New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

It doesn't matter if it is the most prestigious in the world. You do not understand what happened between the 1800s and 2011. The creation scientists were expelled from the world of science. And that makes you what is in your sig. However, the creation scientists formed their own group and have been able to fight back. I can tell you're not a scientist because if you were, then you would know this and not have to rely on stupid sigs and posts that you post. What creation scientists are interested in is science and the truth. It's the atheists who are the truly stupid ones. The believe in bought and paid for science.

I have more for you. Ignorant, disabled, concussed, racist who believes men came from apes*, internet atheist, dumb b*stard, moron and more. * There's the Russian experiment when men and chimps were created in a test tube and lived. These creatures only lived one generation. Go explain that.

More idiocy.

Mt. St. Helens shows sedimentary layers forms in very short time. It's just like the other sedimentary layers. This means catastrophism is right and uniformitarianism is wrong. Charles Lyell can be lumped in with his pupil Darwin.

You posted data that you could not back up. Just like you can't answer my questions.

I said nothing will make you believe. This man appeared out of nowhere and was able to calm the people and then a fire engine with heavier tools was able to come by. They were out of time. When you die, you will get to experience the fear and darkness and you will have your atheist compadres to help you to your final destination. You will get all the evidence that you want.

You cannot explain the petrified trees nor any of the other discrepancies I pointed out. You cannot see the evidence for God. I used science throughout my arguments while you used bought and paid for science. We have established that humans did not come from fish and birds are not dinosaurs or the weird things evolutionists believe. All you have are hypotheses and science admits as much. All of it will be pseudoscience one day like the eternal universe, abiogenesis, tiktaalik, Lucy, the evolution timeline and whatnot that you believed in.

There are no creation scientists. The two are mutually exclusive.

 

[james bond]

I'll just let that speak for itself.

This appears to be our goodbye since I see the veins bulging out of your neck and hair falling out of you head, I will leave you with a few Chick Tracts because they do an adequate job discrediting your bulbness.

At least your avatar was able to figure things out, but you could not Professor Jose Fly.

You and your atheist friends can know themselves out here -- Big Daddy? .

 

[james bond]

There are no creation scientists. The two are mutually exclusive.

Wrong again as what you said makes no sense. You're worse off than Senor Fly.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Wrong again as what you said makes no sense. You're worse off than Senor Fly.

When you see a term you don't understand, perhaps consult Google instead of inserting your foot into your mouth. Or don't, up to you.

 

[james bond]

When you see a term you don't understand, perhaps consult Google instead of inserting your foot into your mouth. Or don't, up to you.

You do not even know how to put the terms together correctly haha.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

You do not even know how to put the terms together correctly haha.

*Facepalm*

LMGTFY

 

[james bond]

We can just ignore SSE because he's an internet atheist and doesn't know how to stick to a topic.

What else has evolution scientists been embarrassed by? The coelacanth. They were sure it was a transitional fossil and lived around 66 million years ago. How can a "fact" be so wrong? Yet, today they still believe the coelacanth shows how fins can become limbs because of cough evolution. This junk science gets published in Nature.

So when you hear atheists and atheist scientists treating birds came from dinosaurs and humans came from fish, we can just dismiss it as just another fishing expedition and story.

 

[james bond]

Here's even more silliness. Evolutionists claim these fossils that they find are in layers such as the following. They'll say in a deep voice trying to act intelligent,

"For example, the Cambrian layer contains trilobite fossils, which the evolutionists believe lived during the Cambrian period from 544 to 510 million years ago. The Devonian layer contains certain fish fossils, which evolutionists believe lived during the Devonian period from 409 to 363 million years ago. The Jurassic layer contains certain dinosaur fossils which the evolutionists believe existed during the Jurassic period 202 to 141 million years ago.

What they don't tell you is these layers such as Cambrian, Devonian and Jurassic refer to location and not time. That is what these layers were named after.

Here's what people like Jose Fly will tell you, "About 400 million years ago, a group of fishes called lobefins appeared, probably in fresh water. Lobefins had two important pre-adaptations to land-life: stout, fleshy fins with which they crawled about on the bottoms of shallow, quiet waters and a outpoaching of the digestive tract that could be filled with air, like a primitive lung. The coelacanth seen in Figure 24-33d is a lobefin that was believed to be long extinct before its discovery in 1939." 1

1 - Audesirk & Audesirk, Biology 4th edition, 1996, page 374

When creation scientists studied the coelacanth, their lungs were used for buoyancy. It didn't have anything to do with breathing.

This is the kind of thing that's really hilarious, Professor Fly.

