Scientific, archaeological, current events proof of bible!

[RandomGuy]

The point of this thread was not to prove a God or Christian God existed, like you stated that takes faith. The point of this thread was to show the bible was not made up of lies by men to control the population. One thing I have learned though is that these people just reject the facts, can't really do anything about that, it is in God's hands. And I know that scripture you are talking about, there is another one I read before that said something like, their towers will burn.....ect. I will try and locate it.

1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?

* God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
* Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)

2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?

* Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
* One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?

* Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
* Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

4. God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?

* Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
* Three (I Chronicles 21:12)

5. How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?

* Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
* Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)

6. How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?

* Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
* Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)

7. How long did he rule over Jerusalem?

* Three months (2 Kings 24:8)
* Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)

8. The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?

* Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:8)
* Three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11)

9. When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?

* After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
* Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)

10. How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?

* Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)
* Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)

11. When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?

* One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4)
* Seven thousand (I Chronicles 18:4)

12. How many stalls for horses did Solomon have?

* Forty thousand (I Kings 4:26)
* Four thousand (2 chronicles 9:25)

13. In what year of King Asa's reign did Baasha, King of Israel die?

* Twenty-sixth year (I Kings 15:33 - 16:8)
* Still alive in the thirty-sixth year (2 Chronicles 16:1)

14. How many overseers did Solomon appoint for the work of building the temple?

* Three thousand six hundred (2 Chronicles 2:2)
* Three thousand three hundred (I Kings 5:16)

15. Solomon built a facility containing how many baths?

* Two thousand (1 Kings 7:26)
* Over three thousand (2 Chronicles 4:5)

16. Of the Israelites who were freed from the Babylonian captivity, how many were the children of Pahrath-Moab?

* Two thousand eight hundred and twelve (Ezra 2:6)
* Two thousand eight hundred and eighteen (Nehemiah 7:11)

17. How many were the children of Zattu?

* Nine hundred and forty-five (Ezra 2:8)
* Eight hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:13)

18. How many were the children of Azgad?

* One thousand two hundred and twenty-two (Ezra 2:12)
* Two thousand three hundred and twenty-two (Nehemiah 7:17)

19. How many were the children of Adin?

* Four hundred and fifty-four (Ezra 2:15)
* Six hundred and fifty-five (Nehemiah 7:20)

20. How many were the children of Hashum?

* Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:19)
* Three hundred and twenty-eight (Nehemiah 7:22)

21. How many were the children of Bethel and Ai?

* Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:28)
* One hundred and twenty-three (Nehemiah 7:32)

22. Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number of the whole assembly was 42,360. Yet the numbers do not add up to anything close. The totals obtained from each book is as follows:

* 29,818 (Ezra)
* 31,089 (Nehemiah)

23. How many singers accompanied the assembly?

* Two hundred (Ezra 2:65)
* Two hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:67)

24. What was the name of King Abijahs mother?

* Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2)
* Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20) But Absalom had only one daughter whose name was Tamar (2 Samuel 14:27)

25. Did Joshua and the Israelites capture Jerusalem?

* Yes (Joshua 10:23, 40)
* No (Joshua 15:63)

26. Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?

* Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
* Hell (Luke 3:23)

27. Jesus descended from which son of David?

* Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
* Nathan(Luke3:31)

28. Who was the father of Shealtiel?

* Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12)
* Neri (Luke 3:27)

29. Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ?

* Abiud (Matthew 1: 13)
* Rhesa (Luke 3:27) But the seven sons of Zerubbabel are as follows: i.Meshullam, ii. Hananiah, iii. Hashubah, iv. Ohel, v.Berechiah, vi. Hasadiah, viii. Jushabhesed (I Chronicles 3:19, 20). The names Abiud and Rhesa do not fit in anyway.

30. Who was the father of Uzziah?

* Joram (Matthew 1:8)
* Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1)

31. Who was the father of Jechoniah?

* Josiah (Matthew 1:11)
* Jeholakim (I Chronicles 3:16)

32. How many generations were there from the Babylonian exile until Christ?

* Matthew says fourteen (Matthew 1:17)
* But a careful count of the generations reveals only thirteen (see Matthew 1: 12-16)

33. Who was the father of Shelah?

* Cainan (Luke 3:35-36)
* Arphaxad (Genesis II: 12)

34. Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?

* Yes (Matthew II: 14, 17:10-13)
* No (John 1:19-21)

35. Would Jesus inherit Davids throne?

* Yes. So said the angel (Luke 1:32)
* No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see Matthew 1: I 1, I Chronicles 3:16). And Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants can sit upon Davids throne (Jeremiah 36:30)

36. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on how many animals?

