quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

quote:

ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki

macro evolution is simply a lot of micro evolution over a long period of time.

That is a guess, not science.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki


Evolution is an observable fact. We see bacteria evolving and we use evolution to breed different dogs. Creationists proclaim that evolution cannot create an entirely new species. This usually comes from the misconception that evolution occurs in straight lines. That's not the case. It's divergent. In other words, one group of organism will begin to evolve in TWO DIFFERENT directions. Once these two different directions evolve so much that the two paths cannot mate, then speciation occurs.

Speciation, macro evolution, HAS been observed in finches, fruit flies, types of grass, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

quote:

ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki

In fact, a couple of weeks ago cultures of E. coli that have been maintained for 20 years now by Richard Lenski and recently, in his paper, he describes how one of his populations evolved the ability to metabolise citrate, something E. coli cannot do by definition.

We have many MANY transitional fossils for each homo genus.

While Java man is fictitious and Piltdown man is a fraud. Peking man might be best described as pure fantasy. Like Nebraska man, Peking man was based originally on a dusty old tooth. It was conveniently discovered in China, just as Canadian physician Davidson Black was about to run out of funds for his evolutionary explorations in 1927.

The Rockefeller Foundation rewarded this discovery with a generous grant, permitting Black to continue digging. Two years later, he discovered what he fervently believed was Peking man's brain case, and he estimated Peking man to be half a million years old. Unfortunately, Black's fame was fleeting for at age 49, he died of a heart attack.

Black's death, however did not end his dreams. By the time WWII broke out, the evolutionary community had "discovered" 14 skulls and an interesting collection of tools and teeth. All 14 skulls were "missing in action" by war's end, yet the pretense persisted.

The photographs and plaster casts that remained had some interesting similarities. Apart from the fact that the lower skeletons were missing, the skulls had all been bashed at the base. As Ian Taylor points out, Teilhard de Chardin of Piltdown fame made his former professor, Marcellin Boule, angry "at having traveled halfway around the world to see a battered monkey skull. He pointed out that all the evidence indicated that true man was in charge of some sort of 'industry' and that the skulls found were merely those of monkeys"

Boule was not far from the truth. As Gish has pointed out in debates against evolutionists, it now seems likely that the tools found with Peking man were used on him. It is now clear to anyone who looks at the evidence with an open mind that Peking man was not a distant relative but rather dinner.

To say that "hominids" like Peking man and his partners are closely related to humans because both can walk is akin to saying that a hummingbird and a helicopter are closely related because both can fly.

In reality, the distance between an ape who cannot read or write and a descendant of Adam who can compose a musical masterpiece or send a person to the moon is the distance of infinity.

All the evidence in the world, however, is not sufficient to convince those who who do want to be confused with facts. Walter Cronkite, in the TV premiere of Ape Man: The Story of Human Evolution, declared that monkeys were his "new found cousins." Cronkite went on to say, "If you go back far enough, we and the chimps share a common ancestor. My father's father's father's father going back maybe a half million generations - about five million years - was an ape."

In fairness it should be pointed out that not all evolutionists believe humans evolved from monkeys. Some, in fact, believe quite the opposite - that monkeys evolved from humans. Geoffrey Bourne, former director of the Yerkes Primate Research Center of Emory University in Atlanta, GA, is a classic case in point. An article in Modern People points out that Bourne, who "is considered one of the world's leading experts on primates", believes that "monkeys, apes, and all other lower primate species are really the offspring of man."

Bourne's beliefs are bolstered by an article in New Scientist in which John Gribbin (sp?) and Jeremy Cherfas say they "think that the chimp is descended from man." Their theory is that "the genetic changes that produced early man from an ape were cleanly reversed to produce early chimps and gorillas from man." The truth, however, is that evolutionosts who believe humans evolved from chimps over millions of years, as well as those who believe chimps evolved from humans, are dead wrong.

No matter how many years the evolutionist postulates, chance operating on natural processes can no more create a chimp than it could create a cell. Sorry for the rant, but so much can be said.

quote:

Homo habilis, homo rudolfensis, homo georgicus, homo ergaster, homo erectus, homo cepranensis, homo antecessor, homo heidelbergensis, homo rhodesiensis, homo neanderthalensis, and finally.. homo sapiens

We have many MANY transitional fossils for each homo genus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

quote:

ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki

All were written decades after his death.

Decades, not much time for fabrications that could have been refuted by those presently living at the time of the writ. What's interesting is that you more than likely accept as true historical facts those accounts which were written centuries upon centuries after their supposed taking place, that is a bias that can't be ignored.

