[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by delsurf:
Catholics are not Christians.

[Ozmodiar]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:

What he said.

This debate has become an exercise in futility. The thread should be locked.

[Toutgood]

The longer this thread lasts the more we get to hear delsurf go on and on and on and on and on about creationism.

a: why is this not in the long-drawn-out-political-religion-non-mac-related threads forum (aka political lounge)?

b: do window or linux forums attract similar discussions?

Just curious...

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Toutgood:

b: do window or linux forums attract similar discussions?

A: Windows users are too busy trying to keep their systems running.
B: Linux users are too busy trying to squeeze that last 0.00001% out of their kernel.

[Toutgood]

In the beginning there was the command line...

[BRussell]

Originally posted by delsurf:
If it is up to each person to make up their mind on what to take literally and what not to, then you have no authority or absolutes. Right and Wrong is up to the discretion of each individual, there is no promise of heaven, Jesus was a mythical figure and you can gain no certainty of your future from reading the Bible, thus it becomes a useless fairytale.

If it is only up to scholars to interpret the Bible, then your final authority depends entirely on what these 'scholars' declare to be truth, thus creating a cult like many religions out there today such as Catholism, Jehovah's Witness', Mormonism, etc.

On the other hand, if the Bible is the absolute authority, just as it proves to be through undeniable prophetic fulfillment, each individual can read it for themselves and with plain understanding be guaranteed the life that it offers through Jesus Christ.

But isn't your position the subjective one? You say that each individual should read the Bible for themselves. But the pastor at my church has a doctorate in divinity, reads the original languages of the Bible, is ordained, etc. etc., and he absolutely disagrees with you that a Christian must deny evolution. Who is right, you or him? How can there be any objective truth if everyone just reads it on their own and decides for themselves? Isn't that post-modernism at its best?

You know what, even though you said that Catholics aren't Christian, I think you're Catholic without knowing it. They have a system of authority that stops exactly the kind of subjective interpretation that you criticize. If you want authority, clarity, and objectivity, Catholicism is your game.

But what you're doing is reading the Bible on your own, subjectively interpreting it, and then declaring your interpretation the objective truth. Isn't there a problem with that?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by delsurf:
. . . a cult like many religions out there today such as Catholism, Jehovah's Witness', Mormonism, etc.

. . . the life that it offers through Jesus Christ.

Once a cult, always a cult.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by delsurf:
In 1948, Israel became a nation just as the Bible predicted. God defended the inhabitants of his people when they were immediately attacked by the Arabs in 1948. He also defended them agaist overwhelming odds during the 6-day war in 1967. Yet today, Israel is one of the most disputed lands in all the world, with Jerusalem truly being a burdensome stone to all nations, just as the Bible said over 2500 years ago. You can't escape it, little Israel is constantly in the news, 2/3rds of the UN's delegations are for Israel.

The Prophet Jeremiah, in chapter 29 of his book proclaimed G-d's message to all the exiled�Verse seven reads, "Seek out the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you and pray for it to the Almighty, for through its welfare will you have welfare." This has been a cornerstone of Jewish "foreign policy" how to behave in the lands of the nations throughout our ensuing exiles till this very day.

King Solomon in Song of Songs thrice adjured the "daughters of Jerusalem" not to arouse or bestir the love until it is ready." The Talmud explains That we have been foresworn, by three strong oaths, not to ascend to the Holy Land as a group using force, not to rebel against the governments of countries in which we live, and not by our sins, to prolong the coming of moshiach; as is written in Tractate Kesubos 111a.

There Jeremiah adds in the name of G-d (verses 8 and 9), "Do not let your false prophets among you and your sorcerers seduce you, do not head your dreamers which you cause them to dream. For they speak falsely to you in My name. I did not send them."

There was never supposed to be an Israel again like it has been made. :/

Zionism breaks the Three Strong Oaths.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by delsurf:
Catholics are not Christians. They call themselves Christians nowadays, but a quick look at Catholic dogma vs. the Bible will quickly prove otherwise. Catholic dogma and priests claim that you may receive remission of sins if you participate in the unbloody sacrifice of Jesus, called Mass. However, the Bible clearly states "...and without shedding of blood is no remission." (Heb 9:22) , also that he was offered "...once for all". When he declared "It is finished" (John 19:30), he "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Heb 1:3), ending the need for any sacrifice to take place including the Jewish sacrifices that were going on in the temple. Also, the Bible clearly states that there is "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5)

Read the Letter to the Hebrews in *context*. Try Heb 9:21 to Heb 9:28 - where it is explained how the blood sacrifice that had been the norm in the OT is discontinued because Christ bled for all of us. His blood cleansed everyone. The Mass is *symbolic* of Christ's sacrifice for us. It is not an actual sacrifice. That ended with Christ. The Catholic church is the only institution that has a legitimate and credible claim to be the one true Christian Church. They *are* the Christians. By the sound of it you don't quite understand what the Catholic Church is.

Reading and understanding the Bible and the NT is very important for all Christians so I recommend you do the same if you are a Christian. I assume you are. Verses were not written in a vacuum.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by delsurf:
You are certainly correct with your formula. One of the ways you can prove that the Bible is true is through prophecy. It is undeniable that the prophecies of the Bible have been accurate like no other book in the world. You have 40 authors over 2500 years writing about this same individual God and a particular people (Israelites).

The prophecies start out declaring that The Savior would come through this particular people. the Israelites. The Bible follows the Israelites throughout history, he predicted that they would put the Savior he sent them to death, and because they rejected whom he had send, he told them that they would be scattered around the world - hated and persecuted like no other people in history, that they would be gathered together back into their land and he would defend them in their land, yet Jerusalem would be a burdensome stone among the whole world.

Jesus prophesied in Luke 19:42-45 when he wept over Jerusalem that the temple would be destroyed and they would be scattered and led into slavery. The temple was in fact destroyed in 70 AD and some Jews were led into captivity while the rest were scattered around the world. Then the persecution started with the Inquisitions, Crusades (which were Catholic led, not Christian, by the way... there is a difference in the two) and then finally Hitler executed over 6 million Jews. Ships carrying thousands of Jews fleeing from the ovens in Germany were turned away from all ports including the US only to be executed by the hands of Hitler. In 1948, Israel became a nation just as the Bible predicted. God defended the inhabitants of his people when they were immediately attacked by the Arabs in 1948. He also defended them agaist overwhelming odds during the 6-day war in 1967. Yet today, Israel is one of the most disputed lands in all the world, with Jerusalem truly being a burdensome stone to all nations, just as the Bible said over 2500 years ago. You can't escape it, little Israel is constantly in the news, 2/3rds of the UN's delegations are for Israel.