* One - a colt (Mark 11:7; cf Luke 19:3 5). And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their garments on it; and he sat upon it.
* Two - a colt and an ass (Matthew 21:7). They brought the ass and the colt and put their garments on them and he sat thereon.

37. How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?

* By a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17)
* His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)

38. Where did Jesus first meet Simon Peter and Andrew?

* By the sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18-22)
* On the banks of river Jordan (John 1:42). After that, Jesus decided to go to Galilee (John 1:43)

39. When Jesus met Jairus was Jairus daughter already dead?

* Yes. Matthew 9:18 quotes him as saying, My daughter has just died.
* No. Mark 5:23 quotes him as saying, My little daughter is at the point of death.

40. Did Jesus allow his disciples to keep a staff on their journey?

* Yes (Mark 6:8)
* No (Matthew 10:9; Luke 9:3)

41. Did Herod think that Jesus was John the Baptist?

* Yes (Matthew 14:2; Mark 6:16)
* No (Luke 9:9)

42. Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus before his baptism?

* Yes (Matthew 3:13-14)
* No (John 1:32,33)

43. Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus after his baptism?

* Yes (John 1:32, 33)
* No (Matthew 11:2)

44. According to the Gospel of John, what did Jesus say about bearing his own witness?

* If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true (John 5:3 1)
* Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true (John 8:14)

45. When Jesus entered Jerusalem did he cleanse the temple that same day?

* Yes (Matthew 21:12)
* No. He went into the temple and looked around, but since it was very late he did nothing. Instead, he went to Bethany to spend the night and returned the next morning to cleanse the temple (Mark I 1:1- 17)

46. The Gospels say that Jesus cursed a fig tree. Did the tree wither at once?

* Yes. (Matthew 21:19)
* No. It withered overnight (Mark II: 20)

47. Did Judas kiss Jesus?

* Yes (Matthew 26:48-50)
* No. Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him (John 18:3-12)

48. What did Jesus say about Peters denial?

* The cock will not crow till you have denied me three times (John 13:38)
* Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times (Mark 14:30) . When the cock crowed once, the three denials were not yet complete (see Mark 14:72). Therefore prediction (a) failed.

49. Did Jesus bear his own cross?

* Yes (John 19:17)
* No (Matthew 27:31-32)

50. Did Jesus die before the curtain of the temple was torn?

* Yes (Matthew 27:50-51; Mark lS:37-38)
* No. After the curtain was torn, then Jesus crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit! And having said this he breathed his last (Luke 23:45-46)

51. Did Jesus say anything secretly?

* No. I have said nothing secretly (John 18:20)
* Yes. He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything (Mark 4:34). The disciples asked him Why do you speak to them in parables? He said, To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given (Matthew 13: 1 0-11)

52. Where was Jesus at the sixth hour on the day of the crucifixion?

* On the cross (Mark 15:23)
* In Pilates court (John 19:14)

53. The gospels say that two thieves were crucified along with Jesus. Did both thieves mock Jesus?

* Yes (Mark 15:32)
* No. One of them mocked Jesus, the other defended Jesus (Luke 23:43)

54. Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion?

* Yes. He said to the thief who defended him, Today you will be with me in Paradise (Luke 23:43)
* No. He said to Mary Magdelene two days later, I have not yet ascended to the Father (John 20:17)

55. When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice. Did those who were with him hear the voice?

* Yes (Acts9:7)
* No (Acts22:9)

56. When Paul saw the light he fell to the ground. Did his traveling companions also fall to the ground?

* Yes (Acts 26:14)
* No (Acts 9:7)

57. Did the voice spell out on the spot what Pauls duties were to be?

* Yes (Acts 26:16-18)
* No. The voice commanded Paul to go into the city of Damascus and there he will be told what he must do. (Acts9:7;22: 10)

58. When the Israelites dwelt in Shittin they committed adultery with the daughters of Moab. God struck them with a plague. How many people died in that plague?

* Twenty-four thousand (Numbers 25:1 and 9)
* Twenty-three thousand (I Corinthians 10:8)

59. How many members of the house of Jacob came to Egypt?

* Seventy souls (Genesis 4 & 27)
* Seventy-five souls (Acts 7:14)

60. What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?

* He bought a field (Acts 1: 18)
* He threw all of it into the temple and went away. The priests could not put the blood money into the temple treasury, so they used it to buy a field to bury strangers (Matthew 27:5)

61. How did Judas die?

* After he threw the money into the temple he went away and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5)
* After he bought the field with the price of his evil deed he fell headlong and burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out (Acts 1:18)

62. Why is the field called Field of Blood?

* Because the priests bought it with the blood money (Matthew 27:8)
* Because of the bloody death of Judas therein (Acts 1:19)

63. Who is a ransom for whom?

* The Son of Man came...to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). Christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all... (I Timothy 2:5-6)
* The wicked is a ransom for the righteous, and the faithless for the upright (Proverbs 21:18)

64. Is the law of Moses useful?

* Yes. All scripture is... profitable... (2 Timothy 3:16)
* No. . . . A former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness... (Hebrews 7:18)

65. What was the exact wording on the cross?

* This is Jesus the King of the Jews (Matthew 27:37)
* The King of the Jews (Mark 15:26)
* This is the King of the Jews (Luke 23:38)
* Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews (John 19:19)

66. Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist?

