New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

[BilliardsBall]

I am, although I dislike the term atheist. It's always seemed strange to me to label yourself vis a vis one specific belief you don't even hold. But I digress...

I've studied a cornucopia of different religious texts and religious people, and continue to do so. I anxiously await that evidence accompanied by that hulk-strong argument in favour of this or that religion that might convince me, and if it did, I would be fine with that. I am not emotionally invested in the idea none of them are true, yet the combination of the lack of tangibility and the tendency for many to believe just about anything leaves me more than sceptical.

Then you belong here, interacting. I appreciate your response.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Another irrelevant response. If you think attacking weak arguments many theists post here is harassment you have a horrible idea of harassment and no idea what debate means.

I'm sorry if you misunderstood. I'll clarify.

This is a forum for religiously-minded people to discuss, with debates being relegated to specific places.

If you're an atheist but an agnostic atheist, one who admits they have not all the knowledge that exists (needed to disprove God's existence) and further, you are intrigued by religious claims, come discuss, not debate.

If you're just looking to put down all religion (there are no gods, and I KNOW because I have proven this negative!) then you don't belong here IMHO.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What exactly constitutes harassment in your humble opinion? Is disagreeing harassment? Is blowing holes in weak arguments harassment?

Do you go to churches and synagogues specifically for the purpose of engaging parishioners to "blow holes in their arguments"?

Are you that unaware that many religious people affirm God as self-evident to them and do not need to argue with you?

Do you typically fraternize in social settings where most participants are diametrically opposed to you in ideology?

Is your purpose for arguing here to learn the true ways of God or to pick fights? How do you feel about people who troll other web forums, looking for arguments and not cohesion and conciliation?

 

[Jose Fly]

And I'm saying your experiments don't show much.

Well, at least you acknowledge that evolution is indeed backed up by experimental evidence.

Show me some major ones.

Wait....you're seriously saying that single-celled organisms evolving multicellularity isn't "major"?

 

[SkepticThinker]

We're talking science and you can't back up any claim. I am skeptical of the Skeptic Sheep.

Your atheist science does not accept creation science from the people that created science. Use your head. This all changed in the 1800s with Charles Lyell and uniformitarianism. That was the first major BS. After that came his prize pupil Charles Darwin. Even bigger BS. Part of it was true, so the masses fell for it. It was to challenge the Christian church's authority. Even if it was science, once the dissenting voice of the church and the Bible was cast aside, the atheist scientists were able to seize power. Through evolution, they were able to gain the authority and power the church once had which leads us to today.

Science is science. There isn't creation science and atheist science and Muslim science, etc. There's just science. Science is in the business of dealing with claims, whether it's falsifying them or backing them up.

None of this addresses what I said, or what we were talking about. Please stop resorting to Gish Gallop tactics.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, I'm going with God's word, for it is impossible that He should lie.

So you keep claiming.

 

[james bond]

Well, at least you acknowledge that evolution is indeed backed up by experimental evidence.



Wait....you're seriously saying that single-celled organisms evolving multicellularity isn't "major"?

I wouldn't go that far. All it showed is evos like to use bacteria in their experiments, but do not reach their ultimate goal of creating life. They can't even create a blade of grass or a seed.

Did your bacteria experiment show single-cell to multicell?

Some theses on this by creation scientists:

According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.

Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions.

There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.

 

[james bond]

Science is science. There isn't creation science and atheist science and Muslim science, etc. There's just science. Science is in the business of dealing with claims, whether it's falsifying them or backing them up.

None of this addresses what I said, or what we were talking about. Please stop resorting to Gish Gallop tactics.

You're the one who has to state Gish Gallop tactics based on how Gish has pretty much destroyed the atheist scientists.

I distinguish atheist science from creation science because they're two different things. You're disingenuous to not admit this whole forum on evolution vs creation. Why don't you just accept creation science because you're a good boy and science is science ha ha.

 

[Jose Fly]

I wouldn't go that far. All it showed is evos like to use bacteria in their experiments

Again, it's progress to see you at least acknowledge the fact that evolutionary biology does include experimental testing.

but do not reach their ultimate goal of creating life. They can't even create a blade of grass or a seed.