That's just the tip of the iceberg concerning prophecies in the Bible that have come true. Prophecies in Daniel describing the current Babylonian empire and the succeeding empires. The Old Testament giving the exact name of the Persian leader Cyrus that would conquer the Babylonians, predicting that Alexander the Great would die early and his kingdom being divided among his 4 generals.

That's just the beginning!

Okay, you need to learn that you can't hold up evidence for just long enough for it to be debunked and then switch to a new angle. Very silly.

The prophecies are extremely generic, if they weren't the jews themselves would have known what they meant.

Oh good lord, I cannot believe that you actually buy into the whole jews getting back jerusalem thing. You poor poor idiot. I can understand why christians look for a link back to judaism for validation. The covenant with them was destroyed, God divorced himself from them. Of course you may be getting ready to refute this, so lets cut that short:

Romans 9:27-33: Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha. What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Romans 9:6-8: Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Romans 10:19-21: But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

As you can see, Israel was never to get their land back.

[delsurf]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Read the Letter to the Hebrews in *context*. Try Heb 9:21 to Heb 9:28 - where it is explained how the blood sacrifice that had been the norm in the OT is discontinued because Christ bled for all of us. His blood cleansed everyone. The Mass is *symbolic* of Christ's sacrifice for us. It is not an actual sacrifice. That ended with Christ. The Catholic church is the only institution that has a legitimate and credible claim to be the one true Christian Church. They *are* the Christians. By the sound of it you don't quite understand what the Catholic Church is.

Reading and understanding the Bible and the NT is very important for all Christians so I recommend you do the same if you are a Christian. I assume you are. Verses were not written in a vacuum.

"The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. 'The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.' 'In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the sam Christ who offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner." (Roman Catholic Catechism, � 1387, emphasis in the original)

(Canon 1) "If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as a sign, figure or force, let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, 13th Session)

You better study your Catholicism. Because if you're a Catholic and don't believe it is truly the body and blood of Jesus, you are anathema according to their own documents.

[delsurf]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
Okay, you need to learn that you can't hold up evidence for just long enough for it to be debunked and then switch to a new angle. Very silly.

The prophecies are extremely generic, if they weren't the jews themselves would have known what they meant.

Oh good lord, I cannot believe that you actually buy into the whole jews getting back jerusalem thing. You poor poor idiot. I can understand why christians look for a link back to judaism for validation. The covenant with them was destroyed, God divorced himself from them. Of course you may be getting ready to refute this, so lets cut that short:

Romans 9:27-33: Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha. What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Romans 9:6-8: Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Romans 10:19-21: But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

As you can see, Israel was never to get their land back.

You need to realize I am only one person debating more than a few on here. I have to pick and choose my battles. I'd be more than happy to address every issue in due time. Furthermore, none of my evidence has been debunked.

Explain how you have free will through an evolutionary process? you don't!

Explain how love, truth and justice evolve. You can't. Since these things are non-physical they can't originate from a physical source.

How can a prophecy naming a specific name (Cyrus) as the leader of the army that would overthrow Babylon and let the Israelites go back into their land and build their temple... (Isaiah 44:28) be vague?

The 'covenant' was not broken. It was an everlasting covenant: "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." (Genesis 17:7)

The evolutionists are the ones holding up evidence just long enough to be disproven only to switch angles. The burden of proof is on you. You can't prove evolution. You can point to all the articles you want, but it's all your imagination. You can't demonstrate evolution.

Remember the BIG PROOF FOR EVOLUTION in National Geographic was fruit flies making more fruit flies. With access to so many "scientists", THIS is the best evidence National Geographic could produce??? Such is the case with every evolutionist.

No one has said anything about the Polystrate fossils that are standing straight up through many layers thought each to be a different "age".

[delsurf]

Originally posted by voodoo:
There was never supposed to be an Israel again like it has been made. :/

Zionism breaks the Three Strong Oaths.

Accuracy of Biblical Prophecy

1. Jerusalem would be destroyed
Examples: Daniel 9:26, Deuteronomy 28:49-52, Deuteronomy 29:23, Hosea 3:4-5, Leviticus 26:31-32, Luke 21:24, Micah 3:11-12.

2. The Jews would be exiled
Examples: Deuteronomy 4:25-30, Deuteronomy 28:36-37, Deuteronomy 28:65-67, Hosea 9:17.

3. Israel would become a wasteland
Examples: Deuteronomy 29:23, Ezekiel 36:33-35 (indirectly), Isaiah 51:3, Leviticus 26:31-32.

4. The Jews would be scattered worldwide
Examples: Deuteronomy 4:25-30, Deuteronomy 28:64, Deuteronomy 28:65-67, Genesis 28:10-15, Hosea 9:17.

5. The Jews would be persecuted worldwide
Examples: Deuteronomy 28:65-67, Deuteronomy 31:16-17, Leviticus 26:31-32, Zechariah 8:13.

6. The Jews would have a worldwide impact
Examples: Deuteronomy 28:64, Genesis 12:2-3, Genesis 15:5, Genesis 28:10-15, Genesis 35:9-12, Isaiah 27:6, Isaiah 42:1-9, Isaiah 49:6.

7. The Jews, and their identity as a group, would be preserved
Examples: Isaiah 66:22, Jeremiah 30:11, Jeremiah 31:10, Jeremiah 31:35-36, Jeremiah 32:36-37, Jeremiah 46:28, Leviticus 26:3-8, Leviticus 26:44, Zechariah 8:13.

8. The Jews would return to their ancient homeland
Examples: Amos 9:14-15, Deuteronomy 4:25-30, Deuteronomy 30:3-5, Ezekiel 20:34, Ezekiel 34:13, Ezekiel 36:24, Genesis 28:10-15, Isaiah 27:12-13, Isaiah 43:5-6, Jeremiah 23:3-6, Jeremiah 32:36-37, Jeremiah 32:37-41, Zechariah 8:7-8.

9. Enemies of the Jews would also reside in their homeland
Example: Leviticus 26:31-32.

10. The Jews would have Israel again as their own country, again
Examples: Amos 9:14-15, Ezekiel 4:3-6, Ezekiel 11:17, Ezekiel 36:24, Ezekiel 37:10-14, Ezekiel 37:15-19, Ezekiel 37:21-22, Genesis 15:18, Genesis 28:10-15, Genesis 35:9-12, Isaiah 66:7-8, Jeremiah 16:14-15, Jeremiah 32:44, Micah 7:8-11.

[Chris O'Brien]

Originally posted by delsurf:
You can't prove evolution. You can point to all the articles you want, but it's all your imagination. You can't demonstrate evolution.

Remember the BIG PROOF FOR EVOLUTION in National Geographic was fruit flies making more fruit flies. With access to so many "scientists", THIS is the best evidence National Geographic could produce??? Such is the case with every evolutionist.

