rationalskepticism.org

asyncritus wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Angler fish don't use their fins to swim around much either they use their fins to move around on the bottom and jump on prey. I wonder where that instinct came from?

I'm sure you know the answer deep down. There isn't another really, you know.

But did you ever wonder how the fish thought up the fish rod and light-bait idea?

Just think how many of their ancestors must have starved before they suddenly had the 'bright' idea in the deep, dark ocean!

But that's a minor problem for the old suspects: 'mutations and natural selection', don't you think?

After all, if M and NS can produce a fish that has lungs and goes to live on land, and walk, then what's a fish rod and light lure for them to figure out? Not much, really.

Fuck me, the arguments from ignorance and incredulity never end.

I can't possibly imagine how X happened, therefore god did it.

I've already explained to you in the past how utterly preposterous this is.

It's called a compound sentence. It has 2 clauses; an independent clause (the first one), and a dependent clause (the 2nd one). The 2nd clause has no meaning without the primary, independent clause. That being the case grammatically and logically, what you are actually saying is: I don't know how, therefore I know how.

It's not even achieved an elementary level of logic. There's really no point in anyone pursuing a serious discussion with you when you are unable to frame coherent thoughts on this topic matter. It's pure emotion, with knee-jerk snatching at snippets of ideas that you, in your confusion of the subject, perceive as being of use to your presuppositional argument - that god did it.