New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

[Jose Fly]

Is Lucy a complete fossil or is she a variety of pieces like bones and teeth?

Are Lucy's remains collocated or scattered over a distance?

What is the best evidence that Lucy isn't a child or a dwarf of homo sapiens sapiens?

I'm not clear on how any of those questions relate to your claim that the anthropaleontologists' conclusions are "wishful thinking" or "sketchy". Could you explain?

If you were testing a drug and said you had one deceased recipient, would you have, therefore, control cases? Anecdotal evidence? Testifiable hypotheses? How many other fossils verify the Lucy find? After all, wouldn't we reject any other scientific principle based upon the testing of one or two cases only?

You do realize that "Lucy" is not the only A. afarensis specimen, don't you?

Since carbon dating of remains is considered valid for circa 50,000 years, what evidence do we have of Lucy's age?

By dating ash layers.

And if we're saying the neighboring geology is X millions of years old and also that it takes a very lengthy time to form fossils, how does that color dating animal remains based on surrounding geology?

Not sure what you mean, especially specific to this specimen. It looks to me like you're questioning the entire concept of dating fossils more than just the Lucy specimen.

Does it concern you or I that we can find similar fossils indication transitions in the distant past but no half-formed limb fossils and etc.? Should we expect, for example, to find thousands and thousands of animal fossils with rudimentary appendages?

Why in the world would anyone think that an organism in the human-primate lineage would have "half-formed limbs"? That makes no sense at all.

Have you considered the many systems needing to evolve to bring land animals to sea or sea animals ashore?

????????? Are you under the impression that Lucy represents a transition from aquatic to terrestrial?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Of course I hold a double standard. I'm bound by religious constraints, you are not. I expect (and receive) different behaviors from us both.

In this case the double standard is thinking that atheistic disenfranchisement with Christianity means they don't belong here but Christian disenfranchisement with other perspectives don't mean the same.

I didn't assume anything you've suggested. I'm more than aware that most of the atheists who participate on forums actively hail from a Bible and/or religious background

You did, you 'guessed' I hadn't read the prophecies you were talking about, instead of, and after I've already told you, understanding that I have and merely have not come to the same conclusion.

Nostradamus made numerous, vague prophecies, 1% or less of which have been vaguely fulfilled. The Bible contains specific, relevant, MODERN events. The issue is instead of asking for a list of such

Except I don't agree. Bible prophecies are just as vague and full of misses that get discounted. It's too off topic to go into it here, but there's numerous websites from numerous perspectives that go into it:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_prophecies
Were The Biblical Prophecies Fulfilled?
Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus
Just for a start.

I try not to waste excessive time talking to closed atheists. I prefer talking to atheists who are open to the truth claims of the Bible. That's why I say, "you and I have no excuse and can find modern prophecy fulfillment." Why aren't you looking? When did you become "done" with learning about the Bible? And if you're "done" how can you say, "I'm at ReligiousForums to learn more."?

You prefer to talk to people already halfway to converting to your religion.
The hubris of this statement. Not only because this forum is not about Christianity and one can think Christianity is rather silly and still have plenty of interest in the dozens of other religions and non-religious philosophies present at this site, but because having a conclusion does not mean you haven't done due diligence. Nobody needs to be more open to Christianity than they do Satanism, or Norse Paganism, or Jainism, or Judaism, or Deism, or Baha'i, or Wicca, or Shintoism, or Islam, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, etc, etc.

I think I'm about done. So far all this has succeeded in doing is push me away from interest in the tunnel visioned bible thumping perspective.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Is Lucy a complete fossil or is she a variety of pieces like bones and teeth?

Are Lucy's remains collocated or scattered over a distance?

What is the best evidence that Lucy isn't a child or a dwarf of homo sapiens sapiens?

If you were testing a drug and said you had one deceased recipient, would you have, therefore, control cases? Anecdotal evidence? Testifiable hypotheses? How many other fossils verify the Lucy find? After all, wouldn't we reject any other scientific principle based upon the testing of one or two cases only?

Since carbon dating of remains is considered valid for circa 50,000 years, what evidence do we have of Lucy's age? And if we're saying the neighboring geology is X millions of years old and also that it takes a very lengthy time to form fossils, how does that color dating animal remains based on surrounding geology?

**

Does it concern you or I that we can find similar fossils indication transitions in the distant past but no half-formed limb fossils and etc.? Should we expect, for example, to find thousands and thousands of animal fossils with rudimentary appendages?