I think you have little concept of the time taken for evolution to do it's thang. Actually read what Charles wrote with regard to the fruit flies, please. Just because the differences between the originals and the new aren't as drastic as between different species of ape, for example, does not mean speciation hasn't occurred. Now let the two different species migrate down there (possibly) seperate evolutionary paths for a few million years and you may well see huge differences. There are a lot of factors governing this - but remember the time taken.

The vast amount of time does mean it's difficult to completely prove the existance of evolution. A good innings for a human is what? 80 years? So for that reason, we could never sit down with a good book and casually observe small dog like creatures evolving into whales - the time taken is immense.

Yes, I know I am banging on about the time aspect, but that's because it's something you seem not to grasp.

It's seeming more and more likely that you are an existing forum member's alter ego and being deliberately obtuse (read fecking thick) in order to give yourself a bit of a chuckle.

[delsurf]

Originally posted by BRussell:
But isn't your position the subjective one? You say that each individual should read the Bible for themselves. But the pastor at my church has a doctorate in divinity, reads the original languages of the Bible, is ordained, etc. etc., and he absolutely disagrees with you that a Christian must deny evolution. Who is right, you or him? How can there be any objective truth if everyone just reads it on their own and decides for themselves? Isn't that post-modernism at its best?

You know what, even though you said that Catholics aren't Christian, I think you're Catholic without knowing it. They have a system of authority that stops exactly the kind of subjective interpretation that you criticize. If you want authority, clarity, and objectivity, Catholicism is your game.

But what you're doing is reading the Bible on your own, subjectively interpreting it, and then declaring your interpretation the objective truth. Isn't there a problem with that?

If you gave 5,000 people the Bible who had never heard anything about it or weren't brainwashed by evolution, all 5,000 people would tell you the author of the creation account intends to portray 6 literal days.

Shamefully, It's only recently that people have started compromising a perfectly good book that has never been proven wrong with a dumb theory that has never been proven right. Show me a Christian before the 16th century that believed the creation account meant to portray long periods of time.

James Barr, a professor of Hebrew, or was, at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University, he said,

"Probably so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew of Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writers of Genesis 1�11 intended to convey to their readers the idea that the creation took place in a series of six days, which were the same as the days of twenty-four hours we now experience. Or to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the days of creation to be long eras of time, the figure of years not to be not chronological, and the Flood to be merely a local, Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by such professors, as far as I know."

A stufy of the Hebrew language will also reveal that Genesis was written from a historical perspective rather than written as a poetic piece. This is evident by the subject-verb order in the sentences. In the Hebrew, if the verb comes before the subject, it is considered to be matter of fact, or literal. If the subject comes before the verb, it is considered to be poetic.

Genesis is written in the literal, matter of fact style. If you look at the Hebrew of Gen 1:1 you'll see it actually reads "In the beginning created God..."

[delsurf]

Originally posted by Black Book:
I think you have little concept of the time taken for evolution to do it's thang. Actually read what Charles wrote with regard to the fruit flies, please. Just because the differences between the originals and the new aren't as drastic as between different species of ape, for example, does not mean speciation hasn't occurred. Now let the two different species migrate down there (possibly) seperate evolutionary paths for a few million years and you may well see huge differences. There are a lot of factors governing this - but remember the time taken.

The vast amount of time does mean it's difficult to completely prove the existance of evolution. A good innings for a human is what? 80 years? So for that reason, we could never sit down with a good book and casually observe small dog like creatures evolving into whales - the time taken is immense.

Yes, I know I am banging on about the time aspect, but that's because it's something you seem not to grasp.

It's seeming more and more likely that you are an existing forum member's alter ego and being deliberately obtuse (read fecking thick) in order to give yourself a bit of a chuckle.

I don't argue variation or speciation. A fruit fly producing a fruit fly doesn't in any way prove everything evolved from a single cell billions of years ago. Or a whale crawling up onto land and becoming a cow.

Fairy tales tell us: frog + magic spell (usually a kiss) = prince

Evolutionists tell us: frog + time = prince

The same basic fairy tale (evolution) is being promoted in textbooks today, but the new magic potion cited is time. When the theory of evolution is discussed, time is the panacea for all the thousands of problems that arise.

The evolutionists' answer is nearly always "Given enough time..." Time is the evolutionists� god. Time is able to accomplish anything the evolutionists can propose. Time can easily turn a frog into a prince. Time can create matter from nothing and life from matter. According to evolutionists, time can create order from chaos.

But let�s remove time from the above equation. There would be the following three results:

Evolution becomes obviously impossible.

Evolutionists will scream like a baby whose pacifier has been pulled out because they know that if time is removed, their religion (evolution is religion, not science) is silly.

Creation becomes the only reasonable alternative explanation for the existence of this complex universe.

The probability is staggering.

100 trillion tries per second for 30 billion years would have to be repeated a trillion, trillion times, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times._ In other words, the pace of 100 trillion tries per second would have to continue for 31,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years, which is 60 trillion, trillion times the estimated age of the earth in order to get 50 out of the 250 enzymes for life to come together.

Remember, the "line of impossibility" set by scientists is 10 to the 55th. The number above is WAAAAAY over that mark.

You think a miracle of God is hard to believe? Try evolution.

[OAW]

Originally posted by BRussell:
You don't have to be a literalist to be a Christian.

Indeed.

OAW

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by delsurf:
You need to realize I am only one person debating more than a few on here. I have to pick and choose my battles. I'd be more than happy to address every issue in due time. Furthermore, none of my evidence has been debunked.

Explain how you have free will through an evolutionary process? you don't!

Explain how love, truth and justice evolve. You can't. Since these things are non-physical they can't originate from a physical source.

How can a prophecy naming a specific name (Cyrus) as the leader of the army that would overthrow Babylon and let the Israelites go back into their land and build their temple... (Isaiah 44:28)

The 'covenant' was not broken. It was an everlasting covenant: "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." (Genesis 17:7)

The evolutionists are the ones holding up evidence just long enough to be disproven only to switch angles. The burden of proof is on you. You can't prove evolution. You can point to all the articles you want, but it's all your imagination. You can't demonstrate evolution.

Remember the BIG PROOF FOR EVOLUTION in National Geographic was fruit flies making more fruit flies. With access to so many "scientists", THIS is the best evidence National Geographic could produce??? Such is the case with every evolutionist.

No one has said anything about the Polystrate fossils that are standing straight up through many layers thought each to be a different "age".

Understandable. I often argue for christianity here and the few people who are knowledgeable enough to help out rarely do. Try to be a bit more professional. Don't spread yourself so thin, it gives you no credibility.

Really? Evolution isn't a religion. It is just an attempt to explain how life got to where it is. It cannot say why and it cannot tell you what you can and cannot do. Laws and theories are not palpable things, they're built up explanations of natural processes.

