evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

Who knows better? Jesus or you? Jesus said kill kids, you say he didn't mean it. Who knows better? Jesus, or you?

O.K what is all the 'therer is no proof for evolution,' if you dont believe the weirdly in order by evolution in relation to carbob dating there is an abundance of proof for evolution.

First is the virus if u r English u know about M.R.S.A it has evolved to not be effected by most antibiotics. Then is cats and dogs there were originally only one type of each but they have been bred with favourable mutations to give many many breeds.

Originally posted by Shenroon
O.K what is all the 'therer is no proof for evolution,' if you dont believe the weirdly in order by evolution in relation to carbob dating there is an abundance of proof for evolution.

First is the virus if u r English u know about M.R.S.A it has evolved to not be effected by most antibiotics. Then is cats and dogs there were originally only one type of each but they have been bred with favourable mutations to give many many breeds.

MRSA is Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus which is like many bacteria that has become resitant to antibiotics but, in all cases the genetic change that confers antibiotic resistance in bacteria existed prior to exposure to antibiotics. Therefore this is not an evolution but a bacteria making use of genetic material it already possesed.

Cat's and Dog breeds are created through speciation not evolution.

The strong definition (proposed by Dobzhansky) is, "That stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding."

The weak definition (proposed by Ernst Mayr) is, "Groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

Notice that the strong definition is strong because it makes it unambiguously clear that one species cannot breed with another. The weak definition is weak because it does not spell out the meaning of "reproductively isolated". Does it mean "the two groups might mate if they had the chance but unfortunately are on opposites sides of the lake without a rowing boat"?

Darwinists protest that applying the strong definition, showing by lab experiment that reproduction is physiologically or genetically impossible -- in for example fruit fly breeding experiments -- is too difficult or time consuming to be practical. These objections are bogus since it is a relatively straightforward procedure to artificially inseminate females with sperm from a male of the claimed 'new species' and see what happens.

Virtually all the so-called examples of speciation (one species turning into another species) offered by Darwinists are in reality examples of them exploiting the ambiguity of the weak definition of species to suggest that what are no more than subspecific varieties are actually different species.

For example, an old favourite that Darwinists often try to slip in by the back door is the idea that all the different breeds of dog are different species, when in fact all breeds of dog, from the tiny Chihuahua to the Great Dane, are all members of a single species, Canis familiaris, and are capable of interbreeding.

The remaining examples of "speciation" offered by Darwinists are cases in the plant world where the number of chromosomes in a seedling spontaneously doubles (called polyploidy). This often produces a plant which looks different from its parents and is incapable of breeding with its parent stock. It was this process that botanist Hugo de Vries observed in the evening primrose and that he dubbed "mutation".

This process passes the strict test of "speciation" because the parent and offspring are physiologically incapable of interbreeding. But even the most enthusiastic Darwinist would not try to suggest that the process of polyploidy can be cited as the engine of evolution and would acknowledge that it is incapable of producing anything other than the odd freak.

"Speciation" in the Darwinian sense of one species gradually changing by selection into another has not been observed and no examples are known.

www.alternativescience.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

Forgive me for jumping into this fascinating, but long thread, while not reading all of it.

The subject of the clash between the science of evolution and the faith of evangelicals has interested me for some time.

I have had the good fortune of one-to-one discussions with a very thoughtful and intelligent Pastor of a conservative church near my home. We spoke at length about this very subject, and I enjoyed his passion immensely.

In the end, he has seen fit to reconsider his staunch stance on some very basic ideas for which we both find agreement.

A] Science (evolution) is concerned with the how of things. (We both agreed to this.)

B] Faith (religion) is concerned with the why of things. (Again, we both agreed to this.)

C] There is evidence that some "evolution-like" things have happened. (Reluctantly, he found agreement.)

D] If B+C then A. Evolution is part of creation.


