Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
That is a pretty numb minded attempt at an argument.
You are the one who disagrees, it is up to you to offer your proof.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish
- Thread starter james bond
- Start date
That is a pretty numb minded attempt at an argument.
You are the one who disagrees, it is up to you to offer your proof.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
So basically you are saying you thought evolution, insofar as man is concerned, started with dem apes, but now the applecart has been overturned because the evil evolutionists are now changing their story?The old fish to humans story got some new legs today (get it? new legs ha ha). Maybe a pictogram will help.
The evolution scientists gave us this apes-to-human story because people couldn't absorb the "truth" all at once. It's considered by blacks to be racist, for one. I do not see transitional fossils for another. It must be the evolutionists sixth sense. The see the evolution dead everywhere.
Today, the evolution scientists must think we can be fed the whole "truth" now. They're telling us the "fish" story now. This appears in Nature, so it must really be serious.
"Scientists find 'oldest human ancestor'
Researchers have discovered the earliest known ancestor of humans - along with a vast range of other species.
They say that fossilised traces of the 540-million-year-old creature are "exquisitely well preserved".
The microscopic sea animal is the earliest known step on the evolutionary path that led to fish and - eventually - to humans.
Details of the discovery from central China appear in Nature journal.
The research team says that Saccorhytus is the most primitive example of a category of animals called "deuterostomes" which are common ancestors of a broad range of species, including vertebrates (backboned animals).
Saccorhytus was about a millimetre in size, and is thought to have lived between grains of sand on the sea bed.
Scientists find 'oldest human ancestor' - BBC News
4 words for you.
Read more post less.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
The old fish to humans story got some new legs today (get it? new legs ha ha). Maybe a pictogram will help.
The evolution scientists gave us this apes-to-human story because people couldn't absorb the "truth" all at once. It's considered by blacks to be racist, for one. I do not see transitional fossils for another. It must be the evolutionists sixth sense. The see the evolution dead everywhere.
Today, the evolution scientists must think we can be fed the whole "truth" now. They're telling us the "fish" story now. This appears in Nature, so it must really be serious.
"Scientists find 'oldest human ancestor'
Researchers have discovered the earliest known ancestor of humans - along with a vast range of other species.
They say that fossilised traces of the 540-million-year-old creature are "exquisitely well preserved".
The microscopic sea animal is the earliest known step on the evolutionary path that led to fish and - eventually - to humans.
Details of the discovery from central China appear in Nature journal.
The research team says that Saccorhytus is the most primitive example of a category of animals called "deuterostomes" which are common ancestors of a broad range of species, including vertebrates (backboned animals).
Saccorhytus was about a millimetre in size, and is thought to have lived between grains of sand on the sea bed.
Scientists find 'oldest human ancestor' - BBC News
Perhaps all the atheists at RELIGIOUSForums.com will evolve to leave and stop posting here. I want to discuss religion.
Of course, atheists can also evolve to become NEW CREATIONS in Christ Jesus.
Shad
Veteran Member
No one is forcing you to post in a thread about evolution. Show some self-control.
"Humans came from fish" isn't a correct interpretation of evolution. Evolution is open to narrative interpretation that's a fact. What's not open for debate is whether evolution, or life is interconnected, is true vs say some version of your intellect but bigger, calling it God, created it. That's not Christian, that's not biblical, and you don't understand the bible because you don't understand nature and you don't understand nature because you don't understand the bible. In secular terms, for the non faithful, a dog is an evolutionist congratulations you are almost as smart as a dog. Almost. Evolution is in totality independent of human narrative that's a fact. It's bigger than contemporary "scientific" narrative not confined to it. This whole creationism, ID vs evolution is a total nonsense argument between Dim wits.
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
My proof is the obvious. Just look at humans. Then look at apes. NO way I'm related to any ape or monkey.
If we came from the same ancestor, what went wrong with apes and monkeys and made them so completely stupid? Why do they still live in the jungles and trees while we build houses?
To me, to think humans and apes are related is as completely stupid as to think a man from Mars turned into the first plant. Just no way.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
What would you put this lack of understanding down to.
Lack of scientific education.
Or indoctrination.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I've yet to encounter anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution who is able to convey that they actually have a clear understanding of what it includes and entails, and what it doesn't include and entail. Once someone takes the time (assuming they have the ability) to actually read about it and comprehend it, it, invariably, is no longer a matter of belief, but of acceptance through knowledge.
In other words, it's generally a matter of ignorance. Of course, if such ignorance is willful and unshakable, then one can never open up themselves up to understanding facts and truth.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I can't tell whether this supposed to be funny or serious.
I thought it was serious, but to show that apes are smarter.
Have you ever seen one wearing a tie or digital watch?
Apes know better.
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
Common sense.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
No, I mean like red is red and blue is blue. Obvious. To some people.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I've never seen an ape use ancient myths as a science book either.
Score one more for the apes! At least the non-human variety of apes.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
It is a truism that the wise Know that they don't know everything.
While the Ignorant have no comprehension that they are ignorant.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
I was serious when I asked you this question, and I am truly interested in your answer.....
So I'm curious.....when I posted the overview of the shared Alu sequences between humans and other primates, did you honestly think that "All of that proves absolutely nothing concerning macro-evolution" was a meaningful and compelling rebuttal? Like if you were at a scientific conference where a geneticist gave a presentation on the data, and during the Q&A session you stood up and said "that proves absolutely nothing"....how do you think that would be perceived? Do you think others in the room would find your response persuasive?
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
I'm not interested in your little game, whatever it is. Ask someone else.
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
Call your local Chinese restaurant and see if you can't have that put on a fortune cookie. It's silly enough for it for sure.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
So you think asking you to explain your own posts is a game. You don't seem very confident in what you're saying.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Unfortunately facts cannot be viewed differently.
This 'institute' starts off with the answer it wants (i.e. God did it) and then tries to bend/selective choose facts to suit its objective.
Science doesn't work like that.
Check out the site BUT makes sure you check how many of their 'publications' have been published in recognised scientific journals and been properly peer reviewed. I think you'll find the answer is less than 1.