Are there any Flat Earth believers here?

[gnostic]

That is a wikipedia link describing a certain prehistoric species. It says nothing about fish developing limbs.

Yes, the article is from Wikipedia, but it has provided links to other sources, if you bothered to check the Notes and Bibliography, to other webpages, journals and books.

Click on the first link and that would take you to webpage outside of Wikipedia, and that webpage would have their own bibliography, which do and can lead you to more books, journals and other webpages. And so should most of these other links, they should have their own bibliography for further readings.

I would agree that you don’t trust the Wikipedia articles, without checking their sources.

You do understand the concept of bibliography, don’t you?

 

[Tazarah]

Yes, the article is from Wikipedia, but it has provided links to other sources, if you bothered to check the Notes and Bibliography, to other webpages, journals and books.

Click on the first link and that would take you to webpage outside of Wikipedia, and that webpage would have their own bibliography, which do and can lead you to more books, journals and other webpages. And so should most of these other links, they should have their own bibliography for further readings.

I would agree that you don’t trust the Wikipedia articles, without checking their sources.

You do understand the concept of bibliography, don’t you?

Where are the fossils showing evolution in fish?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Life has never came from a non-living source, unless you have proof.

You cannot prove a scientific concept if you do not have any evidence.

You lose again. You stated that something was impossible. That puts the burden of proof upon you.

And you do not even know what evidence is. There is scientific evidence for abiogenesis. But until you are honest enough to admit your failure I will not present any to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where are the fossils showing evolution in fish?

Oh my:

fish evolution fossil images - Google Search

Sadly you do not understand what you asked nor do you understand the concept of evidence. Are you willing to learn or are you still afraid?

 

[Tazarah]

You lose again. You stated that something was impossible. That puts the burden of proof upon you.

And you do not even know what evidence is. There is scientific evidence for abiogenesis. But until you are honest enough to admit your failure I will not present any to you.

You will never present any because there isn’t any.

 

[Tazarah]

Oh my:

fish evolution fossil images - Google Search

Sadly you do not understand what you asked nor do you understand the concept of evidence. Are you willing to learn or are you still afraid?

Lmao!!!!

Go look at the images on that link, and please show me which one shows fish fossils in the process of evolving.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You will never present any because there isn’t any.

Wrong again, but you could always try to be honest for once and admit that you were wrong.

Do you think that you could do that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lmao!!!!

Go look at the images on that link, and please show me which one shows fish fossils in the process of evolving.

They all do. The fact that you do not understand something does not mean that it does not happen.

 

[Tazarah]

Wrong again, but you could always try to be honest for once and admit that you were wrong.

Do you think that you could do that?

Look, are you going to show your “evidence” or not? I’m tired of you always playing games. If you don’t have any then just shutup and leave me alone. If you do, then share it and let’s talk about it.

 

[Tazarah]

They all do. The fact that you do not understand something does not mean that it does not happen.

If they all do, then pick one.

In reality — none of them do.

There have never been any fossils found that show fish evolving in any kind of way.

 

[Polymath257]

Life has never came from a non-living source, unless you have proof.

You cannot prove a scientific concept if you do not have any evidence.

That's easy enough to prove.

13.7 billion years ago, there was no life. Why not? because it was too hot to allow atoms to form, let alone anything like the complexity of life.

Now, there is life. Hence, we have gone from a universe with no life in it to one that has life in it. hence, life came from a non-living source.

 

[Tazarah]

That's easy enough to prove.

13.7 billion years ago, there was no life. Why not? because it was too hot to allow atoms to form, let alone anything like the complexity of life.

Now, there is life. Hence, we have gone from a universe with no life in it to one that has life in it. hence, life came from a non-living source.

How exactly did the universe “create” life. Life does not just pop up from nowhere. Your vague and empty claims do not mean anything, let’s be realistic. Atoms do not just form and create living organisms. I can’t believe how childish some of you people are.

Who are you trying to fool, me? Or yourselves.

