New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

[james bond]

Did you read my post?? Let me remind you of one statement I made...
"Virtually everybody was religious in the 1500s, so yes early scientists may well have been religious..."
Yes we have Creation v Evolution aka Myth v Reality, it is not even a contest, Faith v Fact; Creationism has been debunked on-line, in the press, in the scientific world and even in the courts.
btw another word for 'evolutionists' is a biologist; these are the people who help design modern medicines and the likes. Nasty evolutionists, I think not.


Right get testing, write papers and win your fame, fortune and Nobel Prize.
Disprove the resurrection, as usual the request is to disprove a negative. Since no resurrections have occurred for 2000-years or so, what are scientists to study? Is there any evidence for it? (Don't say the Bible)

>>I'm showing ignorance!!! What about religious scientists? Will they not peer review.
There is no 'God Theory' - at best you may have an early draft of an unproven 'God Hypothesis'.
God isn't anything that science can test, it makes claims that are outside of the reference/scope of science. Science has to be repeatable, miracles cannot be repeated.
Virtually everybody was religious in the 1500s, so yes early scientists may well have been religious but the god of the gaps found smaller and smaller wriggle room as scientists made more and more discoveries.<<

Religious scientists do peer-review, but they're usually not allowed into Nature and Science peer reviews. There may be some exceptions, but generally no. That isn't science the way I was taught. Thus, they peer-review each others works. They have a top ten list for a young earth demonstrated by science which would disprove evolution and show evidence for God if you don't like God Theory.

#1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor

#2 Bent Rock Layers

#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils

#4 Faint Sun Paradox

#5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field

#6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks

#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

#8 Short-Lived Comets

#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea

#10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth

Evolution is not repeatable. Usually, we can't test billions of years nor see evidence of it. All we have are fossils that are claimed to be transitional and that we came from fish and then apes. We even have creatures walk back into the ocean to become whales and that birds came from dinosaurs. All of it sounds ridiculous as they're all done to fit the ToE.

Next, you claim God of the Gaps. I've said it many times that it was a warning to Christian scientists to not use God when one was stuck on science. What happened was evolutionists stole it for their own use when debating the Big Bang Theory. Atheist scientists end up stealing from creation scientists when they get stuck. For example, we have catastrophism now in the explanation of why dinosaurs disappeared from the Earth. With Jose Fly's argument on Alu sequences, the evo scientists thought they were junk DNA to disprove God. Creation scientists showed they did have a purpose. This led to Jose and atheist scientists to argue that it shows evolution. It doesn't as it doesn't happen like they want it to.

 

[Shad]

It’s the year of our Lord 2017. Christianity has “massively changed” the globe. There are far more contemporary authors writing about Christ than Alexander, 12 in the NT, ten 1st century historians write of Jesus/Christianity, etc.

Too bad those changes were made by the followers and later generations not by Jesus. Jesus never converted the Roman Empire rather it took 3 centuries to build to a point that it was a large portion of the population.

The same as that for Christ, documentary and historian evidence.

Nope, see above

You are mistaken, the NT was demonstrably written by eyewitnesses close to the dates of record.

Nope you are putting forward a religious doctrine not scholarship.

God told me so in the Bible, a book of some 31,000 verses that contain fewer grammatical error than you made in your last post.

Nope you accepted what a book says as something God says, nothing more.

You know what I hear in my head? Since when do materialists believe in psychic phenomena?

You said it.

My source is the scriptures, proven accurate via archaeology, history, prophecy and more

Too bad archaeology has been turning over such tripe for decades. Exodus has been dismissed for example. The idea of Judaism being an evolved polytheism religion which became a monotheist one is a very strong view.

If you want to continue to harass me,

You are responding thus it isn't harassment.

let's at least discuss the reliability of the scriptures,

Find a scholar not already committed to doctrinal viewpoint and you will find the reliability is not as strong as you think it is. Hence why Biblical scholarship was crippled for centuries as the only authorities that seemed to matter were already committed to their religion. When the German school of thought gained the academic freedom to question religious authorities the field was changed forever.

not straw men about voices in your head that told me I listen to voices in my head!

You said it.

