The Historical Jesus is real and He rose from the grave

[Minimalist]

Over 80% of Americans believe there is a God.

84% of Americans can't find fucking Ukraine on a map. The stupidity of Americans is approaching legendary proportions.

[Bad Writer]

90% of 1st world citizens think they sing better in the shower. Rev, does this statistic game you started have a point?

[Revelation777]

You obviously are not familiar with the fossilrecord

Seriously? Where did you get that, Answers in Genesis, Harun Yahya?

Try here, or here, or here, ...

Nice pictures, but consider this:
The Physiology Problem

A number of land animals have been proposed as the whale's ancestor, including Darwin's bear, grazing ungulates, wolf-like carnivores (Mesonyx), and the hippopotamus. In each case the morphological differences are significant. If whales (cetaceans) did evolve from land mammals, they did so at an unbelievable rate, accruing an amazing number of "beneficial" mutations and adaptations.

The skeletal features would need to change radically, as well as the physiology (the collective functions of an organism). For example, the supposed early "whale," Ambulocetus, drank fresh water probably throughout its life "50 million years ago," and Indocetus was a saltwater drinker "48 million years ago." This means that in perhaps three million years there had to be an extreme change in the physiology of these creatures.6

These "proto-whales" would have had to mutate in a beneficial manner to produce the above physiological adaptations. However, science shows that organisms don't survive a rapid rate of mutation. Additionally, a popular encyclopedia recently stated: "Presumably, various physiological mechanisms for handling oxygen debt and lactic acid buildup, as well as the development of blubber for fat storage and for temperature regulation, evolved early, though evidence of the evolutionary history is unavailable."7

Less obvious essential design features would ensure the cetaceans against hypothermia. Mammals are warmblooded creatures designed by the Creator to function at a constant body temperature higher than fish, reptiles, or amphibians.

Maintaining a core body temperature while being bathed in an ocean of cold water would be a definite problem for the cetaceans. However, whale fins have fascinating biological structures called countercurrent heat exchangers to conserve heat. Also, zoologists have recently discovered exchangers located at the base of the massive tongue of grey whales.8 These exchangers are a series of blood vessels arranged so that they too function as heat exchangers to minimize heat loss. The grey whale would otherwise lose much body heat through the tongue's extensive vascularization.

Macroevolutionists cannot appeal to natural selection to produce amazing structures like the countercurrent system, although comparative physiologists present countercurrent exchange found in gills and kidneys as structures that repeatedly evolved. Indeed, no known process can turn a four-legged land creature into a blue whale: "Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs."9 Specifically, natural selection cannot produce new structures as is often stated in evolutionary just-so stories; it can only preserve the best-adapted varieties which occur by other means.

Problems from Head to Tail

Gould10 proclaims the long and slim Basilosaurus as ". . . the 'standard' and best-known early whale." However, evolutionist Barbara J. Stahl states: "The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [i.e., Basilosaurus and related creatures] could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales."11 Today there are two major groups of cetaceans: the baleen whales, called the mysticeti with double blowholes; and the toothed whales, odontoceti with a single blowhole. Stahl presents irritating morphological facts such as: ". . . the structure of the skull in the odontocete and mysticete forms shows a strange modification not present, even in a rudimentary way, in Basilosaurus and its smaller relatives. . . ." She also describes sperm whales (odontocete) which have an asymmetric arrangement of bones that roof the skull, while mysticeans have a symmetrical arrangement.

None of the suggested whale's terrestrial ancestors (ungulates or carnivores) have a vertical tail movement. However, whales (and an alleged link, Ambulocetus) do have a spinal up-and-down undulation. When did this happen? Where are all the fossils documenting how the side-to-side movement of the land mammal's tail changed to the down and up movement of Ambulocetus (and the whales)? This is quite significant! The land ancestor of the whale would have to gradually eliminate its pelvis, replacing it with a very different skeletal structure and associated musculature that would support a massive, flat tail (with flukes). Pure undirected chance would have to simultaneously produce these horizontal tail flukes independently, diminish the pelvis, and allow the deformed land creature to continue to live and even flourish in the sea.

The Problem of Molecular Biology

At the 1997 keynote lecture of Darwin Day at the University of Tennessee, Douglas Futuyma stated that ". . . the molecular revolution in biology has furnished us with mountains of information that not only attests to the history of evolution, but also sheds even more light on evolutionary processes." A far different evaluation was given the same year by three evolutionary biologists who stated: ". . . even with the appropriate genes, the molecular tree of life is difficult to interpret."12 Few systematists (biologists who study taxonomy and are involved in reconstructing phylogenetic, or evolutionary, history) would say that morphological patterns of form line up with the molecular evidence.

