1% and 99% certain or anything in between are the same thing.

Of course, you are being a dishonest fraud and do not actually subscribe to that or live that way.

And no, scientists don't claim to know that this is precisely how snakes lost their limbs. So you are arguing against absolutely nothing and nobody anyway.

This is just another bit of illogic you reserve only for ideas that run counter to your iron aged mythology.

A bit of bad acting.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Cougarbear

That's quite enough of your dog and pony show. Now you take a seat and answer a question:

If you were a scientist, looking to get a clearer picture of the odds that this is how snake ancestors lost their limbs (forelimbs first, hindlimbs second), what kind of evidence for/against would you look for?

And, go.

Or sissy out like you always do. I know where the smart money lies.

 

[Cougarbear]

Yes, it is being stated that something is not known with 100% certainty.

What you are doing is playing (?) dumb and trying to pretend 1% and 99% certain or anything in between are the same thing.

Of course, you are being a dishonest fraud and do not actually subscribe to that or live that way.

And no, scientists don't claim to know that this is precisely how snakes lost their limbs. So you are arguing against absolutely nothing and nobody anyway.

This is just another bit of illogic you reserve only for ideas that run counter to your iron aged mythology.

A bit of bad acting.

The only correct thing you wrote, "And no, scientists don't claim to know that this is precisely how snakes lost their limbs." So, I'm not playing dumb. The fact is, then there is no proof that they lost any legs at all. This was just a poor deformed lizard that evolutionists are trying to hope is true. A very closely related "hope" that the children of Israel hope for. Are you hoping that it is at least 95% fact? 70%? 30%?

 

[Hollie]

See, you are doing it again. No. As WinterBorn said clearly, "In the scientific world, unless you witnessed an event you do not say it as if it were fact." I guess you aren't in the scientific world. Or, maybe you are god and witnessed all the events since the dawn of time.
Also, stating evolution is the same as populations of biological organisms change over time is incorrect. Evolution has obviously metamorphosis into more than one definition. You stated it as survival of the fittest when atheist use it as apes becoming humans. There is no absolute nor close fact this happened. And, since you didn't witness it, it can't be fact.

See, I’m doing it again. I’m being benevolent and passing on some knowledge you could have learned in 7th grade. While I have not witnessed the actual event of a yearly flu virus evolving into a modified strain, it did, in fact, happen.

I have not personally witnessed the insects becoming resistant to pesticides, it does, in fact, occur.

I have not personally witnessed the evolution of Eohippus to modern horse, however, it is among the best-documented evolutionary examples in paleontology.

I suppose we can presume that since you have not witnessed the supernatural creation of your gods, it did not happen.

 

[Cougarbear]

Cougarbear
That's quite enough of your dog and pony show. Now you take a seat and answer a question:
If you were a scientist, looking to get a clearer picture of the odds that this is how snake ancestors lost their limbs (forelimbs first, hindlimbs second), what kind of evidence for/against would you look for?
And, go.
Or sissy out like you always do. I know where the smart money lies.

I would look at this fossil, one fossil and say, poor little lizard that was born deformed. As a scientist, I'd run test and see if it had some form of disease or just a birth defect. Why would I be looking for something that doesn't exist? Just to please you?
So, enough of your lizard and snake show. If you were looking to understand how to know God exists, what steps and evidence would you look for and how would you do it?

 

[Cougarbear]

See, I’m doing it again. I’m being benevolent and passing on some knowledge you could have learned in 7th grade. While I have not witnessed the actual event of a yearly flu virus evolving into a modified strain, it did, in fact, happen.

I have not personally witnessed the insects becoming resistant to pesticides, it does, in fact, occur.

I have not personally witnessed the evolution of Eohippus to modern horse, however, it is among the best-documented evolutionary examples in paleontology.

I suppose we can presume that since you have not witnessed the supernatural creation of your gods, it did not happen.

All you are doing is stating that species don't change, just learn to live with changes to survive. That's not evolution. A virus will never become an insect. And insect will never become a horse. A horse will never become an ape and and ape will never become a human. If all these did, then that's evolution. God created the animals and placed them on earth. Because of the Fall of Adam, life stopped developing perfectly and it became necessary for the strongest and fittest to survive. Happened twice. Once at the Fall of Adam and the other after the Flood of Noah.