New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

[BilliardsBall]

How about going off and starting your own board where you get to make your own rules and kick out whomever you please.

I agree, you should do so.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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!

You're the one who criticized the viability of beliefs of strong atheists while maintaining they shouldn't be here.

It welcomes people to discuss religions, be they religious or not. You can tell they welcome non-religious folk as they have their own DIR section just like everyone else.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am merely pointing out your fallacious arguments.



You merely use that label as I point out the flaws in your arguments and flaws in your demands. You call it belligerent as I do not sit around letting you say whatever you want without being challenged nor sugar coat anything to comfort you. Instead of producing a counter-argument you complain, again



Go for it.

I will--I find it curious that you are upholding the right to free speech here while condemning my complaints. I have legitimate complaints. You are spending reams of time pursuing the knowledge of "a nonexistent being(s)".

Your complaining about my complaining is illegitimate because I'm religiously motivated to complain about you. You are biblically speaking, complained over to God and man as an atheist. The scriptures contain complaints of the religious against the irreligious who persecuted the saints and killed the Christ who died to set men free.

While you are complaining, therefore, you are complaining about my desires to summa my religiosity as complaints. That is, you are a skeptic on a religious forum upset that I'm behaving religiously.

And that's one other reason you may want to leave. I don't want you to leave if I can continue to successfully point out your self-contradictory complaints and responses to Christianity. After all, this is how CS Lewis and other giants of the faith were moved to God from atheism.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I assure you I have no will or desire to pursue a relationship with your imaginary chum in any venue. Let's be real though, history teaches us that religions cause war and discord rather than prevent or heal them.

What you see as the way I see as both a giant leap backwards and a roadblock to the sort of peaceful existence you allude to.

You are goalpost shifting, and unsuccessfully. The more so since you likely know one estimate placed religious warfare martyrs at five million since recorded history began while totalitarian animals who neither loved God nor man slaughtered 200 million in the 20th century alone. But I digress, as did you.

And if you have no desire to pursue a relationship with Jesus Christ, why the "hell" would you spend so much time talking to people like me, out of whom the glorious Lord Jesus Christ tends to pour, and out of each pore!

No, you must be deep down a Christian. I call baloney. The real atheists I know avoid the "hell" out of this forum.

And I hope you don't mind me calling you not a real atheist, since forum rules disallow me (as well as good taste) from coming down on someone. Who am I to say a Muslim isn't a Muslim or a Christian a Christian? But since most atheists agree with the (incorrect) modern definition that atheism isn't a religion, I say "you ain't no atheist".

Oh, wait, you're a Setian, I believe. Fine.

You say you worship the dark powers but deep down you're a fine, fine, born again Christian. Jesus bless you! GOD BLESS YOU BROTHER. LET'S SPEND SOME TIME TOGETHER IN PRAYER SINCE YOU HAVE NO DESIRE TO FELLOWSHIP WITH OUR GOD, JESUS.

 

[Shad]

I will--I find it curious that you are upholding the right to free speech here while condemning my complaints.

I didn't say your couldn't nor did I tell you to leave. I am pointing rather than engaging my points you rather complain. I question your point about being bored as I see this as another dodge.

I have legitimate complaints.

Not really. You dodge my points with irrelvent blather. I pointed this out. You become offended

You are spending reams of time pursuing the knowledge of "a nonexistent being(s)".

No I am spending some of my time pointing out horrible arguments.

Your complaining about my complaining is illegitimate because I'm religiously motivated to complain about you.

No I said rather than address my original point you dodged it. I continued to point out you are dodging.

You are biblically speaking, complained over to God and man as an atheist.

Irrelevant as I am not speaking biblical. I am speaking to you.

The scriptures contain complaints of the religious against the irreligious who persecuted the saints and killed the Christ who died to set men free.

You are not being persecuted. I criticized your claims regarding Paley and the dodges you deployed to avoid my points. You made grand claims regarding the objections with no objective basis.

While you are complaining, therefore, you are complaining about my desires to summa my religiosity as complaints.

