Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What's your problem? Why change the subject?
The scriptures were redacted and amended several times up to 200 AD
The açtı of translation alone ensures the bible (Hebrew and New Testaments) is continually being updated. In addition, the Hebrew testament was redacted at least four times prior to 200 CE. The New Testament was revised with additions and, apparently, subtractions, from the …
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/Thylacine_stamp-5bb4e078cff47e0026c900cc.jpg)
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/TasmanianTigers-5c5a467c46e0fb00012bb3e1.jpg)
It's you as the fake Episcopalean. You wish and long for the Bible to have changed. You are one of those who need to die like the atheist to be convinced.
The original Bible has not been redacted nor changed. Sure, there have been many copies made, but they generally reflect the original and are true to it.
Instead of attacking my source, why don't you provide something concrete about evolution? If you can provide something that is considered sci-fi such as:It's been redacted many times to include cobbling together the two creation stories aand flood stories from Israel and Judah.
If evolution is true, then it should seem at least reasonably possible that DNA could have come about by means of a series of chance events. If the Bible is true, then DNA should provide strong evidence that it is the product of an orderly, intelligent mind.
“One gram of DNA, which when dry would occupy a volume of approximately one cubic centimeter, can store as much information as approximately one trillion CDs [compact discs].”20
“The genome is a very clever book, because in the right conditions it can both photocopy itself and read itself.”22
One science book calls this efficient packaging system “an extraordinary feat of engineering.”18 Does the suggestion that there was no engineer behind this feat sound credible to you? If this museum had a huge store with millions of items for sale and they were all so tidily arranged that you could easily find any item you needed, would you assume that no one had organized the place? Of course not! But such order would be a simple feat by comparison.
In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”29 *
In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor.
In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as “the Cambrian explosion.” When was the Cambrian period?
Let us assume that the estimates of researchers are accurate. In that case, the history of the earth could be represented by a time line that stretches the length of a soccer field (1). At that scale, you would have to walk about seven eighths of the way down the field before you would come to what paleontologists call the Cambrian period (2). During a small segment of that period, the major divisions of animal life show up in the fossil record. How suddenly do they appear? As you walk down the soccer field, all those different creatures pop up in the space of less than one step!
The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”33
Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”34 *
Commenting on the fossils of fish and amphibians, biologist Malcolm S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small, “possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that existed in these groups at those times.” He further says: “There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other.”35 *
Consider the statement made in 2008 in Scientific American Mind: “Scientists have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other animal species. Neither have they been able to discern a parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain, excepting perhaps Broca’s area, which governs speech in people.”49
Bibliography
1. How Did Life Begin?
1. How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.
a. Life Itself—Its Origin and Nature, by Francis Crick, 1981, pp. 15-16, 141-153.
2. Scientific American, “A Simpler Origin for Life,” by Robert Shapiro, June 2007, p. 48.
a. The New York Times, “A Leading Mystery of Life’s Origins Is Seemingly Solved,” by Nicholas Wade, May 14, 2009, p. A23.
3. Scientific American, June 2007, p. 48.
4. Scientific American, June 2007, pp. 47, 49-50.
5. Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, by Hubert P. Yockey, 2005, p. 182.
6. NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine, “Life’s Working Definition—Does It Work?” (National Aeronautics and Space Administration vision/universe/starsgalaxies/ life’s_working_definition.html), accessed 3/17/2009.
7. Princeton Weekly Bulletin, “Nuts, Bolts of Who We Are,” by Steven Schultz, May 1, 2000, (Princeton University pr/pwb/00/0501/p/brain.shtml), accessed 3/27/2009.
a. “The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2002,” Press Release, October 7, 2002, (The official website of the Nobel Prize - NobelPrize.org nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2002/ press.html), accessed 3/27/2009.
8. “The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2002,” October 7, 2002.
9. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.”
10. How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, p. 32.
11. Molecular Biology of the Cell, Second Edition, by Bruce Alberts et al, 1989, p. 405.
12. Molecular Human Reproduction, “The Role of Proteomics in Defining the Human Embryonic Secretome,” by M. G. Katz-Jaffe, S. McReynolds, D. K. Gardner, and W. B. Schoolcraft, 2009, p. 271.
13. Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, by Radu Popa, 2004, p. 129.
14. Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, pp. 126-127.