Again, I call bull. Love, truth and justice are not "things". Love is a physical emotion, governed by chemicals. Truth is a word, a definition, nothing more. Justice is a man-made idea(l).

Do you know exactly when that was written? If so then I have no way to refute that, and no explanation.

"Hebrews 8-13: In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Just because the covenant was everlasting does not mean it couldn't be broken. Moreover there is a new covenant, a perfect one.

I am not trying to prove evolution. I am not going to attempt to refute evidences that have been chucked back and forth for decades, denied by some upheld by others, and to this day the argument still goes on. Evolution against Creationism, Religion against Science, Man against God. It is pure silliness. Evolutionists will never admit that it is an unprovable theory and that there is as much evidence that the Muffin Man created the universe. Creationists will never admit that they don't even belong in such arguments since they haven't a lick of proof, and that they do not need any. Do you really think it matters if the world was created in 6 days or 20 minutes? Is that what faith is about? Semantics and hidden, vague meaning? Do you think it matters that any people don't believe evolution? Is it worth sacrificing other people's freedoms so that they HAVE to believe you because you don't have enough evidence to convince them? Has it occurred to anyone here that this is all completely pointless? I stand corrected: all the intelligent folks who didn't bother with this thread.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by delsurf:
I don't argue variation or speciation. A fruit fly producing a fruit fly doesn't in any way prove everything evolved from a single cell billions of years ago. Or a whale crawling up onto land and becoming a cow.

The fact that species change over time is manifest. Even creationists admit it. What creationists usually claim is that there's some magical barrier between species, and that species can't change into other species. The fruit fly examples show that this is not the case. So, you have the possibility of change (which you admit) and the ability to create new species (whether you admit it or not). That is evolution. The changes may not be as drastic as you want, but you know why? Those take millions of years.

But I'll tell you what. Discover the secret of immortality, so that we can stick around for a few million years, and then we can have some biologists bring about some of the changes of the sort you want in the lab.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by delsurf:
If you gave 5,000 people the Bible who had never heard anything about it or weren't brainwashed by evolution, all 5,000 people would tell you the author of the creation account intends to portray 6 literal days.

Shamefully, It's only recently that people have started compromising a perfectly good book that has never been proven wrong with a dumb theory that has never been proven right. Show me a Christian before the 16th century that believed the creation account meant to portray long periods of time.

James Barr, a professor of Hebrew, or was, at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University, he said,

"Probably so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew of Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writers of Genesis 1�11 intended to convey to their readers the idea that the creation took place in a series of six days, which were the same as the days of twenty-four hours we now experience. Or to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the days of creation to be long eras of time, the figure of years not to be not chronological, and the Flood to be merely a local, Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by such professors, as far as I know."

A stufy of the Hebrew language will also reveal that Genesis was written from a historical perspective rather than written as a poetic piece. This is evident by the subject-verb order in the sentences. In the Hebrew, if the verb comes before the subject, it is considered to be matter of fact, or literal. If the subject comes before the verb, it is considered to be poetic.

Genesis is written in the literal, matter of fact style. If you look at the Hebrew of Gen 1:1 you'll see it actually reads "In the beginning created God..."

They would also believe revelation was literal. The bible was meant to be taught to those who didn't understand by those who did.

Only recently? Come on. You start off by saying people have been brainwashed by evolution then you use the word of someone brainwashed by judaism all their life to prove your stance? Time is not linear. Days could have been ANY length.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by delsurf:
I don't argue variation or speciation. A fruit fly producing a fruit fly doesn't in any way prove everything evolved from a single cell billions of years ago. Or a whale crawling up onto land and becoming a cow.

Fairy tales tell us: frog + magic spell (usually a kiss) = prince

Evolutionists tell us: frog + time = prince

The same basic fairy tale (evolution) is being promoted in textbooks today, but the new magic potion cited is time. When the theory of evolution is discussed, time is the panacea for all the thousands of problems that arise.

The evolutionists' answer is nearly always "Given enough time..." Time is the evolutionists� god. Time is able to accomplish anything the evolutionists can propose. Time can easily turn a frog into a prince. Time can create matter from nothing and life from matter. According to evolutionists, time can create order from chaos.

But let�s remove time from the above equation. There would be the following three results:

Evolution becomes obviously impossible.

Evolutionists will scream like a baby whose pacifier has been pulled out because they know that if time is removed, their religion (evolution is religion, not science) is silly.

Creation becomes the only reasonable alternative explanation for the existence of this complex universe.

The probability is staggering.

100 trillion tries per second for 30 billion years would have to be repeated a trillion, trillion times, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times._ In other words, the pace of 100 trillion tries per second would have to continue for 31,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years, which is 60 trillion, trillion times the estimated age of the earth in order to get 50 out of the 250 enzymes for life to come together.

Remember, the "line of impossibility" set by scientists is 10 to the 55th. The number above is WAAAAAY over that mark.

You think a miracle of God is hard to believe? Try evolution.

Playing with numbers is fun, ain't it? There is just so much tripe here I think I'd vomit if I tried to refute it. Keep this in mind though: evolution being wrong doesn't make creationism right.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
Evolutionists will never admit that it is an unprovable theory and that there is as much evidence that the Muffin Man created the universe.

Well, Hitler was certainly right - if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it as fact. The repetition of the above statement over and over and over and over and over by the creationists apparently tends to increase its plausibility in the eyes of some people. But my God, you can JUST LOOK IT UP. The evidence is out there, and all you need to do is pick up a book and read it. Seriously. I posted some links which constitute a very small part of the evidence, but even they alone are convincing. It exasperates me how creationists can keep screaming that "There's No Evidence!" when the evidence is all around us and all you have to do is to be literate. Similarly, you can look up the definition of "theory" in the scientific sense and find out what it actually means. It's not hard. Good God, people!

[Chris O'Brien]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
Has it occurred to anyone here that this is all completely pointless? I stand corrected: all the intelligent folks who didn't bother with this thread.

I wouldn't say it was pointless. I am well aware that it makes not one bit of difference to me what this guy believes. However, I'm finding this debate rather insightful. I had no idea there were people out there who took the stance that delsurf does.

Plus - it hasn't degenerated into a bicker-fest (yet) so where's the harm?

[delsurf]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Well, Hitler was certainly right - if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it as fact. The repetition of the above statement over and over and over and over and over by the creationists apparently tends to increase its plausibility in the eyes of some people. But my God, you can JUST LOOK IT UP. The evidence is out there, and all you need to do is pick up a book and read it. Seriously. I posted some links which constitute a very small part of the evidence, but even they alone are convincing. It exasperates me how creationists can keep screaming that "There's No Evidence!" when the evidence is all around us and all you have to do is to be literate. Similarly, you can look up the definition of "theory" in the scientific sense and find out what it actually means. It's not hard. Good God, people!