Nope. I am criticizing your failure to address my original point and all the loops you continue to go through to do so.

That is, you are a skeptic on a religious forum upset that I'm behaving religiously.

No I am pointing out your refusal to engage in what I have said.

And that's one other reason you may want to leave.

Nope it is a horrible reason.

I don't want you to leave if I can continue to successfully point out your self-contradictory complaints and responses to Christianity

You mean points you made up in your head that I never posted. Go for it.

After all, this is how CS Lewis and other giants of the faith were moved to God from atheism.

Lewis. Hilarious. He wouldn't know philosophy if it hit him in the face. He should of stuck with books for children. Oh wait... he kinda did.

 

[sayak83]

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!

The word religion forum is just a convenient website label. This is a place where people holding any worldview whatsoever can come and have a respectable debate and discussion, as stated clearly in the forum rules section. If you disagree with the forums purpose and inclusiveness, go elsewhere. You are neither a staff, nor do you own this forum.

EDIT:-

Atheism is a group of worldviews that do not have God or Gods in them. Hence a-theism.
Theism is a group of worldviews that do have a God or Gods in them.

There are as many forms of theism as there are atheism, as apart from pointing out if God(s) are present or absent in the worldviews, nothing else is constrained.

EDIT2:-
The word religion is an explicitly Abrahamic notion and is not cognate with things like Dharma, Li or Dao or Darsana etc. which are the correct way to describe many non-Abrahamic worldviews. Many of us put up with such completely erroneous labels because we accept the current Western theology bias in English language (obviously!). So do not push this semantic nonsense here.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

You are goalpost shifting, and unsuccessfully. The more so since you likely know one estimate placed religious warfare martyrs at five million since recorded history began while totalitarian animals who neither loved God nor man slaughtered 200 million in the 20th century alone. But I digress, as did you.

And if you have no desire to pursue a relationship with Jesus Christ, why the "hell" would you spend so much time talking to people like me, out of whom the glorious Lord Jesus Christ tends to pour, and out of each pore!

No, you must be deep down a Christian. I call baloney. The real atheists I know avoid the "hell" out of this forum.

And I hope you don't mind me calling you not a real atheist, since forum rules disallow me (as well as good taste) from coming down on someone. Who am I to say a Muslim isn't a Muslim or a Christian a Christian? But since most atheists agree with the (incorrect) modern definition that atheism isn't a religion, I say "you ain't no atheist".

Oh, wait, you're a Setian, I believe. Fine.

You say you worship the dark powers but deep down you're a fine, fine, born again Christian. Jesus bless you! GOD BLESS YOU BROTHER. LET'S SPEND SOME TIME TOGETHER IN PRAYER SINCE YOU HAVE NO DESIRE TO FELLOWSHIP WITH OUR GOD, JESUS.

A setian? LOL as if.

Anyway, I think you may have gotten lost on your way to christianforums. We have all types here.

 

[james bond]

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.

You are so wrong.

Why do you not believe in science backed by the Bible then? I have repeatedly said the Bible is not a science book, but science backs up the Bible. Why do you not give credit to Christian scientists whose accomplishments far outnumber those of atheist scientists. Why do you not believe atheist scientists are wrong about evolution and have been from the get go? Why do you not believe their science is based on atheism such as uniformitarianism and atheism of Charles Lyell and newly converted Charles Darwin? I could go on and on and the problem continues to be you and not me. For one, I am well versed in evolution. Two, I know the Bible much better than you. Three, you're a skeptic of Christianity and those are the easiest people to fool. Why you're not a skeptic of liberals, atheist scientists, liberal media and Lyell and Darwin is beyond me. It's bias, but you do not admit it.

 

[james bond]

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

Not me. You're the evotard or evohoe. SSE is lower down the pole though so remove the evo.

