Looking for all the missing links

[good brother]

This is a letter that evolutionary theory should send out:

"To whom it may concern,

I'm looking for a chain. The only problem with my "chain" is I have only a handful of pieces and I need my "chain" to be millions (if not billions) of "miles" long. Of the scant few links I have in my possession, some of them do bear a vague resemblance to eachother, but I cannot get them to fit with eachother. One of the problems I have with my "chain", among the many, is that all the links that I have in my possession are still closed, and welded shut. There is no way I can ever get them connected.

I "know" that the millions of "miles" long "chain" once existed because I have a scant few disconnected links in my hand. I "know" that there should be hundreds of millions of copies of my missing links scattered all over the earth because I know that my "chain" is very long and very old.

Most people have bought and paid for the whole chain when I have shown them the very few closed pieces I have in my hand. Thank goodness they just took my word that those pieces fit nicely together instead of doing any investigation and saw that the links I have cannot be connected because they are shut and welded.

I really must have more pieces of my "chain" if I am going to sell this "chain" to every thinking person. Some of those pesky people that won't buy my whole "chain" believe in this book that says there never was one long complete "chain", but instead there was a "chainmaker" that made thousands of short unlinked "chains" that are still visible today. Of course we can see all those short unlinked "chains" around us today, that's where I got my "revelation" that there must be one long "super chain" that connects all the unlinked short chains into one very long super chain. Look at the finches of the Galapogos Islands. They all belong to one of those short "unlinked chains", so there must be a super chain that connects all birds everywhere. Look at horses, zebras, and donkeys. Look all around you. We all can see these short unlinked chains all around us, so doesn't it make sense that there is a super chain just waiting to be discovered?

So please, if you see any of my chain, any at all, please send it to me. Also, if you know of anyway I can connect these welded closed links to each other I would be much obliged."

Thanks.

Sincerely, Evolution."

​

Let me know what you all think of the letter, and what kind of responses you might have to an actual letter like this.

In Christ, GB

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Where would you say that the gaps are?

 

[Freodin]

[/INDENT]Let me know what you all think of the letter, and what kind of responses you might have to an actual letter like this.

In Christ, GB

I think this letter deserves a quote from a famous member of this board: "Keep looking!"

On a more serious note: this "chain" does not look what you seem to suppose it looks, so "Evolution" would not write such a letter... unless it was "Creationism" in disguise.

 

[good brother]

Where would you say that the gaps are?

Oh, I don't know, how about all the gaps between single celled organisms and even one multicelled organism? How about all the millions* of transition forms between invertebrates and vertebrates? How about all the millions* of missing links between fish and land animals? How about all the millions* of missing transition forms between dinosaurs and birds? How about all the millions* of missing transition forms between man and some distant ape-like creature of eons past? How about all the millions* of missing links between reptiles and mammals? How about ALL the many millions* of missing links that are supposed to have existed?

*This is working under the assumption that it would only take several million massive changes in one species to turn it into something else entirely. The truth of the matter is that "billions of trillions" could be substituted in place of "millions" in the above paragraph when dealing with how many changes must have happened for something of the magnitude of evolution to actually occur.

In Christ, GB

 

[Guy1]

Oh, I don't know, how about all the gaps between single celled organisms and even one multicelled organism? How about all the millions* of transition forms between invertebrates and vertebrates? How about all the millions* of missing links between fish and land animals? How about all the millions* of missing transition forms between dinosaurs and birds? How about all the millions* of missing transition forms between man and some distant ape-like creature of eons past? How about all the millions* of missing links between reptiles and mammals? How about ALL the many millions* of missing links that are supposed to have existed?

*This is working under the assumption that it would only take several million massive changes in one species to turn it into something else entirely. The truth of the matter is that "billions of trillions" could be substituted in place of "millions" in the above paragraph when dealing with how many changes must have happened for something of the magnitude of evolution to actually occur.

In Christ, GB

We give you hundreds of thousands of each. Now stop complaining and look for them on google.

 

[JanetReed]

Oh, I don't know, how about all the gaps between single celled organisms and even one multicelled organism? How about all the millions* of transition forms between invertebrates and vertebrates? How about all the millions* of missing links between fish and land animals? How about all the millions* of missing transition forms between dinosaurs and birds? How about all the millions* of missing transition forms between man and some distant ape-like creature of eons past? How about all the millions* of missing links between reptiles and mammals? How about ALL the many millions* of missing links that are supposed to have existed?

