New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

[BilliardsBall]

I see no reason to believe in the stories about Jesus which claim he is divine. For example the virgin birth is an extraordinary conclusion compared Mary had sexual relations out of wedlock with Joseph or was an adulteress. Jesus dying and rose 3 days later, which itself is a later addition to the Gospel of Mark, versus he just died. I see a human figure with mythology piled on top.

Let's parse what you wrote properly:

"I see no reason to believe in the stories about Jesus which claim he is divine." We have the love of Christ and the transformation of millions of believers. We have Jesus's positive changes to our societies, elevation of women and children and more. What you're really saying is you struggle with the extraordinary miracle claims of the Bible, not that you lack reason (like missing Hell for Heaven) for trusting in God.

You cannot have the resurrection as an addition to Mark as the verses in question come after statements that the angels told the women He resurrected and that they fled the tomb in fear!

There are VERY good reasons to believe. I would say we can start with 1) prophecy fulfilled and 2) reliable eyewitness testimony.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Oh geez, here we go again. Another creationist makes all sorts of claims about transitional fossils and kinds, but then as soon they're asked what those terms mean, they run around in circles doing everything they can to avoid the question. So predictable, it's pathetic.

Come on, you used the terms transitional fossil and kind. Don't you know what they mean?

I find that those who oppose like yourself are also using odd definitions! I find that scientists even in recent years have accepted some as transitional, then undone their assertions on specific species and forms, and so on.

I'm not making "all sorts of claims" other than that:

1. Species evolve

2. New species are formed

3. Sea animals cannot evolve to live on the land and vice versa

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is patently absurd even just on the logical level.

I would suggest that a 1% difference suggests "great similarity" since 99% is the same.

Evolution, including "macro-", clearly has happened, and any religion or denomination that suggests otherwise is pretty much a bogus one since the truth cannot be relative. IOW, there's no room for "alternative facts" on this.

Macroevolution has this in common with the scriptures, both happened in the past, and neither of us are eyewitnesses to the events. We can verify and test the Bible. Macroevolution cannot be currently tested.

 

[Jose Fly]

I find that those who oppose like yourself are also using odd definitions! I find that scientists even in recent years have accepted some as transitional, then undone their assertions on specific species and forms, and so on.

I'm not making "all sorts of claims" other than that:

1. Species evolve

2. New species are formed

3. Sea animals cannot evolve to live on the land and vice versa

You're still dodging. The fact that you've put more effort into avoiding defining your terms than it would have taken to simply define them speaks volumes about you and the nature of your position.

 

[sayak83]

On the contrary, some scientists have calculated that with plant life above the surface, there would be enough oxygen to incinerate the atmosphere in 100,000 years, let alone 1 B years.

Link to the scientific papers please.

 

[metis]

Macroevolution has this in common with the scriptures, both happened in the past, and neither of us are eyewitnesses to the events. We can verify and test the Bible. Macroevolution cannot be currently tested.

In real science, we rarely use "macro-" or "micro-evolution", but when we do what we are generally referring to is whether "speciation" has taken place. Since we well have seen that it has, therefore we also know that "macro-evolution" has indeed taken place at times.

Secondly, the reality is that we cannot "verify and test the Bible" on the issues of "creation" and the evolution of species ("macro-"), and yet you accept as fact, which is inconsistent with what you're saying above.

There clearly has been an evolutionary process that's gone on for about three billion years now, and we know that with certainty, and most real scientists that are also theists don't have a problem with accepting both. Polls indicate that most Christian and Jewish theologians don't have a problem accepting the basic ToE as long as it's understood that God was behind it all.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You're still dodging. The fact that you've put more effort into avoiding defining your terms than it would have taken to simply define them speaks volumes about you and the nature of your position.

I'm not dodging, but I'm trying to avoid your goal post shift, yes.

My stated objections so far include: the plausible impossibility of land/sea transitions and the issues with animals/plants/symbioses changing over time.

If you are not unaware that land and sea animals represent differing "transitions" and "kinds", why are you pressing your point?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Link to the scientific papers please.

I spent ten minutes just now - I don't have my bookmarks here - to find the papers. I hope to find them soon. The symbiosis between plants and animals is a fact, however, and a necessity to sustain life.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Link to the scientific papers please.

This is a nice article, too: The Primitive Atmosphere - Evolutionary Theory - Wilmington For Christ

 

[BilliardsBall]

In real science, we rarely use "macro-" or "micro-evolution", but when we do what we are generally referring to is whether "speciation" has taken place. Since we well have seen that it has, therefore we also know that "macro-evolution" has indeed taken place at times.

Secondly, the reality is that we cannot "verify and test the Bible" on the issues of "creation" and the evolution of species ("macro-"), and yet you accept as fact, which is inconsistent with what you're saying above.

