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

[Cacotopia]

that's the problem with prophecy. It's a loose and open to be interpreted scenario. I great war will erupt between many nations.

Then you wait for something like that to happen, and when it does you claim the divine inspiration. If the prophecy said specifically how the war would begin, yeah that might be cause to take a hard look at the prophecy. Most are loose, and vague for a reason.

 

[Spiderman]

And yet you can't find a valid resource that backs this claim.

In actuality it was far less than 70,000. Many saw nothing at all.

Can you find a valid resource for any of these claims that support you?

There are many sources and documentaries and movies about it.

I'm on a phone, and I see no reason to go through the trouble presenting you with any more sources , because you're not interested.

there are countless eyewitness accounts from people in the 20th century on camera being interviewed who attended the event, found in documentaries.

There's been many people who wrote about it.

you aren't interested, so I see no point in continuing to play this game with you

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are many sources and documentaries and movies about it.

I'm on a phone, and I see no reason to go through the trouble presenting you with any more sources , because you're not interested.

there are countless eyewitness accounts from people in the 20th century on camera being interviewed who attended the event, found in documentaries.

There's been many people who wrote about it.

you aren't interested, so I see no point in continuing to play this game with you

I have looked for valid sources and all I can find is propaganda and refutation of claims. I could link some of the many articles that explain how those miracles fail. Here is one:

The Real Secrets of Fatima - CSI

Until you can do better than that your claims about Fatima at the least are refuted.

 

[Jesster]

Millions of people saw the unknown lights in the sky that the Lady of Fatima foretold.

70000 people showed up to witness the sign that our lady promised to give.

There are many eyewitness accounts, eye witness interviews on camera, and books written about it, and atheists who converted over it.

The rise of Communism in Russia took place as the children prophesied.

Two of the children died as they said they would shortly.

A Shrine was erected there, a huge movement that affects over a billion people, where millions of people make pilgrimages to each year.

World War 2 took place as foretold.

There's a Medical Bureau at Lourdes where doctors testify that complete miraculous and instantaneous healings took place with no scientific medical explanation.

Scientist have examined the tilma at Guadalupe which led to the conversion of the Aztecs, and much of South America, and they said there's no scientific explanation why the cactus fibers have not decayed after this many centuries, and there is no scientific explanation for how the image got on the fibers, as there is no indication that it is a painting...

All of that was presented to you in the Op, and you're not even willing to say maybe these people are not all full of s***!

Really??

Looks like you figured out you're extremely smart to. Cheers!

Okay. How do you test for this? How do you repeat the experience for others so they can also observe it? How do you falsify it?

Until you can provide me with the answer to those questions, It's not strong evidence for a possibility of a supernatural occurrence. It's just a lot of anecdotes, which does exactly nothing more than create a nice story.

As for the "no scientific explanation", that's an argument from incredulity. Not having an answer means there is no known answer yet. It does not mean you get to fill in the blanks as you please, even with a possibility (go back to the dice example for why).

I'm not saying anyone is full of ****. I'm saying I'm not ready to state any possibility based on their stories.

 

[Cacotopia]

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.

Polls mean nothing they aren't a good sample of the world population. If you are basing your information on your poll which is less than 20/7billion you will be disappointed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

that's the problem with prophecy. It's a loose and open to be interpreted scenario. I great war will erupt between many nations.

Then you wait for something like that to happen, and when it does you claim the divine inspiration. If the prophecy said specifically how the war would begin, yeah that might be cause to take a hard look at the prophecy. Most are loose, and vague for a reason.

Yep, they will grasp at the slightest similarities in vague prophecies to say that they were fulfilled. But when a very specific prophesy fails, the Tyre prophesy for example, all one hears are apologetics, or as I like to say, lying for Jesus.

 

[Spiderman]

I have looked for valid sources and all I can find is propaganda and refutation of claims. I could link some of the many articles that explain how those miracles fail. Here is one:

The Real Secrets of Fatima - CSI

Until you can do better than that your claims about Fatima at the least are refuted.

Any claim of the supernatural is going to have websites that claim to refute it... that's just the way media is

There's a whole bunch of websites that say Pope Francis said there is no hell.

Pope Francis would not say that, because he would be essentially saying the church magisterium for thousands of years has been wrong, the Saints and Mystics were wrong, and previous popes were all wrong.


I studied the testimony of the Fatima Seers as well as many people who attended the event.

I'm convinced that they weren't just making it up.

You have not refuted the claims.

There are going to be websites that give a detailed reason why anything Supernatural that has a lot of media attention, is false... presenting people with those websites is not a refutal of anything.

 

[Jesster]

I'm convinced that they weren't just making it up.

They don't have to be making it up. They could just be wrong about their conclusions. Can't we all be wrong, no matter how many people agree with us? Even if everyone agrees?

This is why I need more than people just telling me what they believe to be true in order to think that their beliefs might be based in fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Any claim of the supernatural is going to have websites that claim to refute it... that's just the way media is

No, your "miracle" was nonsense. It was refuted. The so called evidence for it is amazingly poor. You had a chance, you lost by not even trying.

There's a whole bunch of websites that say Pope Francis said there is no hell.

Pope Francis would not say that, because he would be essentially saying the church magisterium for thousands of years has been wrong, the Saints and Mystics were wrong, and previous popes were all wrong.

