New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

[BilliardsBall]

I use all kinds of curse words, when the need arises. I also say things like, "Jiminy Cricket" (as another poster apparently does) from time to time. It doesn't mean I believe Jiminy Cricket is real or that Pinocchio was a book of non-fiction. I've also cursed using "Poseidon's trident" and "the Devil's pajamas," yet I believe in neither Poseidon, his trident, nor the devil and his pajamas. I still consider it to be a silly point.

I wonder what prophecy I'm fulfilling when I curse Thor and his hammer.

Sorry but I don't put much stock in vague Biblical prophecies that individuals interpret for their own purposes.

It's not a vague prophecy that the name of the Jewish Messiah would be used as a curse, when people blaspheme. Apparently, you are helping to fulfill this prophecy, so thank you!

You also fulfill numerous prophecies regarding the godless persons who spend time mocking belief and believers. That is less helpful, but is evidence to me of God's existence. Again, thank you for easing my existential crises by being you. Perhaps you should rethink your stance, like they say in that Star Wars film, "Go home and rethink your life."

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I see. You really should, after all, dozens of predictions that are falsifiable/testifiable/verifiable came true in modern Israel, in 1948. There's no reason to avoid comparing Bible prophecies with facts we can verify here and now. I haven't seen Jesus, and ancient verification is a trickier thing to accomplish, but I can never abandon Christianity, not after seeing news stories of the modern era that fit Bible prophecy specifically, perfectly.

You mean dozens of interpretations of cold-reading-esque statements are shoehorned into being predictive statements. That you believe them is really makes no more difference to me than it does to Jews, who do not accept your interpretation of messianic prophecy at all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's not a vague prophecy that the name of the Jewish Messiah would be used as a curse, when people blaspheme. Apparently, you are helping to fulfill this prophecy, so thank you!

You also fulfill numerous prophecies regarding the godless persons who spend time mocking belief and believers. That is less helpful, but is evidence to me of God's existence. Again, thank you for easing my existential crises by being you. Perhaps you should rethink your stance, like they say in that Star Wars film, "Go home and rethink your life."

I fail to see how that is a prophecy or how fulfilling it proves the Bible is true and accurate all the way through. It sounds like spin on an observation to me. Do you not think that people were blaspheming back when people wrote the Bible?

Feel free to point out where I have mocked anyone. After that, maybe we could discuss the thread topic.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again, I can't find where you found the moxy to tell me how to practice my religion. And you aren't approaching me from the basis of your "deep" religious experience, either.

PS. I don't dislike you or any atheists. I just would appreciate your taking your aggression out elsewhere, you know, the way you tell preachers in public to keep it in a church.

Are you for real?

Um, I'm not telling you how to practice your religion. In fact, the one telling people what they should be doing here appears to be you when you think you can decide who should be here and who should not be here. Hence the reason several people have taken issue with it. I'm not leaving, so you can dispel yourself of that notion already.

Can we move onto the thread topic now?

P.S. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[Jose Fly]

Defend science from what, precisely?

From the incessant attacks from creationists here, e.g., Reggie's claims of deliberate hoaxes and Deeje's accusations that scientists use technical jargon to hide their lack of evidence. Not only are they not true, they're absurd on their face, and I'm here to expose that fact.

Alternative hypotheses? That is science.

Except that none of the creationists here ever present an "alternative hypothesis". A good illustration of how they're only capable of throwing rocks at established science is the "A Challenge to Creationists" thread, where a very simple, straightforward proposition was put forth.....present a positive, evidence-based case for creationism (an "alternative hypothesis"). As we saw, all creationists could do was throw rocks at evolutionary biology.

So if you believe you have such an alternative, I suggest you post it.

 

[james bond]

Actually, I listen carefully, weigh and measure, ponder and examine.