*This is working under the assumption that it would only take several million massive changes in one species to turn it into something else entirely. The truth of the matter is that "billions of trillions" could be substituted in place of "millions" in the above paragraph when dealing with how many changes must have happened for something of the magnitude of evolution to actually occur.

In Christ, GB

It's much easier just to say Goddidit and then go back to bed.

Luckily for you a lot of people don't do that, do they?

 

[Jro]

How many footprints do you need to find before you say "Yup, it's a path"?

 

[good brother]

"Evolution" would not write such a letter....

You are correct there. Evolution would never admit to proposing such a grand theory with statistically no evidence to support it.

And before you fly off the handle with "We have all sorts of evidence for evolution..." I would like to direct your attention to post #4 by yours truly. In light of how many fossils are in possession versus how many there actually needs to be is next to statistically zero. Let me demonstrate.

Actual numbers of missing links with gradual changes in each generation needed to change (let's say) dinosaurs into birds: 852,734,928,563,499 (guesstimated, the number could be much higher)

Acutal number of "transition forms" we have: 3

Quick math problem
852,734,928,563,499
-3
852,734,928,563,496


That's a whopping 0.00000000000000351809591267....%. Let me say it another way, "that's zero point zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero three five" That is the percentage of actual possessed numbers of the supposed transition forms out of a possible 100% that should be available according to evolution.

Thus, we come to a percentage that is so low that it is inconcieveable how minute that number really is. And this super low (understatement) is only for one example! Just think about all those many changes to all those many species that are claimed to have taken place yet "we" only have one, two, three, perhaps a dozen at most of the supposed transtition fossils out of the billions needed!

You are correct, evolution will never admit to not having any real amount of proof.

In Christ, GB

 

[sfs]

I'd say your letter reflects a near-zero knowledge of evolution, paleontology and biology. The grammar's mostly pretty good, though.

 

[Jro]

How are you generating that number of missing links?

 

[good brother]

We give you hundreds of thousands of each. Now stop complaining and look for them on google.

Of all those missing links I listed, I would settle for you showing me even two hundred missing links in the fossil record that demonstrate one of any of the following:

unicellular to multicellular
Invertebrates to vertebrates
reptiles to mammals
dinosaurs to birds
ape-like creatures to man
fish and land animals

Just two hundred examples of the "hundreds of thousands" examples of each of those that you know are in our possession. That's it. I am just asking you for 0.2% of the proof that you claim to have. You claim to have "hundreds of thousands" examples of each, so I figured you must have at least 100,000 transition examples to pull from. I am asking for 200 of those examples from any one of those above categories, which translates into.2% (ZERO POINT two percent) of the total amount of available information for you to choose from.

Thank you in advance.

In Christ, GB

 

[verysincere]

This is a letter that evolutionary theory should send out:

"To whom it may concern,

I'm looking for a chain. The only problem with my "chain" is I have only a handful of pieces and I need my "chain" to be millions (if not billions) of "miles" long. Of the scant few links I have in my possession, some of them do bear a vague resemblance to eachother, but I cannot get them to fit with eachother.
​

Time to Rattle Good Brother's "Chains"


1) Even when I was an anti-evolution YEC long ago, I never understood the point of such an argument. It sounds like you are saying that lineage can ONLY be established if EVERY individual transitional form of an evolutionary line were to be available for study. ["Transitional form" is a potentially misleading term but I use it here simply because many YECs use the term.]

2) To meet that standard, fossilization would have to be so common that the earth's crust would have to be virtually saturated with fossils.

3) When I was a YEC, a few of my colleagues complained about "a lack of fossil evidence" but even then (1960's) there were a lot of transitional fossil forms. Today there are MANY of what Good Brother calls "chains" quite well established. Yet DESPITE THAT FACT a lot of anti-evolution Christians lie and complain "NO transitional fossils forms have been found!" So if the goal of paleontologists was to satisfy some "sufficient links of a chain" standard established by non-scientist doubters, what would be the point? Wouldn't it be a futile exercise? Does anyone think for a moment that the evidence would matter?