* Yes (Matthew 14:5)
* No. It was Herodias, the wife of Herod who wanted to kill him. But Herod knew that he was a righteous man and kept him safe (Mark 6:20)

92. Does God change his mind?

* Yes. The word of the Lord came to Samuel: I repent that I have made Saul King... (I Samuel 15:10 to 11)
* No. God will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent (I Samuel 15:29)

Yes. And the Lord repented that he had made Saul King over Israel (I Samuel 15:35). Notice that the above three quotes are all from the same chapter of the same book! In addition, the Bible shows that God repented on several other occasions:

i. The Lord was sorry that he made man (Genesis 6:6)

I am sorry that I have made them (Genesis 6:7)

ii. And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people (Exodus 32:14).

iii. (Lots of other such references).

93. The Bible says that for each miracle Moses and Aaron demonstrated the magicians did the same by their secret arts. Then comes the following feat:

* Moses and Aaron converted all the available water into blood (Exodus 7:20-21)
* The magicians did the same (Exodus 7:22). This is impossible, since there would have been no water left to convert into blood.

94. Who killed Goliath?

* David (I Samuel 17:23, 50)
* Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19)

95. Who killed Saul?

* Saul took his own sword and fell upon it.... Thus Saul died... (I Samuel 31:4-6)
* An Amalekite slew him (2 Samuel 1:1- 16)

96. Does every man sin?

* Yes. There is no man who does not sin (I Kings 8:46; see also 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; and I John 1:810)
* No. True Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are the children of God. Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God.. (I John 5:1). We should be called children of God; and so we are (I John 3: 1). He who loves is born of God (I John 4:7). No one born of God commits sin; for Gods nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God (I John 3:9). But, then again, Yes! If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (I John 1:8)

97. Who will bear whose burden?

* Bear one anothers burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2)
* Each man will have to bear his own load (Galatians 6:5)

98. How many disciples did Jesus appear to after his resurrection?

* Twelve (I Corinthians 15:5)
* Eleven (Matthew 27:3-5 and Acts 1:9-26, see also Matthew 28:16; Mark 16:14 footnote; Luke 24:9; Luke 24:3 3)

99. Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?

* After his baptism, the spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days ... (Mark 1:12-13)
* Next day after the baptism, Jesus selected two disciples. Second day: Jesus went to Galilee - two more disciples. Third day: Jesus was at a wedding feast in Cana in Galilee (see John 1:35; 1:43; 2:1-11)

100. Was baby Jesus life threatened in Jerusalem?

* Yes, so Joseph fled with him to Egypt and stayed there until Herod died (Matthew 2:13 23)
* No. The family fled nowhere. They calmly presented the child at the Jerusalem temple according to the Jewish customs and returned to Galilee (Luke 2:21-40)

101. When Jesus walked on water how did the disciples respond?

* They worshipped him, saying, Truly you are the Son of God (Matthew 14:33)
* They were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened (Mark 6:51-52)

Just curious of how you'd respond...

I don't want to get too involved in this thread though, Its an interesting read though.

[David88vert]

Are you saying you have something that claims DNA does not have mutations? Either way I'm up for learning something new.

I said nothing of the sort. DNA has mutations, but by the vast majority, they are not considered more than mildly beneficial, at best. Most mutations are a detriment, or of no consequence.

I don't know how life was first created but once again that is not part of evolutionary theory. Here is an example of a new species being created:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/07/sc...l?pagewanted=1

Did you read all the way to the end? Even evolutionary biologists were not convinced. It was a hybrid - which is common when you mate two different sunflowers. The important part of the study (and his work still on-going today), was that he successfully reproduced the same genetic change 3 times of breeding. In reality, it is similar to the mating the two different species of a donkey and horse - in that case you get a mule, all males are infertile, and cannot reproduce a new species. The difference here was that his flower was extremely similar to the existing wild sunflower - which does continue to reproduce. So, did selective breeding of a hybrid help it evolve to a higher level (i.e. - the benefit that evolution makes claim to)? The answer is - no, no benefit that we know of - yet. I do like the research program though, and am all for it. Like I said before, I do not want them to stop researching possibilities, I just don't agree that the current data supports the current theory (theories can be rewritten though). As most evolutionary biologist will state themselves, replication is much more complex on animals than plants.