According to your reasoning, Hitler wasn't doing anything wrong, when he was murdering all those people. He was just speeding up the process of evolution, right? Why would it be wrong if someone did that very same thing today? They would just be taking part in the evolutionary process in pursuit of a better species. Are you saying that murder is just part of the evolutionary process?

[delsurf]

Originally posted by Black Book:
I wouldn't say it was pointless. I am well aware that it makes not one bit of difference to me what this guy believes. However, I'm finding this debate rather insightful. I had no idea there were people out there who took the stance that delsurf does.

Plus - it hasn't degenerated into a bicker-fest (yet) so where's the harm?

I agree, and respect you all for not letting it get to that. I too am learning more about what evolutionists believe.

Some are wanting to lock the post... why? It's not harming anyone... just ignore it if you don't like it.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by delsurf:

10. The Jews would have Israel again as their own country, again
Examples: Amos 9:14-15, Ezekiel 4:3-6, Ezekiel 11:17, Ezekiel 36:24, Ezekiel 37:10-14, Ezekiel 37:15-19, Ezekiel 37:21-22, Genesis 15:18, Genesis 28:10-15, Genesis 35:9-12, Isaiah 66:7-8, Jeremiah 16:14-15, Jeremiah 32:44, Micah 7:8-11.

9. Enemies of the Jews would also reside in their homeland
Example: Leviticus 26:31-32.

Nothing bugs me more than people manipulating books to mean what they want. The Jews were never meant to have it back after the Romans pulverized it. Most of the verses you quote aren't even prophecy in the first place. You're stretching them so thin I can see your face. The sad part is some of them ARE prophecy that was fulfilled. Key word: fulfilled.

[delsurf]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
Understandable. I often argue for christianity here and the few people who are knowledgeable enough to help out rarely do. Try to be a bit more professional. Don't spread yourself so thin, it gives you no credibility.

Really? Evolution isn't a religion. It is just an attempt to explain how life got to where it is. It cannot say why and it cannot tell you what you can and cannot do. Laws and theories are not palpable things, they're built up explanations of natural processes.

Again, I call bull. Love, truth and justice are not "things". Love is a physical emotion, governed by chemicals. Truth is a word, a definition, nothing more. Justice is a man-made idea(l).

Do you know exactly when that was written? If so then I have no way to refute that, and no explanation.

"Hebrews 8-13: In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Just because the covenant was everlasting does not mean it couldn't be broken. Moreover there is a new covenant, a perfect one.

I am not trying to prove evolution. I am not going to attempt to refute evidences that have been chucked back and forth for decades, denied by some upheld by others, and to this day the argument still goes on. Evolution against Creationism, Religion against Science, Man against God. It is pure silliness. Evolutionists will never admit that it is an unprovable theory and that there is as much evidence that the Muffin Man created the universe. Creationists will never admit that they don't even belong in such arguments since they haven't a lick of proof, and that they do not need any. Do you really think it matters if the world was created in 6 days or 20 minutes? Is that what faith is about? Semantics and hidden, vague meaning? Do you think it matters that any people don't believe evolution? Is it worth sacrificing other people's freedoms so that they HAVE to believe you because you don't have enough evidence to convince them? Has it occurred to anyone here that this is all completely pointless? I stand corrected: all the intelligent folks who didn't bother with this thread.

Not religion? from Miriam-Webster:

Religion:
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Religious:
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS

Sounds like a religion to me...

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by delsurf:
According to your reasoning, Hitler wasn't doing anything wrong, when he was murdering all those people. He was just speeding up the process of evolution, right? Why would it be wrong if someone did that very same thing today? They would just be taking part in the evolutionary process in pursuit of a better species. Are you saying that murder is just part of the evolutionary process?

No, I'm just pointing out a quote of his which is unfortunately apparently true. I'm not comparing anyone or anything to Nazi Germany.

[delsurf]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
Nothing bugs me more than people manipulating books to mean what they want. The Jews were never meant to have it back after the Romans pulverized it. Most of the verses you quote aren't even prophecy in the first place. You're stretching them so thin I can see your face. The sad part is some of them ARE prophecy that was fulfilled. Key word: fulfilled.

Please show me exactly where I'm wrong.

"And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God." Amos 9:14-15

If you say that this prophecy was already fulfilled back in the Old Testament, then God was lying. The Jews were pulled up out of their land when the Temple was detroyed in 70 A.D.

[delsurf]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
No, I'm just pointing out a quote of his which is unfortunately apparently true. I'm not comparing anyone or anything to Nazi Germany.

So what do you think about murder? Is it wrong? How do we decide right and wrong if evolution is true? I would think that murder is just a carnal instinct designed by evolution to make sure you are the fittest and survive.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by delsurf:
Please show me exactly where I'm wrong.

"And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God." Amos 9:14-15

If you say that this prophecy was already fulfilled back in the Old Testament, then God was lying. The Jews were pulled up out of their land when the Temple was detroyed in 70 A.D.

It is referring to the time when they got their land back via cyrus, as they were never again taken from their land. Not the territory which they currently occupy, which they were not taken away from by the romans. This is brutally obvious, and proven by the timeline.

You will also remember that a remnant was lost. An interesting topic in and of itself to say the least.

[nredman]

this thread makes my head hurt

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by delsurf:
So what do you think about murder? Is it wrong? How do we decide right and wrong if evolution is true? I would think that murder is just a carnal instinct designed by evolution to make sure you are the fittest and survive.

How do you feel about slavery? I bet you're against it. Seems God was cool with it. Heck, there is an example of a christian slave AND OWNER in the new testament.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by delsurf:
If you gave 5,000 people the Bible who had never heard anything about it or weren't brainwashed by evolution, all 5,000 people would tell you the author of the creation account intends to portray 6 literal days.

Maybe. But more realistically, I think people would say "nice story, where's the evidence?" If we're talking about a shaman/priest/prophet giving this story to primitive people, they might buy it. But if you're talking about telling this story to modern folks - just not familiar with evolution - I don't think they'd believe that it was literally true without question.

To put it another way, let me reverse it on you: If you weren't familiar with Christianity, and someone read you the Genesis creation account, would you automatically believe that it's true? Or would you be skeptical, especially knowing that all cultures have their creation myths?

On the other hand, 45% of the American public believes it, so what do I know?

Shamefully, It's only recently that people have started compromising a perfectly good book that has never been proven wrong with a dumb theory that has never been proven right. Show me a Christian before the 16th century that believed the creation account meant to portray long periods of time.

Biblical literalism is a very recent, and very American, phenomenon. It would never have occurred to your average pre-16th century Christian to interpret the Bible for themselves as you're doing today. Well, maybe a few, like Martin Luther. But AFAIK he wasn't a literalist in the 20th century American sense. And no one even had their own Bibles at that time - the printing press was just being invented - so it's hard to compare it to modern times.