 

[sayak83]

Creationists have the following evidence for a young earth and it backs up the Bible:


Young Earth Evidence: Subterranean Fluid Pressure. When a drill rig strikes oil, the oil sometimes gushes out in huge fountains. This is because the oil is often under huge amounts of pressure from the sheer weight of the rock sitting on top of it. Other subterranean fluids kept under pressure include natural gas and water. The problem is, the rock above many pressurized subterranean fluid deposits is relatively permeable. The pressure should escape in less than 100,000 years. Yet these deposits remain highly pressurized. Once again, because of the supposed antiquity of these deposits and their location throughout the geologic column, this observation calls into question some of the interpretations which have led to the formulation of the column.

I have yet another opportunity to expose the lies of creationists.

I have no idea where the creationist pseudoscientists got the 100,000 year estimate from. In the early 1980-s there was a concern that natural gas reservoirs cannot last for more than 4 million years before leaking out. This on better analysis of actual rock and their seals proved to be false. The same scientists who performed the original estimates, got more corrected and (ultimately) realistic figures when actual conditions of sealing rocks were investigated.

http://archives.datapages.com/data/bulletns/1992-93/data/pg/0076/0003/0000/0403.htm

Abstract:

A calculation scheme is presented to estimate the quantities of diffusive gas loss through the water-saturated cap rock of natural gas reservoirs over geologic time. Reexamination of earlier calculations in a 1982 paper by Leythaeuser et al. revealed that the estimate of the rate of diffusive hydrocarbon losses through the cap rock of the Harlingen, Netherlands, natural gas reservoir was based on oversimplified assumptions concerning the boundary conditions at the reservoir-cap rock interface. According to this recalculation, the time required to reduce the present-day methane content of the Harlingen gas field by one-half is approximately 70 m.y., not the previously published value of 4.5 m.y. Consequently, diffusion losses through the cap rock appear to affect the long- erm stability of natural gas reservoirs to a lesser extent than suggested by the earlier results.


These results of tens and hundreds of million years have borne out well over the years,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264817297000226

Abstract
Jurassic shales and mudrocks from the Haltenbanken area offshore Norway and red claystones from Carboniferous and Permian intervals of Northern Germany were used in a study of the hydrocarbon sealing efficiency of clastic sediments. The investigations comprised geochemical and mineralogical analysis of the pelitic rocks, petrophysical characterisation by mercury porosimetry and specific surface area measurements, and laboratory experiments to assess the transport properties with respect to both molecular transport (diffusion) and volume flow (Darcy flow). Effective diffusion coefficients of methane in the water-saturated rock samples at 150°C lay between 1.4 × 10−11 and 4.5 × 10−10m2/s and showed a distinct correlation with TOC content. Permeability coefficients, measured by means of a steady-state method, ranged from <1 nDarcy (<10−21m2) for Permian (Rotliegend) and Carboniferous red claystones up to 4.3 μDarcy (4.3 × 10−18m2) for a bioturbated Jurassic siltstone.

The experimental data were used to calculate maximum sustainable gas and petroleum column heights, hydrocarbon leakage rates by pressure-driven volume flow (Darcy flow), and diffusive gas losses for simple, hypothetical scenarios. Computed maximum gas column heights range from 20 m up to >2000 m. Hydrocarbon column heights calculated on the basis of a rich condensate lay between 3 and 340 m. Depending on temperature, pressure, reservoir geometry and seal thickness, diffusive losses can be expected to require tens of millions of years to significantly affect the contents of commercial size natural gas reservoirs.


Why is creation science not science. Because they lie about the science like all pseudo-scientists do.

 

[james bond]

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?"

What's funny is you're the person that I am wasting my time with. I'm the one who went to the liberal university that is one of the most prominent for backing evolution. Instead of just following what they taught me, my formal education gave me the training to think for myself. Thus, I understand evolution and creation science. I also started reading the Bible in 2012, so all of this is relatively new. I also understand that evolutionists eventually start to steal the theories of creation scientists because they cannot explain what they observe. What they observe does not back up the evolution theory. One of recent things they stole were ideas why the dinosaurs became extinct. They did so from catastrophism. Not an asteroid as they paint it, but from a global flood. The global flood is so hard to believe for scientists who believe in uniformitarianism that they dismiss it as a myth. Many things they dismiss as myths because of this thinking. I also would wager that your colleagues have some kind of financial incentive to promote evolution and that there is some kind of hypocrisy over it if we dig deep enough.