How often do we hear our theologians profess we are but gnats, unknowing of the will of God. Would not an intelligent creator bless his creations with the ability to evolve and adapt perfectly with their changing environment?

So the people who belive god made us and im not saying somthing did or didnt but i want to know is do you think one day some all knowing thing went im bord i feal like making man and animals. p.s sorry if i sounded like an @$$

[edit on 16-5-2005 by bloodlust11009]

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Who knows better? Jesus or you? Jesus said kill kids, you say he didn't mean it. Who knows better? Jesus, or you?

No he didn't, and Jesus knows better. Don't take my word for it, ask God and/or read the Book.

O.K this in no way meant to be offensive but why do people always use the bible as proof of god. If I gave you 'JAck and the Beanstalk' I'd be locked up if I used it as proof of giants and magic beans. Not saying that Chritsians should be locked up but c'monthat is really the only proof they have.

Originally posted by Shenroon
O.K this in no way meant to be offensive but why do people always use the bible as proof of god. If I gave you 'JAck and the Beanstalk' I'd be locked up if I used it as proof of giants and magic beans. Not saying that Chritsians should be locked up but c'monthat is really the only proof they have.

I don't use the Bible as proof of God. I couldn't read the Bible (probably because of some of the things I was involved in at the time). My eyes would itch and burn, darting all over the page trying to complete a sentence. I'd been known to throw it and slam it whenever someone would tell me to look at it. I found God before I read the Bible. He directed me to it afterwards because I had a lot to learn and didn't want to sit me down to learn my A B C's. God didn't want to repeat himself with me, he wanted me to dig, think, and grow. If I didn't understand, then I'd ask. Then I'd get my answer. Want proof? Talk to God.

I'd be glad to help if anyone wants to U2U me.


[edit on 17-5-2005 by saint4God]

Jesus did order to kill kids, it's in the bible.

4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

www.evilbible.com...

Jesus said to do it, to follow the law his daddy gave them. So anyone interpreting it as to Jesus saying anything but kill kids is wrong, according to the bible/Jesus.

And on evolution, again.

Darwin recanted on his deathbed. This is completely fabricated and has no foundation in truth whatsoever. A woman named “Lady Hope” spoke to a church group shortly after the death of Charles Darwin. She claimed that she was at Darwin’s bedside on the day of his death. She also claimed that Darwin recanted on evolution and accepted Jesus on his deathbed. Her claims are not only unsupported, but are directly opposed by Darwin’s daughter, Henrietta. Henrietta stated “I was present at his deathbed, Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. My father never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. I am upset that the U.S. Christians have fabricated this conversion nonsense. The whole story has no foundation whatever.” February 23, 1922.

Evolution has been proven false (is only a theory). Evolution can be divided into two parts, macro and micro. Micro evolution is a fact, where as macro evolution remains a theory due to debates on the exact steps of the evolutionary process. EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN we simply can’t trace the exact evolutionary steps of the of the 3 trillion plus species on earth. Considering there is no way that we can even prove if we have located all the species on earth, this may always remain a theory. We can prove though, beyond a doubt, that humans have evolved. We can trace it back conclusively 3.6 million years. 97% of all scientists accept evolution (so does the Catholic Church). Christians have spread lies about this excessively, they especially like to say evolution preaches that Humans evolved from monkeys. Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, that idea is completely absurd. Science states that monkeys and humans evolved from a shared forefather and are hence relatives, (all primates are) but we are in no way direct descendants of them.

www.evilbible.com...

[edit on 17-5-2005 by James the Lesser]

Originally posted by James the Lesser
4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

*taps the microphone* Is this thing on? We already went over this James. Your "points 4 & 5" are the same story in two different places about the hypocrisy of the Pharisee priests who were not allowing children to honor there mother and father. Instead of quoting disinfoclaimingtoknowthebible.com over and over again, how about bending the spine of the Book and reading it? Really James, you're starting to sound like a broken record. Here it is on the previous page: www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 17-5-2005 by saint4God]

Well once again not intending to offend but the only proo beside the bible of god is 'I felt him,' 'He spoke to me,' 'I met him in a dream.' NOw if I didn't mention the word god I would be diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.
Yet if you use the word god you are 'enlightened.' Does anyone understamd the points I'm making here.

