Ever the Expert

[michabo]

It is not that I am really citing observations that are incompatible as much as not observed at all. Those things that evolution (as defined) claim that are not observable at all.

First let's look at the two examples you gave, the "elusive" common ancestor and the development of intelligence. In the first, we have found many homonid fossils and in just the last couple of years there have been some revolutionary new discoveries. Are these the common ancestor? Some may be, some are almost certainly cousins and not direct relations.

In the second, we can measure the change in the size of the brain, especially relative to body size. We can also trace the development of artifacts. Is there something more that you think is reasonable to expect from a fossil?


Now, to the larger issue which is brought up frequently: missing links and, here, other missing pieces. These may be legitimate problems for evolution if you can put up an argument which says that, according to our current understanding, we should have found more or different fossils than what we have found. As a glib example, if we were studying the ark story, the lack of kangaroo and koala fossils throughout the middle east and southern Asia would be a significant problem, as we should expect to see them as the animals made the trek to their present homes.

However, fossils are typically very rare. They only form under very particular, and uncommon circumstances. There are some species which fossilize even less often than others. Bats, for example, have very small bodies with light, fragile bones. Most of them will die near their roost and be immediately eaten by the insects living in their guano. As a consequence, they appear very abruptly in the fossil record, but this is just what we would expect and is not a concern, though we can always hope for a lucky break.

To make matters worse, fossils tend to be found by luck, after parts of them have been exposed due to natural erosion. So any fossil that we do have is the result of several very lucky breaks. It's only because there have been so many animals in the past and people are looking dilligently for their traces that we have been able to identify as many as we have.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Intelligence is expained by mutation and natural selection. Some examples of these common extreme characteristics would be nice.

I think that I have some things to say about the intelligence part but I don't have the time right now to address it completely.

Here is one of my favorites. If special creation, followed by rapid diversfication within kinds, is true, then all life should be naturally arranged as a series of unrelated nested hierarchies of species, each of these trees representing a species radiation from the original kind which lies at its root. What we actually find is that all life is really arranged as a single nested hierarchy of species, which is a prediction of evolution.

This is not something that is necessarily Creation as cited in the Bible.

When I make an ad hoc argument, let me know.

I'll be happy to.

Let's break it down.

and the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retained the same form.


​

This says that species are relatively static for long periods of time, and then undergo geologically rapid periods of change. Just like PE.

It is the dominant and widely ranging species which vary most frequently and vary most, and varieties are often at first local--both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links in any one formation less likely.


​

This says that change will usually be a local event, and then that change will radiate out to the rest of the population, making the change appear to be sudden in the geological record.


So, how is t

his dramatically unlike PE and how does it support strict gradualism?[/QUOTE]



Let's let Darwin speak himself okay?

That many species have been evolved in an extremely gradual manner, there can hardly be a doubt. The species and even the genera of many large natural families are so closely allied together that it is difficult to distinguish not a few of them. On every continent, in proceeding from north to south, from lowland to upland, etc., we meet with a host of closely related or representative species; as we likewise do on certain distinct continents, which we have reason to believe were formerly connected. But in making these and the following remarks, I am compelled to allude to subjects hereafter to be discussed. Look at the many outlying islands round a continent, and see how many of their inhabitants can be raised only to the rank of doubtful species. So it is if we look to past times, and compare the species which have just passed away with those still living within the same areas; or if we compare the fossil species embedded in the sub-stages of the same geological formation. It is indeed manifest that multitudes of species are related in the closest manner to other species that still exist, or have lately existed; and it will hardly be maintained that such species have been developed in an abrupt or sudden manner. Nor should it be forgotten, when we look to the special parts of allied species, instead of to distinct species, that numerous and wonderfully fine gradations can be traced, connecting together widely different structures.