[olePigeon]

Religion was designed to keep the rich in power and the poor ignorant. It's that simple.

[delsurf]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
It is referring to the time when they got their land back via cyrus, as they were never again taken from their land. Not the territory which they currently occupy, which they were not taken away from by the romans. This is brutally obvious, and proven by the timeline.

You will also remember that a remnant was lost. An interesting topic in and of itself to say the least.

The worldwide scattering of Jews began when the Romans exiled them from Jerusalem and the surrounding area between 70 AD and 135 AD. Jews moved into Europe and the Middle East. But, intense persecutions during the past 19 centuries drove many to move as far south as South Africa, as far east as China, and as far west as Chile and California. During the past two centuries, many Jews worldwide returned to their ancient homeland and re-established sovereignty for Israel. Even today, a majority of Jews live outside of Israel.

Jeremiah 29:18 - "And I will persecute them with the sword, with the famine, and with the pestilence, and will deliver them to be removed to all the kingdoms of the earth, to be a curse, and an astonishment, and an hissing, and a reproach, among all the nations whither I have driven them:"

Notice it says all kingdoms of the earth and all nations. Babylon was just one kingdom and one nation on the earth.

[delsurf]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Maybe. But more realistically, I think people would say "nice story, where's the evidence?" If we're talking about a shaman/priest/prophet giving this story to primitive people, they might buy it. But if you're talking about telling this story to modern folks - just not familiar with evolution - I don't think they'd believe that it was literally true without question.

To put it another way, let me reverse it on you: If you weren't familiar with Christianity, and someone read you the Genesis creation account, would you automatically believe that it's true? Or would you be skeptical, especially knowing that all cultures have their creation myths?

On the other hand, 45% of the American public believes it, so what do I know?

Biblical literalism is a very recent, and very American, phenomenon. It would never have occurred to your average pre-16th century Christian to interpret the Bible for themselves as you're doing today. Well, maybe a few, like Martin Luther. But AFAIK he wasn't a literalist in the 20th century American sense. And no one even had their own Bibles at that time - the printing press was just being invented - so it's hard to compare it to modern times.

The point wasn't about whether the story was true, it was about what the author intended to convey. By a simple reading of Genesis 1, one would conclude the other intended to convey that the world was created in six literal days... That was my point. As for evidence, I've given plenty.

[OAW]

CharlesS,

This is really getting pointless and considering how this thread has degenerated into a battle about Biblical interpretation I'm going to just casually observe and see if things get back on track. In the meantime I will respond to one of your statements since you seem to be particularly averse to actually answering the questions I've posed to you. Your standard reply seems to be ..."

Originally posted by CharlesS:


RTFA.

You went on to say ...

Originally posted by CharlesS:

I'm beginning to think Stevie Wonder would do a much better job reading that article than you. You'd better have a reason for insisting all the examples are sterile, especially since most of them say outright that they were fertile with themselves, although not always with the parent species.

First .... I never used the term "all". For you to state that now is just plain disingenuous. Second, you keep saying to RTFA well I suggest you do the same. Back on page 2 IIRC I posted some comments that dealt with an entire section of examples from the article. Remember that term "Polyploidization" that I highlighted? Remember when I even gave the definition to the term? I didn't do that out of an assumption that you didn't know it but because it is a very uncommon term that many of the readers and/or participants in this thread many not be familiar with. This debate is about the evidence supporting the theory of evolution in general but it has consisted of various points made by the both of us on different aspects of the issue or observations of the evidence. I fear some of the statements made regarding one particular point are being read in the context of different point or "sub-discussion". In particular, when I stated that the article mentioned that most of the new species couldn't reproduce I meant that in the context of that particular section about plants that you had initially quoted. I wasn't specific in my statement ... I just assumed the context would be clear based upon the "back and forth" of the discussion. And it was actually directed at Mrtew, so I can see how you interpreted my meaning to be more general that how it was intended. For that, I will say my bad.

Having said all that, I think you are not seeing my overall point on this. It's not that I don't think evolution in a "macro" sense is true or not. All I said, as evidenced by my initial post, is that we don't know that for a fact yet. I'll re-quote a recent post of mine that answered one of your questions to me:

What I'm trying to say is that the evidence of a particular species changing into a completely different species is scant at best. So there are some fruit flies that change into a different kind of fruit fly as a result of artificial conditions created in a laboratory or otherwise. The new fruit flies in some cases can't interbreed with the old fruit flies. Ok fine. But when you get done talking it is still a fruit fly. To make the leap based upon that evidence that the fruit fly will eventually sprout longer legs, stand up straight, grow a bigger brain, and become a sentient life form is a bit over the top. It could very well be that evolution in the sense of one species changing into a completely different kind of species over time is true. If so, that's cool. But let's not get overly excited here. There is no evidence of that as of yet. especially when the article you cite is full of sterile "dead ends" and mutations that result in nothing more than a different "flavor" of the original organism. Let's be real here. You are making a "leap of faith" so to speak to think that such changes over time will result in completely different kinds of organisms. Perhaps you are right. Then again, perhaps not.

What I mean when I say "completely different species" is a fruit fly that changes into something other than a different kind of fruit fly. I think you may have interpreted that to mean that I was disputing that speciation had occurred at all. That's the problem with this sort of topic. Semantics can make positions seem more at odds than they actually are. We have no direct evidence of this happening to my knowledge, and we only have limited evidence of speciation that involves a different "flavor" of the original organism. Given the millions of species on this planet I think it requires a bit more than a few examples involving fruit flies and a few plants to conclude that evolution in a macro sense is a fact. Or at least it should. That's all I'm saying.

There was a time when the leading researchers on black holes swore up and down that everything that falls into one was destroyed, but that theory has recently been .. .uh "updated".

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996151

The same thing could very easily happen with the theory of evolution. Especially when we consider the scope of what we don't know when it comes to DNA, genes, proteins, and physiology in general. And on that note, it's been nice debating this topic with you.

OAW

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by delsurf:
So what do you think about murder? Is it wrong? How do we decide right and wrong if evolution is true? I would think that murder is just a carnal instinct designed by evolution to make sure you are the fittest and survive.

Sigh...

If you THINK about what you are saying before you say it, the answer becomes obvious. You see, if it is possible for me to murder you with no consequences, then it is also possible for olePigeon or BRussell to murder me with no consequences. Therefore, it greatly enhances my chances for survival if I get together with you, olePigeon, and BRussell, and work out an agreement where we all agree not to murder each other, or do other things that make each other's survival difficult (such as stealing each other's food). As an additional benefit, the cooperation caused by such a peace agreement causes us to work together for the good of our group, causing us to perhaps discover technological advances which give us an edge against other species which may be stronger than us. Also, our group will be easier to unite against other hostile tribes than we would be if we were always fighting each other. Combined, these advantages will give our tribe an edge over lawless tribes, causing societies with laws to dominate due to the survival of the fittest. Also, due to technological advantages caused by cooperation, the human species rises to the top of the food chain, even though we are weaker than many other animals that we would normally not stand a chance against.