I do question such things. I have read more books on evolutionary theory than probably 99% of people and the logic and evidence are convincing to me. Of course some amount of trust is required because I haven't inspected these fossils myself, or verified that DNA even exists by myself. I think its unfair for you to equate believing what an expert says about something in their field to what a random guy on the street says.

You should question it. The majority of current thesis on evolutionary biology are flawed from being based upon an incorrectly calculated report.
Evolutionary biologists start with an agenda, rather than observation. That is no different than trusting a random individual on the street - both try to sell something. For that matter, religious zealots try to do the same thing - sell their unproven beliefs. In their own minds, they make perfect sense.


BTW - I apologize for not responding sooner. I didn't notice your reply until now. I was not ignoring you.

[XanRules]

is this thread still going..?

[bu villain]

I said nothing of the sort. DNA has mutations, but by the vast majority, they are not considered more than mildly beneficial, at best. Most mutations are a detriment, or of no consequence..

Agreed. I guess I misunderstood your previous post on this. It is the rare, mildly beneficial changes which over immense stretches of time which evolutionary theory credits for evolving traits.

Did you read all the way to the end? Even evolutionary biologists were not convinced. It was a hybrid - which is common when you mate two different sunflowers. The important part of the study (and his work still on-going today), was that he successfully reproduced the same genetic change 3 times of breeding. In reality, it is similar to the mating the two different species of a donkey and horse - in that case you get a mule, all males are infertile, and cannot reproduce a new species. The difference here was that his flower was extremely similar to the existing wild sunflower - which does continue to reproduce. So, did selective breeding of a hybrid help it evolve to a higher level (i.e. - the benefit that evolution makes claim to)? The answer is - no, no benefit that we know of - yet. I do like the research program though, and am all for it. Like I said before, I do not want them to stop researching possibilities, I just don't agree that the current data supports the current theory (theories can be rewritten though). As most evolutionary biologist will state themselves, replication is much more complex on animals than plants..

I took this article as more like a proof of concept rather than a be all end all of evolution. If you look at dog breeds, they are getting to the point where certain breeds could never realistically mate with other breeds (e.g., chihuahua and great dane). I know this is not a perfect example but it seems plausable to me that a continued divergence of those two types of dogs could eventually lead to them being considered different species since usually a species is defined as a group which can reproduce fertile offspring.

You should question it. The majority of current thesis on evolutionary biology are flawed from being based upon an incorrectly calculated report.

As I stated before, I do question it. Otherwise, why would I read books on it or continue this discussion with you. Don't mistake my being convinced by the arguments as I understand them for unquestioning faith.

Evolutionary biologists start with an agenda, rather than observation. That is no different than trusting a random individual on the street - both try to sell something. For that matter, religious zealots try to do the same thing - sell their unproven beliefs. In their own minds, they make perfect sense..

And this seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I don't believe evolutionary biologists start with an agenda anymore than any chemist, physicist or any other biologist.

BTW - I apologize for not responding sooner. I didn't notice your reply until now. I was not ignoring you.

Haha, no need to apologize. We could probably go on indefinitely. It's perfectly understandable that evolutionary debates on IA are not your foremost concern. Even though we disagree I respect that your position comes from your interpretation of the evidence rather than blind disbelief. Skepticism is the most important driver of scientific discovery!

[David88vert]

Agreed. I guess I misunderstood your previous post on this. It is the rare, mildly beneficial changes which over immense stretches of time which evolutionary theory credits for evolving traits.

As stated before, this is not probable in reality. Especially the vast number of changes needed. What we currently know about DNA does not support it.
But there is no reason why they should not keep researching theory - they just shouldn't push it as proven fact.

I took this article as more like a proof of concept rather than a be all end all of evolution. If you look at dog breeds, they are getting to the point where certain breeds could never realistically mate with other breeds (e.g., chihuahua and great dane). I know this is not a perfect example but it seems plausable to me that a continued divergence of those two types of dogs could eventually lead to them being considered different species since usually a species is defined as a group which can reproduce fertile offspring.

As stated previously, even evolutionary biologists don't consider it the same. We haven't been able to successfully breed animals into a new species that can continue to reproduce in nature. That is not saying that we never could, of course, but if it is so hard to do when we are trying on purpose, with a plan, how did it happen at random so many times?

As I stated before, I do question it. Otherwise, why would I read books on it or continue this discussion with you. Don't mistake my being convinced by the arguments as I understand them for unquestioning faith.

That was my misperception. I apologize for my assumption.