It's always funny to watch creationists, after having one of their arguments shown to be wrong, immediately run to the first gap in our knowledge they can think of. "Oh yeah? Well you haven't figured this out!! See? See?"

Did your bacteria experiment show single-cell to multicell?

The second link I posted showed single-cell yeast evolving multicellularity.

There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.

Obviously wrong since we've directly observe it happen.

 

[Shad]

I'm sorry if you misunderstood. I'll clarify.

This is a forum for religiously-minded people to discuss, with debates being relegated to specific places.

No it is a forum of user with diverse beliefs. Beliefs does not mean religious.

If you're an atheist but an agnostic atheist, one who admits they have not all the knowledge that exists (needed to disprove God's existence) and further, you are intrigued by religious claims, come discuss, not debate.

Yet there is a debate subforum. This knocks down your claim. Heck you are posting is a debate thread....

If you're just looking to put down all religion (there are no gods, and I KNOW because I have proven this negative!) then you don't belong here IMHO.

\

Irrelevant posturing. I can take part how I please. This includes topics of debate. Whine more.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

If you're just looking to put down all religion (there are no gods, and I KNOW because I have proven this negative!) then you don't belong here IMHO.

Then you belong here, interacting. I appreciate your response.

It seems you have it wrong. I would love to see every religion on earth, and all of their followers, nuked off the face of the planet tommorow. The thought makes me giddy, however impossible.

But I am also intellectually honest, which leaves me open to reason in whatever form I might find it in. I rate religious belief equally with any other wild claim like unicorns or leprechauns, but only because their arguments are very weak and the evidence pro seems to be absent.

 

[james bond]

Again, it's progress to see you at least acknowledge the fact that evolutionary biology does include experimental testing.



It's always funny to watch creationists, after having one of their arguments shown to be wrong, immediately run to the first gap in our knowledge they can think of. "Oh yeah? Well you haven't figured this out!! See? See?"



The second link I posted showed single-cell yeast evolving multicellularity.



Obviously wrong since we've directly observe it happen.

Except it doesn't show evolution happens. My experiment shows that fossils end up on the top layer in some cases. Also, we know from observation that trees cut through the evolution layers. Thus, the fossil record and chronological layers that evos like to use as bottom up is wrong. That destroys evolution.

It's always funny to watch evos, you mean. If you're going to say evolution does not cover abiogenesis, then that is disingenuous. Creation scientists have explained how evolution could not have possibly happened and that the creation theory explains all. Once they come up to speed with baraminology, then our biological knowledge will be the greatest it has ever been. The creation scientists also have fine tuning which explains why aliens have not been found.

Oh you mean single-cell proteins? They're proteins so they can form new proteins within the cell due to biochemical reactions of gene expression. It's too bad that the evols can't create proteins, the basic building blocks, outside the cell. Dr. Duane Gish explained it very well, so much so that evos have to refer to it as Gish Gallop since he destroyed evolution before it could start.

Evos and atheists are usually wrong. There are single-cell organisms and multicell organisms. The cellular level is very complex and is another evidence of God. Otherwise, we would be able to create grass, a chicken, an egg, a seed and so on. Origin of species which Darwin tried to show with his book was a dismal failure.

 

[Jose Fly]

Except it doesn't show evolution happens.

So experiments where we watch populations evolve new traits (e.g., antibiotic resistance, multicellularity) don't show that evolution happens.

Man but creationists are an odd bunch.

My experiment shows that fossils end up on the top layer in some cases.

That epsom salt thing? You were really serious with that? Really?

Also, we know from observation that trees cut through the evolution layers. Thus, the fossil record and chronological layers that evos like to use as bottom up is wrong. That destroys evolution.

You mean polystrate fossils? Are you under the impression that no one has ever examined them and figured them out? You really think they're some kind of unsolved mystery that overturns pretty much all of the earth and life sciences?

[quoe]Creation scientists have explained how evolution could not have possibly happened and that the creation theory explains all. [/quote]

Really? Those are quite bold claims. Can you show us where creationists have overturned evolutionary theory and replaced it with their own?