Or

My reasons for doubting whether natural species have changed as abruptly as have occasionally domestic races, and for entirely disbelieving that they have changed in the wonderful manner indicated by Mr. Mivart, are as follows. According to our experience, abrupt and strongly marked variations occur in our domesticated productions, singly and at rather long intervals of time. If such occurred under nature, they would be liable, as formerly explained, to be lost by accidental causes of destruction and by subsequent intercrossing; and so it is known to be under domestication, unless abrupt variations of this kind are specially preserved and separated by the care of man. Hence, in order that a new species should suddenly appear in the manner supposed by Mr. Mivart, it is almost necessary to believe, in opposition to all analogy, that several wonderfully changed individuals appeared simultaneously within the same district. This difficulty, as in the case of unconscious selection by man, is avoided on the theory of gradual evolution, through the preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large number which varied in an opposite manner.

 

[Oncedeceived]

First let's look at the two examples you gave, the "elusive" common ancestor and the development of intelligence. In the first, we have found many homonid fossils and in just the last couple of years there have been some revolutionary new discoveries. Are these the common ancestor? Some may be, some are almost certainly cousins and not direct relations.

In the second, we can measure the change in the size of the brain, especially relative to body size. We can also trace the development of artifacts. Is there something more that you think is reasonable to expect from a fossil?


Now, to the larger issue which is brought up frequently: missing links and, here, other missing pieces. These may be legitimate problems for evolution if you can put up an argument which says that, according to our current understanding, we should have found more or different fossils than what we have found. As a glib example, if we were studying the ark story, the lack of kangaroo and koala fossils throughout the middle east and southern Asia would be a significant problem, as we should expect to see them as the animals made the trek to their present homes.

However, fossils are typically very rare. They only form under very particular, and uncommon circumstances. There are some species which fossilize even less often than others. Bats, for example, have very small bodies with light, fragile bones. Most of them will die near their roost and be immediately eaten by the insects living in their guano. As a consequence, they appear very abruptly in the fossil record, but this is just what we would expect and is not a concern, though we can always hope for a lucky break.

To make matters worse, fossils tend to be found by luck, after parts of them have been exposed due to natural erosion. So any fossil that we do have is the result of several very lucky breaks. It's only because there have been so many animals in the past and people are looking dilligently for their traces that we have been able to identify as many as we have.

Great post and I have a great deal that I would like to discuss but I just don't have the time tonight. Life just seems to intrude.

By the way thanks. I just noticed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh yes, and I can paste the whole chapter if you feel this was mining quotes.

 

[Ondoher]

I think that I have some things to say about the intelligence part but I don't have the time right now to address it completely.





This is not something that is necessarily Creation as cited in the Bible.




I'll be happy to.


Let's let Darwin speak himself okay?

That many species have been evolved in an extremely gradual manner, there can hardly be a doubt. The species and even the genera of many large natural families are so closely allied together that it is difficult to distinguish not a few of them. On every continent, in proceeding from north to south, from lowland to upland, etc., we meet with a host of closely related or representative species; as we likewise do on certain distinct continents, which we have reason to believe were formerly connected. But in making these and the following remarks, I am compelled to allude to subjects hereafter to be discussed. Look at the many outlying islands round a continent, and see how many of their inhabitants can be raised only to the rank of doubtful species. So it is if we look to past times, and compare the species which have just passed away with those still living within the same areas; or if we compare the fossil species embedded in the sub-stages of the same geological formation. It is indeed manifest that multitudes of species are related in the closest manner to other species that still exist, or have lately existed; and it will hardly be maintained that such species have been developed in an abrupt or sudden manner. Nor should it be forgotten, when we look to the special parts of allied species, instead of to distinct species, that numerous and wonderfully fine gradations can be traced, connecting together widely different structures.


Or

My reasons for doubting whether natural species have changed as abruptly as have occasionally domestic races, and for entirely disbelieving that they have changed in the wonderful manner indicated by Mr. Mivart, are as follows. According to our experience, abrupt and strongly marked variations occur in our domesticated productions, singly and at rather long intervals of time. If such occurred under nature, they would be liable, as formerly explained, to be lost by accidental causes of destruction and by subsequent intercrossing; and so it is known to be under domestication, unless abrupt variations of this kind are specially preserved and separated by the care of man. Hence, in order that a new species should suddenly appear in the manner supposed by Mr. Mivart, it is almost necessary to believe, in opposition to all analogy, that several wonderfully changed individuals appeared simultaneously within the same district. This difficulty, as in the case of unconscious selection by man, is avoided on the theory of gradual evolution, through the preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large number which varied in an opposite manner.