And this seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I don't believe evolutionary biologists start with an agenda anymore than any chemist, physicist or any other biologist.

We can agree to disagree. The vast majority of the ones that I have met or studied have carried their agenda first. I'm sure there are some good ones out there also though.

Haha, no need to apologize. We could probably go on indefinitely. It's perfectly understandable that evolutionary debates on IA are not your foremost concern. Even though we disagree I respect that your position comes from your interpretation of the evidence rather than blind disbelief. Skepticism is the most important driver of scientific discovery!

Thanks. I do feel that I owe a response within a reasonable amount of time when someone takes the time to produce the effort to type out what they feel addressed to me.

[bu villain]

Let's focus this a little because I feel we are actually debating the method of evolution rather than evolution itself. Just to get our definitions clear:
Evolution = plant/animal species come from significantly different plant/animal species
Darwinian Natural Selection = A mechanism of changing traits in a species (one possible method of evolution)

Let's stick to debating evolution rather than the method through which occurs.

I'm curious as to your interpretation of the fossil record. Why do you think it is that the older the fossil, the less complex the lifeform? Out of the billions of fossils, it would only take one significantly more advanced lifeform during an early stage of the earth to disprove evolution.

[David88vert]

Let's focus this a little because I feel we are actually debating the method of evolution rather than evolution itself. Just to get our definitions clear:
Evolution = plant/animal species come from significantly different plant/animal species
Darwinian Natural Selection = A mechanism of changing traits in a species (one possible method of evolution)

Let's stick to debating evolution rather than the method through which occurs.

I'm curious as to your interpretation of the fossil record. Why do you think it is that the older the fossil, the less complex the lifeform? Out of the billions of fossils, it would only take one significantly more advanced lifeform during an early stage of the earth to disprove evolution.

I do not think that they have the ability to accurate date fossils. To many factors come into play, and too many assumptions are made. Current methods of dating based upon sedimentation layers are flawed by the assumption that sedimentation layers are not upheaved and changed in position. Radiocarbon dating of known items has produced incorrect results many times, and is based on too many assumptions. Currently, they try to place fossils into the model that they have already determined that they support, rather than seek the truth.

Let me make this crystal clear - even with knowning exactly what we are looking for, with all of the best technology that the world can offer, we cannot find even one example of where we have two species of animals, with the missing links between the two species existing. Rather than trying to disprove something that we cannot accurately determine in the first place, you should be focusing on why is it that evolution is not currently working? If something so mathematically improbable happened over 1.5 million times that we have already counted, then why can't we find a link between 2 of those existing? Why did evolution just stop?

[bu villain]

I do not think that they have the ability to accurate date fossils.

When multiple methods of dating produce consistent results formillions of fossils, I find that pretty convincing. If you don't believe we can date fossils to any meaningful degree than this whole evolution discussion is pointless because the fossil record is the primary evidence for evolution.

Let me make this crystal clear - even with knowning exactly what we are looking for, with all of the best technology that the world can offer, we cannot find even one example of where we have two species of animals, with the missing links between the two species existing. Rather than trying to disprove something that we cannot accurately determine in the first place, you should be focusing on why is it that evolution is not currently working? If something so mathematically improbable happened over 1.5 million times that we have already counted, then why can't we find a link between 2 of those existing? Why did evolution just stop?

First of all the term "missing link" is a misleading term. It's like saying what is the missing color between red and orange. Is it orangish red or reddish orange? In reality there are an infinite number of colors between red and orange. Every animal that ever lived is a "missing link" between what came before it and what came/will come after it. It's not like one day a dinosaur gave birth to a bird and a new species was born. There are countless transitional fossils but since you don't believe in the accuracy of fossils I guess this is meaningless as well.

Also, why do you think evolution stopped? I wasn't aware it had.

[David88vert]

When multiple methods of dating produce consistent results formillions of fossils, I find that pretty convincing. If you don't believe we can date fossils to any meaningful degree than this whole evolution discussion is pointless because the fossil record is the primary evidence for evolution.



First of all the term "missing link" is a misleading term. It's like saying what is the missing color between red and orange. Is it orangish red or reddish orange? In reality there are an infinite number of colors between red and orange. Every animal that ever lived is a "missing link" between what came before it and what came/will come after it. It's not like one day a dinosaur gave birth to a bird and a new species was born. There are countless transitional fossils but since you don't believe in the accuracy of fossils I guess this is meaningless as well.

Also, why do you think evolution stopped? I wasn't aware it had.

