One question for Christians

[The Grand Nudger]

I couldn't make that claim, mostly because I actually exist.

[DeistPaladin]

But all this has no meaning to those without the Holy Spirit!

I guess I'll have to assume "Holy Spirit" is code for "schizophrenia"?

Seriously, it's been a long time since I've seen so much crazy packed into such a short post.

[ronedee]

But all this has no meaning to those without the Holy Spirit!

I guess I'll have to assume "Holy Spirit" is code for "schizophrenia"?

Seriously, it's been a long time since I've seen so much crazy packed into such a short post.

I saw you coming from a block away...as usual....Thanks for making my point.

[Godscreated]

You have never supplied any scriptural evidence period, so I assume the same applies to you. So on the other hand I do provide scriptural proof and you need to do the same to dismiss what I say.

Why would I give the scriptures any credence as a source of information? As an atheist, and as a rational being? You haven't justified your belief that anything in them is true.

If you intend to argue against what scripture depicts, then you'll need to use scripture whether you believe in it or not, there is no other sources to go to unless you've been holding out on the world.

I have never made a statement about a magical man and I've given evidence through scripture that what you call genocide is in reality justice. You do not even understand what genocide is.

No, you use words like "divine," and "god's plan" as though that changes the nature of the conversation.

Seems you're reading other post than mine, I've given plenty of scriptural support for my argument. I do agree though God's divine plan rules the day every day all day long.

I submit that you find some links that have viable evidence and dump the trash you have been posting.

Keep this in mind, little fool...

Words from a big man, in the eyes of who?

So then I'm assuming from what you said that a species can not produce another species, so how does evolution magically come up with other species.

Evolution can produce additional species, it just takes more time; it's not going to be, say, a border collie giving birth to a leopard. Slight genetic variations add up over time, over a timescale of millions of years, until eventually, we're left with a creature that we'd have no choice but to classify as a different species. You know how you look different from your dad? And your kids would look even more different? And so on? It's like that; keep going for millions of generations, and eventually you'll have a person who looks nothing like your dad, but is still undeniably related to him.

I understand how evolution is suppose to work, thing is there is no truly reliable indication it ever has, there is no proof that it ever has happened. Yes I know there are changes within species, changes so they can adapt to their environment, not to become another specie. I've seen that in just four generations and I can assure you my great nephews are very much human beings.

You know this is what I referred to above, you're just being dishonest with such answers as above. A wolf is a dog, what did you think a wolf was a donkey. That proves nothing the wolf is still a dog and can breed with other dogs meaning same species. Your explanation is preposterous.

No, a wolf is a canine, but it is not a dog. More than that, as I already explained to you, of course it would be able to breed with genetically similar organisms, how else would it survive?

Okay I'll agree wolves are of the canine specie, just as the domesticated dogs are a canine. Humans and apes are genetically similar, last I heard man and apes can't make mapes.

But let's look at this: you agree that we have multiple breeds of dog, right? Great Danes and Chihuahuas and all kinds in between? And that all of those dogs are, at root, domesticated wolves? All that variation was bred into dogs over millions of years, and that is evolution at work. The species split off, branched from the initial wolf population into large dogs, and small dogs, with such differences that you'd have to be an idiot to declare them all the same.

That's all evolution proposes; changes over time. Starkly different animals, built from a common ancestor.

Only an idiot would believe they are anything other than canines, they all can interbreed and still only canines come out of the breeding, canine is a species period. There is no proof what you purpose is true, I nor the many people I know have ever seen this.

You've not proven or demonstrated anything, you have a bunch of fossils and no living species.

Did you even read the links I sent you? I think not, because if you did, you would have seen that only the first of the four I posted was of fossils. The rest- that's seventy five percent of the total- was of living, observable examples of evolution. Animals that are actually alive, still evolving, and that you could actually go and see in their natural habitats, if you wanted.

