• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheists win! They have the fossils! What do the fossils prove?

Are you willing to admit that MAYBE a supernatural entity has left evidence for it's existence?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 47.4%
  • No

    Votes: 10 52.6%

  • Total voters
    19

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
You haven't proven anything.

I am not in the business of proving. Well, I am , but they are mainly related to tautologies.

Supernatural healings are very rare.
Yes. Very rare.

That doesn't mean they don't happen.
It is also rare that Bob the turtle, the invisible creator of the Universe, dispatches his invisible fairies to mess around my garden. But that does not mean they do not mess with my potatoes sometimes.

There are plenty of testimonies from scientists and Doctors indicating that there is a creator. There are scientists who are a lot more educated than you who see evidence that God exists:

Sure. I was reading about the evidence of God's existence in last Nature's issue. Scientific American has also a special issue about the evidence of God. LOL.

"Michio Kaku believes he has found evidence for God in his work. Kaku is a well respected scientist, who has helped pioneer String Theory of the universe, the idea that the universe is formed by many different dimensions of space and time.
He believes?

String Theory is very complex and requires a significant background in physics to explain, but it is favored by many scientists because it succinctly answers many of the questions they have about the universe. Still, it does not provide a complete, satisfying equation for why the universe is as it is.

Whether string theory is correct or not, that has zero influence on the plausibility of God. On the contrary, if string theory is true, natural theology would be toast.


The problem with physics is that laws which explain why the universe works as it does on the macro level, do not apply at the micro level. Einstein's physics and quantum physics, have a gap between their explanations that scientists cannot yet explain. For example, why is it that tiny quantum particles can pop into and out of existence from nothing? String theory attempts to provide an answer to this question.

While working on String Theory, Kaku, discovered what he sees as evidence that the universe was created by an intelligence, rather than merely formed by random forces. He suggests he can explain it by what he calls, "primitive semi-radius tachyons." We do not yet have a succinct explanation of this idea from Kaku, other than he's referring to tachyons, which are theoretical particles that unbind particles from one another.

Tachyons? random forces? I hope you are
joking.

Without getting into the physics, Kaku concludes that we live in a Matrix-style universe, created by an intelligence.

Oh ok. If he said that, it must be true. If Kaku said that...

"I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence", he said. "Believe me, everything that we call chance today won't make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance."

Oh dear, if everybody would be like you, I would be rich. Selling comforting nonsense to the masses.

So does this mean Kaku now believes in God? Yes and no. Nowhere does he endorse an particular religious philosophy. Instead, he may be referring to Spinosa's God, a sort of deification of the laws of the universe themselves. Einstein came to a similar conclusion.
World renown scientist says he has found proof of God! We may be living the the 'Matrix' - Technology - News - Catholic Online

Catholic online? You mean the guys who take seriously the transformation of a wafer into the body of a 2000 years old human if you whisper some latin words on it and have testicles?

Ciao

- viole
 

Woberts

The Perfumed Seneschal
Evidence? At least you have provided us with the evidence that many atheists are ill-mannered bigots. But then I already knew that.
sm_rofl.gif

If we evolved from single cell organisms and fish, why aren't creatures showing signs of such that mutation??
They are. In fact, the human embryo has gills.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
I am not in the business of proving. Well, I am , but they are mainly related to tautologies.


Yes. Very rare.


It is also rare that Bob the turtle, the invisible creator of the Universe, dispatches his invisible fairies to mess around my garden. But that does not mean they do not mess with my potatoes sometimes.



Sure. I was reading about the evidence of God's existence in last Nature's issue. Scientific American has also a special issue about the evidence of God. LOL.


He believes?



Whether string theory is correct or not, that has zero influence on the plausibility of God. On the contrary, if string theory is true, natural theology would be toast.


The problem with physics is that laws which explain why the universe works as it does on the macro level, do not apply at the micro level. Einstein's physics and quantum physics, have a gap between their explanations that scientists cannot yet explain. For example, why is it that tiny quantum particles can pop into and out of existence from nothing? String theory attempts to provide an answer to this question.


Tachyons? random forces? I hope you are
joking.



Oh ok. If he said that, it must be true. If Kaku said that...



Oh dear, if everybody would be like you, I would be rich. Selling comforting nonsense to the masses.



Catholic online? You mean the guys who take seriously the transformation of a wafer into the body of a 2000 years old human if you whisper some latin words on it and have testicles?

Ciao

- viole
That Scientist was not Catholic.

It was just the first example of many scientists that I thought I'd share

Thank you for reading.

I'm not saying his theory is right, but perhaps your theory is just as false as his.... that at one time the world was dominated by single cell organisms, they had the world all to themselves, then in time they mutated into an intelligent chimp that events the Internet, Spaceships that fly to the moon, cell phones, satellites in the sky, robots on mars, performs open heart surgery, knee replacements, MRIs, X-rays, automobiles, airplanes, plumbing......while Chimps, who are 99% similar in DNA, that evolutionists insist are so close to us, haven't even invented the wheel or dug a water well. They are so close to us?? Really? Are you serious?

