Originally posted by Proper KnobReproduce evolution by changing a fish into an amphibian or an amphibian into a reptile so it can be observed. Then document how it is done so others can repeat it. That is the scientific method. Anything else is just belief and opinion, not science.
What do you mean by 'reproduce evolution'? What exactly is 'cosmological origin'? Are you talking about the Big Bang?
Originally posted by KingOnPointI'm not saying that I WANT to. I'm saying that many a great deed has been performed in pursuance of false beliefs. And v.v. , many an evil deed has been performed in pursuance of true beliefs.
Moonbus,
I don't want to believe in any lie. Do you want to put faith in a lie?
"I believe in God because scripture is declared to come directly from Godly inspiration. It is God's word. God attests to it. So, for as much as the bible contains scripture, it is accurate. As for the oldest writings from where the bible is produced, what has ever been disproved? I also believe the original writings by faith. The bible is supposed to be taken from the oldest writings available."
What we now call the Bible did not exist prior to canonization in the middle of the 3d century AD, and it has been redacted several times since then. The earliest text upon which our modern Bibles are based is the Masoretic text, the oldest fragments of which date from the 9th century AD, and the oldest complete texts date from the 10th and 11th centuries AD.
There is vast quantity of pagan literature, both sacred and profane, which antedates this by thousands of years. The supposition that the Bible was taken from the oldest writings available does not stand up to historic and scholarly scrutiny. From ca. 32 AD when Jesus was supposed to have been crucified to the 9th c is a very long gap indeed.
Originally posted by RJHindsChanging a fish into an amphibian? That would be a miracle at work, not evolution.
Reproduce evolution by changing a fish into an amphibian or an amphibian into a reptile so it can be observed. Then document how it is done so others can repeat it. That is the scientific method. Anything else is just belief and opinion, not science.
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
for anyone interested in reading why some Christians reject macro evolution
Microevolution - Macroevolution
This candid admission is from the evolutionist journal Nature: "Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change. The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye. Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-- Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.
Proper Knob
First of all, the bible is a translation from the original writings into English for me. I don't doubt the original writings from which the bible came.
Now, i ask you. . .what in the original writings have been disproved to be not true?
I don't doubt the original writing sources. For as much as the bible has the original writings in English for me, I don't doubt the bible either.