New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

[Shad]

I understand, but the stereotype was exploded, wasn't it?

Sorry I do not know what you mean here or which stereotype you are talking about

Thousands of letters to none? I see "no" evidence of Jesus's love is how Hitchens put it!

Yes because unlike Christians he does not acknowledge any link between individual Christian love and Jesus'.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, the total mass energy is estimated to be at zero or near zero. Do we know if the universe is an open or closed system?

Not yet.

Would you go to a conference and say, "Stop arguing, cosmologists! We all know it was a quantum fluctuation, a prior universe bounce or an eternally prior non-expanded universe!" I don't think you would and I know I would not, either. I'm trying to be open-minded, I recognize my biases regarding God's scripture, and I'm still accused of dogmatism. Your remarks are pretty closed-minded, looks like. So let's just make the peace!

No, of course I would not. We don't have any verified theory of quantum gravity as yet. What we *do* have suggests a quantum fluctuation, but I am quite willing to see what investigations into quantum gravity bring.

The isotropic and homogeneous universe does not preclude Genesis being true:

First, if our locality is in a gravity well (consider the Pioneer Problem, for example) then time dilation could make faraway light indeed be billions of years old while the Solar System was created more recently.

Um, no it couldn't To get that type of time dilation would require a gravitational field much larger than anything we have evidence for. It would, for example, make itself quite clear via the effects on nuclear decay times seen in supernovas.

Second, the Big Bang and modern cosmology still has a time/light issue – the Horizon Problem.

With the most likely solution being a sort of inflationary period.

Put another way, we can see that both Genesis and Big Bang/modern cosmology have some points of agreement but also time/light issues that may prompt alternative understanding.

Genesis has NOTHING in common with anything we know about cosmology. You can attempt to twist words, claiming that God spreading out a tent is similar to an expanding universe, but I would say that is a 'stretch' at least.

Can you make peace with me here? There is no denial of the issues, above.

I do deny that Genesis has anything to do with the solution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I was totally unaware. I saw the interview where he said none.

And which interview was that?

Looks like some ticked off people were watching that interview!

Which one?

 

[Sapiens]

And which interview was that?


Which one?

Why ... the one he saw that no one can now locate, of course.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry I do not know what you mean here or which stereotype you are talking about



Yes because unlike Christians he does not acknowledge any link between individual Christian love and Jesus'.

What do you link the love of Christians to?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not yet.


No, of course I would not. We don't have any verified theory of quantum gravity as yet. What we *do* have suggests a quantum fluctuation, but I am quite willing to see what investigations into quantum gravity bring.



Um, no it couldn't To get that type of time dilation would require a gravitational field much larger than anything we have evidence for. It would, for example, make itself quite clear via the effects on nuclear decay times seen in supernovas.


With the most likely solution being a sort of inflationary period.


Genesis has NOTHING in common with anything we know about cosmology. You can attempt to twist words, claiming that God spreading out a tent is similar to an expanding universe, but I would say that is a 'stretch' at least.


I do deny that Genesis has anything to do with the solution.

Some of your refutations seem circular or contrived. How would we already have evidence for a local gravity well whose borders extend beyond the milky way? How are we presuming to measure nuclear times in supernovae other than applying known earth rates of decay to trace amounts seen near supernovae?

I'm not stretching words to point out that about one dozen Bible writers, writing across different cultures and time periods, all said the Heavens were (or are!) actively stretched by God long before we were surprised to learn that space is expanding, and rapidly.

 

[Polymath257]

Some of your refutations seem circular or contrived. How would we already have evidence for a local gravity well whose borders extend beyond the milky way? How are we presuming to measure nuclear times in supernovae other than applying known earth rates of decay to trace amounts seen near supernovae?

A gravitational well would have observable consequences for nearby galaxies. It would have observable consequences for light coming in.

We can compare the decay rates on Earth to those observed from light coming from the distant galaxies. If there was a gravitational well of the sort you need, the differences in the rates would be obvious and huge. They aren't.

I'm not stretching words to point out that about one dozen Bible writers, writing across different cultures and time periods, all said the Heavens were (or are!) actively stretched by God long before we were surprised to learn that space is expanding, and rapidly.

The two verses usually pointed to for this are Genesis 1:6-7, Isaiah 40:22, Job 37:18 and Jeremiah 10:12.

Genesis 1:6-7 talks about the firmament, which was an old view that the sky is a solid shell arcing above the Earth. In Genesis, this was supposed to separate the waters above from the waters below. Not exactly a description of an expanding universe, is it?

Isaiah 40:22 talks about spreading the heavens out 'as a curtain' and 'as a tent to dwell in'. Again, this is an image of the firmament that is suppose to separate the heavens above from those below. Again, not at ALL like an expanding universe.

Job 37:18 describes the sky as 'strong' and 'as molten glass'. Again, a description of a *solid* firmament.

Jeremiah 10:12 refers back to the tent analogy.

So, NONE of the texts usually claimed to describe an expanding universe do so. Instead they describe the sky as either a solid or as a 'curtain' or 'tent' spread out above the Earth. THIS is the spreading referred to.

 

[BilliardsBall]

A gravitational well would have observable consequences for nearby galaxies. It would have observable consequences for light coming in.