 

[sayak83]

Here's even more silliness. Evolutionists claim these fossils that they find are in layers such as the following. They'll say in a deep voice trying to act intelligent,

"For example, the Cambrian layer contains trilobite fossils, which the evolutionists believe lived during the Cambrian period from 544 to 510 million years ago. The Devonian layer contains certain fish fossils, which evolutionists believe lived during the Devonian period from 409 to 363 million years ago. The Jurassic layer contains certain dinosaur fossils which the evolutionists believe existed during the Jurassic period 202 to 141 million years ago.

What they don't tell you is these layers such as Cambrian, Devonian and Jurassic refer to location and not time. That is what these layers were named after.

Here's what people like Jose Fly will tell you, "About 400 million years ago, a group of fishes called lobefins appeared, probably in fresh water. Lobefins had two important pre-adaptations to land-life: stout, fleshy fins with which they crawled about on the bottoms of shallow, quiet waters and a outpoaching of the digestive tract that could be filled with air, like a primitive lung. The coelacanth seen in Figure 24-33d is a lobefin that was believed to be long extinct before its discovery in 1939." 1

1 - Audesirk & Audesirk, Biology 4th edition, 1996, page 374

When creation scientists studied the coelacanth, their lungs were used for buoyancy. It didn't have anything to do with breathing.

This is the kind of thing that's really hilarious, Professor Fly.

Lies. Dam-ned Lies. And Creationism.
Creationist Scientists == Professional Conmen
Creation Science == Pseudoscientific garbage
Method of Dissemination == Junk videos, junk books and junk websites.

 

[sayak83]

Here's even more silliness.
Here's what people like Jose Fly will tell you, "About 400 million years ago, a group of fishes called lobefins appeared, probably in fresh water. Lobefins had two important pre-adaptations to land-life: stout, fleshy fins with which they crawled about on the bottoms of shallow, quiet waters and a outpoaching of the digestive tract that could be filled with air, like a primitive lung. The coelacanth seen in Figure 24-33d is a lobefin that was believed to be long extinct before its discovery in 1939." 1

1 - Audesirk & Audesirk, Biology 4th edition, 1996, page 374

When creation scientists studied the coelacanth, their lungs were used for buoyancy. It didn't have anything to do with breathing.

A good example of lying here. The family of lobefinned fish contain both coelacanths that do not have the ability to breathe air and lungfish that do have the ability to breathe air via primitive lung like organs.

Lungfish - Wikipedia

Lungfish (also known as salamanderfish[1]) are freshwater fish belonging to the subclass Dipnoi. Lungfish are best known for retaining characteristics primitive within the Osteichthyes, including the ability to breathe air, and structures primitive within Sarcopterygii, including the presence of lobed fins with a well-developed internal skeleton.

Today, lungfish live only in Africa, South America and Australia. While vicariance would suggest this represents an ancient distribution limited to the Mesozoic supercontinent Gondwana, the fossil record suggests advanced lungfish had a widespread freshwater distribution and the current distribution of modern lungfish species reflects extinction of many lineages subsequent to the breakup of Pangaea, Gondwana and Laurasia.


In another excellent evidence of evolution, modern coelacanths, which only live in very deep water, show the development of vestigial lungs in their embryos like other lobe finned fish, before they lose that lung in maturity.

Ancient Human-Size Fish Breathed with Lungs

In the new study, researchers examined the curious lungs of one species of coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) at five different stages of growth. They scanned each specimen with X-ray tomography, a method that allows researchers to take multiple X-rays of an object, compile them and create a 3D image.
Our results demonstrate the presence of a potentially functional, well-developed lung in the earliest known coelacanth embryo," the researchers wrote in the study. However, as the embryo grows, its lung development slows, and it eventually becomes a vestigial (functionless) organ in the fish, they observed.

Interestingly, adult L. chalumnae have small, hard, flexible plates scattered around their vestigial lungs. It's possible that these plates are similar to the "calcified lung" of fossil coelacanths, said Paulo Brito, one of the study's researchers and a professor of zoology at Rio de Janeiro State University in Brazil.

"In fossil coelacanths, these plates surrounding the lung most probably had a function in lung volume regulation, moving over each other to accommodate volumetric changes," Brito told Live Science in an email. "In extant [living] coelacanths, it represents a rudimentary anatomical structure."


Another creationist lie exposed for what it is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you don't know that Lucy had a baboon bone incorrectly placed as part of her skeleton then that's your problem, Mr. (Mc)Fly.

Which one? There are 300+ Lucys.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I also humbly apologize to you for the Mcfly comment, that was totally out of line and uncalled for.

