Do you claim a fish as your ancestor?

Radrook said:
Working hard? Working hard to find answers requires honesty and objectivity. Two things that your scientists lack.

As to water, no they aren't directly saying that water consciously coded DNA. However, by describing water as being essential to DNA coding, that is exactly what it amounts to. BTW If indeed the information in the videos is flawed, then please specifically point out the flaws. If you can't, then your objection is tantamount to chanting:

"Is not!"
Click to expand...

With respect, given your opinion when it comes to a God, I feel no desire to watch the videos you post. You are entitled to your opinion, and I'm content with that. I don't think I have anything to learn from you when it comes to a God belief. Especially when you clearly spend zero time looking for debunks of the information you post (it's not like it's hidden). You personify being a member of an echo chamber, rather than someone searching for the truth.

That is your right, and again - I'm happy for you. But I'm not going to be led down the rabbit holes you find confirms your belief. Again I state, I see no reason to believe in a God, my opinion is there isn't one. What will I gain from the videos? I simply don't have time to debunk every single video you decide to post. Moreover, I've had an interest in YOUR belief system, which I have found flawed. I don't care about some random Youtuber.

On Earth, the creation of life appears to have started in water. That's it. It's not complicated. Remember, the chemical makeup of the air, and the soil, was very different back then. You continue to assert DNA came from water - and that's incorrect.
 

Radrook said:
Absolutely not necessarily so. Peer review and things tagged as evidence among those who are cunningly in collusion can prove worthless.
As I said, the concept that the DNA code is only possible because of a coding mind is a totally rational conclusion. What is patently irrational is to casually claim that the emergence of information on how to assemble living organisms and the meticulous arrangement of the information into a code just magically happily happened all by its mindless self.
Click to expand...

Why is it irrational? Explain why you think this. Is it just your incredulity, or something else?
 
Radrook said:
However, I don't share the seemingly blind trust that atheists tend to have in the trustworthiness of these people simply because they are scientists.
Click to expand...

Who does this? Why do you think people believe something just because it's communicated by a "scientist"? A "scientist" is a job description. It is quite different from the scientific process. Please point to someone who believe something just because it came from a scientist (and especially compare and contrast with people who believe in something because it comes from a self-professed believer).

No. It's the scientific process that is key. Science is Question, Research, Hypothesis, Experiment, Data Analysis, Conclusion, and Communication. It offers the best explanation based on available evidence. As we learn more, it can, and will, change. What is a better process for learning? Reading a book?
 
VaughanJB said:
With respect, given your opinion when it comes to a God, I feel no desire to watch the videos you post. You are entitled to your opinion, and I'm content with that. I don't think I have anything to learn from you when it comes to a God belief. Especially when you clearly spend zero time looking for debunks of the information you post (it's not like it's hidden). You personify being a member of an echo chamber, rather than someone searching for the truth.

That is your right, and again - I'm happy for you. But I'm not going to be led down the rabbit holes you find confirms your belief. Again I state, I see no reason to believe in a God, my opinion is there isn't one. What will I gain from the videos? I simply don't have time to debunk every single video you decide to post. Moreover, I've had an interest in YOUR belief system, which I have found flawed. I don't care about some random Youtuber.

On Earth, the creation of life appears to have started in water. That's it. It's not complicated. Remember, the chemical makeup of the air, and the soil, was very different back then. You continue to assert DNA came from water - and that's incorrect.
Click to expand...
Which begs the very pertinent and as yet unanswered question of where did the vast detailed information coded via DNA come from? To which the atheist answer is always that they don't know.

Also, it isn't a matter of debunking each and every single detail in each of the videos as you claim. Instead, it's a very glaring matter of not trying to debunk even a single one.

As for the abundant rebuttals that you boast about, well, can you at least show me one that specifically addresses one of the scientifically based objections. Not by an appeal to vast amounts of time, since anyone can glibly do that. But by specifically and convincingly demonstrating exactly how the objection in the video is scientifically flawed? If not, then unfortunately, your vehement objections are no more compelling than an "Is not! "comment.

In reference to your atheism, well, that is certainly your right, a right which am not. and would never challenge. I am merely pointing out its very serious flaws for the benefit of those who might be interested. Flaws. which of course, you have a right to totally ignore since nobody, least of all me, is forcing you to read the contents of my posts, nor forcing you to view or to respond to any of the videos you describe as annoying. In short, placing me on ignore would be OK by me. As the saying goes, out of sight, out of mind.
 
Please keep in mind that this is a scientist speaking. Which contradicts the atheist accusation that no genuine scientist would reject the abiogenesis evolution idea.

Obviously, this is a genuine scientist who is a specialist in the subject he is speaking about. Neither is he unique. There are thousands of others with the same scientific credentials who believe in a creator and reject the atheistic abiogenesis idea.