Find me a case of a new species evolving currently. To show that it is creating a new species, you should have multiple instances of species one, multiple instances of species two, species two must be able to reproduce to sustain the new species, and you should be able to show the specific genetic changes between the two species - presumably it should have multiple genetically mutated versions of species one.
I'll save you the trouble - there aren't any. Hence, evolution is not progressing in an observable way. of course, stopped is a poor term, considering that would mean that it had to be moving along previously - which is far from proveable.

Fossils exist, but our current methods for dating rely on many assumptions that do not take into account historical events. Do you realize that volcanic eruptions affect the amount of carbon and affect the results of dating via that process? Do you realize that the Industrial Revolution did this as well? Do you realize that the half life is 5730 years, so do you think that it can be used accurately back past 11,460 years? Do you realize that not all plants process C14 the same? And that they usually test older than they are?

For any radiometric measurements of isotopes, you have to make these assumptions:
1. The starting conditions are known (no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
2. Rate of decay is constant.
3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

Those are some pretty big assumptions. You may chose to accept them, but if you do, then you are doing it on faith, and are making science into a religion.

[BABY J]

I'll save you the trouble - there aren't any. Hence, evolution is not progressing in an observable way. of course, stopped is a poor term, considering that would mean that it had to be moving along previously - which is far from proveable.

Quick example that evolution is still occurring... 1) the development of resistance to antibiotics by bacteria and 2) resistance to pesticides by locusts.



I love the way this discussion is being handled by ADULT conversation... I'm just a fly on the wall watching it unfold and learning at the same time. Thanx to all involved so far. Keep it going.

[bu villain]

Find me a case of a new species evolving currently. To show that it is creating a new species, you should have multiple instances of species one, multiple instances of species two, species two must be able to reproduce to sustain the new species, and you should be able to show the specific genetic changes between the two species - presumably it should have multiple genetically mutated versions of species one.
I'll save you the trouble - there aren't any. Hence, evolution is not progressing in an observable way. of course, stopped is a poor term, considering that would mean that it had to be moving along previously - which is far from proveable.

Ok how about chimpanzees and humans (only a few percent genetic differences). If you are looking for an example on the verge of a split, I would say look at dogs and wolves. Was there a certain percentage of genetic differences you are looking for?

Fossils exist, but our current methods for dating rely on many assumptions that do not take into account historical events. Do you realize that volcanic eruptions affect the amount of carbon and affect the results of dating via that process? Do you realize that the Industrial Revolution did this as well? Do you realize that the half life is 5730 years, so do you think that it can be used accurately back past 11,460 years? Do you realize that not all plants process C14 the same? And that they usually test older than they are?

I will respond to all carbon/radiometric dating below but I just wanted to point out that carbon dating is actually considered valid for up to 50,000 to 75,000 years, not 11,460 (that's only two half-lives).

For any radiometric measurements of isotopes, you have to make these assumptions:
1. The starting conditions are known (no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
2. Rate of decay is constant.
3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

Those are some pretty big assumptions. You may chose to accept them, but if you do, then you are doing it on faith, and are making science into a religion.

Nice copy and paste from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html. Still these are valid but I think you overestimate the innacuracy such factors can introduce. Fossil dating is done through numerous methods other than carbon/rediometric dating including:

dating against objects with a known age
cyclical sedimentary deposits
glacial cycles
coral cycles
tree rings
luminescence

Now you can attack the possible innacuracies in any of these methods as you did with radiometric dating but when mulitple methods give consistent answers, eventually you gotta think it's more than coincidence.

[David88vert]

Quick example that evolution is still occurring... 1) the development of resistance to antibiotics by bacteria and 2) resistance to pesticides by locusts.

Those are not genetic changes that will create a new species.

[BABY J]

Those are not genetic changes that will create a new species.

Not tomorrow - but someday it could. That's why it's called "evolution".


Imagine locusts over 100,000 years that develped alongside pesticides, built a resistance and can't be stopped via this medium.



Now imagine on the other side of the planet locusts that developed in areas where there is no pesticides available.

Would there be no genetic drift between the 2?

[David88vert]

Ok how about chimpanzees and humans (only a few percent genetic differences). If you are looking for an example on the verge of a split, I would say look at dogs and wolves. Was there a certain percentage of genetic differences you are looking for?

There are huge differences between chimps and humans. Even the split is just an assumption, that even your favored fossil record does not support the theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_e...onary_genetics

BTW - Did you know that ape and chimps diets cannot support enough energy for us to have split from them 5 million years ago? I suggest you watch the BBC's "Did Cooking Make Us Human?". They showed that we would have had to split off much earlier - 230+ million years ago at minimum. Take a person, and feed them only fresh fruit. Even if they eat non-stop, they cannot get enough energy to sustain their current weight. Raw meat gives more energy, but we do not see apes and chimps following on that diet today. Then to really release energy, you have to breakit down at a celular level by cooking it - which only humans do.