That's nice. But I asked you to address my quote. Also note, your quote does not refute mine. The timescales being compared are different.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's nice. But I asked you to address my quote. Also note, your quote does not refute mine. The timescales being compared are different.

The timescales are different? I am afraid that I don't know what you mean.

 

[Ondoher]

The timescales are different? I am afraid that I don't know what you mean.

In one case he is talking about domesticated species. Artificial selection is performed by people, on small populations, over relatively short timescales. In the other case he is talking about local speciation over a much longer timescale, which results in the replacement of a larger population.

The first quote can still apply to speciation whether gradual or PE.

Now, could you go back over my quote and tell me how it could possibly be read as strict gradualism.

 

[CherylNMO]

The point, for Christians, isn't whether God created. We know He did. It's how. You can accept that God created and accept that He created the Universe ~15 billion years ago and allowed natural processes to get us to where we are today.

It is hard to prove "how" God created the earth (thus, that is why I have no evidence of why I believe God created the earth...I just know by what His word tells us.) A lot happened between then and now. I really doubt any can come up with how. Yes, they can do all the research they want trying to come up with how. There is a difference between science and faith. I wouldn't even know where to begin researching of how God created the earth. As far as humans and apes go, the thing that I do know which the Bible tells us about is that Adam was made of dust. God created animals on a different day than humans. I don't think anyone will really ever know how God created the earth and the living beings on it. It's almost like how did God create the wind...how did he create something you can't even see? It's just something that is.

I do believe there are cross breeds of the same species (example, a labs and collies, persions and domestic cats, etc.) but I just have a hard time understanding how evolution exists. I can see how humans and apes are similar but I just can't understand how any human came from apes. God created both, but only humans can understand that they were created by God.

This is really a tough subject

 

[USincognito]

I wouldn't even know where to begin researching of how God created the earth.

You could start with books or even articles on astrophysics and geology. Keep in mind that modern geology came about because Christian scientists were studying the Creation in order to get a better understanding of the Creator. What they found was very different than what Genesis told them. What differentiates them from contemporary Creationists is that they understood the problem wasn't with the Creation, nor with their faith in God being the Creator... it was with their particular interpretation of Genesis.

As far as humans and apes go, the thing that I do know which the Bible tells us about is that Adam was made of dust. God created animals on a different day than humans. I don't think anyone will really ever know how God created the earth and the living beings on it.

We actually have a pretty good idea with evolution. The evidence, despite what Creationists would have people believe is overwhelming. As far as Adam and the implication of sin goes, it's really up to the individual as to how they wish to interpret Adam's literalness. Some believe in sin being an inherent quality of sentience and when God allowed humans to develop it, we needed salvation. Some believe in a literal Adam with a literal Eden that came about after evolution had occured. Just because Genesis as a whole is metaphorical, that doesn't mean specifics can't be literal.

It's almost like how did God create the wind...how did he create something you can't even see? It's just something that is.

You've never been outside on a cloudy day? You've never seen smoke from a fire or factory? And God doesn't create the wind. Differences in air pressure caused by heat from the Sun do. Basic meteorology and astrophysics from the physical Laws set up by God.

I do believe there are cross breeds of the same species (example, a labs and collies, persions and domestic cats, etc.) but I just have a hard time understanding how evolution exists. I can see how humans and apes are similar but I just can't understand how any human came from apes. God created both, but only humans can understand that they were created by God.

We are apes (actually since the term "anthopoid" is referential to humans, other apes are 'like us'), and the evidence of common ancestry is found in the fossils, biogeography and various DNA indicators like pseudogenes, endogenous retroviruses and fused chromosomes. In order to deny human/fellow ape common ancestry, you must be ignorant of or ignore the overwhelming evidence.

This is really a tough subject

Yep, it can be very complex, but there are a lot of the basic concepts that are quite easy to understand by laymen.

 

[Aron-Ra]

It is hard to prove "how" God created the earth (thus, that is why I have no evidence of why I believe God created the earth...I just know by what His word tells us.) A lot happened between then and now. I really doubt any can come up with how. Yes, they can do all the research they want trying to come up with how. There is a difference between science and faith.

