New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

[james bond]

Reminds me of back when I was just a sperm swimming around. Oh those were the days.

They sure were. The sperm and the egg cannot be readily explained by evolution, too.

 

[sayak83]

You'll have to explain your link.

Evolutionary evidence for macroevolution is based on billions years of time and fossil evidence. We agree it's scant evidence, so how can you state for certain that your theory is correct? What else do you have besides fossil evidence?

Sorry wrong link
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

 

[james bond]

Sorry wrong link
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

Basically, these fossils do not represent a "transition." For example, some are baby teeth compared to an adult one. Others we have a jawless fish creature. This does not mean that a jawed fish creature evolved from it. Just like we have a mouth and anus simple creature. It does not mean that it became a fish with feet. Much of this is assumed by evolutionists to fit their theory.

 

[Revoltingest]

We do not see the transitional fossil evidence....

Correction....
You don't see as much evidence as you'd like.
What there is, has been useful to test the TOE.

......so the fossil record is not evidence for ToE nor creationism. The evolutionary timeline and the fossil timeline are both tied to an old earth. You have go back to the 1800s when the argument became one of an old earth vs and young earth.

Creationists have the following evidence for a young earth and it backs up the Bible:

"Young Earth Evidence: Continental Erosion and Fossil Remains. The continents are eroding at such a rate that, if not for tectonic uplift, meteoric dusting and volcanic influx, they would erode flat (Mt. Everest and all) in less than 25 million years. At this rate, high-altitude, million-year-old fossils should have long since eroded away. And yet they remain. The implication is that these fossils are not millions of years old. If this were true, the entire geologic column would need serious revision (see our article on the Geologic Column).

Young Earth Evidence: Subterranean Fluid Pressure. When a drill rig strikes oil, the oil sometimes gushes out in huge fountains. This is because the oil is often under huge amounts of pressure from the sheer weight of the rock sitting on top of it. Other subterranean fluids kept under pressure include natural gas and water. The problem is, the rock above many pressurized subterranean fluid deposits is relatively permeable. The pressure should escape in less than 100,000 years. Yet these deposits remain highly pressurized. Once again, because of the supposed antiquity of these deposits and their location throughout the geologic column, this observation calls into question some of the interpretations which have led to the formulation of the column.

Young Earth Evidence: Global Cooling. In the 19th century, the renowned physicist and inventor Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) was the first to point out that if the earth began in a white-hot molten state, it would have cooled to its current temperature billions of years sooner than the 4.6 billion years accepted today. Since then, old-earth advocates have pointed out that radioactive decay within the earth would greatly slow down the cooling process. Young-earth advocates respond that, even given liberal assumptions concerning the amount of heat produced by radioactive decay, the earth would still cool to its current temperature much sooner than old-earth advocates allow.

Young Earth Evidence: Lunar Recession. The moon is slowly moving farther away from the earth. This has to do with the fact that the earth’s spin is slowing down due to tidal friction and other factors. Lunar recession was first observed by Edmund Halley in the late 1600s (the same Edmund Halley who is credited with being the first to predict the 76-year orbit of the famous comet which bears his name). Given the rate of lunar recession today, the fact that it has gradually accelerated over time, and several other factors, physicists have determined that the earth-moon system could not have existed beyond 1.2 billion years (you can review the mathematical equations involved at Center for Scientific Creation | In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood). This is 3.4 billion years less time than old-earth advocates are willing to accept. Furthermore, the closer the moon gets to the earth, the greater its influence on our tides. We can’t go too far back in time before we would all drown twice a day.

Young Earth Evidence: Helium diffusion from Precambrian Zircons. Helium is produced within the earth by the radioactive decay of certain unstable elements (uranium and thorium being two such elements). Some of this decay takes place inside of crystals known as “zircons.” Helium diffuses from these zircons at known rates depending upon depth and temperature. Scientists have discovered that, in zircons where a billion years of uranium decay has allegedly taken place, too much helium remains—way too much helium. It appears as if the helium hasn’t had enough time to diffuse out of the crystals. This observation has a couple of implications.