 

[sayak83]

>>I'm showing ignorance!!! What about religious scientists? Will they not peer review.
There is no 'God Theory' - at best you may have an early draft of an unproven 'God Hypothesis'.
God isn't anything that science can test, it makes claims that are outside of the reference/scope of science. Science has to be repeatable, miracles cannot be repeated.
Virtually everybody was religious in the 1500s, so yes early scientists may well have been religious but the god of the gaps found smaller and smaller wriggle room as scientists made more and more discoveries.<<

Religious scientists do peer-review, but they're usually not allowed into Nature and Science peer reviews. There may be some exceptions, but generally no. That isn't science the way I was taught. Thus, they peer-review each others works. They have a top ten list for a young earth demonstrated by science which would disprove evolution and show evidence for God if you don't like God Theory.

#1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor

#2 Bent Rock Layers

#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils

#4 Faint Sun Paradox

#5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field

#6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks

#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

#8 Short-Lived Comets

#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea

#10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth

Evolution is not repeatable. Usually, we can't test billions of years nor see evidence of it. All we have are fossils that are claimed to be transitional and that we came from fish and then apes. We even have creatures walk back into the ocean to become whales and that birds came from dinosaurs. All of it sounds ridiculous as they're all done to fit the ToE.

Next, you claim God of the Gaps. I've said it many times that it was a warning to Christian scientists to not use God when one was stuck on science. What happened was evolutionists stole it for their own use when debating the Big Bang Theory. Atheist scientists end up stealing from creation scientists when they get stuck. For example, we have catastrophism now in the explanation of why dinosaurs disappeared from the Earth. With Jose Fly's argument on Alu sequences, the evo scientists thought they were junk DNA to disprove God. Creation scientists showed they did have a purpose. This led to Jose and atheist scientists to argue that it shows evolution. It doesn't as it doesn't happen like they want it to.

I can discuss and refute this if you wish me to.
But you will have to start a new thread on the topic:- "Evidence for Young Earth" or something like it.
Otherwise the discussion will not stay focused on the evidence (if any) for young earth as against old earth.

 

[Altfish]

>>I'm showing ignorance!!! What about religious scientists? Will they not peer review.
There is no 'God Theory' - at best you may have an early draft of an unproven 'God Hypothesis'.
God isn't anything that science can test, it makes claims that are outside of the reference/scope of science. Science has to be repeatable, miracles cannot be repeated.
Virtually everybody was religious in the 1500s, so yes early scientists may well have been religious but the god of the gaps found smaller and smaller wriggle room as scientists made more and more discoveries.<<

Religious scientists do peer-review, but they're usually not allowed into Nature and Science peer reviews. There may be some exceptions, but generally no. That isn't science the way I was taught. Thus, they peer-review each others works. They have a top ten list for a young earth demonstrated by science which would disprove evolution and show evidence for God if you don't like God Theory.

#1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor

#2 Bent Rock Layers

#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils

#4 Faint Sun Paradox

#5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field

#6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks

#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

#8 Short-Lived Comets

#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea

#10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth

Evolution is not repeatable. Usually, we can't test billions of years nor see evidence of it. All we have are fossils that are claimed to be transitional and that we came from fish and then apes. We even have creatures walk back into the ocean to become whales and that birds came from dinosaurs. All of it sounds ridiculous as they're all done to fit the ToE.

Next, you claim God of the Gaps. I've said it many times that it was a warning to Christian scientists to not use God when one was stuck on science. What happened was evolutionists stole it for their own use when debating the Big Bang Theory. Atheist scientists end up stealing from creation scientists when they get stuck. For example, we have catastrophism now in the explanation of why dinosaurs disappeared from the Earth. With Jose Fly's argument on Alu sequences, the evo scientists thought they were junk DNA to disprove God. Creation scientists showed they did have a purpose. This led to Jose and atheist scientists to argue that it shows evolution. It doesn't as it doesn't happen like they want it to.

And your evidence is from......Answers in Genesis.

You earlier prevented me from using 'Talk Origins' to refute your myths and then you give me a rake of links to AiG. Genius.
Every single one of those has been debunked time and again by the Likes of Talk Origins, YouTube videos by the likes of Essence of Thought.
Evolution is not repeatable in that it is random, so next time it happens it will give a different outcome. However, evolution is happening as we speak, what about antibiotics? Why do you think they are becoming less and less effective?
These nasty scientists stealing Christian Scientists ideas... You are priceless.

I'll leave you to your favourite science book, The Bible, meanwhile I'll throw myself in with the 'atheist scientists' who will continue to develop new technologies, new medicines, explain the universe. I can assure you it is a lot more exciting than 'God did it'.