That's for damned sure!

I wouldn't even know where to begin researching of how God created the earth. As far as humans and apes go, the thing that I do know which the Bible tells us about

...then you don't really know it.

is that Adam was made of dust. God created animals on a different day than humans. I don't think anyone will really ever know how God created the earth and the living beings on it. It's almost like how did God create the wind...how did he create something you can't even see? It's just something that is.

The problem here is that the Bible isn't "His word", its man's word. You expect a book written by mere fallible, primitive, ignorant and superstitious humans to trump everything we can demonstrate about the universe with modern science. Well, it can't. The Bible is clearly wrong on several points, and is indefensible as anything but parables and allegory. And this would still be true whether God really created everything or not. Don't worship a book. It may be the wrong one, and its a form of idolatry anyway.

I do believe there are cross breeds of the same species (example, a labs and collies, persions and domestic cats, etc.) but I just have a hard time understanding how evolution exists.

That's because you're looking at this backward. For you, five fingers appear out of nothing, and converge into one hand. But to me, one hand grows from a natural source, and branches out into fingers.

Labradors, collies, and all the other hundreds of dog breeds can be traced to only four different genetic lines, all of them descended from Eurasian wolves within the last several thousand years. Do you understand what that means? We're not talking about cross-breeding here, because there was no other breed to cross them with. What we're talking about is one species becoming two slightly different species; wolves and wolf-hounds for example. The wolf-hounds were then pressured to continue changing into basset hounds and eventually dachshunds, and so on; while the wolves were outside of this influence, and so didn't need to change. Do you understand that?

All this happens because of the accumulation of very minor mutations which are expressed by the dozens in every single developing cell. You yourself had probably more than 100 mutations shortly after you were conceived, and you've been accumulating more ever since. Some of them will be passed on to your children. That's why siblings who share both parents still look like everyone else in their family, but aren't identical to each other. The differences you can see between two brothers amounts to about a couple hundred mutations. So labradors and collies were once both the same breed, but since they were not cross-bred, their lines haven't continued to share and subdue the build-up of these subtle changes. So they've only become more and more different from each other over many generations, while new breeds continue to occur out of old lines, and some of those lines eventually die out. The same is true of Persian cats and all other domestic breeds. There was a point when there was only one breed, and all the others are descended from that in a process best described as "branching out".

I can see how humans and apes are similar but I just can't understand how any human came from apes. God created both, but only humans can understand that they were created by God.

You mean humans can deceive themselves. Humans didn't just come from apes, we are apes, still. The "ape" family tree begins with a species called Proconsul and branched into several other groups over time, each adding a few more tiny differences between them and their sibling populations. Eventually, there was a division of "lesser apes" [Hylobatidae] and "great apes" [Hominidae] where one side went back to the trees, and the others stayed on the ground and grew very large. They were also much smarter than their arboreal cousins. Then they branched out again into the knuckle-walkers, [formerly known as "pongids"] and those who walked upright, [tribe: Hominini] This group began with Ardipithecus and Australopithecus, and again, they were much smarter than their cousins on all fours. That group branched off again leading to the Paranthropines on one side, and Humans on the other with humans becoming smarter and smarter that whole time, at least until they made up religion. Eventually all the Paranthropines and Australopithecines became extinct, as did every other species of human save one. But there was never a point when we weren't apes anymore, just like there was never a point where weren't mammals anymore. Get it? Would you argue that we couldn't have come from mammals?

 

[CherylNMO]

The problem here is that the Bible isn't "His word", its man's word. You expect a book written by mere fallible, primitive, ignorant and superstitious humans to trump everything we can demonstrate about the universe with modern science. Well, it can't. The Bible is clearly wrong on several points, and is indefensible as anything but parables and allegory. And this would still be true whether God really created everything or not. Don't worship a book. It may be the wrong one, and its a form of idolatry anyway. "

First of all, I don't worship the Bible. I worship God.
Second of all, I found a website that was very interesting:

http://www.equip.org/free/DB011.htm

Pay attention to the last two paragraphs for they say exactly what point I'd like to get across.