It's interesting how willing you are to brush off any information we give you, but then you accuse us of not being willing to learn. You could at least have done me the common courtesy of opening my links, but I guess it was easier to simply lie about it, wasn't it?

I do not have to lie about things that are unproven, there are no living organisms alive today that have evolved from another specie. You will not read the Bible passages that are relevant to the discussion and you dismiss it without ever considering it valid to the argument. So you are not one to point fingers.

You do not even have a complete fossil they are extremely rare, so everything else is filled in from presupposed ideas of scientists you've never meet and their work has been approved by scientist that practice the same thing. Evolution has be redefined so many times how could anyone know what is meant by the word evolution. It changes every time the need arises to evade and hide the truth, simple really. There is currently, nor has there ever been one species changing into another.

Funny, because I thought the last link- which it's becoming increasingly apparent that you ignored- had eight examples of living creatures on there.

They are not evolved from a completely different specie. There is no proof of evolution. Except maybe in your deluded mind.

When Christian scientist and other scientist challenged evolution and evolutionary scientist could not defend their position, we saw micro evolution and macro evolution pop up.

Actually, those terms were originally coined to reference the level of evolutionary change, with macroevolution used to describe evolutionary changes in separate gene pools. Most biologists today don't bother to use those terms at all, instead opting to talk about changes in allele frequencies without mentioning the level of change. The term itself was coined in 1927, though, so your timing is entirely out anyway.

Yep, keep changeing things because of the challenges from Christian and non Christian scientist.

Incidentally, since you're so sure that "christian scientists" are challenging evolution so successfully (without mentioning who is challenging or where, interestingly) what do you think of 2005's Kitzmiller vs Dover court case, where evolution won the day and the prominent christian scientist who argued against it was laughed out of court, having been lying on the stand?

When the deck is stacked, well it's easy to win.

To this day not one single bit of evidence has been shown to support macro evolution and micro evolution has not been shown to produce a single new species, except for those who believe that a domesticated dog and wolf are two separate species.

They're just two scales of the same process, seriously. We can prove that microevolution occurs- insofar as I even want to use that term- via simple observation, and macroevolution is just those changes seen over millions of years. Let me ask you: if you take one step, and then another, and then you keep taking steps, will you not eventually walk a mile? That's pretty analogous to macroevolution; your view of this is that small changes can occur, but that those small changes will never accumulate into bigger ones. You're just being absurd.

Micro is nothing more than adaptation within a specie, the specie never changes. Macro has no proof whatsoever, only those who want to imagine some magic force has come along to make one specie from another.

Also: I gave a link to a concept called ring species, that I wish you'd have read before wasting my time, which is a live action example of this kind of genetic drift, to the point of creating two species of animal that cannot interbreed, despite having started as the same animal.

Like mules. Or this+=

[Mystical]

Oh hOney.. You're gonna have fun with this one

[Ryantology]

I understand how evolution is suppose to work, thing is there is no truly reliable indication it ever has, there is no proof that it ever has happened. Yes I know there are changes within species, changes so they can adapt to their environment, not to become another specie. I've seen that in just four generations and I can assure you my great nephews are very much human beings.

Okay, so you are actually completely fucking retarded regarding the theory of evolution and how it works. Thanks for clarifying.

[Silver]

I understand how evolution is suppose to work, thing is there is no truly reliable indication it ever has, there is no proof that it ever has happened.

Just as one does not need to be an indoctrinated theist to understand biblical scripture, one does not need to be an atheist to understand that evolution is a fact of life.

[fr0d0]

I think indoctrinated theists and atheists are pretty much on a par.

[Esquilax]

Oh hOney.. You're gonna have fun with this one

I know, right?

Now then, on with the show...

[CleanShavenJesus]

I understand how evolution is suppose to work, thing is there is no truly reliable indication it ever has, there is no proof that it ever has happened.

Firstly, is happening**

Secondly, yes, there is, please read through this site, enjoy, and come back with any questions.