Regarding the supposed relationship between terrestrial and aquatic mammals, one publication reported: "These results reveal a large discordance between morphological and molecular measures of similarity. Rats and mice are classified in the same family, while cows and whales are classified in different orders. Perhaps molecular sequences are not necessarily giving us an accurate picture of ancestry."13

Zoologist John Gatesy reports competing interpretations of whale origins using phylogenetic analyses of a blood-clotting protein gene from cetaceans, artiodactyls (pigs, hippopotamuses, ruminants, and camels), perissodactyls (rhinos and horses), and carnivores. He says that in combination with published DNA sequences, the data of this clotting protein " . . . unambiguously support a hippo/whale clade and are inconsistent with the paleontological perspective."14

Ever since Darwin we have seen that neither natural selection nor random mutations could possibly serve as remotely sufficient mechanisms of change that would turn terrestrial tetrapods into whales. Molecular biology, physiology, and morphology present impenetrable roadblocks for tracing a common ancestry from tetrapods to archaeocetes to modern whales.

[Esquilax]

So where did you copy/paste that from, Rev? Showing sources is just good science.

[Bad Writer]

Argument from incredulity, eh? Just because it doesn't seem likely to you or whoever else you copied that wall of text from, it doesn't mean it didn't happen the way earth's fossil record shows.

[Revelation777]

Then show us proof how one species evolved into another. The fossil record doesn't show it.

Before I do- and I will, voluminously- I have two questions for you, that will determine the spirit in which you made this comment: What do you think evolution is? And what research did you do on it before you decided it was wrong?

I'd really appreciate an answer to those, because that's important. Now that the housekeeping is out of the way, I'm going to have to show you up, because you just stepped into my wheelhouse.

First of all, the fossil record absolutely does show evolution happening. You were just dead wrong on that, as literally five seconds on google shows. This tells me you didn't really do much research at all, which doesn't surprise me, but it does sadden me and remove all the credibility from your other arguments.

Genetics shows our evolution too. That's just there.

Oh look, here's some examples of evolution happening live!

So now you have evidence, there's literally no excuse for you to deny evolution anymore. Unless you don't even click on the links here, which I hope doesn't happen, but you do seem to be the kind of person who'll remain willfully ignorant rather than risk questioning your beliefs. It's up to you, though, so ask yourself this question: how honest do you want to be in approaching these questions?

Lying is a sin, isn't it? And if you continue to misrepresent science like you have been, you are lying. There are ways to find this stuff out, and if you do so before you decide whether or not you disagree with something, you'll be much, much more honest than you are right now.

Sorry that I didn't reply to this post. I do believe and understand that there are changes that take place within species. However, In the Beginning God created various creatures after THEIR KIND. Dogs have evolves into many variations of various breeds but we don't find dogs turning into a different kind all together like a human.

---

Jesus rose from the grave, to me this is great proof.

You have only been told this, you have no proof that it actually happened.

I see a remarkable change in my life and others who have experienced the regenerating power of the cross.

[Bad Writer]

Maybe you haven't seen a species change into a new species. That just means you're ignorant of what others have found.

[Revelation777]

I'm not here to be your jester. I understand I am on a board filled with people who don't believe in God and I am open for insults, put downs, and rejections. I feel I am sent here on a mission. I am not going to get discouraged by the results. Some people think I'm a simpleton, gullible, or ignorant. I believe in the Truth of who Christ is and stand by Him not any merits of my own. I believe that the Truth can set you free. I love all you atheists on this board and have been praying for you daily. Call me a nut or to take a flying leap, however, I am motivated my the love of the Lord.

Nobody here cares about you, your religion , or your fucking mission.

The only thing driving you to advertise your horse shit beliefs is your ego.

Unfortunately, you are unable to judge my heart.

---

You have only been told this, you have no proof that it actually happened.

Hey! It's written in a book, not once, not twice, not thrice, not four times, but FIVE!!
And people have consistently, throughout the ages put themselves in harm's way because of their conviction that it's true...

It can't be a lie, now can it?!
hock:

Actually, some of the accounts on that book already detail people putting themselves in harm's way because of that belief.... maybe we can cut a few books from the actual original narrative...?

Greatest Story Ever Told.

[Esquilax]

Sorry that I didn't reply to this post. I do believe and understand that there are changes that take place within species. However, In the Beginning God created various creatures after THEIR KIND. Dogs have evolves into many variations of various breeds but we don't find dogs turning into a different kind all together like a human.

Okay, so like someone else in another thread, you're attempting to draw a division between microevolution and macroevolution. I'm going to do the nice thing and simply ignore your use of the word "kind," since that has no definition beyond what creationists need it to mean at the time, and it's useless to discuss. So, put that to one side, it's not going to help you.