My point is that Lucy was mistakenly supposedly the missing link between humans and our supposed ancestors and: It is believed by at least some that Lucy was intentionally faked to lead people to think it was. This allegedly shows that at least some scientists will lie in order to deceive people into believing in evolution of ape like creature to man.

There are 300 Lucys. When are you going to acknowledge and address that?


From the article you provided:

"'Mike pointed out that one of the [vertebra] fragments, which no one, including me, had really paid close attention to, looked fairly small to fit with the rest of Lucy's vertebral column,' Scott Williams at New York University told the New Scientist.

Dr Simon Underdown, principal lecturer in anthropology at Oxford Brookes University, said: 'The co-mingling of skeletons is quite common in the archaeological record and it can often be difficult to separate out different elements if multiple bodies are mixed together.

'Lucy was not found in association with lots of other different bones and was painstakingly studied during excavation and description. Mistakes can of course be made with 1000s of fragments but that wasn’t the case here.

'Even if one fragment of a bone from the spine turns out to be from a baboon it does not alter the larger picture of what Lucy brings to the story of human evolution.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-3-2-million-year-old-fossil-early-human.html



That doesn't sound like a deliberate attempt at deception to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I disagree, of course.

On what basis?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It doesn't matter what you call yourself, ST. You're an atheist to me. If fact, I lump agonostics as atheists. They just have questions which the answers to probably do not lead them anywhere. I tell an atheist, an agnostic or a believer, the same things and yet they all process what I say differently. Probably ten years from now, the non-believers will all be at the same place while the believer may have evolved as a human being and in knowledge.

Good for you. I retain the right to identify myself however I wish to.

You seem to think that there are atheist scientists, Christian scientists, Muslim scientists, etc. so excuse me if I don't put a huge amount of stock in your opinion on this matter.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wrong again as what you said makes no sense. You're worse off than Senor Fly.

What you are saying doesn't make any sense. You're trying to say that there are different types of science, depending on peoples' personal beliefs which is completely wrong. There is only science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You do not even know how to put the terms together correctly haha.

Okay, time to come clean. You're a poe, right?

 

[Jose Fly]

Okay, time to come clean. You're a poe, right?

A few years ago I was interacting with a creationist who behaved similar to JB. At the time I thought it was kind of funny and I showed our exchange to one of my colleagues. Rather than being amused, he just looked at me and asked "Why do you waste your time with such idiocy?"

Ever since, I've held to a general rule that when someone's posts are just too stupid to bother with, I don't bother.

It's like my dad used to say, "Who's the nut.....the guy on the street corner yelling at the fire hydrant, or the person who tries to reason with him?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

A few years ago I was interacting with a creationist who behaved similar to JB. At the time I thought it was kind of funny and I showed our exchange to one of my colleagues. Rather than being amused, he just looked at me and asked "Why do you waste your time with such idiocy?"

Ever since, I've held to a general rule that when someone's posts are just too stupid to bother with, I don't bother.

It's like my dad used to say, "Who's the nut.....the guy on the street corner yelling at the fire hydrant, or the person who tries to reason with him?"

Excellent point that I am beginning to realize. It just kills me when people put out such garbage (whether out of sincerity or not) that I can't help but try to correct it! It's a sickness.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The least tenable position here is young earth creationism and a global flood but it doesn't stop the site from welcoming them.

I would disagree that it is an untenable position. But I'm unaware that a RELIGIONS forum welcomes its members based on the viability of their many beliefs! I would say it welcomes those people who are religious!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Atheism doesn't speak to knowledge at all. It's a lack of belief, not a claim to knowledge.

It's a lack of some things, yes. But it absolutely claims knowledge and particularly at this forum if you're an atheist.

"I have knowledge of reality, and I have no knowledge of God in my experience," is an accounting of knowledge. "I know that I don't know of this subject" is most certainly knowledge and your summation of knowledge.

Why do I say there is an added burden of your knowledge at this forum? Because indeed, most atheists around here say they've constantly read data presented here by religionists and state that they interpret that data as "no god". You may feel you've not had God evidenced to your satisfaction. But clearly, there are variant interpretations of god data between us (that is, knowledge).

Imagine I troll a math forum and when confronted, claim "I don't believe math exists and I have no knowledge of math." That would make me a troll and be considered an epic fail when posted.

My very point is that this is a religious forum and you are coming here saying, "There is no religion or if there is, it is all falsity since there is no god. In particular, I have no knowledge of any god."

If you have no knowledge regarding any god it must be time to go and you've wasted enough of our time. You, like all atheists at this forum for any length of time, have more knowledge of god than some of your religious comrades!