Oh you mean single-cell proteins? They're proteins so they can form new proteins within the cell due to biochemical reactions of gene expression. It's too bad that the evols can't create proteins, the basic building blocks, outside the cell. Dr. Duane Gish explained it very well, so much so that evos have to refer to it as Gish Gallop since he destroyed evolution before it could start.

You're not making the slightest bit of sense.

There are single-cell organisms and multicell organisms. The cellular level is very complex and is another evidence of God. Otherwise, we would be able to create grass, a chicken, an egg, a seed and so on. Origin of species which Darwin tried to show with his book was a dismal failure.

Again, you're not making any sense at all.

 

[james bond]

So experiments where we watch populations evolve new traits (e.g., antibiotic resistance, multicellularity) don't show that evolution happens.

Man but creationists are an odd bunch.



That epsom salt thing? You were really serious with that? Really?



You mean polystrate fossils? Are you under the impression that no one has ever examined them and figured them out? You really think they're some kind of unsolved mystery that overturns pretty much all of the earth and life sciences?

Creation scientists have explained how evolution could not have possibly happened and that the creation theory explains all.

Really? Those are quite bold claims. Can you show us where creationists have overturned evolutionary theory and replaced it with their own?



You're not making the slightest bit of sense.



Again, you're not making any sense at all.

Is there a youtube where we see single to multicellular? And I think you keep missing the point about macroevolution. One does not actually see it happen because it takes millions and billions of years. Makes me question your understanding of evolution. Do we see God's works happen though? Yes, we do in miracles, how we crave perfection, in beauty and complexity in nature, our shortened lives and more.

No, the Guy Berthault experiment in #109.

I'm talking about the polystrate layers that we see, but then petrified trees are found that cut through the layers. It shows that evolutionists are wrong about the layers marking millions and billions of years.

For one, dinosaur fossils have been found to have soft tissue. So evolution has been completely destroyed on so many levels. It's silly for intelligent people to continue to believe in evolution. The only reason atheist scientists believe in it is for the money.

I do not make sense to you because humans cannot create protein. That is a fact. Proteins can only be created within a cell, not outside it. Dr. Duane Gish debunked this by explaining the early universe and what amino acids are needed and what has to become of them to create proteins.

".. in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist."

"In addition to the 20 different amino acids found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars would have been produced. In addition to the five purines and pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other purines and pyrimidines would exist. Further, of vital significance, the amino acids in proteins today are exclusively left-handed, but all amino acids on the primitive Earth would be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed. The sugars in DNA and RNA today are exclusively right-handed, but, if they did exist, sugars on a primitive Earth would have been 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. If just one right-handed amino acid is in a protein, or just one left-handed sugar is found in a DNA or RNA, all biological activity is destroyed. There would be no mechanism available on a primitive Earth to select the correct form."

A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible | The Institute for Creation Research

Weak minded posters try to rationalize the above as Gish Gallop haha.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No it is a forum of user with diverse beliefs. Beliefs does not mean religious.



Yet there is a debate subforum. This knocks down your claim. Heck you are posting is a debate thread....

\

Irrelevant posturing. I can take part how I please. This includes topics of debate. Whine more.

"Whine more" is irrelevant posturing.

"How I please" is typical selfish behavior, without regarded for offending another.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It seems you have it wrong. I would love to see every religion on earth, and all of their followers, nuked off the face of the planet tommorow. The thought makes me giddy, however impossible.

But I am also intellectually honest, which leaves me open to reason in whatever form I might find it in. I rate religious belief equally with any other wild claim like unicorns or leprechauns, but only because their arguments are very weak and the evidence pro seems to be absent.

I appreciate that you find religion burdensome. Do you see how I might interpret "all religious persons nuked" as hate speech inappropriate for this website?

I find the converse true, by the way, regarding born agains. If everyone was born again, we could "nuke" prisons, 98% of law statutes, locks and keys, etc.

The evidence pro is there. Arguing here is helping to cloud your good judgment. Argue with GOD and you'll get somewhere!

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I appreciate that you find religion burdensome. Do you see how I might interpret "all religious persons nuked" as hate speech inappropriate for this website?

I find the converse true, by the way, regarding born agains. If everyone was born again, we could "nuke" prisons, 98% of law statutes, locks and keys, etc.