15. Origin of Mitochondria and Hydrogenosomes, by William F. Martin and Miklós Müller, 2007, p. 21.
16. Brain Matters—Translating Research Into Classroom Practice, by Pat Wolfe, 2001, p. 16.
17. Research News Berkeley Lab, (Please see http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/ LSD-molecular-DNA.html), article: “Molecular DNA Switch Found to Be the Same for All Life,” contact: Lynn Yarris, p. 1 of 4; accessed 2/10/2009.
18. Life Script, by Nicholas Wade, 2001, p. 79.
19. Bioinformatics Methods in Clinical Research, edited by Rune Matthiesen, 2010, p. 49.
20. Scientific American, “Computing With DNA,” by Leonard M. Adleman, August 1998, p. 61.
21. Nano Letters, “Enumeration of DNA Molecules Bound to a Nanomechanical Oscillator,” by B. Ilic, Y. Yang, K. Aubin, R. Reichenbach, S. Krylov, and H. G. Craighead, Vol. 5, No. 5, 2005, pp. 925, 929.
22. Genome—The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters, by Matt Ridley, 1999, pp. 7-8.
23. Essential Cell Biology, Second Edition, by Bruce Alberts, Dennis Bray, Karen Hopkin, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, and Peter Walter, 2004, p. 201.
24. Molecular Biology of the Cell, Fourth Edition, by Bruce Alberts et al, 2002, p. 258.
25. No Ordinary Genius—The Illustrated Richard Feynman, edited by Christopher Sykes, 1994, photo with no page number supplied; note caption.
a. New Scientist, “Second Genesis—Life, but Not As We Know It,” by Bob Holmes, March 11, 2009, (http://www.newscientist.com/article/ mg20126990.100) accessed 3/11/2009.
26. The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence—A Philosophical Inquiry, by David Lamb, 2001, p. 83.
27. Associated Press Newswires, “Famous Atheist Now Believes in God,” by Richard N. Ostling, December 9, 2004.
28. Intelligent Life in the Universe, Second Edition, by Peter Ulmschneider, 2006, p. 125.
29. Biology and Philosophy, “The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay,” by Malcolm S. Gordon, 1999, p. 335.
30. New Scientist, “Uprooting Darwin’s Tree,” by Graham Lawton, January 24, 2009, p. 34.
31. New Scientist, January 24, 2009, pp. 37, 39.
32. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” by David M. Raup, January 1979, p. 23.
33. Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.
34. In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23.
35. Biology and Philosophy, p. 340.
36. National Geographic, “Fossil Evidence,” November 2004, p. 25.
37. The Evolutionists—The Struggle for Darwin’s Soul, by Richard Morris, 2001, pp. 104-105.
(Box) What About Human Evolution?
38. The Human Lineage, by Matt Cartmill and Fred H. Smith, 2009, Preface, p. xi.
39. Fossils, Teeth and Sex—New Perspectives on Human Evolution, by Charles E. Oxnard, 1987, Preface, pp. xi, xii.
a. From Lucy to Language, by Donald Johanson and Blake Edgar, 1996, p. 22.
b. Anthropologie, XLII/1, “Palaeodemography and Dental Microwear of Homo Habilis From East Africa,” by Laura M. Martínez, Jordi Galbany, and Alejandro Pérez-Pérez, 2004, p. 53.
c. In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, p. 22.
40. Critique of Anthropology, Volume 29(2), “Patenting Hominins—Taxonomies, Fossils and Egos,” by Robin Derricourt, 2009, pp. 195-196, 198.
41. Nature, “A New Species of Great Ape From the Late Miocene Epoch in Ethiopia,” by Gen Suwa, Reiko T. Kono, Shigehiro Katoh, Berhane Asfaw, and Yonas Beyene, August 23, 2007, p. 921.
42. Acta Biologica Szegediensis, Volume 46(1-2), “New Findings—New Problems in Classification of Hominids,” by Gyula Gyenis, 2002, pp. 57, 59.
43. New Scientist, “A Fine Fossil—But a Missing Link She’s Not,” by Chris Bead, May 30, 2009, p. 18.
44. The Guardian, London, “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution,” by James Randerson, May 19, 2009, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/ may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link), accessed 8/25/2009.
45. New Scientist, May 30, 2009, pp. 18-19.
46. Critique of Anthropology, Volume 29(2), p. 202.
47. Science and Justice, Vol. 43, No. 4, (2003) section, Forensic Anthropology, “Anthropological Facial ‘Reconstruction’—Recognizing the Fallacies, ‘Unembracing’ the Errors, and Realizing Method Limits,” by C. N. Stephan, p. 195.
