New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

[sayak83]

I've a lot to offer. But I think we're fishing in the wrong pool (evolution pun not intended). After all, you are a scientist. While I respect the sciences greatly, science is very well equipped to handle the material world, but cannot use its methods in immaterial things.

I am also a Hindu with fair degree of spiritual and religious insights based on meditation practices. Perhaps the main difference between you and me is that I do not believe in a fallen world and thus do not consider matter to be alienated from spirit ( as Paul believed). Hence do not consider scientific study of the natural world to be opposed to or a hinderence to spiritual insights.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I took lessons in genetics when working on my anthropology degrees, and I'm gonna tell you again, namely that you simply do not know what you are talking about here.

You have an extremely short memory, or so it appears, as we were discussing this last week. Remember, in terms of "variations" when I used the women at the tomb example, whereas you finally admitted that the accounts do not exactly match? You responded that different people "witnessed" different things, thus reporting what they heard, which was not the same. You can't remember this conversation?

No, I'm sure that I can send you posts explaining how the vast majority of mutations are harmful, not helpful. But you will believe what you wish to believe apart from a revelatory experience with God.

I do agree that different people talking to angels separately at the tomb heard different words, yes. I don't recall saying that invalidates the Bible or makes it inerrant.

 

[metis]

I don't recall saying that invalidates the Bible or makes it inerrant.

You need to read things more carefully because I never said you did.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am also a Hindu with fair degree of spiritual and religious insights based on meditation practices. Perhaps the main difference between you and me is that I do not believe in a fallen world and thus do not consider matter to be alienated from spirit ( as Paul believed). Hence do not consider scientific study of the natural world to be opposed to or a hinderence to spiritual insights.

I didn't say it was a hindrance or opposed. Read what I wrote.

Science cannot measure love, justice, logic or other immaterial things.

 

[sayak83]

I didn't say it was a hindrance or opposed. Read what I wrote.

Science cannot measure love, justice, logic or other immaterial things.

You are opposing evolutionary and geological sciences here are you not? Why? Neither is claiming to measure the things you mention. One is the examination of the past history and mechanisms of proliferation of living organisms through time, and the other examines the ways and mechanisms through which earth has altered over time. Last I looked both granite and T-Rex fossils are material stuff measurable and quantifiable through the scientific method.

 

[Jose Fly]

How about this, to make it simpler. You tell me your ideas regarding "kind" in terms of Genesis, not the taxonomical word, and I'll adhere to your definition. You are right to define terms--it's important in any debate. Thanks for your patience with me.

What th.........? Why would I need to define a term that you used in making your argument?

It's more than obvious by now that you have absolutely no idea what a "kind" is, but you can't bring yourself to admit it either. Doesn't that tell you something? Isn't there little alarm bells going off in your head, telling you that if you can't even say what a "kind" is, you probably shouldn't go around using the word?

 

[Shad]

We have the love of Christ and the transformation of millions of believers.

So? Millions can make claim of many religions.

We have Jesus's positive changes to our societies, elevation of women and children and more.

Such as? Seem odd that you are claiming credit for idea that didn't become part of society centuries after Jesus such as women voting.

What you're really saying is you struggle with the extraordinary miracle claims of the Bible, not that you lack reason (like missing Hell for Heaven) for trusting in God.

No I dismiss the miracle claims. There is no struggle.

You cannot have the resurrection as an addition to Mark as the verses in question come after statements that the angels told the women He resurrected and that they fled the tomb in fear!

Which is an addition to Mark as it is not found in earlier text. If you Bible does not point this out in footnote you have an outdated version.

There are VERY good reasons to believe. I would say we can start with 1) prophecy fulfilled

Tell me about prophecy when Tyre no longer exists

and 2) reliable eyewitness testimony.

