Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Might be a worthy project, Arq - not to convince Eusie but other lurkers whose minds aren't completely shuttered. But I sure don't have the knowledge to be of much assistance.
You don't need to, it's all compiled at talkorigins.org , indexed by creationist claim.
Rather than proving evolution it actually proves God created all species to share 23 universal proteins.
Well it can prove both since the naturalistic theory of evolution does not in anyway discount the possibility of the existence of God. Now, since you so aptly declared this evidence proves "God created all species"....and we concede that it also proves naturalistic evolution --
....YOU JUST CONFIRMED THAT YOUR CONCEPT OF GOD IS IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH OUR NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS OF EVOLUTION
Thanks for finally facing reality! We can all rest easier tonight knowing we are all on the same page again!
Well it can prove both since the naturalistic theory of evolution does not in anyway discount the possibility of the existence of God. Now, since you so aptly declared this evidence proves "God created all species"....and we concede that it also proves naturalistic evolution --
....YOU JUST CONFIRMED THAT YOUR CONCEPT OF GOD IS IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH OUR NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS OF EVOLUTION
Thanks for finally facing reality! We can all rest easier tonight knowing we are all on the same page again!
Unless you have your bible open I doubt we are on the same page.
The last 12 verses in Mark's gospel are saturated with more than 75 instances of sevens. Scholars from back in the day attest to the fact Marks gospel was complete.
Wiki ? is that the best you can do ??
Again, from Wikipedia, with sources cited:
Quote:
Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.[3]
(Footnote points to: Burkett, Delbert (2002). An introduction to the New Testament and the origins of Christianity)
(link broken)
Quote:
Most scholars, following the approach of the textual critic Bruce Metzger, hold the view that verses 9-20 were not part of the original text.[1]
(Footnote points to:
Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. "Empty Tomb, Appearances & Ascension" p. 449-495.)
There are over 300,000 textual variants in the manuscripts of the New Testament; the textual problems that are discussed in the NET Bible are only a small fraction of them. Every English translation includes Mark 16.9-20, even though the editors of virtually all of them would consider these verses not to be authentic.
(a) The vocabulary and style of verses 9–20 are non–Markan (e.g. ἀπιστέω, βλάπτω, βεβαιόω, ἐπακολουθέω, θεάομαι, μετὰ ταῦτα, πορεύομαι, συνεργέω, ὕστερον are found nowhere else in Mark; and θανάσιμον and τοῖς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις, as designations of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament).
Dear lurkers, please notice from the posts that there really is no proof for evolution. Of course, there is no proof God created mankind fully mature either. But it makes more sense to believe in divine causality than all creation being an accident.
But just so you know lurker, they really have no proof for evolution. None whatsoever. Yet if you go to the Nature channel or other shows on t.v. you will hear them say about a hundred times the words "evolved" or "evolving" or "evolution." Don't believe it. They have no proof.
Actually on an individual basis there is proof that at one time each of us was a single cell. Evolution of the individual is well documented and recognizable in even a beginning level study of embryology.
You yourself went from a single cell to a colonial organism of similar cells to an aquatic stage, to an amphibian stage and then to a reptillian stage and after nine months in primordial development emerged as a Mammal. At one point in your life you had gills like a fish.
The biological concepts of evolution are quite provable in watching the development of the individual.
I am a theist and a creationist. but I can also see the proof of evolutionary development. At least at the Micro-evolutionary level.
I do believe Humans are unique and did not evolve from a lower creature. Yet, I do know even among humans evolutionary processes are at work and have been.I do believe we were created as Humans although I accept that the first humans might not resemble what we are today.
to help clear up misconception one must first learn that Evolution does not mean creation and creation does not exclude evolution as a development factor.
Belief in evolution does not negate belief in creation.
Although it may result in interesting arguments as to what stage us humans passed through. but, that is another topic.
The OP is wrong from the very get go with the fatal assumption that humans evolved from single-celled organisms. This is a tactic many of the foolish magic-men prescribers try to use to gain an edge. It's basically a straw man argument from the get go. The entire premise, down to the wording of these ridiculous, moronic postulations are designed with back doors to slip through and goal posts to move. It allows the dishonest Creationist to keep sneaking away from or addressing any real evidence when it's been presented to them.
As well, it also shows their entirely unenlightened and ignorant position on the topic. The last few words of the thread title itself are a dead giveaway to the OP's completely unfounded and ridiculous assertions on the topic. Let's examine this part of the title first:
"Humans evolved from single-celled amoebas."
I know of no scientist, no evolutionary biologist, and no theorist OTHER than Creationists themselves who propose that humans evolved from single-celled amoebas. What this is is a gross caricature of evolutionary theory with no purpose in mind other than to mislead or ask for so much singular evidence at one time from someone that they couldn't possibly do it. Here's why:
For starters, the OP is asking either one of two questions. He is either asking us to prove, on an internet forum no less, every single evolutionary step from a single-celled organism some 3.5 billion years to our first human ancestors some 100-250 thousand years ago. In a lot of ways, this is like asking to trace every second, minute, hour, day, week, month, and year of a suspected murderer's life to determine whether or not they committed the crime.
OR, the OP is asking us to prove a premise that no one in the scientific community has every proposed in the first place - that somehow, after many millions of years, a single-celled organism (an amoeba nonetheless), underwent such radical cellular division that it spawned a human. While the absurdity of such an argument is readily apparent, we shouldn't be so quick to scoff at it because this is a tactic many of the dimwits in the 'Lying for Jesus' Club accuse we "evolutionists" of having as a belief. Yes, that's right. They're literally accusing us of holding the belief that some amoeba somewhere had a bad day, was fed after midnight, or got wet, and somehow splatted out a human.
Second, I'd like to point out that amoebas are not the only single-celled organisms around. Bacteria, probably the most populous groups of life on the planet, are single-celled organisms. Oh, and don't forget about yeast - probably one of the most biologically important single-celled organisms to much of human research.
Anyway, to keep on track.... No one has ever singled out an amoeba and said "There, folks, lies Great-Great-Great-Grandpa Puddle Person." What HAS been suggested is that unicellular organisms began to cluster together due to certain advantageous benefits. The transition from unicellular organisms to multicellular organisms is a huge one in the evolutionary process.
We can go on and on and on all day and night long citing evidence for this and evidence for that but it won't matter because all you're doing is feeding the machine of idiocy and stupidity... All so they can somehow or another justify in their minds that their insanely ludicrous and stupid beliefs somehow mean something and are real.
Arguing with forum trolls like Eusebius whose arguments really do not mount up to much more than the crusty stuff in my eyes after I wake up in the morning is probably just a complete waste of time. People like that are uneducated, foolish, willfully and purposefully ignorant of everything that doesn't line up with their absurd world views.
After all, if he knew anything about what he was talking, he would have at least gotten the title of the thread correct. Unless, of course, he does know better and was merely being the typical liar for Jesus that we normally see starting threads like this.
Arguing with forum trolls like Eusebius whose arguments really do not mount up to much more than the crusty stuff in my eyes after I wake up in the morning is probably just a complete waste of time. People like that are uneducated, foolish, willfully and purposefully ignorant of everything that doesn't line up with their absurd world views.
Hey over here !! Add me to that list !!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