48. The Human Fossil Record—Volume Three, by Ralph L. Holloway, Douglas C. Broadfield, and Michael S. Yuan, 2004, Preface xvi.
49. Scientific American Mind, “Intelligence Evolved,” by Ursula Dicke and Gerhard Roth, August/September 2008, p. 72.
50. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, “How Neandertals Inform Human Variation,” by Milford H. Wolpoff, 2009, p. 91.
51. Conceptual Issues in Human Modern Origins Research, Editors G. A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, 1997, pp. 5, 60.
a. Wonderful Life—The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, by Stephen Jay Gould, 1989, p. 28.
https://www.jw.org/en/library/books...stions/is-it-reasonable-to-believe-the-bible/
Cutting and pasting clips from sci-fi movies does nothing to support you extremist views. One can reach conclusions about biological evolution when the data supports the theory and testing leads to conclusions. This is a pretty basic method for separating religious hysteria from physical evidence. The data supporting biological evolution to include fossil evidence as it exists along with the supporting disciplines of biology, chemistry, earth science, etc., have been fully adequate to present a comprehensive description of biological evolution, and stands as a major line of evidence for the theory of common descent. Anti-evolutionary / anti-science critics (almost exclusively fundamentalist Christians), should take some time to explain why their tales and fables, completely lacking in supportable evidence, should be accepted.Instead of attacking my source, why don't you provide something concrete about evolution? If you can provide something that is considered sci-fi such as:
The Magnetic Monster
or
The Praying Mantis (giant)
or
The Living Dead (zombies)
as real, then you got something observable and evidence lol.
james bond is wasting time just playing games with you guys. He is acting like a total juvenile. His inane premise is that if evolution is wrong, then the Bible is correct. He want's to take the focus off of creation science because it's a dead end as far as science. Creation science to them is nothing but anti-evolution.Cutting and pasting clips from sci-fi movies does nothing to support you extremist views. One can reach conclusions about biological evolution when the data supports the theory and testing leads to conclusions. This is a pretty basic method for separating religious hysteria from physical evidence. The data supporting biological evolution to include fossil evidence as it exists along with the supporting disciplines of biology, chemistry, earth science, etc., have been fully adequate to present a comprehensive description of biological evolution, and stands as a major line of evidence for the theory of common descent. Anti-evolutionary / anti-science critics (almost exclusively fundamentalist Christians), should take some time to explain why their tales and fables, completely lacking in supportable evidence, should be accepted.
Evolution data does not support the ToL nor does it lead to any right or valid conclusions. It's your side with the religious hysteria of common ancestors as there aren't any. It may as well be science fiction. Do you like the new sci-fi analogy for evoCutting and pasting clips from sci-fi movies does nothing to support you extremist views. One can reach conclusions about biological evolution when the data supports the theory and testing leads to conclusions. This is a pretty basic method for separating religious hysteria from physical evidence. The data supporting biological evolution to include fossil evidence as it exists along with the supporting disciplines of biology, chemistry, earth science, etc., have been fully adequate to present a comprehensive description of biological evolution, and stands as a major line of evidence for the theory of common descent. Anti-evolutionary / anti-science critics (almost exclusively fundamentalist Christians), should take some time to explain why their tales and fables, completely lacking in supportable evidence, should be accepted.
?
If you think evolution is wrong, and if you think creationism is backed up by science, you have to come up with a scientific explanation how the earth and stars were formed. You have to give a scientific explanation of where the water came from to cause the ocean to rise by over four miles.Evolution data does not support the ToL nor does it lead to any right or valid conclusions. It's your side with the religious hysteria of common ancestors as there aren't any. It may as well be science fiction. Do you like the new sci-fi analogy for evo
We know so little about the past. For us to find fossils, we need the right conditions. We know NOTHING about dinosaurs that lived in jungles, for example. Because jungles don't have the right conditions for making fossils.
We have uniformity of creatures, and things appear out of nowhere, simply because of our ignorance, rather than what actually happened.
Also, if all life on Earth were created by an intelligent being, who created this intelligent being? If this intelligent being could simply come into existence, then surely other things could too. Which then begs the question of why we needed the intelligent being in the first place.
We know so little about the past. For us to find fossils, we need the right conditions. We know NOTHING about dinosaurs that lived in jungles, for example. Because jungles don't have the right conditions for making fossils.
