Is there any evidence for evolution?

[JoeP222w]

And in the ground, in the lab, in living cells, in every ecosystem on the planet...

What is your favorite specific evidence for one kind of animal changing to another kind of animal?

 

[JoeP222w]

Of course there isn't any evidence for evolution. That's why 99.9999% of biologists believe it is true.

Belief (or disbelief) has absolutely no effect on truth.

 

[JoeP222w]

Even the majority of Christians accept that evolution is true.

Even if that is true, which I am skeptical that it is, popularity of an issue has no effect on the truth of an issue.

And there are many who claim to be Christian who clearly demonstrate an unregenerate heart in their daily walk.

 

[Nicky Blass]

Where the KJB differs from the originals, the originals are wrong.

You know this how?
Do you see the words added later as still being the words of God?

The words below were taken from here:
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/

The problem with the Gospel of Mark for the final editors of the New Testament was that it was grossly deficient. First it is significantly shorter than the other Gospels–with only 16 chapters compared to Matthew (28), Luke (24) and John (21). But more important is how Mark begins his Gospel and how he ends it.

He has no account of the virgin birth of Jesus–or for that matter, any birth of Jesus at all. In fact, Joseph, husband of Mary, is never named in Mark’s Gospel at all–and Jesus is called a “son of Mary,” see my previous post on this here. But even more significant is Mark’s strange ending. He has no appearances of Jesus following the visit of the women on Easter morning to the empty tomb!

Like the other three Gospels Mark recounts the visit of Mary Magdalene and her companions to the tomb of Jesus early Sunday morning. Upon arriving they find the blocking stone at the entrance of the tomb removed and a young man–notice–not an angel–tells them:

“Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing (Mark 16:6-8)

And there the Gospel simply ends!

Mark gives no accounts of anyone seeing Jesus as Matthew, Luke, and John later report. In fact, according to Mark, any future epiphanies or “sightings” of Jesus will be in the north, in Galilee, not in Jerusalem.

This original ending of Mark was viewed by later Christians as so deficient that not only was Mark placed second in order in the New Testament, but various endings were added by editors and copyists in some manuscripts to try to remedy things. The longest concocted ending, which became Mark 16:9-19, became so treasured that it was included in the King James Version of the Bible, favored for the past 500 years by Protestants, as well as translations of the Latin Vulgate, used by Catholics. This meant that for countless millions of Christians it became sacred scripture–but it is patently bogus. You might check whatever Bible you use and see if the following verses are included–the chances are good they will be, since the Church, by and large, found Mark’s original ending so lacking. Here is that forged ending of Mark:

Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover. So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.

Even though this ending is patently false, people loved it, and to this day conservative Christians regularly denounce “liberal” scholars who point out this forgery, claiming that they are trying to destroy “God’s word.”

 

[AV1611VET]

You know this how?
Do you see the words added later as still being the words of God?

Yes.

 

[Nicky Blass]

Yes.

Even the words I added in that post?

 

[AV1611VET]

Even the words I added in that post?

If you quoted from a contemporary bible, it's more than likely wrong.

And who cares what Mark knew and didn't know.

He was filled with the Spirit and wrote what God inspired him to write.

Acts 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
Acts 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

 

[Nicky Blass]

If you quoted from a contemporary bible, it's more than likely wrong.

And who cares what Mark knew and didn't know.

He was filled with the Spirit and wrote what God inspired him to write.

Acts 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
Acts 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

Do you think God told someone else to add another 16 verses to that story in Mark? do you think God authorise everything in the Bible that people added or took away over the centuries?

 

[AdamSK]

What is your favorite specific evidence for one kind of animal changing to another kind of animal?

Can you give an objective definition for "kind of animal"?
The chromosome 2 fusion site is my favorite evidence for the common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees.

 

[Nicky Blass]

If you quoted from a contemporary bible, it's more than likely wrong.

I didn't quote from any version of the Bible I got those words from here:
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think God told someone else to add another 16 verses to that story in Mark?

No.

Mark wrote those 16 verses himself.

 

[lesliedellow]

No.

Mark wrote those 16 verses himself.

Then why are they missing from all the earliest manuscripts?

 

[AdamSK]

Then why are they missing from all the earliest manuscripts?

There is pretty good evidence in the very earliest codices that they were originally there, but were removed.

If those 16 verses are not part of Mark, why do the very earliest references to Mark in Christian writings, including Justin Martyr in the early second century, include citations to these verses?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why are they missing from all the earliest manuscripts?

Because, as I just said, the "earliest manuscripts" are wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

If those 16 verses are not part of Mark, why do the very earliest references to Mark in Christian writings, including Justin Martyr in the early second century, include citations to these verses?

Who cares?

 

[AdamSK]

Who cares?

People who are intellectually honest.

 

[Goonie]

There is pretty good evidence in the very earliest codices that they were originally there, but were removed.

If those 16 verses are not part of Mark, why do the very earliest references to Mark in Christian writings, including Justin Martyr in the early second century, include citations to these verses?

Interesting article about Justin Martyr.
http://freethoughtnation.com/does-justin-martyr-quote-the-gospels/

 

[AV1611VET]

People who are intellectually honest.

Fair enough.

I don't need a Justin Martyr to convince me of those 16 verses in Mark.

Do you?

 

[lesliedellow]

There is pretty good evidence in the very earliest codices that they were originally there, but were removed.

If those 16 verses are not part of Mark, why do the very earliest references to Mark in Christian writings, including Justin Martyr in the early second century, include citations to these verses?

Where does Justin Martyr reference those verses? I find it difficult to credit that even conservative scholars, like James White, would have overlooked the fact that early references to Mark 16.9-20 exist (if they do).

 

[Goonie]

Where does Justin Martyr reference those verses? I find it difficult to credit that even conservative scholars, like James White, would have overlooked the fact early references to Mark 16.9-20 exist (if they do).

According to the article I posted Justin does not quote from the gospels we currently have. He does quote from Matthew, Mark and Luke but the they are not the texts that exist now.