There clearly has been an evolutionary process that's gone on for about three billion years now, and we know that with certainty, and most real scientists that are also theists don't have a problem with accepting both. Polls indicate that most Christian and Jewish theologians don't have a problem accepting the basic ToE as long as it's understood that God was behind it all.

Speciation is evolution. However, even animal breeders know there are mutation limits beyond which there are real issues (that you are skimming over). Known mutations eventually lead to sterility and death.

Also, do most Jewish and Christian theologians believe the scriptures are literal? If they are, evolution is a false flag to avoid God.

 

[metis]

Speciation is evolution. However, even animal breeders know there are mutation limits beyond which there are real issues (that you are skimming over). Known mutations eventually lead to sterility and death.

Not all do, and that's the point that's important here. Most are carried as being recessive, so it may take many generations prior to become phenotypes.

You have some mutations in you, as do I, and they may do nothing one way or the other, or they may hurt us, or they may help us. Accumulated mutations can and do lead to changes as we've seen happen with bacteria and viruses that has enhanced their survival capabilities, sometimes at our demise.

Also, do most Jewish and Christian theologians believe the scriptures are literal? If they are, evolution is a false flag to avoid God.

We have dealt with the ignorance of taking an "inerrancy" position, and you have admitted there are errors in the scriptures, so are you really going to go back on this again?

 

[sayak83]

This is a nice article, too: The Primitive Atmosphere - Evolutionary Theory - Wilmington For Christ

I see no science papers linked in the article. No hurry. When you find the scientific paper. Quote my reply and link it.

PS:- Everything the article you linked to is scientifically wrong. Its an absolutely proven fact that early earth did not have any free oxygen in its atmosphere (all oxygen atoms were locked in CO2, H2O, SiO2 etc.).
The rise of atmospheric oxygen : Article : Nature

Excerpts
Two facts are known with certainty: Earth's earliest atmosphere was essentially devoid of oxygen; and today's atmosphere is composed of 21% oxygen.
A battery of geological indicators suggested a shift from an anoxic to an oxic atmosphere some time between 2.5 and 2.0 billion years ago. This shift is known as the great oxidation event3. The most compelling evidence was the absence in older stratigraphic units of 'red beds', sedimentary rocks stained red by iron oxide. Instead, an abundance of lithified ancient soils that had lost their iron during weathering were found, reflecting the absence of oxygen in the weathering environment.

The 'smoking gun' for the rise of atmospheric oxygen was discovered and reported in 2000 (ref. 4). Rocks older than about 2.45 billion years contain a large degree of mass-independent fractionation (MIF) of sulphur isotopes; rocks younger than 2.32 billion years show essentially none5 (Fig. 1)....The signature of MIF sulphur photochemistry is small and is rapidly homogenized in the modern oxidizing atmosphere. By contrast, in an oxygen-free atmosphere, large MIF effects are preserved, resulting in contrasting isotopic compositions of reduced and oxidized sulphur species that are deposited from the atmosphere and incorporated into sedimentary rocks....To preserve the MIF signature, three conditions are needed: very low atmospheric oxygen, sufficient sulphur gas in the atmosphere, and substantial concentrations of reducing gases.

MIF disappears when oxygen levels reach 0.001% of the present atmospheric level (PAL)8, and iron is retained in ancient lithified soils when oxygen is at 1% of its PAL.

More detailed analysis based on mountains of evidence on how oxygen concentration changed in the atmosphere and oceans over time.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.693.1594&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Since I have a chemistry degree feel free to ask anything that is difficult to follow and I will attempt to explain it as best as I can.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not all do, and that's the point that's important here. Most are carried as being recessive, so it may take many generations prior to become phenotypes.

You have some mutations in you, as do I, and they may do nothing one way or the other, or they may hurt us, or they may help us. Accumulated mutations can and do lead to changes as we've seen happen with bacteria and viruses that has enhanced their survival capabilities, sometimes at our demise.

We have dealt with the ignorance of taking an "inerrancy" position, and you have admitted there are errors in the scriptures, so are you really going to go back on this again?

There are helpful things that hurt, like chemotherapy. Mutations tend toward death and sterility. Go ahead, admit it, it will feel good!

I have not admitted to scriptural errors that I can recall. It's the Word of God, and God gets it all right, all the time.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I see no science papers linked in the article. No hurry. When you find the scientific paper. Quote my reply and link it.