None of the Gospels were witness nor accounts of eye witnesses. You confused your dogma for facts. Try again.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are opposing evolutionary and geological sciences here are you not? Why? Neither is claiming to measure the things you mention. One is the examination of the past history and mechanisms of proliferation of living organisms through time, and the other examines the ways and mechanisms through which earth has altered over time. Last I looked both granite and T-Rex fossils are material stuff measurable and quantifiable through the scientific method.

We have many millions of fossils in museums and under study. Please list here all of the specimens found with a partially formed limb:

Example 1:

Example 2:

Example 3:

 

[BilliardsBall]

What th.........? Why would I need to define a term that you used in making your argument?

It's more than obvious by now that you have absolutely no idea what a "kind" is, but you can't bring yourself to admit it either. Doesn't that tell you something? Isn't there little alarm bells going off in your head, telling you that if you can't even say what a "kind" is, you probably shouldn't go around using the word?

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Speciation is real. Dogs becoming cats, et al, isn't. Fruit flies at the end of years of testing . . . are fruit flies.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So? Millions can make claim of many religions.



Such as? Seem odd that you are claiming credit for idea that didn't become part of society centuries after Jesus such as women voting.



No I dismiss the miracle claims. There is no struggle.



Which is an addition to Mark as it is not found in earlier text. If you Bible does not point this out in footnote you have an outdated version.



Tell me about prophecy when Tyre no longer exists



None of the Gospels were witness nor accounts of eye witnesses. You confused your dogma for facts. Try again.

Let's focus on one example. Have you actually studied the Tyre prophecies?

 

[Shad]

Let's focus on one example. Have you actually studied the Tyre prophecies?

Not with the perception you hold. Beside Nebuchadnezzar never destroyed the city it surrendered to him and remained standing and inhabited for another 240 years. It is still inhabited now.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not with the perception you hold. Beside Nebuchadnezzar never destroyed the city it surrendered to him and remained standing and inhabited for another 240 years. It is still inhabited now.

Hmmm... what is your opinion of this article?

Tyre in Prophecy

 

[sayak83]

We have many millions of fossils in museums and under study. Please list here all of the specimens found with a partially formed limb:

Example 1:

Example 2:

Example 3:

Evolution will be falsified if a species with a partially formed limb is ever discovered. What verifies evolution are creatures that have limbs that are transitional between fins and legs that are used both for swimming and for crawling just before the emergence of fully legged species. And we have many fossils of that nature and I have fully detailed the evidence. See below:-
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

The link contains six categories of fossils with multiple specimens each that showcases the transition from fins to limbs.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There are a lot more than just three.

Micro-evolution has been observed as small changes among like kinds. Macro-evolution, i.e. one life form changing into a completely different one has never been observed. There is no concrete proof for it at all.

Micro and macro evolution are the same things. You can't have Marco evolution occur without micro evolution. One is easily observable in our lifetime while the other takes significantly longer. Transitional fossils are already in existance anyway.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

It's why it's possible to trace our own ancestry in this case.

 

[Shad]

Hmmm... what is your opinion of this article?

Tyre in Prophecy

It makes a basic sentence structure mistake as a form of excuse. Namely treating the "they" within the Nebuchadnezzar passage as having nothing to do with Nebuchadnezzar. The "they" reference is to his soldiers not Alexander as per the reference to soldiers prior to the switch to they. His chariots becomes the "they" as these people are doing the act not Nebuchadnezzar himself.

The rest of the article is sophistry to cover for their basic mistake in writing. Greenleaf is wrong as well as the basis that the OT is authentic is a religious position not a historical one nor part of it's methods. There is no reason to accept this view unless holding the religious presupposition. Greenleaf didn't know better as he lived in a time when Biblical criticism was just developing and was not his field of expertise. His ancient document claim is false as it is dependent on a chain of authority that said text has never been altered from it's origins. Since none of these texts have proven to be authentic without your religious bias the argument is nonsense.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Evolution will be falsified if a species with a partially formed limb is ever discovered. What verifies evolution are creatures that have limbs that are transitional between fins and legs that are used both for swimming and for crawling just before the emergence of fully legged species. And we have many fossils of that nature and I have fully detailed the evidence. See below:-
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

The link contains six categories of fossils with multiple specimens each that showcases the transition from fins to limbs.