I understand. If I say I hear voices, I am insane, if I say I hear voices and it is god, I am automatically made a saint by the RCC. In fact, many so called "prophets" who "spoke to god" were insane/blown out of their mind on drugs. But according to the church doing drugs/being insane makes you a saint as long as you use god.

Say What?????
Where do you see the use of drugs promoted by the church??????
Where do you get being insane makes you a saint?????
JTL, I am coming to believe that when it comes to anything dealing with christianity..... You will say anything to discredit the church. No matter how ridiculous your claims are I am sorry that your hatred, blinds you so throughly.

But according to the church doing drugs/being insane makes you a saint as long as you use god.

Originally posted by Winston Smith

Science (evolution) is concerned with the how of things. (We both agreed to this.)

B] Faith (religion) is concerned with the why of things. (Again, we both agreed to this.)

I think who have the two mixed and undefined. Science is always concerned with the why of things. Religion seems to be concerned with; 'what' is next? 'what' shall we do? 'what' does god desire?

I think Winston tagged the point quite well.

Religion has never been scientific, except perhaps in the sense that religion's sense of wonder and astonishment at natural processes led to a desire to discover the workings of our fascinating world. In that sense, worship led to dissection, and religion gave birth to science, and now it seems religion wishes to commit infanticide. I don't think there needs to be any destruction, of science or religion. I think both can live in harmony as long as both promise to never presume to explain the other.

I also think most religious people could embrace adaptation if they understood it was different than life from nothing. I see tons of evidence for adaptation, and I see some evidence for abiogenesis..but mostly I just have faith.

JTL
Your style of argument embarasses even those who agree with you at times. One word for ya, tact.

Why are our choices a 20th Century scientific theory or the Judeo/Christian intepretation???

Is this all there is on this prison-planet?




there is no enemy - Lao Tse

Tact? Tactics?(j/k)

Hey, not my fault the church says it is ok to do drugs as long as you use god. "I saw god" Really? "I took 3 hits of acid and some heroin, I was blown out of mind that I saw god!" SAINT! Saint Jimmy Hendrix. Saint Grateful Dead. Saint Goerge W. Bush.

ALso, those aren't the only choices. According to the Realiens not god but aliens came and made humans. So there are three choices.

Reality/science/facts/truth.
Aliens.
Kill anyone who doesn't agree.

Once again JTL,

Where do you see the use of drugs promoted by the church?
Where do you get being insane makes you a saint?????

I have asked you top provide something to back up your rants but as yet you have failed. On another thread. You did provided some indication as to why you hate christianity so much. I took your information and was quickly able to provide you information to show that what you were basising you hatred on was incorrect. You never respnded to that thread again.

I have no problem if you do not like chirstians. I can respect that. I do not think that you are capable of reciprocating that respect.
You have let your blind hatred color any of your arguments in this regard to the point that any real information that you may provide is lost in your ranting.
Again, I feel sorry for you and your inability to allow others their beliefs as well as your disrespect of others that have any faith.

Where? The fact they make anyone who sees "god" a saint. Hmmm, do drugs, become a saint. I think that is supporting drugs, is it not?

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Where? The fact they make anyone who sees "god" a saint. Hmmm, do drugs, become a saint. I think that is supporting drugs, is it not?

Again, you have failed to answer the question. Please provide some kind of proof to back up your claims. So far you have avoided this after two previous requests.
As you may have realized, I am not the only one here that you are hurting yourself by alowing your unadulterated hate to cloud any arguments Even if you have anything of real value to to contribute to the various threads that you have used to vent your hatred.