We can compare the decay rates on Earth to those observed from light coming from the distant galaxies. If there was a gravitational well of the sort you need, the differences in the rates would be obvious and huge. They aren't.



The two verses usually pointed to for this are Genesis 1:6-7, Isaiah 40:22, Job 37:18 and Jeremiah 10:12.

Genesis 1:6-7 talks about the firmament, which was an old view that the sky is a solid shell arcing above the Earth. In Genesis, this was supposed to separate the waters above from the waters below. Not exactly a description of an expanding universe, is it?

Isaiah 40:22 talks about spreading the heavens out 'as a curtain' and 'as a tent to dwell in'. Again, this is an image of the firmament that is suppose to separate the heavens above from those below. Again, not at ALL like an expanding universe.

Job 37:18 describes the sky as 'strong' and 'as molten glass'. Again, a description of a *solid* firmament.

Jeremiah 10:12 refers back to the tent analogy.

So, NONE of the texts usually claimed to describe an expanding universe do so. Instead they describe the sky as either a solid or as a 'curtain' or 'tent' spread out above the Earth. THIS is the spreading referred to.

It is admitted that the light coming in may not be coming directly from the Cartesian directions that we perceive. You are disallowing a legitimate theory that will require more testing and observation.

There are more verses than you mentioned above, but Jewish, Christian and skeptic experts in ancient Hebrew disagree with the shell interpretation.

 

[Shad]

What do you link the love of Christians to?

Personally or based on what Christians link to love?

This was the rub Hitchens didn't make clear. There are two ideas (there are more) of love going around in the question to him, one from a Christian view and one from a non-Christian view. Your objection was due to Hitchens not accepting the idea of love you follow instead of the idea of love he follows.

 

[Shad]

Some of your refutations seem circular or contrived. How would we already have evidence for a local gravity well whose borders extend beyond the milky way? How are we presuming to measure nuclear times in supernovae other than applying known earth rates of decay to trace amounts seen near supernovae?

I'm not stretching words to point out that about one dozen Bible writers, writing across different cultures and time periods, all said the Heavens were (or are!) actively stretched by God long before we were surprised to learn that space is expanding, and rapidly.

You said stretched as is past tense not stretching thus would be expanded, past tense, not expanding.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Worship is reverence and adoration. The things I mentioned aren't deities.

It is appalling to me (I'm being honest) to see sinners adore themselves and not their Creator. I know myself, and I know some other people, and they are unworthy of such veneration.

I've specifically stated to you that I don't worship anything. Including myself.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I agree. I'm an apologist because I spent a lot of time in those outside sources.

I'm sorry but I don't know what that means.

 

[SkepticThinker]

My children are human, theirs will be also. There is wonderful genetic variation, but my children aren't transitioning in any way into non-homo sapiens.

Nobody said they weren't human. The point was that our children are not clones of ourselves, rather, they're a combination of two peoples' genes. That's why every creature is actually a transitional form. That's what we need to demonstrate that evolution occurs. Small changes over long periods of time lead to larger changes. Evolution in no way suggests that you should give birth to a monkey or a dog or anything other than a human. Creatures don't give birth to offspring of a different species - it just doesn't work that way. Instead, over time, as small changes add up to larger ones and populations diverge and move around and are subject to different environmental pressures, small changes become larger and larger ones until the populations are different enough from the earlier ones that they can no longer interbreed with each other. No half-formed creatures or monkeys giving birth to humans are required.

If our children were just clones of ourselves, that would be some pretty good evidence against evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Who says they don't? Who are you to put a limit on Evolution? How do you know so much?

Evolutionary theory doesn't say that cats become dogs. Again, it doesn't work that way.

I read a lot. As you probably should.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What are we talking about, then? I thought the OP had to do with humans being fishy.

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

I asked you to define your terms so I know what you're talking about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What would validate Bible truth, in your opinion? That is, if you are open-minded and not close-minded to the possibility?

Independently verifiable evidence from various independent sources.

I see no point in being open-minded towards things that lack any good evidence. I'll be more open-minded when some decent evidence is presented to me.

Normally when I ask this question, skeptics say, "Nothing!" because they cannot see past their own nose and their presentism.

I doubt it. Regardless, I don't know what that has to do with me.

Prove me wrong!

Prove yourself right.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was watching the interview at time of initial airing and I'll never forget what happened soon after. The interviewer asked if Hitchens had any evidence for God. What do you think Hitchens said?

Are you saying that people writing letters to Christopher Hitchens is evidence of god or Jesus?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I understand, but the stereotype was exploded, wasn't it? Thousands of letters to none? I see "no" evidence of Jesus's love is how Hitchens put it!

I agree with him. What you are citing is evidence that human beings can be compassionate and empathetic creatures.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I understand, but the stereotype was exploded, wasn't it? Thousands of letters to none? I see "no" evidence of Jesus's love is how Hitchens put it!

Incidentally, have you remembered exactly where and when this comment was made? I find it very odd that you are able to recall very specific information about what was said but fail to record things like where it was, when it was, who broadcast it, etc.

 

[Sapiens]

Incidentally, have you remembered exactly where and when this comment was made? I find it very odd that you are able to recall very specific information about what was said but fail to record things like where it was, when it was, who broadcast it, etc.

I do not find it odd ... I find it typical.