 
I see films like "Broken Darkness" and think rubes like that don't really exist. Then I read some really wild stuff on the Internet and realize that they do. Education fails us again.
 
Here is another scientist, a biologist, who disagrees with the abiogenesis idea and provides valid scientific reasons for it.
 
The Tao Te Ching is an ancient Chinese sacred book. The first lines speak of what is this "something" out of "nothing".

The Way that can be experienced is not true;
The world that can be constructed is not real.
The Way manifests all that happens and may happen;
The world represents all that exists and may exist.

To experience without abstraction is to sense the world;
To experience with abstraction is to know the world.
These two experiences are indistinguishable;
Their construction differs but their effect is the same.

Beyond the gate of experience flows the Way,
Which is ever greater and more subtle than the world.​

The GNL Tao Te Ching
 
Naturally said:
Ever watch that PBS TV show "Finding Your Roots"?
How many of those shows found fish as ancestors ?? ... that's right, zero, zilch, nada, none
Click to expand...
That's because they is assuming that everyone watching the show-woe blindly believes the evolutionary consensus that our original piscine granddaddy had a fish tail, had appendages called fins, was covered in scales, and sported a fancy a set of gill hills so he could easily breathe underwater.

Umm, hey yay! Wait a second! Is that where the saying that we look a little green around the gills originated?
 
Last edited:
David777 said:
I read the "Your Inner Fish" best seller. Worthwhile interesting read for science folks I'll recommend. As for this thread's anti evolution nonsense and other like nonsense, usual promoters of like "the Earth is flat" are just looking for public soap boxes to spew whatever ideas they have. The ship has long sailed away from sane objective debates for such like the current Moon landing thread or arguing the Earth is NOT 6000 years old. Sure, respond briefly if one must, but resist being foolishly baited into their sand box that is a trap. Clean sand atop the sand surface but with squishy warm cat turds just below for anyone foolish enough to get in.
Click to expand...
Well, please note that I don't believe that the Earth is flat, nor that Earth is a mere 6000 years old, nor that we never went to the moon. I have never made those claims on this website. If indeed I have, then show me.

As for the the moon-themed thread, it was posted for discussion purposes. Why? Well very simple. Because this forum is intended for discussion purposes, and I believed that it would be interesting to hear different opinions on the lunar landing conspiracy theory. Nothing more. So your ad hominems are totally irrelevant in reference to me for the simple reason that they are outright lies.

In short, your tagging my participation here as idiotically getting up on a soapbox, or moronically playing in some sandlot, is merely ridicule via name-calling, However, ridicule clearly doesn't address the very pertinent issues at hand. It merely cunningly evades them in order to provide your inane claim that water mindlessly results in the coding of DNA, with some semblance of respectability. But that's a respectability it can never attain in the minds of those who do legitimately value the scientific method, Instead, it only manages to attain respectability among the minds of those who are helplessly gullible, and who exercise a blind faith in the inane declarations of theophobics.

Also, I am definitely not against legitimate science, nor the utilization of the scientific method, as you are falsely accusing me of. You see, I repeatedly took college examination tests in reference to it, and aced each one. So I both perfectly understand and deeply value the scientific method. However, only when it is being employed legitimately in both the social and natural sciences in order to discover facts about our universe. However, if I notice that quackery is being proclaimed to be the scientific method, then I must protest. That you and others here vehemently and fanatically disagree with my identifying quackery when it is being tagged as science, is of little significance in relation to my right to express my view.

Here is my opinion about your Inner Fish book
​
Even Shubin noted that “the great anatomist Sir Richard Owen” found “exceptional similarities among creatures as different as frogs and people” (p. 30). To what did this great anatomist attribute the fascinating similarities that he saw in these various organisms? As Shubin correctly observed, what Owen saw in the similarities “was the plan of the Creator” (p. 32).
 
Last edited:
lol - A fish as my ancestor????

But I do remember, many years ago, dating a lovely young lady who clearly had a remora as an ancestor.

Sorry. I'll see myself out...
 
Radrook said:
Even Shubin noted that “the great anatomist Sir Richard Owen” found “exceptional similarities among creatures as different as frogs and people” (p. 30). To what did this great anatomist attribute the fascinating similarities that he saw in these various organisms? As Shubin correctly observed, what Owen saw in the similarities “was the plan of the Creator” (p. 32).
Click to expand...

The trouble here is that it becomes a circular argument. Without doubt, our DNA means we are indeed ancestors - although a completely different species - than fish. But then, at the end of the day, any believer can say, "yeah well, God must have designed us and DNA that way."

What is missing is EVIDENCE. There is direct evidence of our ancestry in our genetics. There is no evidence for a God. If one believes in the scientific process, then one must demand repeatable, evident, facts. God lacks any measurable evidence as far as I know. Therefore, there's no evidence but faith. Blind faith. If you accept it on faith, then the conversation ends and we move on. However, if you insist God is real, and that it's a fact, we have conflict.

