You're right. A fish won't just become something that isn't a fish. That's because evolution takes time. But a fish isn't just a fish. There are many kinds of fish, and each variety is different from the others. Each individual is different from the others of its kind. Speaking of fish, let me tell you a story. It's a bit long, but try to bear with me. If you choose to respond, please say something that indicates you read it. Once, my family went camping, and not too far from our campsite was a small pond stocked with trout. I decided to do some fishing. Catch and release, as we had brought plenty of food. I tried for hours with no success. Clever things were attacking my bait while expertly avoiding the hook. When I finally got one on the hook, it proved to be a tough battle. It took all of my strength to reel it in. Even once I got it on land, it fought against me. I tried to grab it so I could remove the hook, but it fought me relentlessly. It flopped around so much that the hook, still stuck in its mouth, broke away from the line. The fish fell to the ground. I couldn't believe what I saw next. The fish, lying on the ground, flopped onto its belly and, I kid you not, slithered across the damp ground back into the pound. It only had to go a few feet, but it moved like a snake. The second trout I caught was smaller and easier to handle. I managed to remove the hook from its mouth, and went to release it. Before I could return it to the water, it flopped out of my hand, and landed in the dirt mere inches from the water. It flopped about helplessly until I nudged it into the water. The two fish performed differently on the land. This was because of differences in their genes. Genes are what made the first fish able to propel itself somewhat effectively across the land. What do you think would happen if there were a drought or a landslide that split the pond into several separate pools? Or what if some other scenario emerged that made spending small amounts of time on land beneficial? Would the first fish not be more likely to survive and reproduce? Would the next few generations of fish not be more likely to have the genes of the first fish, and be able to move across short strips of land? After many more generations of the fish who could survive longer on land being more likely to survive and reproduce, would that trout population not likely have gained the ability to spend large amounts of time on land, moving like serpents across the dirt? Over thousands or even millions of generations of these traits being favored, would it not be likely that the trout would be able to live on land for periods of time just as easily as in the water? Could we not consider these to be amphibians? Evolution occurs gradually. Things change in response to the changes that occur around them.

Was the ground muddy? I admit some fish have sturdy fins while others do not. And it depends on the shape of the fishes body. A fish that's more of a flat body well fall on its side while something like a catfish can land on its belly and slither. The mud or dirt will determine it's ability to move on land. Fish adapt to their environments but they will never grow legs. A monkey will always live in trees. Apes will always live in jungle environments and be hyper aggressive when feeling threatened or challenged otherwise they will be reclusive. Humans will always live where ever they please doing as they please acting as they please. They will adapt to cold or warm climates. Most changes are insignificant like adaption to climate. People did not come from apes. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Look down a bit and it says God created fish, God created birds, God created trees and grass and fruits, God created cattle and creatures that crawl and beats of the earth, all mating with their own kind then God created humans, a special creation made from dust with the breath of life breathed into them.

The ground was slightly damp. But you're missing the point. If you believe in God, that's fine, but you can't prove that the events described in Genesis actually occurred. We can find real world evidence of evolution. Fossil record, observations of fruit flies and bacteria, etc. The idea that this is how it is so this is how it always will be, this shows how closed minded you are. You can't comprehend that anything could be different from what you're used to. That's an incredibly ignorant mindset.

Actually I can. You do realize I wasn't always this grounded in my faith right? As a matter of fact I love science. Biology is fun. Except in science there's more theory than fact. Evolution is a theory. Is it hard to believe that people have always been people, that apes have always been apes or that fish have always been fish? If a scientist told you that the color green is not actually green would you believe them because they said it or because its different? I bet if the bible didn't talk about miracles you would believe it because it would be an average ordinary book. But the fact is the bible is truth. Now you may say that's an opinion and it is but who says because it's an opinion it isn't true? The human mind can't comprehend what it can't explain and rejects what's presented even if what's presented is as real as you and I. If every scientist and evolutionist came together and said evolution is wrong and God is real would you believe them? If so why can't you believe what's written in the Bible which is the living word of God?

You're presenting hypotheticals which have no meaning. I don't accept evolution because a scientist told me so. I accept it because a scientist explained why evolution was valid. You have yet to do that with the bible. A scientific theory is a highly regarded hypothesis, not just some guess. There's ample evidence for evolution. You sir are simply incapable of looking outside of your little bubble and accepting that there are things beyond what you are familiar with.

No science tries to over explain the obvious. God created each individual thing which lives. Is that so hard to believe? The evidence is everywhere yet you see right past it because you want an explanation on how. The only things we have in common woth animals is we have organs, blood, muscles, fat, bones and some form of skin. That is it. Other than that people are people, dogs are dogs, cows are cows, fish are fish, apes are apes. If you believed in God would you want God to say "I really want people to happen but I don't want to put in any work so I'll just make fish and see how it goes." or would you want a God who creates each individual creature? How is this for a valid point, if fish are the oldest species in existence then how is the gar still around? That things species goes back to when there were just fish. Surely in the course of "billions" of years they would have evolved into a new thing. And on the point about first species where did the land animals come from? You agreed a fish will ALWAYS be a fish. So that rules out fish learning to walk on land. How did those land animals get there if a fish will always be a fish? Could they have been created? Absolutely because evolution is a false, it's more like adaption. Or what about birds? Sure we have fish that jump but people jump also, none of us can fly. So birds didn't evolve from fish or land animals. They were created. Donkeys, cows, dogs, cats, rhinos, lions, tigers, lizards, worms, mice, apes, monkeys. ALL CREATED. The worm species is ancient. Does that mean they turned into snakes? Nope they were created individually. If life originated in the oceans, there would be no fish according to evolution. Yet we have fish.

I never said a fish will always be a fish. I said it won't suddenly change into something else. Evolution isn't sudden. You are clearly an idiot. You obviously don't understand the definition of proof. Have fun living in your bubble, where everything is exactly as you understand it to be and your opinion is law. I'll be out here with an open mind, listening to reason and deciding based upon that.