Macroevolution

Originally posted by dj2becker
I suppose your judgement of what a Christian is can be justified by your reading of half the book of Joshua.

Seriously pal, I suggest you read the whole Bible before commenting on who's a Christian and whose not...

But this is actually totally off the topic. So lets stick to the topic, which happens to be "Macroevolution". You can gladly open you ...[text shortened]... hristianity on it. But then I suggest that you read a little more than half the book of Joshua😉

Again I point out to you , you ain't gonna find God in the OT,,
A quote from long ago:
"How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?"
Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees

They did, Paul did not.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Again I point out to you , you ain't gonna find God in the OT,,
A quote from long ago:
"How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?"
Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees

They did, Paul did not.

I can't see how any of this has anything to do with macroevolution.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I can't see how any of this has anything to do with macroevolution.

no surprise there

I thought it was self-evident (assuming one has a passing familiarity with the context)

Originally posted by frogstomp
Horse poop:
you Paulines hijacked the process.

And you have still given zero evidence of macroevolution....

Originally posted by dj2becker
And you have still given zero evidence of macroevolution....

You won't read it anyway as I and others have posted enough of it ad infinitem. And you just go about you Sophist ways of debating.

One doesn't get points by pretending that there are two different theories of evolution...There is only one and it all fits together and is totally in accordance with observed phenonena.

None or your verbal tricks , sophistry, pseudo-science , deceptions, lie and downright ignorance is going to change the fact that evolution happened just the way science says it did .

Originally posted by frogstomp
You won't read it anyway as I and others have posted enough of it ad infinitem. And you just go about you Sophist ways of debating.

One doesn't get points by pretending that there are two different theories of evolution...There is only one and it all fits together and is totally in accordance with observed phenonena.

...[text shortened]... e is going to change the fact that evolution happened just the way science says it did .

You need millions of transitional fossils for macroevolution to be true. Ask Darwin.

But you can even give me one...

Originally posted by dj2becker
You need millions of transitional fossils for macroevolution to be true. Ask Darwin.

But you can even give me one...

In one of the earlier threads I posted , many of them ,Frankly Im tired of posting the same stuff over and over for each batch of creationists that come here.
If you want to see them . dig through that threads ,,and when you find it argue with that.

Originally posted by frogstomp
In one of the earlier threads I posted , many of them ,Frankly Im tired of posting the same stuff over and over for each batch of creationists that come here.
If you want to see them . dig through that threads ,,and when you find it argue with that.

I am asking for ones that aren't fake. Even the most respected Evolutionists agree that there is not a single transitional fossil.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]More than 100 cases of humans born with tails have been reported in the medical literature.

Are you saying that humans are evolving into monkeys? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around.😉

PS: See http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp for a refutation of your little theory.[/b]

DUUUH!

We have not evolved from monkeys nor they from us. The two species have a common ancestor

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
DUUUH!

We have not evolved from monkeys nor they from us. The two species have a common ancestor

How do you know this?

It can also point towards a common designer.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I am asking for ones that aren't fake. Even the most respected Evolutionists agree that there is not a single transitional fossil.

here's a site of a respected evolutionist.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html

a funny example of a creationist view of fossils :"The study of fossils, the hardened remains of prehistoric animals and plants."

another respected evolutionist's site takes us back to reality:http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html

sources of online information about evolution :
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/paleontology.htm#Paleontology

it's home page has much info to offer:
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/indexpage.htm#A

I suggest you use the student one first,so you cant say I didnt provide a teacher
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/explorations/tours/stories/index.html

Originally posted by dj2becker
It can also point towards a common designer.

Here is where the Qur'an proves superior to the Bible. A Muslim would never use the word common in reference to Allah.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I am asking for ones that aren't fake. Even the most respected Evolutionists agree that there is not a single transitional fossil.

Parasemionotus: fish with lungs.

Now, who says these are not transitional? Do modern fish have lungs?

Originally posted by dj2becker
I am asking for ones that aren't fake. Even the most respected Evolutionists agree that there is not a single transitional fossil.

Sinornis santensis: bird or reptile? It depends upon which features you highlight.

Originally posted by dj2becker
How do you know this?

It can also point towards a common designer.

Homologies in DNA, etc etc etc