4) Suppose someone---despite all of the evidence---insisted on saying that automobiles "spontaneously appear" as complete machines without any transitional steps. So I visit an auto factory and take a series of photos of a car being built. I post those photos on the wall of a hallway so that one can see a car "developing" from a bare chassis to a complete vehicle being driven out the door. But the skeptic looks at the sequence of photos and says, "I don't believe it. You simply took photos of different kinds of equipment and arranged them in an order that would fool me. There are far too many GAPS in the sequence for me to be convinced! In fact, there are gaps between EVERY ONE OF YOUR ALLEGED ASSEMBLY SEQUENCES!

Notice how car batteries and the car seats, for example, just suddenly appear out of nowhere! So, with a deep sigh, I visit every SUPPLIER factory, each producing a different major "part", such as batteries and car seats, lamp assemblies and crankcases, tires and radiators. Now I need a LOT of very long hallways with extended sequences of photos showing just one car under construction.

Let's face it, when someone REFUSES to affirm that an automobile is a machine which is constructed in a long series of steps (and insists that they spontaneously appear in a complete form and never went through a series of transitional stages) THE OVERWHELMING VOLUME OF EVIDENCE DOES NOT MATTER.

5) Now the same Christians who refuse to accept the the "chain" of forms nevertheless will say, "Every human alive today is a descendent of Adam and Eve." So what if I demanded, "Show me evidence and identify for me EVERY INDIVIDUAL ANCESTOR for just one modern day individual in one continual CHAIN from Adam down through Noah down through the individual."

Indeed, why do anti-evolution Christians insist on denying the abundant evolution for "the origin of species" while accepting without evidence a continuous lineage from Adam to each modern human? Is there a double-standard here? Yes.

6) So does the fossil record tell a story of impressive sequences of evolutionary history, such as reptile to mammal? Yes. We don't have to have evidence FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL SPECIMEN to learn from and establish the fact of evolution.

7) One more example: Suppose I take a full-length feature film (a cinema movie) and remove 99.9% of all of the frames. Could the remaining still-photos be used to tell the entire story? Certainly! We don't need EVERY "step" in the movie to know what happened.

8) But here's what I find especially exasperating about having to go through this process of debunking the various anti-evolution fossil-denying arguments: The Theory of Evolution was well established long before we had such a huge volume of fossil evidence! Indeed, even if we had ZERO fossils on earth, the ToE would stand firm from the phylogenetic trees alone. And the genomic evidence absolutely puts all alleged doubts to rest!

It is time for anti-evolution Christians to be honest with the world. It is time to drop the lie of "There are zero transitional fossil forms." Such lies harm the credibility of ALL believers in the minds of the general public, who (unfortunately) believe the anti-evolution Christians who tell them that the Bible rejects evolution!

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and it is ONLY because of the cherished TRADITIONS of some churches and their doctrinal histories which have led SOME Christian groups of the world to reject a fact of science. Why is that the case? Because the Bible says NOTHING to deny evolutionary processes. But because SOME Christians come from church traditions that insist on rejecting evolution, they foster that tradition. Many other Christians do NOT have that tradition in their history OR they have decided to REJECT man-made traditions and accept what the Bible says (i.e., the fact that the Bible says nothing to deny evolution.) Indeed, those Bible-affirming Christians can praise God for the amazing processes of evolution which adapt and diversify life on earth.

One thing I appreciate about Dr. Michael Behe (who is considered "a father of Intelligent Design" by many) is that he accepts common descent. And both Young Earth Creationists Dr. Kurt Wise and Dr. Todd Wood accept the fact that the evidence for evolutionary processes is OVERWHELMING and that there is little point in denying that mass of evidence. Instead, they admit that their personal positions are established by spiritual criteria and not scientific evidence. I appreciate their honesty. It is time for other anti-evolution Christians to show similar honesty. Indeed, it is very difficult to find a scientist who rejects evolution who does so without having religious reasons for doing so. That should tell us something!

.

 

[good brother]

How are you generating that number of missing links?

A T Rex had 60 teeth, a bird has none. If the T Rex lost only one tooth at a time (slow gradual processes), that's sixty necessary changes right there. Of course, this does not take into affect the fact that birds have beaks and only SOME dinosaurs did. If a dinosaur is to gain a beak and lose some teeth, how many changes do you think must occur for that to take place? A dozen? Two dozen? And that is only in generic outward appearances. How about the differences in lungs between the two kinds of creatures? How about all the needed changes to DNA? Remember, you not only need DNA to change, but you need it to never repair itself in forthcoming generations. There are so many changes needed.

Why? How many changes do you think it took?