Have you considered the many systems needing to evolve to bring land animals to sea or sea animals ashore?

There are 300+ other "Lucy's" (aka a. Afarensis) that have been found.


The Genus Australopithecus
Australopithecus afarensis | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

 

[Milton Platt]

Doesn't get it. Totally.

So what part of the animal kingdom are you? Vegetable???

 

[Shad]

**I keep looking through your post here for substantive argument but I can only find "Nope, you said it, you named it and claimed it" rhetoric, rather childlike rhetoric, unfortunately.

Again your arguments a revacant of intellectual merit. All you have done is say you accept a book that claims X, nothing more.

Straw man. I’ve pointed to verifiable, testable, falsifiable evidence.

Not to me. You have made doctrinal claims nothing more.

I said no such thing.

At first you did as your writing was sloppy.

I also said I have reasons to accept the book’s claims as the Word of God.

Yes doctrinal reasons

GUARANTEED, you can only theorize and have ZERO claims based on evidence as to why I may not do so.

You only provided doctrine based justification which is merely accept what X authority says regarding a text.

Please present your evidence here that God didn’t speak to the ancient Hebrews:

Shifting burden of proof

Evidence 1:

Lack of evidence for the Exodus

[Evidence 2:

Lack of evidence for the Conquest.

Evidence 3:

Tyre is still inhabited.

Your last sentence doesn’t make sense to me. But see above, please provide your evidence.

My point was your are asking for evidence yet missed the point that your own sloppy writing was the evidence. When you say "God told" you should realize that this is not the same as "The Bible told me"

 

[Reggie Miller]

So what part of the animal kingdom are you? Vegetable???

Ask those who believe such nonsense. I am no animal, my ancestors weren't animals. You and I are created in God's image. It is no wonder many people in this world are treated like animals with this sort of secular thinking.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There are 300+ other "Lucy's" (aka a. Afarensis) that have been found.


The Genus Australopithecus
Australopithecus afarensis | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

I'm familiar with the rubric employed. My questions stand, particularly if you realize Lucy must have been hit by an explosion, since she's in scattered pieces!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Again your arguments a revacant of intellectual merit. All you have done is say you accept a book that claims X, nothing more.





Not to me. You have made doctrinal claims nothing more.



At first you did as your writing was sloppy.



Yes doctrinal reasons



You only provided doctrine based justification which is merely accept what X authority says regarding a text.



Shifting burden of proof



Lack of evidence for the Exodus



Lack of evidence for the Conquest.



Tyre is still inhabited.





My point was your are asking for evidence yet missed the point that your own sloppy writing was the evidence. When you say "God told" you should realize that this is not the same as "The Bible told me"

Read your whole post, I see some debate-like responses but no facts. Do you have some facts for me to believe the nonsense you believe, or did "God tell you so"?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm familiar with the rubric employed. My questions stand, particularly if you realize Lucy must have been hit by an explosion, since she's in scattered pieces!

Your question was answered.
No, scientists are not rejecting other any other scientific principle based upon the testing of one or two cases only, because there are over 300 specimens in existence. Three hundred is more than one or two.

 

[idav]

The human came first. God created mature adult living creatures.

Then why so many transitional fossils leading up to mammal then apes then humans? Intelligence didn't just pop out of the ground.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Again your arguments a revacant of intellectual merit. All you have done is say you accept a book that claims X, nothing more.





Not to me. You have made doctrinal claims nothing more.



At first you did as your writing was sloppy.



Yes doctrinal reasons



You only provided doctrine based justification which is merely accept what X authority says regarding a text.



Shifting burden of proof



Lack of evidence for the Exodus



Lack of evidence for the Conquest.



Tyre is still inhabited.





My point was your are asking for evidence yet missed the point that your own sloppy writing was the evidence. When you say "God told" you should realize that this is not the same as "The Bible told me"

Besides being poor in debate--only using debate rhetoric instead of facts--you are misunderstanding my viewpoint. I didn't say, "I read a book and believed," rather, I researched the claims the book makes. You have a couple of canards there like "lack of evidence for X" which are logical fallacies as arguments from silence.

Either ask me questions about Jesus and the Bible or let's stop now, since you do not understand the rules and practices of a formal debate.

 

[Darkstorn]

The contents of this thread are giving me brain cancer... I feel like posting something more useful but my brain keeps fighting back with "no, it's not worth it! IT'S FUTILE! NO, DON'T DO IT!"