PS:- Everything the article you linked to is scientifically wrong. Its an absolutely proven fact that early earth did not have any free oxygen in its atmosphere (all oxygen atoms were locked in CO2, H2O, SiO2 etc.).
The rise of atmospheric oxygen : Article : Nature

Excerpts
Two facts are known with certainty: Earth's earliest atmosphere was essentially devoid of oxygen; and today's atmosphere is composed of 21% oxygen.
A battery of geological indicators suggested a shift from an anoxic to an oxic atmosphere some time between 2.5 and 2.0 billion years ago. This shift is known as the great oxidation event3. The most compelling evidence was the absence in older stratigraphic units of 'red beds', sedimentary rocks stained red by iron oxide. Instead, an abundance of lithified ancient soils that had lost their iron during weathering were found, reflecting the absence of oxygen in the weathering environment.

The 'smoking gun' for the rise of atmospheric oxygen was discovered and reported in 2000 (ref. 4). Rocks older than about 2.45 billion years contain a large degree of mass-independent fractionation (MIF) of sulphur isotopes; rocks younger than 2.32 billion years show essentially none5 (Fig. 1)....The signature of MIF sulphur photochemistry is small and is rapidly homogenized in the modern oxidizing atmosphere. By contrast, in an oxygen-free atmosphere, large MIF effects are preserved, resulting in contrasting isotopic compositions of reduced and oxidized sulphur species that are deposited from the atmosphere and incorporated into sedimentary rocks....To preserve the MIF signature, three conditions are needed: very low atmospheric oxygen, sufficient sulphur gas in the atmosphere, and substantial concentrations of reducing gases.

MIF disappears when oxygen levels reach 0.001% of the present atmospheric level (PAL)8, and iron is retained in ancient lithified soils when oxygen is at 1% of its PAL.

More detailed analysis based on mountains of evidence on how oxygen concentration changed in the atmosphere and oceans over time.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.693.1594&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Since I have a chemistry degree feel free to ask anything that is difficult to follow and I will attempt to explain it as best as I can.

The low oxygen/no oxygen theory is the latest attempt to patch holes in crumbling theory.

No oxygen/low oxygen precludes plant and animal life surviving and evolving!

 

[sayak83]

The low oxygen/no oxygen theory is the latest attempt to patch holes in crumbling theory.

No oxygen/low oxygen precludes plant and animal life surviving and evolving!

So...you have nothing at all to offer against all the evidence I presented you? Cool.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm not dodging, but I'm trying to avoid your goal post shift, yes.

????????? What in the world are you talking about?

Look, this is very simple. You made claims about "transitional fossils" and "kinds". All I've done is ask how you define those terms. But since then, you've done everything you could to avoid defining them.

So now the obvious question is, why? Why are you so reluctant to say what you think "transitional fossils" and "kinds" are? Is it because you can't define them?

If you are not unaware that land and sea animals represent differing "transitions" and "kinds", why are you pressing your point?

Do you agree that one example of a "transitional fossil" would a specimen that is indicative of an evolutionary transition from terrestrial to aquatic organisms? And are "land animals" all one "kind"?

 

[Jose Fly]

So...you have nothing at all to offer against all the evidence I presented you? Cool.

Sure he answered. In creationist world, simply saying "Nuh uh" is good enough to declare victory.

 

[metis]

There are helpful things that hurt, like chemotherapy. Mutations tend toward death and sterility. Go ahead, admit it, it will feel good!

I took lessons in genetics when working on my anthropology degrees, and I'm gonna tell you again, namely that you simply do not know what you are talking about here.

I have not admitted to scriptural errors that I can recall. It's the Word of God, and God gets it all right, all the time.

You have an extremely short memory, or so it appears, as we were discussing this last week. Remember, in terms of "variations" when I used the women at the tomb example, whereas you finally admitted that the accounts do not exactly match? You responded that different people "witnessed" different things, thus reporting what they heard, which was not the same. You can't remember this conversation?

 

[BilliardsBall]

So...you have nothing at all to offer against all the evidence I presented you? Cool.

I've a lot to offer. But I think we're fishing in the wrong pool (evolution pun not intended). After all, you are a scientist. While I respect the sciences greatly, science is very well equipped to handle the material world, but cannot use its methods in immaterial things.

 

[BilliardsBall]

????????? What in the world are you talking about?

Look, this is very simple. You made claims about "transitional fossils" and "kinds". All I've done is ask how you define those terms. But since then, you've done everything you could to avoid defining them.

So now the obvious question is, why? Why are you so reluctant to say what you think "transitional fossils" and "kinds" are? Is it because you can't define them?


Do you agree that one example of a "transitional fossil" would a specimen that is indicative of an evolutionary transition from terrestrial to aquatic organisms? And are "land animals" all one "kind"?

How about this, to make it simpler. You tell me your ideas regarding "kind" in terms of Genesis, not the taxonomical word, and I'll adhere to your definition. You are right to define terms--it's important in any debate. Thanks for your patience with me.