 

[Ron21647]

It is hard to prove "how" God created the earth (thus, that is why I have no evidence of why I believe God created the earth...I just know by what His word tells us.) A lot happened between then and now. I really doubt any can come up with how. Yes, they can do all the research they want trying to come up with how. There is a difference between science and faith. I wouldn't even know where to begin researching of how God created the earth. As far as humans and apes go, the thing that I do know which the Bible tells us about is that Adam was made of dust. God created animals on a different day than humans. I don't think anyone will really ever know how God created the earth and the living beings on it. It's almost like how did God create the wind...how did he create something you can't even see? It's just something that is.

I do believe there are cross breeds of the same species (example, a labs and collies, persions and domestic cats, etc.) but I just have a hard time understanding how evolution exists. I can see how humans and apes are similar but I just can't understand how any human came from apes. God created both, but only humans can understand that they were created by God.

This is really a tough subject

the bold text in the quote was inserted by me to show which part I am replying to.

Genesis 1:19-3119 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


Note that water animals and flying animals were created on the 5th day and land animals including man on the 6th day.

 

[michabo]

Note that water animals and flying animals were created on the 5th day and land animals including man on the 6th day.

Why? What is its significance?

 

[CherylNMO]

" 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Ron, Ok, you're right. My memory slipped on this one. However, even though all land animals were made on the same day as humans does not mean humans were apes. God put humans in charge of the rest of the beasts of the land (and the air and sea).

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm going to respond to those that have posted to me. But early this morning my neighbors house burned up and so I haven't had time to get to this. Don't know when but soon. For my fellow christians say a prayer for the family please, they did get out safely except for their German Shepherd puppy unfortunately.

 

[michabo]

But early this morning my neighbors house burned up and so I haven't had time to get to this.

Whoa! Normally, when life intrudes it is because you have to work some overtime or you drank to much and the buzz of your monitor makes you want to scratch your eyes out (or is that just me?).

 

[Aron-Ra]

First of all, I don't worship the Bible. I worship God.

If that were true, then you wouldn't demand or require Biblical accuracy.

Second of all, I found a website that was very interesting:

http://www.equip.org/free/DB011.htm

Pay attention to the last two paragraphs for they say exactly what point I'd like to get across.

Yes, and your point failed. The Bible is still very clearly dead wrong about damned-near everything back to front, particularly in Genesis, which wasn't written by Moses, nor even when he was still alive. And even if it was, it still would have been many thousands/millions of years after the "fact".

The Bible was written over a period of 1700 years, by dozens of different authors, often from different religions, many of whom would never have accepted Jesus. The majority of both the Old and New Testements were borrowed from the elder gods of neighboring religions. Successive generations add more made-up legends to it that were never meant to be there. And three score of the books originally included in the Bible have been lost forever ages ago, and we only know about them because the Bible says they're still supposed to be there.

None of the Bible's prophesies were specific or detailed, except the ones that didn't come true when they should have. You worship a book, and it doesn't deserve it. Remember that if God exists, the Bible, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Zend Avesta, and all the other "holy" books are still man's word, not God's. If you want to see God's word, you have to put the books down and look around. Because men can't write fossils. But we're great at making up fables and calling them all "absolute truth" when we need to dupe someone into believing them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Thank you for your patience. I have been in here at least five times to start my response and it has never failed that someone would come to my house. I am coordinating the donations for the family that lost their house so it has been really wild around here. My whole living room was full of sacks of clothes and stuff. It has been awesome to see how the community has reached out and helped this family.

First let's look at the two examples you gave, the "elusive" common ancestor and the development of intelligence. In the first, we have found many homonid fossils and in just the last couple of years there have been some revolutionary new discoveries. Are these the common ancestor? Some may be, some are almost certainly cousins and not direct relations.

Yes, but many of these discoveries have replaced the way the evolutionary steps of mankind are viewed and this doesn't necessarily shed anymore light on our ancestors than before other than to change the fossil record we have had before.

In the second, we can measure the change in the size of the brain, especially relative to body size. We can also trace the development of artifacts. Is there something more that you think is reasonable to expect from a fossil?

To reasonably expect from a fossil no. That is part of the problem, it is like looking at a puzzle partly finished and claiming it is a duck and finding out that it is a polar bear. Sometimes it is the pieces missing that hold the critical information.