 

[Jose Fly]

Last point first, I would listen but what would be the point of the presentation? Is it like yours to show that humans came from apes? Then I would disagree.

So for you, the notion of human/primate common ancestry is an absolute non-starter? You could never recognize it as true, no matter what the data?

Would I ask a question like the one you posed? No, would you?

That's odd, seeing as how that was your response to my post. So if you wouldn't say that sort of thing in a scientific conference, why did you post it here?

And of course I wouldn't just say "No it isn't" and sit back down at a scientific conference. That's your approach, not mine.

This is evo vs crea so I'll call them atheist scientists. We all know that they are.

Are you of the mind that evolution = atheism?

Basically, the Alu sequences were thought to be junk DNA by atheist scientists. The argument was why would God create something that has of no use. Well, the Alu sequences do have use as noted.

That's completely false, as I showed by citing and quoting from Liu et al. paper.

So evos admit that and now are saying that these genome changes prove evolution because sometimes they cause mutations.

Um....no. You don't have that right at all.

The creation scientists disagree and it shows evidence for God.

Of course they do....they have to.

I think your argument falls into the same line in that you state we can use these sequences to determine paternity. That part is true. However, that doesn't mean a common ancestor for human and apes. Aren't you comparing apples to oranges?

In both cases, it's the same methodology and underlying logic. The only difference for you is that while paternity is acceptable, human/primate common ancestry is not, so you just deny it out of reflex.

 

[Jose Fly]

And your evidence is from......Answers in Genesis.

Answers in Genesis, the organization that makes every employee sign their Statement of Faith, which includes....

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."​

That's as anti-scientific a framework as can be. Anyone operating under that framework is a completely unreliable source for anything related to science.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you can't have a conversation without putting words in people's mouth and prosthelizing you won't be around very long. Although it's amusing that you would balk at an atheist saying 'makes up the divinity of Jesus out of fear for their own mortality' but then turn around and do this, which seems pretty hypocritical.

Anyway, getting back on track, I feel no more reason to accept the twisted to suit ones needs prophecies of the bible than you do to reject them. I'm sorry if you can't handle rejection of your beliefs.

Sorry, I don't follow the first paragraph. Where was I being hypocritical?

And I had a little trouble with the second paragraph, also. I apologize for this. The Bible prophecies can be verified by comparing modern events to dozens of ancient prophecies, in the case of modern Israel alone. I guess you might respond "cherry picking" but I also guess you have never read the prophecies I'm thinking of here.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not according to the vast majority of scientists and scientific institutions, just a small and diminishing percent of creationists with ulterior motives to their opposition to evolution, one. Which has nothing to do with scientific process.

Why would you use an ad populum argument here, when you know that there were ad populum arguments against Gaileo and Copernicus et al for centuries until now?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Good.



I gave two specific examples: Reggie's claim that the Lucy specimen was a "hoax" and Deeje's repeated claim that evolutionary biology "has no evidence". I've seen lots more in the short time since I returned to this forum.



Yes, I'm quite familiar with the "we just interpret the data differently" argument. I've seen it from flat-earthers, geocentrists, and creationists. The problem is, it assumes that all interpretations are equally valid. But as anyone familiar with basic science and the history of science knows, that simply isn't true. Specific to this issue, the fact that the evolutionary interpretation has resulted in all sorts of new discoveries and even entire new fields of science (e.g., comparative genomics), whereas creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to our scientific understanding in well over a century, is a a very good indication of which interpretation is more accurate.

I wouldn't use either example. I would say Lucy isn't a hoax as much as wishful thinking. The fossil is real, the data conclusions seem rather sketch.

I would say there is overwhelming evidence that evolutionary biology is factual and real, but also there are some very bad leaps to conclusions in that field of science regarding major transitions in the fossil record and etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Okay great. We agree on that, at least.

The one you provided does not appear to be a prophecy. More of an observation of what was going on at the time, if anything.

I didn't provide one. I provided dozens. There are dozens of extraordinary events that are a part of the advent of modern Israel, observable in current history, all predicted in the ancient scriptures.