Ta da, you have laws and a moral code. All for the benefit of the survival of the fittest.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by delsurf:
The worldwide scattering of Jews began when the Romans exiled them from Jerusalem and the surrounding area between 70 AD and 135 AD. Jews moved into Europe and the Middle East. But, intense persecutions during the past 19 centuries drove many to move as far south as South Africa, as far east as China, and as far west as Chile and California. During the past two centuries, many Jews worldwide returned to their ancient homeland and re-established sovereignty for Israel. Even today, a majority of Jews live outside of Israel.

Jeremiah 29:18 - "And I will persecute them with the sword, with the famine, and with the pestilence, and will deliver them to be removed to all the kingdoms of the earth, to be a curse, and an astonishment, and an hissing, and a reproach, among all the nations whither I have driven them:"

Notice it says all kingdoms of the earth and all nations. Babylon was just one kingdom and one nation on the earth.

No, actually it didn't. A large number of jews remained outside of jerusalem (I don't remember the house) and never made it back. We have records of them, they were permitted to exist primarily as a border-nation and were accounted as fierce warriors. At some point they spread out and we hear no more of them, and thus the prophecy to abraham is fulfilled. The jews after the roman conquest did very little and did not spread for some time.

You are aware that babylon wasn't the only nation in the world? You can't take prophecy that has already been fulfilled and play games with it. They WERE driven throughout the nations of the earth. They WERE a thorn in the side of them. Keep in mind the covenant ended BEFORE the romans squished them, so all that was already fulfilled.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by OAW:
This is really getting pointless and considering how this thread has degenerated into a battle about the Biblical interpretation I'm going to just casually observe and see if things get back on track. In the meantime I will respond to one of your statements since you seem to be particularly averse to actually answering the questions I've posed to you. Your standard reply seems to be ..."

No, it's just that I'm sick of 1) having to answer questions I've already answered, 2) having to answer questions that are explained perfectly well by the link I posted, and 3) having to do your research for you. I'm not your freaking biology professor.

First .... I never used the term "all". For you to state that now is just plain disingenuous. Second, you keep saying to RTFA well I suggest you do the same. Back on page 2 IIRC I posted some comments that dealt with an entire section of examples from the article. Remember that term "Polyploidization" that I highlighted? Remember when I even gave the definition to the term? I didn't do that out of an assumption that you didn't know it but because it is a very uncommon term that many of the readers and/or participants in this thread many not be familiar with. This debate is about the evidence supporting the theory of evolution in general but it has consisted of various points made by the both of us on different aspects of the issue or observations of the evidence. I fear some of the statements made regarding one particular point are being read in the context of different point or "sub-discussion". In particular, when I stated that the article mentioned that most of the new species couldn't reproduce I meant that in the context of that particular section about plants that you had initially quoted. I wasn't specific in my statement ... I just assumed the context would be clear based upon the "back and forth" of the discussion. And it was actually directed at Mrtew, so I can see how you interpreted my meaning to be more general that how it was intended. For that, I will say my bad.

Here's what you said:

Originally posted by OAW:
So let me get this straight. You are a proponent of a theory that I have challenged certain aspects of. As is proper, the burden of proof is upon the one who makes the assertion and you cite a couple of articles. The main one you cited consisting of new "species" that even Stevie Wonder can see are evolutionary dead ends because they are sterile! And I'm an "ass" for simply pointing out what your sources actually say.

You said this in a reply to me, not mrtew. Also, it's pretty obvious that you are trying to claim that the species in the article are all sterile, as in your own words you say that it is "consisting of new species that... are evolutionary dead ends because they are sterile." It is extremely disingenuous for you to backpedal now and say that you said something different from what you actually said.

As for your polyploidization argument, let's do a search through the article and see how many times the word appears:

5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)


Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.

5.1.1.3 Tragopogon


Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.

The first example specifically mentions that the offspring were fertile (how about that!). The second example doesn't say one way or another. Either way, these are both two examples out of twenty-nine. Nice attempt to discredit the whole article based on two examples, there.

Having said all that, I think you are not seeing my overall point on this. It's not that I don't think evolution in a "macro" sense is true or not. All I said, as evidenced by my initial post, is that we don't know that for a fact yet. I'll re-quote a recent post of mine that answered one of your questions to me:



What I mean when I say "completely different species" is a fruit fly that changes into something other than a different kind of fruit fly. I think you may have interpreted that to mean that I was disputing that speciation had occurred at all. That's the problem with this sort of topic. Semantics can make positions seem more at odds than they actually are. We have no direct evidence of this happening to my knowledge, and we only have limited evidence of speciation that involves a different "flavor" of the original organism. Given the millions of species on this planet I think it requires a bit more than a few examples involving fruit flies and a few plants to conclude that evolution in a macro sense is a fact. Or at least it should. That's all I'm saying.

And again, I will point out the blatant fallacy you keep on using in which you claim that the tiny fraction of the evidence which has been posted in this thread is the sum total of all evidence that exists. It absolutely is not, and I posted what I posted here to give you a little taste of what is out there, and to show you the idiocy of trying to claim that speciation is not possible. If you want the complete body of evidence, you are going to have to do your own research and look it up yourself. I can't do it and post it here, because:

1. It would take a tremendous amount of time, which I cannot afford to spend just to satisfy you.

2. It would make the length of this thread spectacularly long.

3. You would probably never read it anyway, because you seem to care very little about evidence and seem to lack the level of reading comprehension needed to understand it.

So you won't be satisfied simply by seeing a new species, but by seeing a new species that is "different enough" in your own view. Never mind that it takes a very long time to do such a thing. And if it did happen instaneously by some weird impossible occurrence, you know that you'd just extend your definition of what was "different enough" to make it not fit anymore. But if you only believe in things you can see firsthand, and reject anything you can't witness with your own two eyes, then you also have to reject:

1. Gravity (You haven't seen anything get gravitationally attracted to anything besides the Earth)

2. The sun at the center of the solar system (it is? Sure looks like the sun goes around the earth when I look up in the sky!)

3. Atoms (you haven't seen them)

4. Electrons and electricity (see #3 - how do you know it isn't just God that makes your computers go, and this whole "electricity" thing isn't just a vast conspiracy to steal the glory of God? Or something?)

5. Relativity (You've never witnessed the effects of time diliation)

6. Quantum mechanics (And you've never witnessed an object quantum tunneling through another!)

You see, science isn't just about seeing things and writing them down. Any child can do that. Science is about gathering evidence and being able to connect the dots.

