Evolution? The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined

a reply to: cooperton

what do you think our gut feeling is , a super fast biofeedback from the environment telling us something is up ?

It seems that way , like its almost instant you get the feeling maybe even before the event happens

a reply to: cooperton

jesus is pretty cool but I like the buddhist philosophies
and the hindu stuff
just because everytime im out of my base line consciousness Im seeing stuff relating to eastern religions and nothing at all to do with jesus or biblical stuff

but then I think jesus was probably a buddha anyway.

I totally believe in a creator of sorts,but just not the way the bible or other good books tell it
I can dig there is a divine force that permeates the entire universe and everything in between above and below
that unites everything and is in us all , but the idea of a dude way up on his throne who has a son that is also him
that was sacrificed for our sins and all the other stories seems just a little bit silly.
Im not mocking the bible it has some great morales and values with which to live your life but i just think
its a collab of smart humans over time trying to set us on the right path.

no one needs a church to have a relationship with the creator or a book, its just there already by its very existence
you just need to look

a reply to: Peeple

Just like the kingdom of God he promised that also already totally happened.

It's scholarly fact that a Roman guard of sixteen were at the Tomb and
ran off when Jesus walked out of the tomb. They were so frightened
they left their post. Take it up with the scholars if you don't believe it.
You don't know to much if you don't know that. No scolar denies Jesus
Christ existed was crucified and some how walked out of that tomb.
FACT It was punoshable by death for them to leave their post.

Jesus didn't exactly remain in the obscurity he died in did he?
Only the names of those who died with him are remembered.
Of those who were crucified by rhe Romans.
And that means nothing to you? That's a shame your mind is
so reprobate. How much more intelligent you would be with the
hope that Jesus has to offer you. It really is the best feeling you
will ever know. And it requires nothing from you but devotion.
Your love. Only thru him do you find hope beyong the grave.
Only thru him do we carry on.



No one can debunk the resurrection and many have tried.

a reply to: Randyvine2

Since the 'scholars' you like are Christians that's not really surprising is it?
Would be weird if they'd say we got no corresponding archeological or historical evidence to support anything about J.C.
But that is the truth. Christian dogma is not.

originally posted by: Kurokage

Britannica

The history of life recorded by fossils presents compelling evidence of evolution.

And now for the truth of the matter:

Letting the Fossil Record Speak

...

How Complete Is the Record?

However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was “wrong” with the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the transitional links required to support his theory. This situation caused him to say: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”⁠7

The fossil record in Darwin’s day proved disappointing to him in another way. He explained: “The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists . . . as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.” He added: “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.”⁠8

Darwin attempted to explain these huge problems by attacking the fossil record. He said: “I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, . . . imperfect to an extreme degree.”⁠9 It was assumed by him and others that as time passed the missing fossil links surely would be found.

Now, after well over a century of extensive digging, vast numbers of fossils have been unearthed. Is the record still so “imperfect”? The book Processes of Organic Evolution comments: “The record of past forms of life is now extensive and is constantly increasing in richness as paleontologists find, describe, and compare new fossils.”⁠10 And Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier adds: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.”⁠11 Hence, A Guide to Earth History declares: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”⁠12

After all this time, and the assembling of millions of fossils, what does the record now say? Evolutionist Steven Stanley states that these fossils “reveal new and surprising things about our biological origins.”⁠13 The book A View of Life, written by three evolutionists, adds: “The fossil record is full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explain.”⁠14 What is it that these evolutionary scientists have found to be so “surprising” and are “unable to explain”?

What has confounded such scientists is the fact that the massive fossil evidence now available reveals the very same thing that it did in Darwin’s day: Basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found. So what the fossil record says is just the opposite of what was expected.

Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”⁠15

...

No Transitional Features

...

New Scientist noted that evolution “predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” But it admitted: “Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by known intermediate forms. . . . known fossil species do indeed appear not to evolve even over millions of years.”⁠31 And geneticist Stebbins writes: “No transitional forms are known between any of the major phyla of animals or plants.” He speaks of “the large gaps which exist between many major categories of organisms.”⁠32 “In fact,” The New Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.”⁠33​—Italics added.

This agrees with the extensive study made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: “Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.” Moore added: “No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/​or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred.”⁠34

Thus, what was true in Darwin’s day is just as true today. The evidence of the fossil record is still as zoologist D’Arcy Thompson said some years ago in his book On Growth and Form: “Darwinian evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock. . . . to seek for stepping-stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.”⁠35

...