Etc.

/E: I will add this, it might be construed as an ad hominem but its intention is actually benevolent:

BilliardsBall, if your objective was to make you look intellectually inadequate in front of your peers, you are being very successful at it.

 

[sayak83]

Is Lucy a complete fossil or is she a variety of pieces like bones and teeth?

Are Lucy's remains collocated or scattered over a distance?

What is the best evidence that Lucy isn't a child or a dwarf of homo sapiens sapiens?

If you were testing a drug and said you had one deceased recipient, would you have, therefore, control cases? Anecdotal evidence? Testifiable hypotheses? How many other fossils verify the Lucy find? After all, wouldn't we reject any other scientific principle based upon the testing of one or two cases only?

Since carbon dating of remains is considered valid for circa 50,000 years, what evidence do we have of Lucy's age? And if we're saying the neighboring geology is X millions of years old and also that it takes a very lengthy time to form fossils, how does that color dating animal remains based on surrounding geology?

**

Does it concern you or I that we can find similar fossils indication transitions in the distant past but no half-formed limb fossils and etc.? Should we expect, for example, to find thousands and thousands of animal fossils with rudimentary appendages?

Have you considered the many systems needing to evolve to bring land animals to sea or sea animals ashore?

I have considered all of these and find the evidence for evolution overwhelming and all such questions answered to my complete and full satisfaction. I am a practicing scientist as well.
Maybe you should read up on the evidence?
these will help if you are truly interested in learning.
The Science of Human Evolution
The Science of Human Evolution

 

[metis]

I have considered all of these and find the evidence for evolution overwhelming and all such questions answered to my complete and full satisfaction.

This is what some people simply do not understand, and I think in large part it comes from them using religion/denomination as a set of blinders, and it's generally bad theology as well. All one has to do is to get into any serious set of scientific magazines or books and start reading; or start reading some serious theology, such as from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin or Baruch Spinoza or William Barclay.

When I covered human evolution in my basic anthropology course, I had to cut information that I could cover because of time constraints.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I have considered all of these and find the evidence for evolution overwhelming and all such questions answered to my complete and full satisfaction. I am a practicing scientist as well.
Maybe you should read up on the evidence?
these will help if you are truly interested in learning.
The Science of Human Evolution
The Science of Human Evolution

There are many persons who feel the same way.

I don't need to read up further on the evidence, to be frank. The same issues are still there in this field of science, they haven't changed.

 

[Darkstorn]

I don't need to read up further on the evidence, to be frank. The same issues are still there in this field of science, they haven't changed.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. You can't claim issues without having seen evidence. Or without providing evidence of said issues.

All in favor of ignoring this guy? Nothing good will come out of this.

 

[sayak83]

There are many persons who feel the same way.

I don't need to read up further on the evidence, to be frank. The same issues are still there in this field of science, they haven't changed.

I do not care for opinions based on lack of knowledge and unwillingness to learn correct for it. But its your choice. Have a good day.

 

[Shad]

Besides being poor in debate

I stopped debating your comment awhile ago. I was pointing out your arguments are horrible and you complain at lot. Try to keep up.

--only using debate rhetoric instead of facts--you are misunderstanding my viewpoint

Pointing out literal doctrine is not an academic view is a fact. You view is grand claims without facts. Try again.

. I didn't say, "I read a book and believed," rather, I researched the claims the book makes. You have a couple of canards there like "lack of evidence for X" which are logical fallacies as arguments from silence.

Are you not over this point yet? You clarified, I acknowledge it. Get over it son....

Pointing out lack of evidence is not a fallacy. Try again.

Either ask me questions about Jesus and the Bible or let's stop now, since you do not understand the rules and practices of a formal debate.

I never messaged you to ask questions. I was attacking your weak arguments.

This is not a formal debate forum, pretending does not make it so. This is not a Q&A session nor is the topic the Bible itself. Try again. Maybe read the OP and title. Maybe consider why I reject your arguments and ask why I do so.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I do not care for opinions based on lack of knowledge and unwillingness to learn correct for it. But its your choice. Have a good day.

It's not based on lack of knowledge, after all, on forums, people try to present the latest theories. However, the main issues, like gaps in the fossil record, have continued unabated since Darwin.

 

[sayak83]

It's not based on lack of knowledge, after all, on forums, people try to present the latest theories. However, the main issues, like gaps in the fossil record, have continued unabated since Darwin.

They have not.