In Christ, GB

 

[verysincere]

A Follow-up Letter to Good Brother's "Chain Letter"


Inspired by "Good Brother" and his letter posted earlier, here's a letter to my evolution-denying Christian brethren:


Dear Brethren:

I'm looking for honest, Bible-affirming followers of Jesus Christ to repent of the "There are zero transitional fossil forms" lie. And isn't it time to admit that (1) your rejection of the theory of evolution is not about science; you do so solely for what you are convinced are religious (Biblical) reasons, as even some famous creationist leaders are willing to admit; and (2) as long as #1 is true, no amount of evidence is going to make a scintilla of difference to you!

Dishonest quote-mining in anti-evolution creationist materials is rampant---and don't think for a moment that the world hasn't noticed. A Google search of "Lying for Jesus" (virtually a standard term by now) yields over 100,000 results! Does the 9th Commandment matter as we carry out the Great Commission?

If you are going to deny one of God's most amazing creations [the evolutionary processes which adapt and diversify living organisms, as evidenced in the fossil record, individual genomes, and all around us today] at least admit that your rejection of that evidence is purely because of very traditional and religious reasons and NOT because of some sort of careful and systematic analysis of the evidence. If there truly was abundant evidence denying the theory of evolution, every Ph.D. candidate in the country (and all of their professors) would be scrambling to do just what Einstein did: Establish their career and become world-famous for exposing the shortcomings of a long-accepted, major scientific theory and proposing a new one to replace it! Exactly that kind of "rewriting of the science textbooks" is the path to fame and fortune for the scientist! (Actually, it applies to nearly every field, not just science.)

Let's end the lying and the abominable pseudo-science and be honest about our "reasoning" and the defense of tradition-based dogma. And let's stop blaming the Bible for our claims, because the Bible says NOTHING to deny evolution. The first century Pharisees added to God's law and insisted on burdening their brethren with unnecessary requirements. It is no surprise that many non-Christians have become convinced that they must reject science and ignore what they know to be true in order to accept the Bible. And that is a Pharisee-like obstacle to the Gospel which a very vocal minority of Christians have imposed upon them. It is one kind of "another Gospel" which the Apostle Paul warned against.

Please, my brethren, let's drop the various charades which surround the anti-evolution "arguments" and end the "Lying for Jesus" epidemic. Honesty matters.

Sincerely,

Christians who accept God's Book of Scripture (the Bible) &
God's Book of Creation (Science) about evolution

.

 

[JanetReed]

Take two panels one black one white, separate them by a thousand panels making the change from black to white,
now point out the two panels where black changes to white, you can't because although you know that each box is different from the panel before it you are unable to see the difference.

We can look at all the panels together and see the change did in fact take place but we are unable to see where the change took place, that's the same as evolution at work.

 

[Jro]

A T Rex had 60 teeth, a bird has none. If the T Rex lost only one tooth at a time (slow gradual processes), that's sixty necessary changes right there. Of course, this does not take into affect the fact that birds have beaks and only SOME dinosaurs did. If a dinosaur is to gain a beak and lose some teeth, how many changes do you think must occur for that to take place? A dozen? Two dozen? And that is only in generic outward appearances. How about the differences in lungs between the two kinds of creatures? How about all the needed changes to DNA? Remember, you not only need DNA to change, but you need it to never repair itself in forthcoming generations. There are so many changes needed.

Why? How many changes do you think it took?

In Christ, GB

That's not necessarily 60 changes- in chickens if the gene shh is activated they will grow teeth, if inactivated, no teeth. Indeed, there are even dinosarus with no teeth such as the ornithomimosaurs. Lungs within theropod dinosaurs and birds are remarkably similar structures, making use of air sacs distributed through the bones. I have not ventured to compute how many changes are needed between birds and dinosaurs. Would going through the genome and just counting each base pair difference suffice? If so there is a remarkable continuity between animals already, with relatively minor differences in the genome producing pronounced effects in phenotype. You're also working with an entire population of mutation generating sexed up dinosaurs, not just one family line.

 

[Split Rock]

This is a letter that evolutionary theory should send out:

"To whom it may concern,

I'm looking for a chain. The only problem with my "chain" is I have only a handful of pieces and I need my "chain" to be millions (if not billions) of "miles" long. Of the scant few links I have in my possession, some of them do bear a vague resemblance to eachother, but I cannot get them to fit with eachother. One of the problems I have with my "chain", among the many, is that all the links that I have in my possession are still closed, and welded shut. There is no way I can ever get them connected.