Evidence has indeed been provided. Evidence that ideas seeded at childhood run deep. Evidence of a need to believe despite all reason and rational. Evidence that evidence itself can be manufactured and accepted from nowhere and nothing and that such evidence can and satiate such a mind, should the need to believe run deep enough.



Evidence of some magical being from bronze age writings? Not so much.

If you listen carefully, weigh and measure, ponder and examine, then it just came out the other ear afterward. People only see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.

Let's do a thought experiment. If you look at my sig, what do you see. It's called The Flame by Jackson Pollock. Am I trolling atheists and non-believers to show them what will happen to them when they die? That is it is something to do with hell and negative. Or am I looking forward to The Rapture when God will destroy the Earth with a global fire? Not the sun exploding or anything like that. Maybe the climate change alarmists will say it's the end of the world due to extreme warming claiming they were right after all?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

If you listen carefully, weigh and measure, ponder and examine, then it just came out the other ear afterward. People only see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.

Let's do a thought experiment. If you look at my sig, what do you see. It's called The Flame by Jackson Pollock. Am I trolling atheists and non-believers to show them what will happen to them when they die? That is it is something to do with hell and negative. Or am I looking forward to The Rapture when God will destroy the Earth with a global fire? Not the sun exploding or anything like that. Maybe the climate change alarmists will say it's the end of the world due to extreme warming claiming they were right after all?

Sure, nobody is set up to fully grep reality, but some are certainly closer than others.

Also, neither of those two options vis a vis your dog leave you basking in a positive light. The word petty comes to mind in both cases.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Creationism doesn't merit being called a hypothesis according to the vast majority of atheists and scientists. We even had that big trial where it was established that Creationism isn't science.

But let's use logic. There are alternative hypotheses. Here they are:

*Mechanistically evolved

*Theistic evolution

*Space seed

*Created without evolution

The last three are barred, not just Creation. How can that be scientific in nature?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You mean dozens of interpretations of cold-reading-esque statements are shoehorned into being predictive statements. That you believe them is really makes no more difference to me than it does to Jews, who do not accept your interpretation of messianic prophecy at all.

1. I'm a Jew. I believe.

2. There aren't dozens of interpretations of "Israel will be a Jewish nation formed in just one day after a long diaspora." There are one or fewer interpretations. Etc. for more prophecies on this matter.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I fail to see how that is a prophecy or how fulfilling it proves the Bible is true and accurate all the way through. It sounds like spin on an observation to me. Do you not think that people were blaspheming back when people wrote the Bible?

Feel free to point out where I have mocked anyone. After that, maybe we could discuss the thread topic.

I likewise fail to see how a prophecy would prove the whole Bible, yes.

There are dozens of prophecies, fulfilled since 1948 CE, across numerous Bible books.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Are you for real?

Um, I'm not telling you how to practice your religion. In fact, the one telling people what they should be doing here appears to be you when you think you can decide who should be here and who should not be here. Hence the reason several people have taken issue with it. I'm not leaving, so you can dispel yourself of that notion already.

Can we move onto the thread topic now?

P.S. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Yes, we can move on, if you follow my observation, which you keep ignoring and treading on, indeed you are telling me how to practice my religion. It bothers me religiously that atheists come here to pick arguments. Your "shut up and let's argue more about your beliefs regarding Creation" is part of the problem and underscores my religious pain.

 

[BilliardsBall]

From the incessant attacks from creationists here, e.g., Reggie's claims of deliberate hoaxes and Deeje's accusations that scientists use technical jargon to hide their lack of evidence. Not only are they not true, they're absurd on their face, and I'm here to expose that fact.



Except that none of the creationists here ever present an "alternative hypothesis". A good illustration of how they're only capable of throwing rocks at established science is the "A Challenge to Creationists" thread, where a very simple, straightforward proposition was put forth.....present a positive, evidence-based case for creationism (an "alternative hypothesis"). As we saw, all creationists could do was throw rocks at evolutionary biology.

So if you believe you have such an alternative, I suggest you post it.