What the Fossil Record Really Says

When we let the fossil record speak, its testimony is not evolution-oriented. Instead, the testimony of the fossil record is creation-oriented. It shows that many different kinds of living things suddenly appeared. While there was great variety within each kind, these had no links to evolutionary ancestors before them. Nor did they have any evolutionary links to different kinds of living things that came after them. Various kinds of living things persisted with little change for long periods of time before some of them became extinct, while others survive down to this day.

“The concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life,” concludes evolutionist Edmund Samuel in his book Order: In Life. Why not? He adds: “No fine analysis of biogeographic distribution or of the fossil record can directly support evolution.”⁠40

Clearly, the impartial inquirer would be led to conclude that fossils do not support the theory of evolution. On the other hand, fossil evidence does lend strong weight to the arguments for creation. As zoologist Coffin stated: “To secular scientists, the fossils, evidences of the life of the past, constitute the ultimate and final court of appeal, because the fossil record is the only authentic history of life available to science. If this fossil history does not agree with evolutionary theory​—and we have seen that it does not—​what does it teach? It tells us that plants and animals were created in their basic forms. The basic facts of the fossil record support creation, not evolution.”⁠41 Astronomer Carl Sagan candidly acknowledged in his book Cosmos: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”⁠42

More:

The Fossil Record—Their Best Proof (Awake!—1981)
Fossils—Do They Prove Evolution? (Awake!—1983)
QUESTION 4: Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? (The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking)

Regarding the argument concerning embryos:

a reply to: Peeple



True story you can't debunk the resurrection or there is no Christianity.

Plenty of atheist scholars don't deny the resrrection debunk it yourself.

a reply to: Randyvine2

Since I have hope. And have felt the overwhelming love that can only come from no one but an ancient, gigantic magnificent intelligence/lifeform I simply don't have any use for a Jesus, who may or may not have existed, who definetly was challenged and absolutely human.
Also a Jew. So I bet Jesus would strongly disagree with the NT. If we could ask him which we can't, because he is for sure dead.

Jesus and God don't have anything in common.

a reply to: Randyvine2

No need to, time has already debunked it. Not saying it wasn't useful. It existed for a reason I'm sure. Just the personality cult is way over the top.

a reply to: Peeple

No need to, time has already debunked it.

No dear that's just wrong. But I've taken our conversation as far as it
can go.

I guess you win.

a reply to: Randyvine2

Point out to me that moment in time and the place where the Kingdom of God was realised.

Because if he didn't make that happen he wasn't the Messiah.
One trailblazer, sure you can have that, but not successful.
Mission not accomplished.

a reply to: Peeple

Point out to me that moment in time and the place where the Kingdom of God was realised.

You can't realize that which you don't have.

a reply to: Randyvine2

Exactly. That's the mission tough for a good Messiah. Realise the Kingdom of God on Earth.
And I think that's not a bad thing. We came a long way in parts thanks to Christianity. It also unleashed horrible things, but we don't have to talk about that.
Except that we can't get stuck on things that didn't bring us what we so desperately need.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Randyvine2

Point out to me that moment in time and the place where the Kingdom of God was realised.

Because if he didn't make that happen he wasn't the Messiah.
One trailblazer, sure you can have that, but not successful.
Mission not accomplished.

I think Gods trying to get your attention or you wouldn't be showing the interest
you are showing. Don't worry he is very patient.

My spell check isn't working. lol What the hell?

That's a pisser

originally posted by: whereislogic
Letting the Fossil Record Speak

The next chapter (that was chapter 5) elaborates on those "large gaps" geneticist G. L. Stebbins was talking about in chapter 5. But before we get to that, I want to quote a paragraph from chapter 5 to show where they are quoting the term "special creation" from at the end of chapter 6:

Are there fossil links between this outburst of life and what went before it? In Darwin’s time such links did not exist. He admitted: “To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.”⁠21 Today, has the situation changed? Paleontologist Alfred S. Romer noted Darwin’s statement about “the abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear” and wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times. ‘To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system,’ said Darwin, ‘I can give no satisfactory answer.’ Nor can we today,” said Romer.⁠22

Chapter 6: Huge Gulfs—Can Evolution Bridge Them?