The evidence pro is there. Arguing here is helping to cloud your good judgment. Argue with GOD and you'll get somewhere!

Interesting. Did you know the percentage of atheists in American prisons is around .07%? That's far lower than the mean. By your reasoning those prisons should be the safest place on earth...

... Argue with god to find evidence? Oh brother...

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm sorry if you misunderstood. I'll clarify.

This is a forum for religiously-minded people to discuss, with debates being relegated to specific places.

If you're an atheist but an agnostic atheist, one who admits they have not all the knowledge that exists (needed to disprove God's existence) and further, you are intrigued by religious claims, come discuss, not debate.

If you're just looking to put down all religion (there are no gods, and I KNOW because I have proven this negative!) then you don't belong here IMHO.

They belong here as much as any monotheist who knows there is only one God and put down disagreeing religions.
Granted, nobody should be putting down anyone, but having a strong belief, either strong atheism or strong theism, doesn't mean the person won't have valuable contributions to make to the forum or won't be interested in learning other perspectives.

 

[Jose Fly]

Is there a youtube where we see single to multicellular?

Not that I know of, but you can read all about the experiment in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal article I posted.

And I think you keep missing the point about macroevolution. One does not actually see it happen because it takes millions and billions of years.

Yes we do. We've seen the evolution of new species in real time, both in the wild and in the lab.

Do we see God's works happen though? Yes, we do in miracles, how we crave perfection, in beauty and complexity in nature, our shortened lives and more.

Can you provide me an independently verifiable, documented act of God?

No, the Guy Berthault experiment in #109.

Not sure what you think that shows. You do realize there are lots of different types of geologic strata, right?

I'm talking about the polystrate layers that we see, but then petrified trees are found that cut through the layers. It shows that evolutionists are wrong about the layers marking millions and billions of years.

And again, you truly believe that no scientist has ever figured out any sort of explanation for them, correct? You are completely unaware of any such explanation?

Well there's one of your problems. You get your science from Chick tracts.

For one, dinosaur fossils have been found to have soft tissue. So evolution has been completely destroyed on so many levels.

Walk me through the logic path that starts with "soft tissues have been found in dinosaur fossils" and concludes with "therefore populations don't evolve".

It's silly for intelligent people to continue to believe in evolution. The only reason atheist scientists believe in it is for the money.

Ah, so you're a conspiracy theorist too, and you also see this in primarily religious terms. Thought so. So tell me.....how do you account for the fact that the majority of "evolutionists" in the world are not atheists?

I do not make sense to you because humans cannot create protein. That is a fact. Proteins can only be created within a cell, not outside it. Dr. Duane Gish debunked this by explaining the early universe and what amino acids are needed and what has to become of them to create proteins.

Nope, you're still not making any sense at all. It looks to me like you're just randomly throwing out whatever creationist talking points you've memorized, regardless of whether or not they have any bearing on what we were discussing.

"In addition to the 20 different amino acids found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars would have been produced. In addition to the five purines and pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other purines and pyrimidines would exist. Further, of vital significance, the amino acids in proteins today are exclusively left-handed, but all amino acids on the primitive Earth would be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed. The sugars in DNA and RNA today are exclusively right-handed, but, if they did exist, sugars on a primitive Earth would have been 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. If just one right-handed amino acid is in a protein, or just one left-handed sugar is found in a DNA or RNA, all biological activity is destroyed. There would be no mechanism available on a primitive Earth to select the correct form."

A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible | The Institute for Creation Research

Yes the origin of the first life forms on earth remains a mystery. That's why it's still an active area of research. So I'm not sure what your point is, unless you're just doing what I said earlier, i.e., running as fast as you can to a gap in our knowledge and declaring "You'll never figure this out because God did it!!!!"

You know there's a term for such a thing, right? God of the Gaps

 

[Shad]

"Whine more" is irrelevant posturing.

No I am pointing out you are complaining about atheists on a forum that is not exclusive. You want them to leave. You are whining.

"How I please" is typical selfish behavior, without regarded for offending another.

No it isn't. I am not obligated to follow whatever terms you dictate I should follow. After all it is you demanding something of other people. I am telling you that this isn't happening.

You have no right in not being offended. Welcome to reality.