First, this observation may overturn a key assumption underlying radiometric dating (the most common old-earth dating technique). Scientists believe that a billion years of uranium decay has taken place within these zircons because they make certain assumptions about the unobservable past (see our article on Radiometric Dating). One of these assumptions is that radioactive decay has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. Scientists have been able to vary decay rates in the lab, but most don’t believe that it actually happens in nature. However, if billions years of uranium decay has taken place so quickly that the helium produced hasn’t had enough time to escape the zircons, this may be strong evidence that radioactive decay rates were greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.

Second, because the zircons came from Precambrian rocks below the geologic column, currently accepted old-earth interpretations of the geologic column may need serious revision (once again, see our article on the Geologic Column). These and numerous other scientific evidences for a young-earth theory give credence to the Bible’s account of the creation of the earth and universe as found in Genesis."

Is there any evidence for the Bible's view of a young earth?

I couldn't bear that wall of text.

 

[sayak83]

Basically, these fossils do not represent a "transition." For example, some are baby teeth compared to an adult one. Others we have a jawless fish creature. This does not mean that a jawed fish creature evolved from it. Just like we have a mouth and anus simple creature. It does not mean that it became a fish with feet. Much of this is assumed by evolutionists to fit their theory.

Feel free to write a science paper noting your great insight and discovery that they are not transitional fossils. Get back to me when it is published (same for every article in the icr website).

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Since you read more, then maybe you explain the lack of transitional fossils and now with Saccorhytus coronarius how the first mouth and anus becomes a champanzee-like-ape.

Sure. Firstly, 'transitional fossil' is creationist doublespeak that doesn't actually mean anything. All fossils are 'transitional'.

Second, both humans and this little mouth pooper are deuterostomes, which means the way that cells divide before birth is the same. Ultimately though, all life is related. Over a great amount of time, genetic drift and environmental selection change some features of life forms, and given enough time two similar or same types might separate and be subject to different environments, passing on material that has changed in different ways that, given enough time, creates two groups of creatures different enough to be considered distinct. Multiply this by a million and life gets pretty diverse.

 

[james bond]

Correction....
You don't see as much evidence as you'd like.
What there is, has been useful to test the TOE.

I couldn't bear that wall of text.

Isn't it the same with atheists and trying to see evidence of God? Obviously, creation scientists and I aren't going to see the transitional fossils when there are none.

The wall of evidence is perfect example.

 

[james bond]

Feel free to write a science paper noting your great insight and discovery that they are not transitional fossils. Get back to me when it is published (same for every article in the icr website).

I don't have to. It's up to the people making the claim to do so haha.

And if you read my post about the evidence against it...

 

[Revoltingest]

Isn't it the same with atheists and trying to see evidence of God?

Could you elaborate on the analogy?

Obviously, creation scientists and I aren't going to see the transitional fossils when there are none.

What I observe is that between every fossil in a line, there'd be a transitional fossil.
When it's found, this generates a gap for 2 more transitional fossils.
Creationists point to this permanent existence of gaps as a flaw in the TOE.
Rather than being a flaw, it points to the rarity of fossil formation, & the great difficulty in finding them.

What matters to me is that the TOE is useful, ie, it generates predictions which can be tested & disproven.
Creationism doesn't offer that, thereby removing it from the realm of science.

 

[james bond]

Sure. Firstly, 'transitional fossil' is creationist doublespeak that doesn't actually mean anything. All fossils are 'transitional'.

Second, both humans and this little mouth pooper are deuterostomes, which means the way that cells divide before birth is the same. Ultimately though, all life is related. Over a great amount of time, genetic drift and environmental selection change some features of life forms, and given enough time two similar or same types might separate and be subject to different environments, passing on material that has changed in different ways that, given enough time, creates two groups of creatures different enough to be considered distinct. Multiply this by a million and life gets pretty diverse.

>>All fossils are 'transitional'.<<

This is just more doublespeak made by evos to back up their macroevolution. They use the ToE to explain the fossils instead of using the fossils as evidence which lead to the ideas behind macroevolution and the ToE. Fossils end up being where the creature died. It's local, not global. Nothing says they were put there from the bottom up. You can't prove it experimentally.