FOSSILS give tangible evidence of the varieties of life that existed long before man’s arrival. But they have not produced the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life began or how new kinds got started thereafter. Commenting on the lack of transitional fossils to bridge the biological gaps, Francis Hitching observes: “The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places.”⁠1

The important places he refers to are the gaps between the major divisions of animal life. An example of this is that fish are thought to have evolved from the invertebrates, creatures without a backbone. “Fish jump into the fossil record,” Hitching says, “seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously, suddenly, full formed.”⁠2 Zoologist N. J. Berrill comments on his own evolutionary explanation of how the fish arrived, by saying: “In a sense this account is science fiction.”⁠3

Evolutionary theory presumes that fish became amphibians, some amphibians became reptiles, from the reptiles came both mammals and birds, and eventually some mammals became men. The previous chapter has shown that the fossil record does not support these claims. This chapter will concentrate on the magnitude of the assumed transitional steps. As you read on, consider the likelihood of such changes happening spontaneously by undirected chance.

The Gulf Between Fish and Amphibian

...

The Gulf Between Amphibian and Reptile

...

The Gulf Between Reptile and Bird

...

The Gulf Between Reptile and Mammal

...

The Greatest Gulf of All

Physically, man fits the general definition of a mammal. However, one evolutionist stated: “No more tragic mistake could be made than to consider man ‘merely an animal.’ Man is unique; he differs from all other animals in many properties, such as speech, tradition, culture, and an enormously extended period of growth and parental care.”⁠15

What sets man apart from all other creatures on earth is his brain. The information stored in some 100 billion neurons of the human brain would fill about 20 million volumes! The power of abstract thought and of speech sets man far apart from any animal, and the ability to record accumulating knowledge is one of man’s most remarkable characteristics. Use of this knowledge has enabled him to surpass all other living kinds on earth​—even to the point of going to the moon and back. Truly, as one scientist said, man’s brain “is different and immeasurably more complicated than anything else in the known universe.”⁠16

Another feature that makes the gulf between man and animal the greatest one of all is man’s moral and spiritual values, which stem from such qualities as love, justice, wisdom, power, mercy. This is alluded to in Genesis when it says that man is made ‘in the image and likeness of God.’ And it is the gulf between man and animal that is the greatest chasm of all.​—Genesis 1:26.

Thus, vast differences exist between the major divisions of life. Many new structures, programmed instincts and qualities separate them. Is it reasonable to think they could have originated by means of undirected chance happenings? As we have seen, the fossil evidence does not support that view. No fossils can be found to bridge the gaps. As Hoyle and Wickramasinghe say: “Intermediate forms are missing from the fossil record. Now we see why, essentially because there were no intermediate forms.”⁠17 For those whose ears are open to hear, the fossil record is saying: “Special creation.”

Chapter 7: “Ape-Men”—What Were They?

a reply to: whereislogic

I was just beginning to ask my self "Where is logic"?

Lo and behold.

a reply to: Randyvine2

He doesn't have to try to get my attention, he has my full attention always.
Sooo... What about you? What is the centre of your attention.
It can either be God or Jesus.

a reply to: Peeple

What about me peeps? I have that which has happened to me.

When I tell people some of the haps I've had happen to me.
It makes the hair on their arm stand up; As more than one has said.
What about me? I simply believe. And don't let my mind get taken
away by the big mix if you will?. I'm pretty sure you've seen that
happen to people. God even warns us of what we know can cause
us to lose our minds. We have to be wary of that and even appearing
to have lost our minds can cause it to happen. We are sort of caught
between two worlds you know? That can be where we lose it if not
well grounded. That takes time. A lot of time. God is patient. You ask
a lot of the right questions. Maybe I'll raise the hair on your arm
sometime. Or maybe not.

a reply to: Randyvine2

I am not doubting that you had some mind-blowing experiences.
I am doubting you have drawn the right conclusions from them.

originally posted by: Kurokage

The field of molecular biology provides the most detailed and convincing evidence available for biological evolution. In its unveiling of the nature of DNA and the workings of organisms at the level of enzymes and other protein molecules, it has shown that these molecules hold information about an organism’s ancestry. This has made it possible to reconstruct evolutionary events that were previously unknown and to confirm and adjust the view of events already known. The precision with which these events can be reconstructed is one reason the evidence from molecular biology is so compelling. Another reason is that molecular evolution has shown all living organisms, from bacteria to humans, to be related by descent from common ancestors.

Just like the fossil record actually provides evidence for creation rather than evolution, molecular biology also "provides the most detailed and convincing evidence available for" creation rather than evolution. And again, the marketeers/promoters and propagandizers of evolutionary philosophies/ideas and myths/false stories try to present the situation upside down (under the marketinglabel "Science", making them promoters of pseudoscience).

“Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20,21)

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

A small sample of the evidence for creation (and design) from molecular biology (first 42 videos):

Molecular Machinery of Life (playlist: Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories)

a reply to: Peeple

I am doubting you have drawn the right conclusions from them.

Conclusions with little room for doubt.

Nice volley BTW