We have uniformity of creatures, and things appear out of nowhere, simply because of our ignorance, rather than what actually happened.
Also, if all life on Earth were created by an intelligent being, who created this intelligent being? If this intelligent being could simply come into existence, then surely other things could too. Which then begs the question of why we needed the intelligent being in the first place.
There is a huge new dinosaur find in Italy... 200 to 66 million years ago.
Trove of new dinosaur fossils in Italy helps rewrite prehistory of the Mediterranean region
These skeletons represent the biggest and most complete dinosaur fossils ever found in Italynews.yahoo.com
Okay, and what does this have to do with what I said?
Didn't you write post #105?
All right Mr. Episcopalean, when are you gonna mention they were all killed by a global flood?james bond
Wuwei
There is a huge new dinosaur find in Italy.
Trove of new dinosaur fossils in Italy helps rewrite prehistory of the Mediterranean region
These skeletons represent the biggest and most complete dinosaur fossils ever found in Italy
A trove of new dinosaur skeletons unearthed at a palaeontological site in Italy has helped reconstruct the history, geography and evolution of the ancient Mediterranean area.
Until now, scientists believed the area, around 230 to 66 million years ago, would have been hard to map as it was formed by countless small islands far from the major mainland of Europe, Africa and Asia and was unsuitable to sustain large animals like dinosaurs.
Scientists, including those from the University of Bologna in Italy, have now assessed multiple exceptionally complete dinosaur skeletons from the Villaggio del Pescatore site near Trieste, in north-eastern Italy and published their findings in the journal Scientific Reports on Thursday.
The prehistoric site and the fossils are likely from about 80 million years ago, pertaining to the Cretaceous period and about 10 million years older than previously thought, according to the study.
These skeletons belong to the species Tethyshadros insularis and represent the biggest and most complete dinosaur fossils ever found in Italy.
continued
On the other hand, your extremist religious view are contradicted by the facts. If you weed whack through the landscape of ID’iot creationism, you find that the creationist websites are fundamentalist Christian based. Look for the “about” sections of the websites and they all have a “statement of faith” that reiterates literal interpretation of biblical themes.Evolution data does not support the ToL nor does it lead to any right or valid conclusions. It's your side with the religious hysteria of common ancestors as there aren't any. It may as well be science fiction. Do you like the new sci-fi analogy for evo
On the other hand, your extremist religious view are contradicted by the facts. If you weed whack through the landscape of ID’iot creationism, you find that the creationist websites are fundamentalist Christian based. Look for the “about” sections of the websites and they all have a “statement of faith” that reiterates literal interpretation of biblical themes.
The fact of biological change over time is a fact. That organisms change to adapt to their environments is a fact
Darwin established a theory to describe that process.
This has been explained to you. It seems your time at the Harun Yahya madrassah has left you with some crippling disadvantages.
james bond is wasting time just playing games with you guys. He is acting like a total juvenile. His inane premise is that if evolution is wrong, then the Bible is correct. He want's to take the focus off of creation science because it's a dead end as far as science. Creation science to them is nothing but anti-evolution.
.
All right Mr. Episcopalean, when are you gonna mention they were all killed by a global flood?
Here's how the creation scientists write their findings (from the Utah one 08/03/21)
"
T. rex dinosaur relatives found buried together
Were these Tyrannosauridae social creatures?
...
The researchers explain that catastrophes can drive animals together which normally prefer to be on their own. They cite droughts (the need to search for water) and fire (the need to avoid the flames) as examples. In neither case do animals necessarily congregate. Droughts and fire may very well disperse animals, but even when they do come together (where there is water or no flames, respectively) those animals would not be the ones that die—rather, they are the ones that live! Only animals that already behave socially would search for water together or flee from flames together.
What about a flood?
Indeed, fleeing from surging waters should be added to the list, and actually seems a more natural explanation for the fossil find. Land-dwelling creatures will naturally avoid being caught in a torrent of violently approaching water, and systematically run in the opposite direction. CMI has written a number of times on dinosaur stampedes.3 The resultant dinosaur trackways share common features: footprints of multiple dinosaurs together moving in the same direction."
Social dinosaurs lived and died together?
Teratophoneus dinosaur fossils catastrophically buried together in Noah’s global Flood.creation.com
Creation.com is just another extremist ministry.
What we believe
Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.
It seems these various extremist ministries all plagiarize from each other as the “what we believe” sections are identical.