Why wouldn't he say that? Do you remember the failure of your church when it came to Galileo? Some Catholics are simply brighter and bolder than others.

I studied the testimony of the Fatima Seers as well as many people who attended the event.

I'm convinced that they weren't just making it up.

Yes, but you have demonstrated that you are not the most reliable source either. You simply want to believe. You can't meet the standard of reliable evidence.

You have not refuted the claims.

There are going to be websites that give a detailed reason why anything Supernatural that has a lot of media attention, is false... presenting people with those websites is not a refutal of anything.

Sure I did. Until you come up with something better than massive appeal to bogus claims you lose. I don't have to put any effort into the refutation since you put no effort into supporting your claims.

 

[Cacotopia]

Yep, they will grasp at the slightest similarities in vague prophecies to say that they were fulfilled. But when a very specific prophesy fails, the Tyre prophesy for example, all one hears are apologetics, or as I like to say, lying for Jesus.

Don't forget when the world was supposed to end in 2012, slightly overcast with a 100% chance of meteors and hellfire, and the other couple dozen of times the end was near.

Did I say 2012? I meant 3012. *rolls eyes*

 

[Jumi]

So, a single cell organism eventually managed to mutate into this...(sometimes a picture can speak volumes. Evolution is artistic):

In evolution, there was no effort involved in a single cell organism trying to become something else.

 

[Cacotopia]

I can't understand how you don't absorb any new information.

 

[SomeRandom]

We all evolved from a world full of single-cell organisms.

that indeed requires transitions, mutations, and transformations of one species into another as radically as I am proposing.

You know that. I think you're just playing games with me. Stop

No, I'm trying to help you.
I'm confused as to what you're asking. Essentially you were asking why don't we have an "in between." When people point out that literally everything already is "an inbetween" you propose something of a cross speciation. A fish turning amphibian (which is essentially a mudskipper, but no matter) or a mammal somehow leaping across a species. barrier line to become a reptile. That's not really how it works. No where does The Thoery of Evolution propose such instances.
A fish can't turn into a duck. A bird can't magically become a fish. They're too far away from each other in the "family tree" as it were.

Perhaps it's easier to picture this way. What animals you see right now, are part of a ever branching family tree. But right at the bottom. They are essentially the results so far, if you will.
At the tip top is the single cell organisms.
Below them are multicellular organisms.
Below that are several diverging branches. Some will turn into primitive forms of fish. Some will turn into primitive forms of birds. Others still will become primitive forms of mammals. The ability to "cross pollenate" between the branches becomes increasingly difficult the further they diverge from each other (sort of like a ring species, I guess?)
Underneath those subsections are even more ever expanding branches. Each of those branches eventually lead up to modern animals you see today. Catch is they are still evolving. It will be slow to be sure. But each of the branches we have now are still diverging, albeit rather slowly by our time. We probably won't witness it in our lifetime. But we can witness slight subtle changes with some generations. Maybe a horse subspecies starts to slowly grow shorter due to habitat change. With bones slowly starting to fuse together (for arguments sake.) You and I might not see this species shrink more than a couple of millimetres if that. But in a few thousand years that species might have shrunk down a whole half metre. Maybe even a full metre.

Look at the fossils for an ancient form of whale. Look at the skeleton of a modern whale. You can still see where the bones have fused together to essentially make flippers.
This is evidence of evolution, that is your transitional form.

 

[Ibni Abbas]

I found that the analogy for this question :


You cannot replace Al Nabi SAW with Al Aadam AS , but still you replace Him SAW with Him AS , and why ?

 

[Jumi]

How about instead of repeatedly telling me I don't know how science works,
Somebody actually offers an explanation...

If I thought Christians were vampires, would you offer an explanation of why they drink blood if they aren't. You could explain it's a misunderstanding of the Eucharist. I could point out things they say about blood and quote the Bible and ignore the deal about the Eucharist. This could go on forever if I really had this belief and didn't know about the Eucharist.

 

[Woberts]

Human embryos have pharyngeal slits to put it technically.

There you go. I was putting it in layman's terms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There you go. I was putting it in layman's terms.

But then the creationist layman will find one of the very few times that Answers in Genesis or other creationist source being correct that denies that claim and think as a result that it is reliable.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There are non-Catholic skeptic Doctors who work at the medical Bureau at Lourdes

Are there any names? It would be Interesting to look them up.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

That wouldn't have me searching for god, but rather a psychiatric hospital.

 

[atanu]

What do the fossils prove

Imprints of flora, fauna, and geochemical biomarkers etc. show that diversity has increased through earth's age. This is my profession. There is no denying that forms of living beings: plants and animals have evolved from algal organisms to what we are today. But TOE does not pertain to origin of life-awareness.

Some scientists however have distorted the picture much and seem to suggest/indicate that life-awareness also evolved in a process analogous to Evolution. There is no evidence for this belief. They also reject forcefully the idea that the intelligence and will of organism could have any role in evolution of living forms. They ridicule evolutionists who even propose such. Many young posters, I feel, are influenced by these so-called scientists.

But actually, even scientific community have problem with these fundamentalist scientists who in the name of science write undergraduate level philosophy.

https://phys.org/news/2016-10-british-scientists-cited-richard-dawkins.html
Peter Higgs criticises Richard Dawkins over anti-religious 'fundamentalism'
Science or naturalism? The contradictions of Richard Dawkins – Opinion – ABC Religion & Ethics (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)