“If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”. This putative soup, assumed by many scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years ago, was located in the ocean or mud puddles. Others argue that the origin of life could not have been in the sea but rather must have occurred in clay on dry land. Still others conclude that abiogenesis was more likely to have occurred in hot vents. It is widely recognized that major scientific problems exist with all naturalistic origin of life scenarios. This is made clear in the conclusions of many leading origin-of-life researchers. A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look, are you going to show your “evidence” or not? I’m tired of you always playing games. If you don’t have any then just shutup and leave me alone. If you do, then share it and let’s talk about it.

If you can't be honest what good would it do?

I gave you the conditions. You screwed the pooch in your earlier argument. You have to at least own up to that.

 

[Polymath257]

Really? When has anybody ever witnessed a fish turning into a human, or growing legs? Never.

Anybody ever watch an ape grow into a human? No.

Evolution is a hoax.

And no matter how you try to put it, life cannot come from a non-living source.

Well, we don't expect to see a fist turning into a human, especially in the lifetime of humans. This is something that happens over millions of years, not in a summer afternoon.

But, if you look over the fossil record *along with the times from those fossils*, find find sequences of species, the earliest ones of which were fish and the later ones of which were amphibians. No single individual changed from a fish into an amphibian, just like no single individual changed from speaking latin into speaking french. But small changes over many generations add up to larger changes.

As for apes and humans, the problem is that humans *are* a type of ape. We have changed from one type of ape to another type of apes over the last few million years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If they all do, then pick one.

In reality — none of them do.

There have never been any fossils found that show fish evolving in any kind of way.

No. If you want to debate you need to learn first. Are you still afraid?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Little boy, do you have evidence to throw in my face or not?

Why don’t you put me into my place and show me this evidence so that you shut me up.

I already did. But if you insist.

 

[Tazarah]

Well, we don't expect to see a fist turning into a human, especially in the lifetime of humans. This is something that happens over millions of years, not in a summer afternoon.

But, if you look over the fossil record *along with the times from those fossils*, find find sequences of species, the earliest ones of which were fish and the later ones of which were amphibians. No single individual changed from a fish into an amphibian, just like no single individual changed from speaking latin into speaking french. But small changes over many generations add up to larger changes.

As for apes and humans, the problem is that humans *are* a type of ape. We have changed from one type of ape to another type of apes over the last few million years.

Where is the proof of this?

Where are the fossils showing evolution occuring in any kind of species?

You cannot just get two completely different species and then say “hey look, this evolved from that, and this from that.”

The reality is that there are no fossils that have ever been found demonstrating any kind of evolution.

If there have been, then please show me.

 

[Polymath257]

How exactly did the universe “create” life. Life does not just pop up from nowhere. Your vague and empty claims do not mean anything, let’s be realistic. Atoms do not just form and create living organisms. I can’t believe how childish some of you people are.

Who are you trying to fool, me? Or yourselves.

Actually, we know exactly the opposite. none of the atoms in your body are alive, but the combination of them *is*. There is nothing in life other than chemical reactions. But none of those chemicals is alive.

“If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”. This putative soup, assumed by many scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years ago, was located in the ocean or mud puddles. Others argue that the origin of life could not have been in the sea but rather must have occurred in clay on dry land. Still others conclude that abiogenesis was more likely to have occurred in hot vents. It is widely recognized that major scientific problems exist with all naturalistic origin of life scenarios. This is made clear in the conclusions of many leading origin-of-life researchers. A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.”

Well, we don't know the specifics. On that we both agree. But we also know that there was no life at one point and there is life now. That means that life came from non-life. And, again, the facts are much more immediate than that. NONE of the atoms in your body is alive. It is the *combination* and interaction that makes things alive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First some educstion:

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

Please read that article and get back to me after you have done so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where is the proof of this?

Where are the fossils showing evolution occuring in any kind of species?

You cannot just get two completely different species and then say “hey look, this evolved from that, and this from that.”

The reality is that there are no fossils that have ever been found demonstrating any kind of evolution.

If there have been, then please show me.

Patience. Once again you cannot refute that which you do not understand.