Unfortunately, with your "you don't find dogs turning into people!" nonsense, you have confirmed to me that you did exactly no research before you decided evolution was incorrect, and that you also have no idea what it is. That's a profoundly dishonest position to take, but as it happens, also the easiest one to debunk. Evolution happens very gradually, with those small changes you mention building up over time, generation by generation. What you're saying, when you draw this micro/macro distinction, is that those little changes occur, but that little changes can never add up to big changes, and that's just as absurd as saying you could walk in a straight line forever and never walk a mile.

To be clear, nobody has ever come up with a mechanism by which those small changes would be prevented from being accumulated; they all just do what you do, which is assert that such a mechanism exists without having any basis for thinking that. It's just a bunch of wild handwaving to avoid admitting the truth.

[Revelation777]

I'm not here to be your jester. I understand I am on a board filled with people who don't believe in God and I am open for insults, put downs, and rejections. I feel I am sent here on a mission. I am not going to get discouraged by the results. Some people think I'm a simpleton, gullible, or ignorant. I believe in the Truth of who Christ is and stand by Him not any merits of my own. I believe that the Truth can set you free. I love all you atheists on this board and have been praying for you daily. Call me a nut or to take a flying leap, however, I am motivated my the love of the Lord.

You're doing a piss-poor job of carrying out your mission. You're simply reinforcing our perception of the shallowness of christianity. Jesus would not be impressed.

Hopefully, the Lord can teach me to do a better job.

---

It's misunderstood by Christians, atheists, and agnostics alike. The spirit of that teaching is that there are some among this [age] (this current developmental stage of human-kind) who would not taste death (experience a spiritual sleep) prior to Christ (spiritual realms) returning in glory (providing an individual with a spiritual awakening). The bible is an esoteric text, and in the wrong hands it can produce all kinds of error and destruction (as history has proven well).

Most theists will explain a difference in interpretation by first pointing out that everyone else has it wrong, then providing the "correct" interpretation. Occasionally they will provide some out-of-context verses from parts of the Bible to help bolster the point, or (as you did here) simply offer the alternative with no additional support.

Once we assume that a particular text is metaphor or allegory, the possible interpretations and explanations become almost infinite and can support just about any approach. As others pointed out, this does not speak well of the idea that it was inspired by a being of immeasurable intellect and wisdom.

---

I'm not here to be your jester.

Not intentionally, perhaps.

Then call me a Fool for Christ.

---

Sorry that I didn't reply to this post. I do believe and understand that there are changes that take place within species. However, In the Beginning God created various creatures after THEIR KIND. Dogs have evolves into many variations of various breeds but we don't find dogs turning into a different kind all together like a human.

Okay, so like someone else in another thread, you're attempting to draw a division between microevolution and macroevolution. I'm going to do the nice thing and simply ignore your use of the word "kind," since that has no definition beyond what creationists need it to mean at the time, and it's useless to discuss. So, put that to one side, it's not going to help you.

Unfortunately, with your "you don't find dogs turning into people!" nonsense, you have confirmed to me that you did exactly no research before you decided evolution was incorrect, and that you also have no idea what it is. That's a profoundly dishonest position to take, but as it happens, also the easiest one to debunk. Evolution happens very gradually, with those small changes you mention building up over time, generation by generation. What you're saying, when you draw this micro/macro distinction, is that those little changes occur, but that little changes can never add up to big changes, and that's just as absurd as saying you could walk in a straight line forever and never walk a mile.

To be clear, nobody has ever come up with a mechanism by which those small changes would be prevented from being accumulated; they all just do what you do, which is assert that such a mechanism exists without having any basis for thinking that. It's just a bunch of wild handwaving to avoid admitting the truth.

"Kind" is extremely important and wish you wouldn't cast it to the side. Yes, when we pet a poodle we both can agree that this may of evolved over many many years from a different looking dog. But you lose me if you say that billions of years ago this evolved from a frog.

---

Hey Rev, could you go back to page 32 of this thread and answer the questions I asked you at the bottom of that page? I'd really appreciate an answer, and more importantly, if you're honest in answering them, then the answers you'll be forced to give might make you think, too.

It'll never happen. Rev is your typical self-proclaimed sheep. He will never see it because he simply does not want to. I'm convinced that even if you could build a time machine, go back 2000 years, prove Jesus was a worthless hippie and the crucifixion never happened that his kind would only scoff and say it was the work of demons. You cannot teach those who refuse to be taught.

When the hardened Roman Centurian witness what He did at the cross two thousand years ago he said, "Certain, this was the Son of God!"