I will respond to all carbon/radiometric dating below but I just wanted to point out that carbon dating is actually considered valid for up to 50,000 to 75,000 years, not 11,460 (that's only two half-lives).

Half-life. Pretty self explanatory. Did you know that our carbon content has increased over Europe just this past week? BTW - Do you realize that the Minoan eruption by itself screwed up the results of carbon dating? The BBC has a documentary on that available also. Good viewing.

Nice copy and paste from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html. Still these are valid but I think you overestimate the innacuracy such factors can introduce. Fossil dating is done through numerous methods other than carbon/rediometric dating including:

dating against objects with a known age
cyclical sedimentary deposits
glacial cycles
coral cycles
tree rings
luminescence

Now you can attack the possible innacuracies in any of these methods as you did with radiometric dating but when mulitple methods give consistent answers, eventually you gotta think it's more than coincidence.

With ALL technologies involving dating item from before recorded history, you are taking in assumption that it has consistency. It used to be thought that pertrification took millenia, now they are finding out that it can happen in only a couple of centuries through instant oxygen deprivation. Of course, they have to wait for that to be conclusive, so I wouldn't bet completely on that.

Personally, I try to look at all viewpoints, and keep an open mind. I am not telling you to believe in Creationism, just realize that their are a lot of possibilities and none of them is proveable currently. To me, current evolution theory is just completely mathematically improbable from many calculations - you have faith in it, and that can be your belief/religion. Nothing wrong with it.

As I have stated from the beginning - everyone has a choice to believe what they wish. I will add that no ones beliefs should be changed based upon what is typed on a forum.

[David88vert]

Not tomorrow - but someday it could. That's why it's called "evolution".


Imagine locusts over 100,000 years that develped alongside pesticides, built a resistance and can't be stopped via this medium.



Now imagine on the other side of the planet locusts that developed in areas where there is no pesticides available.

Would there be no genetic drift between the 2?

They would still be locusts - the same species.

[BABY J]

^^ would you be able to look at DNA from each locust and tell which one is resistant to pesticides w/out seeing the locust? Would their DNA be different?

[bu villain]

There are huge differences between chimps and humans. Even the split is just an assumption, that even your favored fossil record does not support the theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_e...onary_genetics

Yes there are huge differences (a few percent in DNA) between chimps and humans because they split millions of years ago. Practically the whole article is talking about when the split occured so how does it contradict my statement? Please present evidence of fossil records not fitting with the split because this article doesn't mention fossils at all.

Back to the original issue, I am really confused on what you are looking for as far as divergent species. It seems like you want to see two different species with the same DNA and that doesn't make any sense. As I asked before, is there a certain percentage difference in DNA you are looking for? Please give clear guidelines for what you are looking for.

BTW - Did you know that ape and chimps diets cannot support enough energy for us to have split from them 5 million years ago? I suggest you watch the BBC's "Did Cooking Make Us Human?". They showed that we would have had to split off much earlier - 230+ million years ago at minimum. Take a person, and feed them only fresh fruit. Even if they eat non-stop, they cannot get enough energy to sustain their current weight. Raw meat gives more energy, but we do not see apes and chimps following on that diet today. Then to really release energy, you have to breakit down at a celular level by cooking it - which only humans do.

I'd definitely like to check out that documentary. Until I do, all I can say now is that modern ape and chimp diets may or may not be similar at all to our common ancestor (which is neither ape nor human). Chimps and other apes have evolved over the previous millions of years just as humans. Ape diets most likely changed greatly over that time.

Half-life. Pretty self explanatory. Did you know that our carbon content has increased over Europe just this past week? BTW - Do you realize that the Minoan eruption by itself screwed up the results of carbon dating? The BBC has a documentary on that available also. Good viewing.

You seem to be confused with what the 'half' in half-life means. After one half-life there will be 50% of the original element remaining. After two half-lives there will be 25% of the original element remaining, not 0. It's exponential, not linear.

With ALL technologies involving dating item from before recorded history, you are taking in assumption that it has consistency. It used to be thought that pertrification took millenia, now they are finding out that it can happen in only a couple of centuries through instant oxygen deprivation. Of course, they have to wait for that to be conclusive, so I wouldn't bet completely on that.

So even though we have methods that work for recorded history they suddenly become invalid any earlier than that? So you must be open to the idea that dinosaurs lived with humans, and that it's conceivable that the earth has only been around for a few thousand years since we are not able to determine dating in any meaningful way before that, right?