The one I emphasized, that the Jews would bless every nation they entered and be persecuted in each nation also, is absolutely, unequivocally, demonstrably true.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Honestly, I fail to see how your complaints about non-religious people being on this site has anything to do with how you practice your religion. I really don't. Nobody is hindering your ability to practice your religion in any way, by being here. If you really have that much of a problem with it, why hang out on a thread that is dedicated to a scientific theory you don't accept? Of course creationism is going to be challenged and countered in such a thread.

You know there's a whole DIR where you can go hang out with people from who share the very same religious beliefs as you do, right?

I understand you "fail to see it" but your response here, again, is inappropriate and insensitive. I fail to see the major benefits of some aspects of Islam, for example, but I can tell that to Muslim forum members without saying "Get over it, I will continue to insult your religious practices, so go to another DIR, please."

Let's leave it there for now and get back to the thread topic, however.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Too bad those changes were made by the followers and later generations not by Jesus. Jesus never converted the Roman Empire rather it took 3 centuries to build to a point that it was a large portion of the population.



Nope, see above



Nope you are putting forward a religious doctrine not scholarship.



Nope you accepted what a book says as something God says, nothing more.



You said it.



Too bad archaeology has been turning over such tripe for decades. Exodus has been dismissed for example. The idea of Judaism being an evolved polytheism religion which became a monotheist one is a very strong view.



You are responding thus it isn't harassment.



Find a scholar not already committed to doctrinal viewpoint and you will find the reliability is not as strong as you think it is. Hence why Biblical scholarship was crippled for centuries as the only authorities that seemed to matter were already committed to their religion. When the German school of thought gained the academic freedom to question religious authorities the field was changed forever.



You said it.

I keep looking through your post here for substantive argument but I can only find "Nope, you said it, you named it and claimed it" rhetoric, rather childlike rhetoric, unfortunately. Did you want to point me to an actual argument to respond to?

Let's focus on this argument if not: you made a claim that you know that I listen to voices in my head to follow Christ. I read the Bible, rather, to follow Christ. Offer some evidence or stop being so assumptive. It's rude.

 

[Jose Fly]

I would say Lucy isn't a hoax as much as wishful thinking. The fossil is real, the data conclusions seem rather sketch.

Could you expand on that?

I would say there is overwhelming evidence that evolutionary biology is factual and real, but also there are some very bad leaps to conclusions in that field of science regarding major transitions in the fossil record and etc.

For example......?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Why would you use an ad populum argument here, when you know that there were ad populum arguments against Gaileo and Copernicus et al for centuries until now?

That's a false equivalence. It was the scientifically demonstrative view that the Earth was a spherpid by shadow cast on the moon and studying cosmology, and the lay and religious belief the Earth was flat. Evolution is built on demonstrative scientific consensus. Creationism is built on superstitious traditionalism.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Sorry, I don't follow the first paragraph. Where was I being hypocritical?

And I had a little trouble with the second paragraph, also. I apologize for this. The Bible prophecies can be verified by comparing modern events to dozens of ancient prophecies, in the case of modern Israel alone. I guess you might respond "cherry picking" but I also guess you have never read the prophecies I'm thinking of here.

You have a double standard in your expectation of atheist behavior vs what you'll permit yourself.

You assumed wrong. I, just like many people who are not part of your religion, have nevertheless read and studied the bible and simply not come to the same conclusions. Just like Nostradamus, I view Christian interpretation of events as reaching, cold reading or, yes, cherry picking. You could no more demonstrate the bible accurately predicting modern events to me than you could the divinity of Jesus to the majority of Jews.

 

[Shad]

I keep looking through your post here for substantive argument but I can only find "Nope, you said it, you named it and claimed it" rhetoric, rather childlike rhetoric, unfortunately.

How can I provide substance to "God told me so"? Pointing out your claims are not argument is not childish. Perhaps you should type what you mean instead of complaining that I use what you said yourself against you.

Did you want to point me to an actual argument to respond to?

You can respond to whatever you wish.

Let's focus on this argument if not: you made a claim that you know that I listen to voices in my head to follow Christ.

No I responded to your statement which said as much. You then clarified to which I responded with you accept a book's claims as the word of God.

I read the Bible, rather, to follow Christ.

Okay.

Offer some evidence or stop being so assumptive. It's rude.

Evidence of what? That you can not post what you mean? That you take a book seriously to a point you confuse claims in a book being the same word of God

 

[BilliardsBall]

Could you expand on that?



For example......?

Is Lucy a complete fossil or is she a variety of pieces like bones and teeth?