What are you talking about? I can show you the numbers 1, 2 and 3 and 2 demonstrates equidistance from 1 and 3 in its place on the number line, but that doesn't imply 3 evolved from 2.

Of course a fossil with something truly vestigial or ancilliary would prove random evolution. Your claims regarding full formation speak more of theistic evolution.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It makes a basic sentence structure mistake as a form of excuse. Namely treating the "they" within the Nebuchadnezzar passage as having nothing to do with Nebuchadnezzar. The "they" reference is to his soldiers not Alexander as per the reference to soldiers prior to the switch to they. His chariots becomes the "they" as these people are doing the act not Nebuchadnezzar himself.

The rest of the article is sophistry to cover for their basic mistake in writing. Greenleaf is wrong as well as the basis that the OT is authentic is a religious position not a historical one nor part of it's methods. There is no reason to accept this view unless holding the religious presupposition. Greenleaf didn't know better as he lived in a time when Biblical criticism was just developing and was not his field of expertise. His ancient document claim is false as it is dependent on a chain of authority that said text has never been altered from it's origins. Since none of these texts have proven to be authentic without your religious bias the argument is nonsense.

Presuppositions that the Bible is God's Word--admittedly my own bias at this point in life--does not invalidate Bible truth, any more than presupposing math exists invalidates 2 + 2 = 4. You are being ridiculous--if we go on your presuppositions as expressed above, we should invalidate the science of Galileo, of Pascal, of . . . Ronald Reagan.

 

[Shad]

Presuppositions that the Bible is God's Word--admittedly my own bias at this point in life--does not invalidate Bible truth, any more than presupposing math exists invalidates 2 + 2 = 4.

I was merely pointing out your presupposition. After all it does carry ideas that can not be verified such as chain of transmission and preservation

You are being ridiculous--if we go on your presuppositions as expressed above, we should invalidate the science of Galileo, of Pascal, of . . . Ronald Reagan.

No as I pointed out their excuse is simply they error in sentence structure and reading, nothing more. Show how my view would invalidate any of the claims from those people.

 

[sayak83]

What are you talking about? I can show you the numbers 1, 2 and 3 and 2 demonstrates equidistance from 1 and 3 in its place on the number line, but that doesn't imply 3 evolved from 2.

It does when fossils clearly show temporal order. Fish like animals gradually turn into amphibians over a period of 20 million years with fully weight bearing limbs, shoulders and necks...as the fossils show..and as expected if evolution is correct.

Of course a fossil with something truly vestigial or ancilliary would prove random evolution. Your claims regarding full formation speak more of theistic evolution.

No idea what you are talking about. Ever species in an evolutionary chain of descent is a fully functioning form, as natural selection favors adaptive mutations. Thus fully functioning deep water fins evolve into partially transitional forms that are adapted to swimming in shallows and partial ability to crawl in the mud. Some of their descendants develop more limb like adaptations as they spend more time in shallower waters and banks of rivers and this trend continues as their fins become limbs. At each stage, the species has a fin/limb structure fully functional in its environment. So, when evolutionary transformation is occurring each transitional structure is fully adaptive and functional. Thus evolution does not predict anything that is half-formed, ever.

 

[Derek500]

What are you talking about? I can show you the numbers 1, 2 and 3 and 2 demonstrates equidistance from 1 and 3 in its place on the number line, but that doesn't imply 3 evolved from 2.

Of course a fossil with something truly vestigial or ancilliary would prove random evolution. Your claims regarding full formation speak more of theistic evolution.

You don't make any sense. All currently living organisms are equally evolved.

From currently "living" prions to daffodils to HIV virii to sea lions to humans. All equally evolved.

You just don't make any sense, BilliardsBall.