The size of the brain is really becoming more and more a problem as Science discovers more about the brain. Size is being thought less important in relation to intelligence. Regardless, it is interesting to note that our brains were growing larger but the output was staying the same for millions of years. Tools stayed the same and there is no evidence that the size change was making us more intelligent until at least 100 million years after the fact. One of the theories of why our brains got bigger was that language was the factor but it is now known that language came about later. In fact, our brains were capable of very complex thinking skills long before those skills were needed. They held the ability to design the computers we are on today before language was even used.

The development of our brains and our intelligence does not fit neatly into the evolutionary model and most certainly holds gaps as I stated earlier.

Now, to the larger issue which is brought up frequently: missing links and, here, other missing pieces. These may be legitimate problems for evolution if you can put up an argument which says that, according to our current understanding, we should have found more or different fossils than what we have found. As a glib example, if we were studying the ark story, the lack of kangaroo and koala fossils throughout the middle east and southern Asia would be a significant problem, as we should expect to see them as the animals made the trek to their present homes.

Darwin himself felt that such fossils should be numerous, but I didn't bring up this issue. This is a gap in knowledge at present for the evolution model. As far as the Ark, again I didn't bring it up but you are under the same misconception as others when citing this with creation. I am only talking about Creation as stated in the six days in Genesis one.

However, fossils are typically very rare. They only form under very particular, and uncommon circumstances. There are some species which fossilize even less often than others. Bats, for example, have very small bodies with light, fragile bones. Most of them will die near their roost and be immediately eaten by the insects living in their guano. As a consequence, they appear very abruptly in the fossil record, but this is just what we would expect and is not a concern, though we can always hope for a lucky break.

Please don't bother going into the fossils are typically very rare speech. This is also a gap excuse. There are gaps but it doesn't matter speal. It doesn't bother me, just as there are gaps in the creation theories as well. The problem is when you as an evolutionist allow gaps for your side but won't allow the same on mine.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If that were true, then you wouldn't demand or require Biblical accuracy.
Yes, and your point failed. The Bible is still very clearly dead wrong about damned-near everything back to front, particularly in Genesis, which wasn't written by Moses, nor even when he was still alive. And even if it was, it still would have been many thousands/millions of years after the "fact".

That is your opinion Aron-Ra. Genesis is not wrong about everything and is a very good fit for what we have discovered in Science which the two of us have discussed.

The Bible was written over a period of 1700 years, by dozens of different authors, often from different religions, many of whom would never have accepted Jesus. The majority of both the Old and New Testements were borrowed from the elder gods of neighboring religions. Successive generations add more made-up legends to it that were never meant to be there. And three score of the books originally included in the Bible have been lost forever ages ago, and we only know about them because the Bible says they're still supposed to be there.

I have shown over and over that the borrowing came from the neighboring religions from Judaism. Scholars that are very well versed in early religion have stated as such.

The Bible is very much in tact from the early days which is exemplified in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

None of the Bible's prophesies were specific or detailed, except the ones that didn't come true when they should have. You worship a book, and it doesn't deserve it.

Again this is purely your opinion. The Bible isn't worshipped it is used for instuction and is perfect for the follower of Christ.

Remember that if God exists, the Bible, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Zend Avesta, and all the other "holy" books are still man's word, not God's. If you want to see God's word, you have to put the books down and look around. Because men can't write fossils. But we're great at making up fables and calling them all "absolute truth" when we need to dupe someone into believing them.

Since you have absolutely no experience with God and the Bible it is not to hard to understand that you might have a problem with the Bible and God as well. Unfortunately, your opinion is just that and doesn't prove or disprove the Bible.

 

[Oncedeceived]

" 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Ron, Ok, you're right. My memory slipped on this one. However, even though all land animals were made on the same day as humans does not mean humans were apes. God put humans in charge of the rest of the beasts of the land (and the air and sea).

Cheryl,

It may be helpful if you looked at the Hebrew version of the Genesis chapters. It is the most accurate translation and you will start to see things perhaps more clearly.

The Genesis depiction of Creation does not conflict with what Science
knows about early life. I don't have time now but I will give you some very helpful links to help you.