 

[james bond]

Just a tip: If you want to sound reliable in an argument, use reliable sources. The Daily Mail is not, and will never be, a reliable source. Neither is scienceagainstevolution.org

The finding was originally reported in New Scientist, so cite the original source to show the story's credibility:
Baboon Bone Found in Famous Lucy Skeleton

If you had done that in the first place, several posts worth of arguing could have been avoided

This is more typical erroneous evolutionist babble. Lucy was found in different layers and the pieces were miles away. It did not belong to one chimpanzee like ape as the evos want to believe. Also, the evolutionist professor who put together Lucy does not believe it provides enough information. He's the one who proposes apes came from humans -- Professor: Man Did Not Evolve From Chimpanzee-like Apes | Kent State University. Is that serious enough for you?

Again, you do not understand that creation scientists are not recognized in today's science. Most are atheist scientists that refuse their theories. That isn't traditional science and the way science was taught to me. Thus, when it comes to evolution the creation scientists had to peer-review their own work. You're being disingenuous not recognizing it. Your use of New Scientist as a source is pop science and not a serious source if you're going to criticize the Daily Mail. I would put SAE as more serious creation science, but not on the level of it being peer-reviewed. It's a good overall creation science source.

The Creation Museum in Kentucky has their own exhibit of Lucy. These guys are serious -- https://creationmuseum.org/creation-science/lucy/ .

 

[SkepticThinker]

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!

It only claims knowledge if an atheist asserts that they know there is no god. The burden of proof would be on that person as well, given that they are making an assertion. Mere lack of belief in a thing is not an assertion that one knows that it doesn't exist. Hence the existence of the gnostic/agnostic subcategory.

I would never say "there is no religion" as there clearly are many religions and have been many more that have been discarded throughout history. That would be a silly claim to make.

As an atheist I say, "I don't see any good reason to think the deity you believe in exists, can you prove it?" I also see no good reason to believe in unicorns, however if someone were to present me with evidence that unicorns do indeed exist, I'd be forced to believe it.

You seem to be very upset about the diversity of opinions on this site. May I suggest that if it bothers you that much, go start your own site with your own rules where you can ban whomever you like.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I agree, you should do so.

I'm not the one complaining about the people on this board. You are.
I'm perfectly content with the diversity of beliefs and opinions on this board, which is why I am here. You, on the other hand, don't seem all that happy here.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You're the one who criticized the viability of beliefs of strong atheists while maintaining they shouldn't be here.

It welcomes people to discuss religions, be they religious or not. You can tell they welcome non-religious folk as they have their own DIR section just like everyone else.

I appreciate "people to discuss religions". Many atheists here, however, make it hard to appreciate them as they are browbeating, not "discussing". Therefore, I'm delighted to discuss the viability of beliefs (is it "beliefs" or "knowledge" - there is a nearby post where someone is sure atheists lack knowledge, not belief) that are lacking.

Also lacking (not with you, thankfully) is kindness!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I didn't say your couldn't nor did I tell you to leave. I am pointing rather than engaging my points you rather complain. I question your point about being bored as I see this as another dodge.


Not really. You dodge my points with irrelvent blather. I pointed this out. You become offended



No I am spending some of my time pointing out horrible arguments.




No I said rather than address my original point you dodged it. I continued to point out you are dodging.




Irrelevant as I am not speaking biblical. I am speaking to you.




You are not being persecuted. I criticized your claims regarding Paley and the dodges you deployed to avoid my points. You made grand claims regarding the objections with no objective basis.



Nope. I am criticizing your failure to address my original point and all the loops you continue to go through to do so.




No I am pointing out your refusal to engage in what I have said.



Nope it is a horrible reason.



You mean points you made up in your head that I never posted. Go for it.



Lewis. Hilarious. He wouldn't know philosophy if it hit him in the face. He should of stuck with books for children. Oh wait... he kinda did.