Personally, I try to look at all viewpoints, and keep an open mind. I am not telling you to believe in Creationism just realize that their are a lot of possibilities and none of them is proveable currently. To me, current evolution theory is just completely mathematically improbable from many calculations - you have faith in it, and that can be your belief/religion. Nothing wrong with it.

Show me something with more evidence than evolution and I'll gladly change my mind. Unfortunately I doubt many religious believers will say the same.

As I have stated from the beginning - everyone has a choice to believe what they wish. I will add that no ones beliefs should be changed based upon what is typed on a forum.

I think that's unfortunate. You should believe what has the most evidence for it, not just what you would like to believe is true. I have no reason to want to believe in evolution. If we found a human skeleton from 100 million years ago tomorrow I would not mourn the loss of evolutionary theory. It's simply the most plausable answer given the vast amounts of data we have. There is still much work to be done too!

Why shouldn't beliefs be changed based upon a forum conversation? If a discussion between people is not the time to reevaluate your beliefs then when is? I personally wouldn't be engaged in this conversation if I didn't think I could learn something new from you and thus potentially change my mind on something. I'm not here just to try to show you how smart I am.

[David88vert]

Yes there are huge differences (a few percent in DNA) between chimps and humans because they split millions of years ago. Practically the whole article is talking about when the split occured so how does it contradict my statement? Please present evidence of fossil records not fitting with the split because this article doesn't mention fossils at all.

Back to the original issue, I am really confused on what you are looking for as far as divergent species. It seems like you want to see two different species with the same DNA and that doesn't make any sense. As I asked before, is there a certain percentage difference in DNA you are looking for? Please give clear guidelines for what you are looking for.



I'd definitely like to check out that documentary. Until I do, all I can say now is that modern ape and chimp diets may or may not be similar at all to our common ancestor (which is neither ape nor human). Chimps and other apes have evolved over the previous millions of years just as humans. Ape diets most likely changed greatly over that time.




You seem to be confused with what the 'half' in half-life means. After one half-life there will be 50% of the original element remaining. After two half-lives there will be 25% of the original element remaining, not 0. It's exponential, not linear.



So even though we have methods that work for recorded history they suddenly become invalid any earlier than that? So you must be open to the idea that dinosaurs lived with humans, and that it's conceivable that the earth has only been around for a few thousand years since we are not able to determine dating in any meaningful way before that, right?



Show me something with more evidence than evolution and I'll gladly change my mind. Unfortunately I doubt many religious believers will say the same.



I think that's unfortunate. You should believe what has the most evidence for it, not just what you would like to believe is true. I have no reason to want to believe in evolution. If we found a human skeleton from 100 million years ago tomorrow I would not mourn the loss of evolutionary theory. It's simply the most plausable answer given the vast amounts of data we have. There is still much work to be done too!

Why shouldn't beliefs be changed based upon a forum conversation? If a discussion between people is not the time to reevaluate your beliefs then when is? I personally wouldn't be engaged in this conversation if I didn't think I could learn something new from you and thus potentially change my mind on something. I'm not here just to try to show you how smart I am.

Not much time with all of my work right now to type everything.

In response to your question: Show me where eveolution can be tracked conclusively from one existing animal species to another. Scientists have not been able to do this.
You are assuming that chimps split with humans. It has not been proven.

Watch the documentary - it puts forth that eating meat and cooked food is the only way to collect enough energy to sustain humans. Raw fruits are not enough.

Recorded history - your words - does not go back millions of years. Everything else is speculation with our current technologies.
Why would humans have to live with dinosaurs? Couldn't it be possible that dinosaurs lived in a different area of the world? But if you want to think that they were together, I suspect you are referring to Job 40. Yes, it sounds like a reference to a dinosaur - perhaps the current evolutionary theory is wrong, and some survived longer? After all, how could they have been able to describe a creature with the tail the size of a cedar tree? Since it comes from a religious book, we won't consider it - agreed?

I'm not telling you to believe in anything. If you wish to believe in something with an extremely low mathematical probability, that is up to you.
No, you shouldn't change your beliefs simply because of what one person puts to you. You should critically look at all input, and come to your own conclusion. I am not pushing you to believe in any religion, as it is completely faith-based, with minimal evidence.

[Ncturnal]

I find it humorous how religions will cite science in a very few specific instances (typically in which they don't understand the science in question) that they think validates their bullshit claims and yet reject it wholesale in every other instance. I know religions are used to picking and choosing from their own texts but you don't get to do it with science too.

[Ncturnal]

Not much time with all of my work right now to type everything.

In response to your question: Show me where eveolution can be tracked conclusively from one existing animal species to another. Scientists have not been able to do this.
You are assuming that chimps split with humans. It has not been proven.

You are misrepresenting what the theory states.
http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#g...6AFB53A6F002CC