Originally posted by resonance
reply to post by sirnex
I say evolution where one species changes to another is untrue because it is. The only reasonable evidence is bones, which are said to be similar and
therefore come from a common ancestor. plus a lot of evidence that does not support that is tossed out, just as it is when the age of the earth is
concerned, when human footprints are found next to dinosaur footprints
You'd do better if you didn't start off by lying. First, no. Bones are not the only reasonable evidence. They were simply the earliest. These days
we have molecular biology and a pretty sound understanding of genetics. Leaping advances in geology, climatology, and even chemistry have also made
pretty strong contributions to evolutionary theory. We can open a cell, look at hte organism's "blueprint", compare it to the blueprints of other
organisms, then take a look at the past geology and climates where these organisms are found, find other potentially related species, and put it all
together to create a pretty strong map of these species' origins and interrelatedness.
And those are dinosaur prints next to other dinosaur prints. At least the ones that aren't made with cold chisels and hammers.
you obviously have done no study if you do not know that many historical texts validate the bible as well as the existence of jesus
Actually contemporary texts validate the existence of Chrisitans, which is a very different thing from validating the existence of Jesus.
and jesus did fill the role as the messiah just not how the jews expected.
if you read the OT there are 2 images of the messiah one as the suffering servant, the other as a ruler
the suffering servant came and the ruler will come in the future
Well, it's not as if one person and only one person has ever suffered. hell, there are people today who's suffering is vastly worse than a few hours
getting whipped, then getting crucified, only to die after getting stabbed in the lungs. Hell, there are people who would LOVE to go out that way
rather than what they're going through currently.
and the evidence for my god is that his promises and prophecies have come true, unlike all other religions, the bible also has many scientific
facts in it that were accurate before they were proven. there is no other religion that compares to christianity's track record
Well, then you must not know your prophecies very well. God said Solomon's kingdom would last forever - it ended up limping along for four hundred
years before being obliterated. 400 years isn't a bad run for most nations, but it's not really forever, is it? And if you haven't noticed,
"Babylon" is still pretty inhabited (Despite America's best efforts, even). In Isaiah 19, it states the Nile will dry up. Not just the Nile, mind,
but the sea as well. Also, God promises that people who are not circumcised will never enter Jerusalem - I'm pretty sure the Baldwins hadn't nipped
the tip, and of course the city has a thriving tourist industry today...
As for science... You mean like how god made photosynthetic organisms before
he made the sun? How about the claim that hares chew cud? Or how
about hte whole "Joshua turning people into lepers" thing? While we're on leprosy, did you know it can be cured by incinerating doves? Did you know
according to the bible, the value of Pi is 3? Just 3. How about all those times that the sun just sort of, you know, stops? or falls out of the sky?
And do we really want to bring up Jonah?
older religions are not similar to what christianity really is. it is not a rule of law; it is not a code of ethics; it is not even an attempt
to explain the unexplainable; it is simply the truth that we fell and through his grace god gives us a chance at redemption through jesus christ;
thats the main point, but is perverted now days in the church and in the mainstream world. other religions are not like this
Actually all religions are pretty adamant that htye are the only truth, and that all others aren't like that at all. It's a pretty constant
you also say evolution does not include chance? it most certainly does. evolution relies on random mutation..the word random goes hand in hand
with the chance that a profitable mutation occurs, and is carried on
You're conflating several concepts here. Mutation, natural selection, and evolution are not identical. They all touch each other of course, but you
can't use them all for the same thing.
Mutation is random. Genes rearrange and divide and get messed around with constantly. Most of the time mutations just don't impact an organism.
However these mutations are passed on to the next generation, along with any mutations they may carry independently, and so on and so forth - this is
genetic drift, and can lead to speciation without worry about natural selection. Imagine you have a group of sparrows - ordinary little brown birds of
some sort. One day a mutation happens, a sparrow hatches and grows red feathers on its wings rather than the usual brown. This doesn't help or hinder
it in any way, it breeds, and the gene for red feathers is passed on. A red-winged sparrow who's able to parent enough successful offspring will
eventually result in a population of red-winged sparrows that only breed among their own population and not with neighboring brown-winged sparrows.
This is speciation by genetic drift.
Sticking with the birds, we go to the famous galapagos finches. Back in the 70's, these islands had a pretty nasty drought that lasted through
several generations of the birds. Birds with medium bills suited for a wide range of diets in ideal conditions began to get replaced by members of
their species with slightly more robust bills, that were better-adapted to eating the hard, large seeds of plants that were managing the drought.
After a few generations, the medium and fine-billed birds were scarce, while heavy-billed birds were the norm. They were still the same species, but a
heavier bill was more useful for the environment - and they favored mates with bills similar to their own. Had the drought lasted longer, odds are the
smaller-billed birds would have died off on that particular island, leaving their heavy-billed cousins as the sole example of the species - this would
be speciation by natural selection.