I'm here to point to the excellencies and majesties of God.

You're here to "spend some time pointing out horrible arguments" as you shared above.

Why? What benefit do you gain? I suspect you are a Christian deep down or about to become one. Because the alternative is you troll the Internet to cast blame and pick fights.

It seems you are misunderstand the difference between discussing religion and picking on arguments. There is a decided difference.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I appreciate "people to discuss religions". Many atheists here, however, make it hard to appreciate them as they are browbeating, not "discussing". Therefore, I'm delighted to discuss the viability of beliefs (is it "beliefs" or "knowledge" - there is a nearby post where someone is sure atheists lack knowledge, not belief) that are lacking.

Also lacking (not with you, thankfully) is kindness!

Many theists browbeat with their own claims to exclusivity to righteousness and truth, morality and worthiness. So we moderate when it crosses the line, on both sides.

A/theism is about belief. A/gnostic is about knowledge. An atheist can claim lack of belief and lack of certainty(knowledge), and that would make them an agnostic atheist. Theists can too, except with they claim a belief but lack of certainty(knowledge.)

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are so wrong.

Why do you not believe in science backed by the Bible then? I have repeatedly said the Bible is not a science book, but science backs up the Bible. Why do you not give credit to Christian scientists whose accomplishments far outnumber those of atheist scientists. Why do you not believe atheist scientists are wrong about evolution and have been from the get go? Why do you not believe their science is based on atheism such as uniformitarianism and atheism of Charles Lyell and newly converted Charles Darwin? I could go on and on and the problem continues to be you and not me. For one, I am well versed in evolution. Two, I know the Bible much better than you. Three, you're a skeptic of Christianity and those are the easiest people to fool. Why you're not a skeptic of liberals, atheist scientists, liberal media and Lyell and Darwin is beyond me. It's bias, but you do not admit it.

No, you're wrong, there are no alternative facts here. There is one scientific method used by all credible scientists whether they are Hindu, Muslim, Christian or atheist. Francis Collins (a Christian who accepts evolution) is using the same science as Richard Dawkins (an atheist who accepts evolution). You are talking about opinion, while I am talking about verifiable demonstrations of the veracity of scientific claims.

If any science is backed by the Bible, it doesn't make it "Christian" science, it's still just science. Though I'm not aware of any science backed by the Bible, which is not a science book.

I don't know how you assert to know more about the Bible than I do, since you don't actually know me and I don't think you're particularly well-versed in evolution science either. Especially given that you think there are different kinds of science based on different religious beliefs. I'm not even sure how that would even begin to make sense or how we could ever actually learn or know anything that way.

I've never even spoken about liberals or the liberal media and we're not talking about Lyell or Darwin here, so maybe stop projecting your crap onto me and trying to divert to something else, and stick to what we're actually talking about for a change. The Gish Gallop does not work on me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The word religion forum is just a convenient website label. This is a place where people holding any worldview whatsoever can come and have a respectable debate and discussion, as stated clearly in the forum rules section. If you disagree with the forums purpose and inclusiveness, go elsewhere. You are neither a staff, nor do you own this forum.

EDIT:-

Atheism is a group of worldviews that do not have God or Gods in them. Hence a-theism.
Theism is a group of worldviews that do have a God or Gods in them.

There are as many forms of theism as there are atheism, as apart from pointing out if God(s) are present or absent in the worldviews, nothing else is constrained.

EDIT2:-
The word religion is an explicitly Abrahamic notion and is not cognate with things like Dharma, Li or Dao or Darsana etc. which are the correct way to describe many non-Abrahamic worldviews. Many of us put up with such completely erroneous labels because we accept the current Western theology bias in English language (obviously!). So do not push this semantic nonsense here.

There must be freedom here as you wrote, because you felt the freedom to goalpost shift without addressing any of my points.

 

[BilliardsBall]

A setian? LOL as if.

Anyway, I think you may have gotten lost on your way to christianforums. We have all types here.

I said I assumed. What are you?