The Bible is accurate historically based on archeology and ancient history written by the Jews and Greeks...the cities mentioned in it have been historically proven to be actual cities and areas.

quote:

There is more historical evidence outside of the Bible that Jesus existed and even died on the cross then there is that George Washington was born and died.

quote:

If the Bible is totally historically accurate about cities, histories of ancient civilizations, and the authors of the gospels have been proven accurate in non-canonical writings (not in the Bible) then why would they lie about God and Jesus and their theology? Why would the disciples die brutal deaths for something they knew was a lie? the truth is, they wouldn't and they didn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

If you don't want to respond to it, no problem. I am not going to edit it and re-post it, sorry. It is what it is and is an open rant from me to any and all readers, not just aimed at any one individual.

I notice you like posting from talkorigins.com, which is so passe and rude. But I digress.

quote:

ORIGINAL: isaacsmom

quote:

ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki

quote:

ORIGINAL: isaacsmom

quote:

ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki

quote:

ORIGINAL: isaacsmom

quote:

The only written material about Jesus was written decades after his supposed life. Not a single historian or anyone for that matter that lived during and around Jesus wrote anything about him.

Matthew? Mark? Luke? John?

All were written decades after his death.

I'm talking about the writers themselves. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. All walked with Jesus, talked with Jesus, were eyewitnesses to his death and resurrection. They wrote their eyewitness accounts. You said no one who was around him wrote about him. That's not correct. What have you found for yourself that does not add up in the scriptures?

You actually don't know that. At least, historians don't know that. We know nothing of these men, and the Gospels themselves don't even claim to have been written by them. Moreover, the Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. No one knows who wrote the Gospels.

But actually, we do know a lot about these men. They were a government official, a physician, a missionary and an apostle. And we know much more. It's amazing how the four eyewitness accounts do not conflict and yet are written from four different points of view. There is very little dispute about the authorship of these books. Any research you do will show that even the earliest historians agree that these men authored their eyewitness accounts. Just look.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

If you don't want to respond to it, no problem. I am not going to edit it and re-post it, sorry. It is what it is and is an open rant from me to any and all readers, not just aimed at any one individual.

I notice you like posting from talkorigins.com, which is so passe and rude. But I digress.

I'm not going to respond to someone being rude, because I'll likely be rude in return. And an atheist being rude in a Christian forum is just asking to get banned.

Posting a short few paragraphs from talkorigins is not rude. It's my exact position, and I will defend it as if it were my own.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tsnody2001

Are they not still E. coli, fruit flies, etc.? I think they are. Have you (or anyone else for that matter) ever seen a fruit flie "evolve" into a non-fruit fly, and so on? Science has seen these thing produce abnormal amounts of wings (too many or not enough), through radiation and stuff we inflict on them. But they are still fruit flies, only they will be the first ones picked off by "natural selection" because of the wonderful things (sarcasm here) we've done to them. Isn't that the complete opposite of what evolution is suppose to do?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki

quote:

ORIGINAL: isaacsmom

quote:

ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki

quote:

ORIGINAL: isaacsmom

quote:

ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki

quote:

ORIGINAL: isaacsmom

quote:

The only written material about Jesus was written decades after his supposed life. Not a single historian or anyone for that matter that lived during and around Jesus wrote anything about him.

Matthew? Mark? Luke? John?

All were written decades after his death.

I'm talking about the writers themselves. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. All walked with Jesus, talked with Jesus, were eyewitnesses to his death and resurrection. They wrote their eyewitness accounts. You said no one who was around him wrote about him. That's not correct. What have you found for yourself that does not add up in the scriptures?

You actually don't know that. At least, historians don't know that. We know nothing of these men, and the Gospels themselves don't even claim to have been written by them. Moreover, the Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. No one knows who wrote the Gospels.

But actually, we do know a lot about these men. They were a government official, a physician, a missionary and an apostle. And we know much more. It's amazing how the four eyewitness accounts do not conflict and yet are written from four different points of view. There is very little dispute about the authorship of these books. Any research you do will show that even the earliest historians agree that these men authored their eyewitness accounts. Just look.

I've never heard of that before. Can you cite your sources?

quote:

Three) Even if the entire Bible was accurate, we already have people living today that convince others that they can perform miracles.

Jesus, a guy attributed with many miracles such as resurrection, being born of a virgin, healing the sick, walking on water, water into wine, etc... gets world wide belief based on a book that allegedly recorded these events decades decades AFTER they occurred.

Yet, Sathya, a guru who claims to be born from a virgin, can walk on water, healed the sick, flew without assistance (ascended?) and a number of other miracles, has literally thousands of living eyewitnesses IN THIS DAY AND AGE with the ability to record said miracles. Millions of people believe he is a living God. "So, consider, as though for the first time, the foundational claim of Christianity. The claim is that miracles stories of a sort that surround a person like Sathya Sai Baba today and which are compelling to no one apart from his devotees suddenly become specially creditable if you place them in the pre-scientific religious context of the first century Roman Empire decades after their supposed occurrence. Sathya Sai Baba's miracles don't even merit an hour on the Discovery Channel and yet place these miracles in an ancient text and half the people on this earth think it a legitimate project to organize their lives around them. Does anyone else see a problem with that?" - Sam Harris