I "know" that the millions of "miles" long "chain" once existed because I have a scant few disconnected links in my hand. I "know" that there should be hundreds of millions of copies of my missing links scattered all over the earth because I know that my "chain" is very long and very old.

Most people have bought and paid for the whole chain when I have shown them the very few closed pieces I have in my hand. Thank goodness they just took my word that those pieces fit nicely together instead of doing any investigation and saw that the links I have cannot be connected because they are shut and welded.

I really must have more pieces of my "chain" if I am going to sell this "chain" to every thinking person. Some of those pesky people that won't buy my whole "chain" believe in this book that says there never was one long complete "chain", but instead there was a "chainmaker" that made thousands of short unlinked "chains" that are still visible today. Of course we can see all those short unlinked "chains" around us today, that's where I got my "revelation" that there must be one long "super chain" that connects all the unlinked short chains into one very long super chain. Look at the finches of the Galapogos Islands. They all belong to one of those short "unlinked chains", so there must be a super chain that connects all birds everywhere. Look at horses, zebras, and donkeys. Look all around you. We all can see these short unlinked chains all around us, so doesn't it make sense that there is a super chain just waiting to be discovered?

So please, if you see any of my chain, any at all, please send it to me. Also, if you know of anyway I can connect these welded closed links to each other I would be much obliged."

Thanks.

Sincerely, Evolution."

[/INDENT]Let me know what you all think of the letter, and what kind of responses you might have to an actual letter like this.

In Christ, GB

Here's a letter in response:

"To whom it may concern,

I'm looking for a garden. The only problem with my "garden" is I have only an old book telling me it exists. Of the scant few hints I have as to its location, some of them do bear a vague resemblance to the Fertile Cresent, but I cannot get them to fit with each other. One of the problems I have with my "garden", among the many, is that it is filled with mythological creatures, like a talking snake and a man made from dirt.

I am also looking for a huge wooden ark made from gopher wood. I don't know what the heck gopher wood is, but I know it is made of gopher wood. The ark is really big and held all the "kinds" of animals that have ever existed on earth. I have no idea what a "kind" is, but I know my god made them and they aren't related to each other at all.

Most people have given up on a 6,000 year old earth, who's geography was shaped by a global flood, but I haven't. Because scientists agree my ideas are outdated and wrong, science is bad. Scientists are bad, and any idea they come up with is a fraud.

I really must find some real evidence for the "garden" and the "ark" if I am going to sell this "old story" to every thinking person. Some of those pesky people that won't buy my whole "old story" believe in this "evidence" idea that says we shouldn't believe everything an old book says if it conflicts with reality.

So please, if you see any evidence of my "old story," any at all, please send it to me. Also, if you know of anyway I can convince everyone that science is a lie and full of frauds, I would be much obliged."

Thanks.

Sincerely, Creationism."

 

[verysincere]

Actual numbers of missing links with gradual changes in each generation needed to change (let's say) dinosaurs into birds: 852,734,928,563,499 (guesstimated, the number could be much higher)......That's a whopping 0.00000000000000351809591267....%.

What Good Brother is trying to say with his numbers is this:

"I refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution---including the more foundational evidence which doesn't need a single fossil to exist---unless you can show me that the planet earth has SO MANY FOSSILS such that I look out my window and see nothing but fossil remains all of the way to the horizon! To accept evolution you must show me the fossil remains for every animal that ever lived! I should have to have to bulldoze and backhoe a thirty foot thick fossil layer from my backyard before I can plant a garden!"

(And lest I be misunderstood, the above is not hyperbole. Indeed, depending on what "level" of transitional forms he demands, the depth of the fossil layer would be much deeper. If he expects to find a COMPLETE and continuous lineage, an enormous "tree" of fossils would have to remain from ancient times.)

But even if such a layer existed, he would somehow explain it all away using a global flood theory! (I'm serious.)

But like so many non-scientists, he assumes that Darwin's ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES placed The Theory of Evolution on a foundation of paleontology.

 

[good brother]

Time to Rattle Good Brother's "Chains"

You didn't even ruffle my feathers, let alone rattle my chain.

1) Even when I was an anti-evolution YEC long ago, I never understood the point of such an argument. It sounds like you are saying that lineage can ONLY be established if EVERY individual transitional form of an evolutionary line were to be available for study. ["Transitional form" is a potentially misleading term but I use it here simply because many YECs use the term.]