Microevolution leads to a diverse life. There is no evidence for:

.

 

[sayak83]

I don't have to. It's up to the people making the claim to do so haha.

And if you read my post about the evidence against it...

I am sorry, but opinions on websites have no basis in science unless they are published in scientific journals, like Nature etc.

 

[james bond]

Could you elaborate on the analogy?

What I observe is that between every fossil in a line, there'd be a transitional fossil.
When it's found, this generates a gap for 2 more transitional fossils.
Creationists point to this permanent existence of gaps as a flaw in the TOE.
Rather than being a flaw, it points to the rarity of fossil formation, & the great difficulty in finding them.

What matters to me is that the TOE is useful, ie, it generates predictions which can be tested & disproven.
Creationism doesn't offer that, thereby removing it from the realm of science.

You'll have to provide some examples. Are you sure you're not referring to microevolution? For example, I challenged how one can explain Saccorhytus leading to Tiktaalik.

Again provide some experiments or tests which generated predictions that were correct or disproved. We have the Miller-Urey experiment which showed life being generated, i.e. abiogenesis, was in error.

 

[james bond]

I am sorry, but opinions on websites have no basis in science unless they are published in scientific journals, like Nature etc.

Nature and Science will not publish articles that aren't peer-reviewed. By its own definition, today's atheist scientists will not peer-review the supernatural. Thus, we have creation scientists, who historically created science itself, doing their own peer-review for each other. On top of that, any scientist who proposes something based on the Bible or the supernatural will be terminated or have their funding cut. The atheist scientists will review stupid ideas such as multiverses, abiogenesis, aliens and what not though.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No one is forcing you to post in a thread about evolution. Show some self-control.

Who is forcing the atheists to involve themselves with religious persons at ReligiousForums.com?

 

[BilliardsBall]

This the evolution vs creationism section.

Now pay attention, 007:

Some Christians believe in Evolution, some in Creation. Same for Jews and Muslims. If only the atheists would let us be religious. They are undermining the lie they tell us, "Have your religions to yourselves."

 

[sayak83]

Nature and Science will not publish articles that aren't peer-reviewed. By its own definition, today's atheist scientists will not peer-review the supernatural. Thus, we have creation scientists, who historically created science itself, doing their own peer-review for each other. On top of that, any scientist who proposes something based on the Bible or the supernatural will be terminated or have their funding cut. The atheist scientists will review stupid ideas such as multiverses, abiogenesis, aliens and what not though.

Reading writings of your cult and calling it science does not make it science. But remain in your delusions by all means.

 

[Revoltingest]

You'll have to provide some examples. Are you sure you're not referring to microevolution? For example, I challenged how one can explain Saccorhytus leading to Tiktaalik.

Again provide some experiments or tests which generated predictions that were correct or disproved. We have the Miller-Urey experiment which showed life being generated, i.e. abiogenesis, was in error.

Since this is entirely out of my field (gearhead, you know), it would be a great deal of work
to find the things you ask for. I'm too lazy for that. We need Painted Wolf here...it's her field.

As for abiogenesis, failed attempts to re-create it aren't disproof, but rather lack of confirmation.
Experiments have been illuminating though, since some life precursor compounds have been created.

 

[Shad]

Who is forcing the atheists to involve themselves with religious persons at ReligiousForums.com?

Irrelevant response. This forum is open to atheists. If you do not like this it is your problem to fix not others.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

We look extremely similar, to me. And we share some social behaviors as well, not to mention most of our DNA. I don't know why you thinks apes are "so completely stupid." Maybe you've never observed any.

You think it's obvious we're not related to apes, I think it's obvious we are (and in fact, humans are apes). So now what?
Should we go with the science, or just our personal opinions?

 

[Jose Fly]

If this is true, then the transitional fossils should be popping up everywhere. We've had millions of years to look for them.

Another creationist who can't answer a simple question. The fact that you guys have to dodge just about every question that's asked of you says a lot about the inherent dishonesty behind creationism.

Let's try another one.....what exactly is your definition of a "transitional fossil"?