Atheistic Evolution sounds almost just as far-fetched to me as the belief that in every forest and garden there are invisible fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, and gnomes.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Maybe Evolutionists are just as creative, imaginative, and insane as those theists you speak of.

Yes, I heard the same accusations from a flat earther.

There are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles.

I'm saying there is no evidence that scientific mechanisms are doing that! If we evolved from single cell organisms and fish, why aren't creatures showing signs of such that mutation??

The only evidence missing here is that you have any education about these issues. Which is normal. What is not normal is that you feel to have the right to pontificate about it. It would be like me pontificating about the history of Chinese medieval ballet.


Atheists never have an answer so they point to ancient fossils with a theory that can't be proven! They have no evidence of any creature on the planet that I know of that is in the processes of mutating into another species.

As I said, go to school. Or ask yourself why your God made the pinnacle of creation look like a hairless gorilla.

So, the only way this mutation could have taken place, would be through a scientific miracle. That would most likely involve a supernatural entity, because we see no possibility of science accomplishing this alone!

If that is comfortable for you, be my guest. After all, if you believe that wafers can turn into gods, I guess the sky is the limit.

Ciao

- viole
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
How about instead of repeatedly telling me I don't know how science works,
Somebody actually offers an explanation...

Perhaps you don't know or understand science either!...I've been waiting...we all came from a single cell organism at one time, right? For billions of years, single cell organisms had the planet to themselves right? Then they became complex multicellular creatures who were the first animals, and they were a major success....later on they became fish, reptiles, amphibians, insects, rodents, dinosaurs, mammals, birds, primates, and eventually you...and let me guess, you know how that happened...I'm sure we can see evidence of creatures in this state of mutating into another species...

How about instead of telling me I don't know science, somebody actually answers my questions!...truth is, I don't think you know!

You're arguing from incredulity. Just because you can't fathom it doesn't mean that's evidence against it. If you don't understand a specific mathematical formula, that's not proof that the formula is somehow wrong.

And I literally gave you two easy to observe examples of unicellular organisms mutating to a point where you get something completely different or "evolving" if you like. It's actually quite cool to see. (Yes I know pregnancy might not count as specifically single cell, I haven't been in Biology class for over 10 years. Cut me some slack.)
You can watch this on YouTube even! Just google how cancer works. Or pregnancy or I dunno, bacteria evolving or something. You can literally watch them in action!!! How is that not evidence?

I'm trying to help you. But I'm not a scientist, I'm a lit and myth nerd. I can't educate you properly in Biology specifically, that is not my area of expertise. And even I can see you failing a basic grade 8 Biology exam. When an artsy fartsy type can tell you're being unscientific then it's probably the time to crack open a testbook or go to an actual expert to learn. A forum is hardly an educational space. Though I'm sure other posters with better qualifications than I can help explain concepts to you better than I. Or hell, just go to a TedTalk vid featuring actual scientists.
 
Last edited:

Spiderman

Veteran Member
sm_rofl.gif


They are. In fact, the human embryo has gills.
"No, the human fetus never develops gills, tail or a yolk sac, as some have claimed. This supposed evidence of man’s evolution from animals has been resoundingly proven utterly false. This is yet another great evolutionary myth that refuses to die, despite total lack of evidence, and its birth in deception. It was very important in the early promotion of evolutionism.

Unfortunately, many people still believe this erroneous evolutionary theory that was once widely taught in schools and still shows up in museums and books.

Fortunately, other scientists didn’t take that view. Sure enough, studies have shown that essentially all 180 organs once listed as evolutionary vestiges have quite important functions in human beings.
The “yolk sac” is the source of the human embryo’s first blood cells, and death would result without it.....


The same is true of the so-called “gill slits.” In the human embryo at one month, there are wrinkles (flexion folds) in the skin where the “throat pouches” grow out. Once in a while, one of these pouches will break through, and a child will be born with a small hole in the neck. That’s when we find out for sure that these structures are not gill slits.
If the opening were really part of a gill, if it really were a “throwback to the fish stage,” then there would be blood vessels all around it, as if it were going to absorb oxygen from water as a gill does. But there is no such structure. We simply don’t have the DNA instructions for forming gills.

Unfortunately, some babies are born with three eyes or one eye. That doesn’t mean, of course, that we evolved from something with one eye or three eyes. It’s simply a mistake in the normal program for human development, and it emphasizes how perfect our design features and operation must be for life to continue.

The throat (or pharyngeal) grooves and pouches, falsely called “gill slit,” are not mistakes in human development. They develop into absolutely essential parts of human anatomy—the lower jaw, tongue, thymus gland, the parathyroid, etc. The middle ear canals come from the second pouches, and the parathyroid and thymus glands come from the third and fourth.

Without a thymus, we would lose half our immune systems. Without the parathyroids, we would be unable to regulate calcium balance and could not even survive. Another pouch, thought to be vestigial by evolutionists until just recently, becomes a gland that assists in calcium balance. Far from being useless evolutionary vestiges, then, these so-called “gill slits” are quite essential for distinctively human development.

