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

[Polymath257]

I responded to you. It remains of fish.

The term 'fish' encompasses many,many species. Much like the term 'mammal' does.

What I spoke of one species turning into another, I was speaking in the specific context of fish mutation into amphibians, reptiles, whatever, and eventually mammals... or a phenomenon similar to that we simply don't see it in today's creatures.

Have you ever heard of a mudskipper?

Mudskipper - Wikipedia

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Mutations can only build up variation again at a certain rate. if you select faster than the rate of variance build, the species will die out. That's how species go extinct. But, if you go slower, so that variance can build again, no such limits appear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have seen plenty of documentaries where the eyewitnesses gave their account.

Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable from of evidence allowed in a trial. What else do you have?

I have read plenty of books and seen many documentaries where people who had miraculous healings gave their testimony. Where doctors gave their testimony. I've seen documentaries where eyewitnesses at Fatima Portugal gave their account.

Again, hearsay at best. If a doctor was involved one can be fairly sure that medicine was involved. Do you know how a proper medical study is done?

It was enough to convince me that not everybody is full of s***. There is something out there that is intervening and changing billions of lives.

If one person says one thing is reliable evidence, and another person says it is not reliable evidence, how do we know who's actually right about what reliable evidence is?

Good question. Reliable evidence is independent and repeatable. If it relies on individuals it is far too often tainted by the "witness"'s beliefs.

 

[Cacotopia]

Anecdotal accounts is not the plural of data.

 

[Spiderman]

Every species alive today is a transitional species, every child is the next step in evolution, you can't for the most part see the changes physically. Blue eyes come from Neanderthalis Homo a little over 10k years ago. Ancient Homo Sapiens interbred with Neanderthals. Vestigial organs and structures are a great example of evolution, the cossax bone, or tail bone, the appendix, the muscles around our ears, wisdom teeth. In the womb we got tails, we don't need the appendix cause for most of society we cook our meat, ears are in a fixed position, and our use of utensils for millennia has caused a shrinking of the jaw.

Average height maybe. Dark ages being 6' was huge I'm considered very tall at 6'8" the average height of humans has been on the rise. Go to almost anywhere with ancient structures and look at the doorways. they are hella short, I have doubts that they would make them shorter than their average selves to be inconvenient on purpose.

A fish didn't lay an egg and an amphibian came out. if this is your understanding of how evolution operates this is a problem.

That is not my understanding of evolution

 

[Spiderman]

The term 'fish' encompasses many,many species. Much like the term 'mammal' does.



Have you ever heard of a mudskipper?

Mudskipper - Wikipedia

mudskippers are related to gobi fish...it isn't in a transition to becoming an amphibian or reptile

 

[Spiderman]

Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable from of evidence allowed in a trial. What else do you have?



Again, hearsay at best. If a doctor was involved one can be fairly sure that medicine was involved. Do you know how a proper medical study is done?



Good question. Reliable evidence is independent and repeatable. If it relies on individuals it is far too often tainted by the "witness"'s beliefs.

If a person presents evidence that a vision was promised in advance, and a crowd of 70,000 people showed up, with the media, many of them communists and atheists, who testified that they were given an incredible vision...and I say there is evidence of a supernatural being intervening, and you say that isn't evidence, who determines what is and is not "evidence"?
not to mention three illiterate shepherd children made prophecies about serious future calamities like the rise of communism in Russia, the spread of communism throughout the world, and the coming of world war 2, and that the sky would be illuminated by an unknown light, prior to world war 2, it all happened...
(In spite of much study and investigation, scientists were unable to explain the great light that “struck fear into the hearts of millions” (F. Johnston). An unknown light in 1938 demands our attention – even today - Our Lady's Blue Army - World Apostolate of Fatima U.S.A.) that did take place, and they prophesied about the coming of their early death, all of which took place.

Millions of people witnessed the unknown light that mary said would happen years in advance as a warning that God was going to punish the world with a second world war...something millions of people witnessed is evidence, in view of everything else that took place and the prophecies. If I say, that is evidence, and you say it isn't, who determines what is and is not "evidence"? For the people who witnessed those events, and to the visionaries, that was indeed evidence...to you it isn't...who's right and who's wrong?

Why don't you atheists on average admit that you don't know...I'm willing to say I don't know, why can't you?, but I have historical documents that lead me and billions of others to inner convictions.

 

[Polymath257]

mudskippers are related to gobi fish...it isn't in a transition to becoming an amphibian or reptile

How do you know its not a transition to something else?

We don't expect current living things to 'evolve' into reptiles or amphibians. But we *do* expect them to evolve into something new and different.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If a person presents evidence that a vision was promised in advance, and a crowd of 70,000 people showed up, with the media, many of them communists and atheists, who testified that they were given an incredible vision...and I say there is evidence of a supernatural being intervening, and you say that isn't evidence, who determines what is and is not "evidence"?
not to mention three illiterate shepherd children made prophecies about serious future calamities like the rise of communism in Russia, the spread of communism throughout the world, and the coming of world war 2, and that the sky would be illuminated by an unknown light, prior to world war 2, it all happened...
(In spite of much study and investigation, scientists were unable to explain the great light that “struck fear into the hearts of millions” (F. Johnston). An unknown light in 1938 demands our attention – even today - Our Lady's Blue Army - World Apostolate of Fatima U.S.A.) that did take place, and they prophesied about the coming of their early death, all of which took place.