Not EVERY, but a whole bunch more than what there is at present. If I came up to you and said I am your son, and presented you with a notary public authorized paper stating such, would you believe me with just a sheet of paper and my testimony or would you require some more conclusive evidence?

2) To meet that standard, fossilization would have to be so common that the earth's crust would have to be virtually saturated with fossils.

Funny thing is, it is saturated with fossils. We can go pretty much anywhere in the world and dig and find some fossils of some sort.

3) Today there are MANY of what Good Brother calls "chains" quite well established.

Proof, please.

4) Suppose someone---despite all of the evidence---insisted on saying that automobiles "spontaneously appear"

....Let's face it, when someone REFUSES to affirm that an automobile is a machine which is constructed in a long series of steps (and insists that they spontaneously appear in a complete form and never went through a series of transitional stages) THE OVERWHELMING VOLUME OF EVIDENCE DOES NOT MATTER.

Relatively speaking, they did spontaneously appear in the late 1700's when someone replaced a horse with a steam powered devise.

5) Now the same Christians who refuse to accept the the "chain" of forms nevertheless will say, "Every human alive today is a descendent of Adam and Eve." So what if I demanded, "Show me evidence and identify for me EVERY INDIVIDUAL ANCESTOR for just one modern day individual in one continual CHAIN from Adam down through Noah down through the individual."

Indeed, why do anti-evolution Christians insist on denying the abundant evolution for "the origin of species" while accepting without evidence a continuous lineage from Adam to each modern human? Is there a double-standard here? Yes.

Firstly, let me say that there is a huge difference between accepting the fact that we humans are all descendants of Adam and accepting a theory that me, mice, and the oak tree outside all had a common ancestor.

Secondly, I would say reread my "firstly" statement.

6) So does the fossil record tell a story of impressive sequences of evolutionary history, such as reptile to mammal? Yes. We don't have to have evidence FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL SPECIMEN to learn from and establish the fact of evolution.

Making the claim and having a handful of fossils out of the necessary millions and billions of needed transition fossils does not close the case.

7) One more example: Suppose I take a full-length feature film (a cinema movie) and remove 99.9% of all of the frames. Could the remaining still-photos be used to tell the entire story? Certainly! We don't need EVERY "step" in the movie to know what happened.

That is a ridiculous argument. If that were the case, you should share that secret with Hollywood. They could take a stationary picture instead of spending tens of millions of dollars to make a movie, and just have the people stare at the single stationary picture!

8) But here's what I find especially exasperating about having to go through this process of debunking the various anti-evolution fossil-denying arguments: The Theory of Evolution was well established long before we had such a huge volume of fossil evidence! Indeed, even if we had ZERO fossils on earth, the ToE would stand firm from the phylogenetic trees alone. And the genomic evidence absolutely puts all alleged doubts to rest!

That, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call faith.

It is time for anti-evolution Christians to be honest with the world. It is time to drop the lie of "There are zero transitional fossil forms." Such lies harm the credibility of ALL believers in the minds of the general public, who (unfortunately) believe the anti-evolution Christians who tell them that the Bible rejects evolution!

Ad Hom. No proof offered at all.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and it is ONLY because of the cherished TRADITIONS of some churches and their doctrinal histories which have led SOME Christian groups of the world to reject a fact of science. Why is that the case? Because the Bible says NOTHING to deny evolutionary processes. But because SOME Christians come from church traditions that insist on rejecting evolution, they foster that tradition. Many other Christians do NOT have that tradition in their history OR they have decided to REJECT man-made traditions and accept what the Bible says (i.e., the fact that the Bible says nothing to deny evolution.) Indeed, those Bible-affirming Christians can praise God for the amazing processes of evolution which adapt and diversify life on earth.

Again, Ad Hom.

Indeed, it is very difficult to find a scientist who rejects evolution who does so without having religious reasons for doing so. That should tell us something!
.

No true Scotsman. Gotta love the fall back argument!

In Christ, GB

 

[good brother]

A Follow-up Letter to Good Brother's "Chain Letter"
Sincerely,

Christians who accept God's Book of Scripture (the Bible) &
God's Book of Creation (Science) about evolution

.

How much proof do you need from science that Jesus Christ literally died and was raised again to life glorified to have victory over death and the grave? As a Christian, you do believe that, don't you?

In Christ, GB