Evidence for God from Science

Would this support evolution or no since it's still a fish?

probably the source of the quote: http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1046464 - added by a moderator

The opah, or moonfish, is an oval-shaped denizen of the deep that would appear to be sluggish, given its cold-water habitat and ungainly body design.

But new research by NOAA Fisheries reveals this beautifully colored creature to be “the first fully warm-blooded fish that circulates heated blood throughout its body much like mammals and birds, giving it a competitive advantage in the cold ocean depths.”

“Before this discovery I was under the impression that this was a slow-moving fish, like most other in the cold environments,” Nicholas Wegner, of NOAA Fisheries’ Southwest Science Center in San Diego, said in a news release. “But because it can warm its body, it turns out to be a very active predator that chases down agile prey like squid, and can migrate long distances.”

Then opah’s unique gill design allows for a phenomenon known as “counter-current heat exchange,” which essentially involves warm blood leaving the body core to warm cold blood returning from the respiratory surface of the gills, where oxygen is absorbed.

somebodyelse wrote:Would this support evolution or no since it's still a fish?

The opah, or moonfish, is an oval-shaped denizen of the deep that would appear to be sluggish, given its cold-water habitat and ungainly body design.

But new research by NOAA Fisheries reveals this beautifully colored creature to be “the first fully warm-blooded fish that circulates heated blood throughout its body much like mammals and birds, giving it a competitive advantage in the cold ocean depths.”

“Before this discovery I was under the impression that this was a slow-moving fish, like most other in the cold environments,” Nicholas Wegner, of NOAA Fisheries’ Southwest Science Center in San Diego, said in a news release. “But because it can warm its body, it turns out to be a very active predator that chases down agile prey like squid, and can migrate long distances.”

Then opah’s unique gill design allows for a phenomenon known as “counter-current heat exchange,” which essentially involves warm blood leaving the body core to warm cold blood returning from the respiratory surface of the gills, where oxygen is absorbed.

Microevolution maybe , but not unguided Darwinian evolution .

When it is walking around on dry land, give me a call.

jlay wrote:When it is walking around on dry land, give me a call.

Such predictable responses

jlay wrote:When it is walking around on dry land, give me a call.

But of course an intelligent designer couldn't design this cause u know that ....blind Darwinian Evolution did it!!!! Is the only answer that acceptable to a certain materialist here

jlay wrote:When it is walking around on dry land, give me a call.

There is a fish that can walk outside the snakefish head

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwgjW3AIJa4

Audie wrote:Such predictable responses

I like fish! Let me know when it shows up at my local fishmarket.

FL

UsagiTsukino wrote:

jlay wrote:When it is walking around on dry land, give me a call.

There is a fish that can walk outside the snakefish head

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwgjW3AIJa4

Usagi, seeeeee just as Audi says , this proves Darwinian evolution !!!!!

What was I thinking in ever questioning it

It might be used as evidence for evolution but until scientists can actually demonstrate life evolves? Instead of just showing what was known long before Darwin reproduction and variations in reproduction such as dogs,or that life can adapt?I don't see no reason to believe life evolves.What science calls micro-evolution is just variations of reproduction,not life evolving.

The gap theory IMO explains the evidence in the earth a lot better than evolution does.Instead of looking at the age of the earth,the fossils,evidence of death and extinction and looking at it from a belief that life evolves? Instead look at the same evidence but think of it as evidence of a former world, a lost world that was on this earth,this world was totally different than this world we live in now.But think of it as evidence of a former world that existed that perished and don't look at it from an evolution point of view,and I think if you do? You'll agree it is evidence of a former world that existed on this earth that perished before God created this world on the earth we live in now since Genesis 1:3-31.

I am interested to hear what members here think of biologos.org, who promote evolution and Christianity together and evolution doesn't disprove Christianity nor creation.

Disciplical wrote:I am interested to hear what members here think of biologos.org, who promote evolution and Christianity together and evolution doesn't disprove Christianity nor creation.

Biologos is a very good website if you want to learn about Theistic Evolution.

The headline is a bit misleading as endothermy has long been known in a variety of fish.

Such as is of interest and value in the article is in any case lost on those whose best response is some crude jape.

Audie wrote:The headline is a bit misleading as endothermy has long been known in a variety of fish.

Such as is of interest and value in the article is in any case lost on those whose best response is some crude jape.

Audie,

There you go again with your derogatory terms for Japanese.

Disciplical wrote:I am interested to hear what members here think of biologos.org, who promote evolution and Christianity together and evolution doesn't disprove Christianity nor creation.

Well disciplical, theistic evolution and intelligentbdesign are a lot closer then most people think theybarr . It was Rick that helped me to see that . It's possible that God could have front loaded the information within life through this process , but if you look at the odds that many scientists have given for this to happen by chance you will see that it's effectively ZERO.

And ID isn't anti evolution . It's anti naturalistic/pure chance evolution , but to say it had to happen through theistic evolution throws away the excellent analogy of the design analogy of the automobile . From the 1900's till now the automobile used the same body type but with different adaptations for speed and such. If you follow the cars adaptation you will see that the more advanced models came later yet they didn't evolve . They were each intelligently designed by a mind .