As with “yolk sacs,” “gill slit” formation represents an ingenious and adaptable solution to a difficult engineering problem. How can a small, round egg cell be turned into an animal or human being with a digestive tube and various organs inside a body cavity? The answer is to have the little ball (or flat sheet in some organisms) “swallow itself,” forming a tube which then “buds off” other tubes and pouches. The anterior pituitary, lungs, urinary bladder, and parts of the liver and pancreas develop in this way.

In fish, gills develop from such processes, and in human beings, the ear canals, parathyroid, and thymus glands develop. Following DNA instructions in their respective egg cells, fish and human beings each use a similar process to develop their distinctive features.
https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c024.html

An embryo is not another species of animal turning into a homo sapien.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
You're arguing from incredulity. Just because you can't fathom it doesn't mean that's evidence against it. If you don't understand a specific mathematical formula, that's not proof that the formula is somehow wrong.

And I literally gave you two easy to observe examples of unicellular organisms mutating to a point where you get something completely different or "evolving" if you like. It's actually quite cool to see. (Yes I know pregnancy might not count as specifically single cell, I haven't been in Biology class for over 10 years. Cut me some slack.)
You can watch this on YouTube even! Just google how cancer works. Or pregnancy or I dunno, bacteria evolving or something. You can literally watch them in action!!! I'm trying to help you. But I'm not a scientist, I'm a lit and myth nerd. I can't educate you properly, that is not my area of expertise. And even I can see you failing a basic grade 8 Biology exam. When an artsy fartsy type can tell you're being unscientific then it's probably best to crack open a testbook or go to an actual expert to learn. A forum is hardly an educational space. Though I'm sure other posters with better qualifications than I can help explain concepts to you better than I.
You did it again!

Tell me which part of the OP was scientifically false??...you keep telling me I have an infantile understanding of science, and then repeatedly you don't actually point out that what I said is false! :mad:

A baby forming in the womb isn't a species evolving into another. You haven't given evidence of anything other than:
Mom and dad played "hide the sausage", and one of the sperm found mommy's egg. They fused together in her womb setting off a chain reaction. The cell divided over and over again, setting off a chain reaction...

Evolution is changes in the genome of entire populations - babies don't evolve, they develop from their own genome which they acquired from their parents.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
We still come from a single cell called an ovary which is fertilized by one cell, both cells contributing half our dna.

Evolution is changes in the genome of entire populations - babies don't evolve, they develop from their own genome which they acquired from their parents.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
That Scientist was not Catholic.

It was just the first example of many scientists that I thought I'd share

Thank you for reading.

I'm not saying his theory is right, but perhaps your theory is just as false as his.... that at one time the world was dominated by single cell organisms, they had the world all to themselves, then in time they mutated into an intelligent chimp that events the Internet, Spaceships that fly to the moon, cell phones, satellites in the sky, robots on mars, performs open heart surgery, knee replacements, MRIs, X-rays, automobiles, airplanes, plumbing......while Chimps, who are 99% similar in DNA, that evolutionists insist are so close to us, haven't even invented the wheel or dug a water well. They are so close to us?? Really? Are you serious?

Well, I think you have a point here. Chimps do not believe that any of their alpha males, when they whisper some noise, they can turn a banana into the literal body of a 2000 years old gorilla messiah. either. So, you have a point. They are not similar to us. Well, to you at least.

Atheistic Evolution sounds almost just as far-fetched to me as the belief that in every forest and garden there are invisible fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, and gnomes.

There is no atheistic evolution. In the same way there is no atheistic roundness of the earth, or atheistic gravity, or atheistic atomic theory of matter.

And as I said, if that is too far fetched for you, I cannot possibly convince you of the contrary. Go ahead with your beliefs about wafers turning into gods, or mothers of gods crying when they incarnated as statues, or priests getting miraculous holes in their hands.
It is obvious that we have an epistemological difference here.

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

idav

Being
Premium Member
Evolution is changes in the genome of entire populations - babies don't evolve, they develop from their own genome which they acquired from their parents.
Sure but interesting thing is that we start as a single cel to become multicellular which points to our origins. We also start off as one gender.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
There is no atheistic evolution. In the same way there is no atheistic roundness of the earth, or atheistic gravity, or atheistic atomic theory of matter.

And as I said, if that is too far fetched for you, I cannot possibly convince you of the contrary. Go ahead with your beliefs about wafers turning into gods, or mothers of gods crying when they incarnated as statues, or priests getting miraculous holes in their hands.
It is obvious that we have an epistemological difference here.

Actually, I'm very skeptic of the Catholic faith and I like to study mystics and ascetics from Hindu and Buddhist Faith as well as Shamans, necromancers, medicine-men, native-American, and Eskimo spirituality.

I think they all have some pieces of truth and some bulls*t.

You seem like an intelligent thoughtful person....I hope your beliefs make you happy! :)

As long as you feel content and satiated, and have no desire for mystical experiences with a supernatural entity, I respect that and wish you well! :)

Ciao!
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
How on earth does that mean there was no supernatural creator? So, at one time the creator worked with the mechanisms of Science to create homo-erectus with different skulls than ours. For whatever reason, they went extinct...

It doesn’t. God makes it look like things happen without any intervention which is almost the same as atheism being true due to god being an absentee landlord or deadbeat dad.
 
Top