I believe in the scientific process. To be believe in a God, all I need is for proof to be shown based on the scientific process. If that were available, there'd be no debate.
 
VaughanJB said:
Without doubt, our DNA means we are indeed ancestors - although a completely different species - than fish. But then, at the end of the day, any believer can say, "yeah well, God must have designed us and DNA that way."
Click to expand...


Yes exactly what I was saying before - one can accept evolution (and any other scientific discoveries based on evidence for them) with or without believing, on faith, in a creator behind it.

It isnt a false dichotomy of science OR religion

Or, in other words, evolution isnt a thing that only athiests accept.
 
January said:
Yes exactly what I was saying before - one can accept evolution (and any other scientific discoveries based on evidence for them) with or without believing, on faith, in a creator behind it.

It isnt a false dichotomy of science OR religion

Or, in other words, evolution isnt a thing that only athiests accept.
Click to expand...
No one on this thread has ever made that claim. However, it is incompatible with the Bible and Christianity since Jesus cannot be biblically traced to your fish.
 
Buckeye said:
lol - A fish as my ancestor????

But I do remember, many years ago, dating a lovely young lady who clearly had a remora as an ancestor.

Sorry. I'll see myself out...
Click to expand...
You are confusing a female non hygienic or else pathological condition with a fish ancestry.
Like saying that if you are sick or don't bathe and you smell like a rat, its because your ancestor was a rat.

​
 
VaughanJB said:
The trouble here is that it becomes a circular argument. Without doubt, our DNA means we are indeed ancestors - although a completely different species - than fish. But then, at the end of the day, any believer can say, "yeah well, God must have designed us and DNA that way."

What is missing is EVIDENCE. There is direct evidence of our ancestry in our genetics. There is no evidence for a God. If one believes in the scientific process, then one must demand repeatable, evident, facts. God lacks any measurable evidence as far as I know. Therefore, there's no evidence but faith. Blind faith. If you accept it on faith, then the conversation ends and we move on. However, if you insist God is real, and that it's a fact, we have conflict.

I believe in the scientific process. To be believe in a God, all I need is for proof to be shown based on the scientific process. If that were available, there'd be no debate.
Click to expand...
That's an unjustifiable conclusion. That is a conclusion that is reached because evolution is considered to be fact by those who are examining the similarities and not because the similarities obligates a common ancestor conclusion.

Your homology conclusion is flawed,

As the article tells us, homology is not sufficient reason for that assumption since a common creator a logical conclusion and many justifiably reach it after examining those similarities.

Also, you claim inability to see any evidence for a creative mind in DNA. LOL! Would you say that about a signal from space received by SETI? Of course not. Yet DNA displays far more compelling reasons for easily detecting a mind at work. Which strongly indicates that there is something extremely defective in your line of reasoning because you are glaringly contradicting yourself.

But don't get me wrong. It is totally your right to make that claim just as it is your right to claim that the sun doesn't shine and you see absolutely no evidence that it does. LOL

You know, similar to your formal Junk DNA claim.

 
Last edited:
Radrook said:
You are confusing a female non hygienic or else pathological condition with a fish ancestry.
Like saying that if you are sick or don't bathe and you smell like a rat, its because your ancestor was a rat.

​
Click to expand...
lol - it was a joke. that is all, but nothing to do with "non hygienic or else pathological condition". Maybe one of the adults can splain it to you....

Ya know, I'm remembering why I quit coming to this site...
 
Last edited:
Radrook said:
Your view of what is my view is incorrect. Please note that I do not consider all creationist claims as being equally valid. For example, I don't subscribe to the Young-Earth idea. Neither do I consider all scientists dishonest and as being wrong in all of their conclusions. However, I don't share the seemingly blind trust that atheists tend to have in the trustworthiness of these people simply because they are scientists. After all, the many attempts at deceiving the public clearly demonstrates what they are capable of doing in their attempts to propagate their atheistic idea. In short, I don't share your unqualified trust in their honesty.
Click to expand...
As an agnostic I believe there is one simple truth behind evolution, survival of the fittest. Granted it is a slow very long process, but the existence of successful animal life, including ours, is evidence. If you are interested, read all about it …
https://letstalkscience.ca/educational-resources/stem-explained/why-scientists-believe-in-evolution
 
Last edited:
Why Atheists are without Excuse
The apostle Paul tells is that atheists who observe the wonders of nature that indicate a creator and yet deny God's existence are without any excuse.
Romans 1:20 ►
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse
Click to expand...
Now, since such was the case then, approx. 2000 years ago, how much more it applies now that we can delve deeply into the coordinated intricacies that are necessary in order for life to exist. The video below focuses on those intricacies.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top