Millions of people witnessed the unknown light that mary said would happen years in advance as a warning that God was going to punish the world with a second world war...something millions of people witnessed is evidence, in view of everything else that took place and the prophecies. If I say, that is evidence, and you say it isn't, who determines what is and is not "evidence"? For the people who witnessed those events, and to the visionaries, that was indeed evidence...to you it isn't...who's right and who's wrong?

Why don't you atheists on average admit that you don't know...I'm willing to say I don't know, why can't you?, but I have historical documents that lead me and billions of others to inner convictions.

The problem is that there were not Seventy thousand people and their testimony was often contradictory.

You really need to try to find reliable sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

mudskippers are related to gobi fish...it isn't in a transition to becoming an amphibian or reptile

Well that is correct. But not for the reason that you think it is. Evolution is a "one way street" . Amphibians and reptiles already evolved. The descendants of the mudskipper may evolve into something very similar to amphibians and reptiles but they will not be amphibians and reptiles.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Anecdotal accounts is not the plural of data.

Well, considering data already is the plural form.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm saying people should be open to the possibility that maybe 93% of the world doesn't have it all wrong...

Arguing that something might be true because many, most, or all believe it is true is sometimes called an "appeal to popularity" or "an argumentum ad populum" -- if you want the traditional Latin name for it. It is an informal fallacy of logic because it is possible that many, most, or all people can be wrong about something. For instance, there was almost certainly a time when just about every human on earth thought the earth was flat. That didn't make the earth flat.

 

[Spiderman]

Arguing that something might be true because many, most, or all believe it is true is sometimes called an "appeal to popularity" or "an argumentum ad populum" -- if you want the traditional Latin name for it. It is an informal fallacy of logic because it is possible that many, most, or all people can be wrong about something. For instance, there was almost certainly a time when just about every human on earth thought the earth was flat. That didn't make the earth flat.

This is the 21st century and apparently over 90% people are seeing enough evidence for the existence of supernatural entities, that they have a firm conviction of heart, and center much of their life on it...

And I'm open to the possibility that I am wrong, and so is nearly all of the world.,as I have stated multiple times...so now I'm wondering, why is it that I am willing to admit that maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see the average atheist saying "I might be wrong, a creator might exist"?

 

[Sunstone]

This is the 21st century and apparently over 90% people are seeing enough evidence for the existence of supernatural entities, that they have a firm conviction of heart, and center much of their life on it...

Neither the fact that 90%+ of the world population believes in deity, nor the fact that many of those who do "center much of their life on it", is logically sound evidence for the existence of deity.

The majority of people can be wrong about something, and sometimes are.

Fervency of belief is no indication of the belief's truth or falsity.

And I'm open to the possibility that I am wrong, and so is nearly all of the world.,as I have stated multiple times...so now I'm wondering, why is it that I am willing to admit that maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see the average atheist saying "I might be wrong, a creator might exist"?

Even Richard Dawkins believes he could be wrong. So do most atheists I know or have heard of. You need to hang out with a better quality of atheist.

 

[Spiderman]

Neither the fact that 90%+ of the world population believes in deity, nor the fact that many of those who do "center much of their life on it", is logically sound evidence for the existence of deity.

The majority of people can be wrong about something, and sometimes are.

Fervency of belief is no indication of the belief's truth or falsity.



Even Richard Dawkins believes he could be wrong. So do most atheists I know or have heard of. You need to hang out with a better quality of atheist.

Just look at the votes on the poll of the OP....those who voted no are essentially saying that they aren't even open to the possibility that they are wrong.

I give props and admiration and respect for Dawkins for being humble and admitting that he could be wrong.

 

[Sunstone]

Just look at the votes on the poll of the OP....those who voted no are essentially saying that they aren't even open to the possibility that they are wrong.

The OP poll is far and away from being a rigorously conducted scientific poll. It's results are all but meaningless.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

However it's certain that many people claiming to be contacted are completely full of crap.

I agree, you’re probably right...but “many” is not “all”!

And that suits the Devil’s purpose. For instance (and please, bear with me), you being an atheist, is fine with him. If he were to ‘reveal himself’ to you — say, a doll floating up and down in your bedroom, calling your name, idk (lol) — that just might get you to think otherwise, and you might start searching for the real God. (There is only one. John 17:3) And that’s the last thing he wants!

Deception, by any means, is the game.

 

[Cacotopia]

mudskippers are related to gobi fish...it isn't in a transition to becoming an amphibian or reptile

oh my god, how do you know that. All living species are transitional from one species to the next. Medalists in the Olympics ALL have the ace gene, IE they have a gene that allows their blood to be more oxygenated than someone like me a joe schmoe. Are they mutants? they look human, not all mutations are able to be seen.

 

[Cacotopia]

Well, considering data already is the plural form.

yah yah I know I am just pokin' some fun.

 

[Spiderman]

oh my god, how do you know that. All living species are transitional from one species to the next. Medalists in the Olympics ALL have the ace gene, IE they have a gene that allows their blood to be more oxygenated than someone like me a joe schmoe. Are they mutants? they look human, not all mutations are able to be seen.

that isn't transitioning into another species. Some people are exceptionally gifted in different areas