There was a time when the leading researchers on black holes swore up and down that everything that falls into one was destroyed, but that theory has recently been .. .uh "updated".

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996151

Yes, because THAT'S THE WAY SCIENCE WORKS. You see, UNLIKEreligion, science does not have dogmas and absolutes that cannot be changed. It is possible that gravity could be overturned and replaced with something else... but it is so unlikely, given the evidence for it, that it is a near certainty that it will never happen. The same goes for evolution. To think that relatively recent ideas like Stephen Hawking's which are at the cutting edge of astronomy are on the same ground as a theory which has been around and gathering evidence for over a century is just ludicrous.

And on that note, it's been nice debating this topic with you.

You forgot the quote marks around "debating."

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Sigh...

If you THINK about what you are saying before you say it, the answer becomes obvious. You see, if it is possible for me to murder you with no consequences, then it is also possible for olePigeon or BRussell to murder me with no consequences. Therefore, it greatly enhances my chances for survival if I get together with you, olePigeon, and BRussell, and work out an agreement where we all agree not to murder each other, or do other things that make each other's survival difficult (such as stealing each other's food).

I resent that remark. I only murder people alone.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
I resent that remark. I only murder people alone.

At the time I started that post, delsurf, BRussell, and you were the last three people who had posted in the thread. Of course, OAW managed to post while I was working on my post, so the example got somewhat messed up. Sorry for the confusion.

I could edit it if you'd like.

Anyway, the idea was that no one murders anyone else, because we form a tribe and make some basic laws against murder, theft, etc. in order to raise everyone's odds for survival.

[mrtew]

Originally posted by Ozmodiar:
You clearly don't understand any of the science behind the theories of evolution or the Big Bang, and all you do is copy what people say on Christian message boards and post them here. And, like I said above, for every little figure you throw at me I can throw a contradictory one back at you: And the rest

Thanks for posting that!

[delsurf]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
At the time I started that post, delsurf, BRussell, and you were the last three people who had posted in the thread. Of course, OAW managed to post while I was working on my post, so the example got somewhat messed up. Sorry for the confusion.

I could edit it if you'd like.

Anyway, the idea was that no one murders anyone else, because we form a tribe and make some basic laws against murder, theft, etc. in order to raise everyone's odds for survival.

You're not seeing the point. You don't make anything. You don't decide anything. You are a prisoner of your brains synapses firing randomly causing one to make laws, love, hate, preserve, murder, etc.

You have no choice, you have no free will.

You are the string puppet of the evolutionary system.

[mrtew]

Originally posted by delsurf:
You're not seeing the point. You don't make anything. You don't decide anything. You are a prisoner of your brains synapses firing randomly causing one to make laws, love, hate, preserve, murder, etc.
You have no choice, you have no free will.
You are the string puppet of the evolutionary system.

Weird... that's kindof how I always thought that people who believed in God must be... always trying to please their imaginary creator/ruler. I think that you 'creations' are the ones that are more likely to be victims of your making and us 'animals' are the ones that can independently live our lives according to our own thoughts and beliefs and experiences etc. We are the result of a natural process where the best and most effective life forms continue to live another day and you are the string puppets of some religious system.

Come to think of it I think that almost every argument you've made over all these pages is just a normal rational scientific argument flipped on it's head. I'm starting to think you are not even arguing your beliefs but just playing devil's advocate or more commonly known on forums as the roll of the troll. How long before you insist that black is white, up is down, and dog is cat?

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by mrtew:
Weird... that's kindof how I always thought that people who believed in God must be... always trying to please their imaginary creator/ruler. I think that you 'creations' are the ones that are more likely to be victims of your making and us 'animals' are the ones that can independently live our lives according to our own thoughts and beliefs and experiences etc. We are the result of a natural process where the best and most effective life forms continue to live another day and you are the string puppets of some religious system.

Come to think of it I think that almost every argument you've made over all these pages is just a normal rational scientific argument flipped on it's head. I'm starting to think you are not even arguing your beliefs but just playing devil's advocate or more commonly known on forums as the roll of the troll. How long before you insist that black is white, up is down, and dog is cat?

You know what... I think you're probably right. With the sheer volume of posts he's made in this thread, he's gotta be a troll.

Plus, I just did a search for his posts, and it's looking like he registered just to post in this thread. And since he came, he hasn't posted in any threads other than this one.

[delsurf]

Originally posted by mrtew:
Weird... that's kindof how I always thought that people who believed in God must be... always trying to please their imaginary creator/ruler. I think that you 'creations' are the ones that are more likely to be victims of your making and us 'animals' are the ones that can independently live our lives according to our own thoughts and beliefs and experiences etc. We are the result of a natural process where the best and most effective life forms continue to live another day and you are the string puppets of some religious system.

Come to think of it I think that almost every argument you've made over all these pages is just a normal rational scientific argument flipped on it's head. I'm starting to think you are not even arguing your beliefs but just playing devil's advocate or more commonly known on forums as the roll of the troll. How long before you insist that black is white, up is down, and dog is cat?

And life coming spontaneously generating from non-life is a rational argument?
Evolutionists' arguments are deeply flawed and have no evidence to back them up.

The fact is I have a choice to believe in God and obey his rules or not to. I choose to please my creator because of the promises I believe he made.

According to evolution, humans have no choice. But, since you can not refute that, you resort to bashing my beliefs and calling me a troll rather than coming up with a reasonable explanation for how free will evolved. Fact is, there is no reasonable explanation, because free will can NOT evolve. And you know it.

[delsurf]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
You know what... I think you're probably right. With the sheer volume of posts he's made in this thread, he's gotta be a troll.

Plus, I just did a search for his posts, and it's looking like he registered just to post in this thread. And since he came, he hasn't posted in any threads other than this one.

You are correct. I have been reading MacNN for years, but have never had a reason to post. Never needed help with my Mac, so what's the use in registering. I have read several of the Mac threads a while back and actually one night a few months ago, I saw a thread on creation/evol. I read through the whole thing but didn't really want to get involved since it was already about 8-9 pages. I was kinda late to the game. I think I saw another thread on it back when some guy said he broke up with his girlfriend over the issue.... still didn't feel the need to post. For some reason, I decided to jump in on this one.

Call me a troll if you want, I just felt like having a good discussion on the topic to maybe learn something about what evolutionists believe.

I've learned that since they can't back up their religion they cling so desperately to with any real evidence, they resort to name calling. Intelligent.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by delsurf:
I've learned that since they can't back up their religion they cling so desperately to with any real evidence, they resort to name calling. Intelligent.

Yep, definitely a troll. There's been plenty of evidence posted in this thread, and much more you could just look up, but you creationists tend to just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

Well, that's it. I'm outta here.