Such an alternative to what? Be specific.

 

[gnostic]

If you listen carefully, weigh and measure, ponder and examine, then it just came out the other ear afterward. People only see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.

That sounds exactly like about just every Christians who believe in a literal creation, or believe in miracles, or in the supposed "prophecies" of messiah being Jesus.

They are the "People only see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear."

 

[Jose Fly]

Such an alternative to what? Be specific.

You're not making sense. When I explained that I was here to defend science, you asked "Defend science from what, precisely? Alternative hypotheses?"

If you don't know of any "alternative hypothesis", then I guess my answer to your question remains the same. I'm here to defend science from the incessant dishonest attacks from creationists.

 

[Shad]

1. What is your evidence that Alexander existed?

The massive change in culture in the Western part of his Empire, the textual evidence from near contemporaries, the material evidence such as the temple near Memphis

The same as that for Christ, documentary and historian evidence.

Not really. You have near contemporaries texts, that is it. However unlike you I do not think Alexander is a son of a God because the text's mention it.

You erred only in assuming that there is no God or supernatural.

Nope. Lack of evidence enables me to dismiss it.

You bring those biases to your interpretation of the texts.

No. I consider archaeological evidence as well.

In fact, Jesus had farm more contemporaries writing about His life and teachings, and in-depth, than Alexander had.

Jesus had zero. You do not know what contemporary means. There is also the material and cultural changes supporting Alexander.

2. God told me to influence people's lives.

God told me are wrong. See how easy it to make grand claim based on nothing

Who told you to tell us we are wrong? (The unholy trinity of You, Yourself and Me, yes?)

The weakness of general philosophical arguments for God and the lack of historicity behind the Bible. Meanwhile your source is a voice in your head. Good luck with that.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

But let's use logic. There are alternative hypotheses. Here they are:

*Mechanistically evolved

Doesn't account for the expected random progression of traits. No mechanism other than those described by natural selection are evident.

*Theistic evolution

Ditto.

*Space seed

Space seed isn't proposed to be an alternative to evolution but abiogenesis. But also starts with a supposition not evidenced.

*Created without evolution

Covered by the Dover trial.

The last three are barred, not just Creation. How can that be scientific in nature?

Just calling something a hypothesis doesn't make it one, and beginning with a conclusive assumption is what makes it not scientific.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

1. I'm a Jew. I believe.

2. There aren't dozens of interpretations of "Israel will be a Jewish nation formed in just one day after a long diaspora." There are one or fewer interpretations. Etc. for more prophecies on this matter.

While Messianic Jew is a thing, it's not what I was talking about.

 

[james bond]

Sure, nobody is set up to fully grep reality, but some are certainly closer than others.

Also, neither of those two options vis a vis your dog leave you basking in a positive light. The word petty comes to mind in both cases.

From your reply, it seems you are limited to whatever I said.

Mine was to discuss Jackson Pollock, and that is positive, so there could have been many more interpretations. He didn't call his painting Hell. He called it The Flame. It could've been we are like moths drawn to a flame.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

From your reply, it seems you are limited to whatever I said.

Mine was to discuss Jackson Pollock, and that is positive, so there could have been many more interpretations. He didn't call his painting Hell. He called it The Flame. It could've been we are like moths drawn to a flame.

LOL.

Did you feel a rustling in your hair before you posted that?

I swear I'd have better luck squeezing a stone for juice.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You're not making sense. When I explained that I was here to defend science, you asked "Defend science from what, precisely? Alternative hypotheses?"

If you don't know of any "alternative hypothesis", then I guess my answer to your question remains the same. I'm here to defend science from the incessant dishonest attacks from creationists.

I don't have alternative hypotheses to replace science. I'm a firm believer in modern science and the scientific method.

The real problem is your phrase, "dishonest attacks". I accept that you interpret the data differently than we creationists, but we are looking at data honestly and making honest paradigms.

Honestly, we are.