Are Lucy's remains collocated or scattered over a distance?

What is the best evidence that Lucy isn't a child or a dwarf of homo sapiens sapiens?

If you were testing a drug and said you had one deceased recipient, would you have, therefore, control cases? Anecdotal evidence? Testifiable hypotheses? How many other fossils verify the Lucy find? After all, wouldn't we reject any other scientific principle based upon the testing of one or two cases only?

Since carbon dating of remains is considered valid for circa 50,000 years, what evidence do we have of Lucy's age? And if we're saying the neighboring geology is X millions of years old and also that it takes a very lengthy time to form fossils, how does that color dating animal remains based on surrounding geology?

**

Does it concern you or I that we can find similar fossils indication transitions in the distant past but no half-formed limb fossils and etc.? Should we expect, for example, to find thousands and thousands of animal fossils with rudimentary appendages?

Have you considered the many systems needing to evolve to bring land animals to sea or sea animals ashore?

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's a false equivalence. It was the scientifically demonstrative view that the Earth was a spherpid by shadow cast on the moon and studying cosmology, and the lay and religious belief the Earth was flat. Evolution is built on demonstrative scientific consensus. Creationism is built on superstitious traditionalism.

It's not a false equivalence, there were models drawn--I can point you to one--explaining things like retrograde motion from an earthcentric solar system perspective.

Evolution is built on scientific consensus, but if you're referring to Earth's distant past, you would need to leave out the "demonstrative" remark. Creationism is built on the bedrock of the provable, testifiable, verifiable authority of the Bible. And you are further setting a straw man by denying an alternative like space seed.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You have a double standard in your expectation of atheist behavior vs what you'll permit yourself.

You assumed wrong. I, just like many people who are not part of your religion, have nevertheless read and studied the bible and simply not come to the same conclusions. Just like Nostradamus, I view Christian interpretation of events as reaching, cold reading or, yes, cherry picking. You could no more demonstrate the bible accurately predicting modern events to me than you could the divinity of Jesus to the majority of Jews.

Of course I hold a double standard. I'm bound by religious constraints, you are not. I expect (and receive) different behaviors from us both.

I didn't assume anything you've suggested. I'm more than aware that most of the atheists who participate on forums actively hail from a Bible and/or religious background.

Nostradamus made numerous, vague prophecies, 1% or less of which have been vaguely fulfilled. The Bible contains specific, relevant, MODERN events. The issue is instead of asking for a list of such events from me, you are simply using declaratory rhetoric.

I try not to waste excessive time talking to closed atheists. I prefer talking to atheists who are open to the truth claims of the Bible. That's why I say, "you and I have no excuse and can find modern prophecy fulfillment." Why aren't you looking? When did you become "done" with learning about the Bible? And if you're "done" how can you say, "I'm at ReligiousForums to learn more."?

 

[BilliardsBall]

How can I provide substance to "God told me so"? Pointing out your claims are not argument is not childish. Perhaps you should type what you mean instead of complaining that I use what you said yourself against you.



You can respond to whatever you wish.



No I responded to your statement which said as much. You then clarified to which I responded with you accept a book's claims as the word of God.




Okay.



Evidence of what? That you can not post what you mean? That you take a book seriously to a point you confuse claims in a book being the same word of God

**I keep looking through your post here for substantive argument but I can only find "Nope, you said it, you named it and claimed it" rhetoric, rather childlike rhetoric, unfortunately.

How can I provide substance to "God told me so"? Pointing out your claims are not argument is not childish. Perhaps you should type what you mean instead of complaining that I use what you said yourself against you.

Straw man. I’ve pointed to verifiable, testable, falsifiable evidence.

**Let's focus on this argument if not: you made a claim that you know that I listen to voices in my head to follow Christ.

No I responded to your statement which said as much. You then clarified to which I responded with you accept a book's claims as the word of God.

I said no such thing. I also said I have reasons to accept the book’s claims as the Word of God. GUARANTEED, you can only theorize and have ZERO claims based on evidence as to why I may not do so.

Please present your evidence here that God didn’t speak to the ancient Hebrews:

Evidence 1:

Evidence 2:

Evidence 3:

**Offer some evidence or stop being so assumptive. It's rude.

Evidence of what? That you can not post what you mean? That you take a book seriously to a point you confuse claims in a book being the same word of God

Your last sentence doesn’t make sense to me. But see above, please provide your evidence.