Skip to main content

why is christianity a major target for nonbelievers and athiests. why they always saying bad stuff about christians but rarely see them mention buddhism, islam, hinduism and all the others.

 

Matthew 24:8-14 "... you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake... And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved."

quote:  Originally Posted by hranbama:

Why is Christianity a major target for nonbelievers and athiests.  Why they always saying bad stuff about Christians but rarely see them mention Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, and all the others.

 

Matthew 24:8-14 "... you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake... And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another.  Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many.  And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved."


Hi Hran,

 

First, welcome to the Religion Forum.  I pray you have your "Full Armor of God" (Ephesians 6:10-20) on when venturing through the doorway of the Religion Forum.   And, I pray we will hear from you often.

 

The answer to your question is simple.  People attack that which they fear.  Have you ever seen a rodent trapped?  The normal rodent will not attack anyone.  The same with a coyote.  However, trap either in a corner -- and it will attack.

 

Thus, because even though the non-believers knows, somewhere down deep (Romans 2:12-16) that God and Christianity are true -- all the more they will fight against it.  Why?  Because they are afraid of losing what they can see, feel, and touch -- their existing world and society.   Many folks have a "tactile religion" -- if they can touch it and feel it -- they believe it.

 

Yet, if they are asked to walk by FAITH, they tremble in fear.  And, that fear turns into attacks against that which they fear:  God, Jesus Christ, the Bible, Christianity, and Christians who share their faith.

 

Just as God is patient with us -- we must be patient with those who would attack our Christian faith.  Even when they throw stones at us.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Faith - Luke 1-37

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Faith - Luke 1-37
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Hran, 

People attack that which they fear.  Have you ever seen a rodent trapped?  The normal rodent will not attack anyone.  The same with a coyote.  However, trap either in a corner -- and it will attack.

 

Thus, because even though the non-believers knows, somewhere down deep (Romans 2:12-16) that God and Christianity are true -- all the more they will fight against it.  Why?  Because they are afraid of losing what they can see, feel, and touch -- their existing world and society.    

Yet, if they are asked to walk by FAITH, they tremble in fear.  And, that fear turns into attacks against that which they fear:  God, Jesus Christ, the Bible, Christianity, and Christians who share their faith. Just as God is patient with us -- we must be patient with those who would attack our Christian faith.  Even when they throw stones at us.

Bill

___________________________________

Bill, why haven't you ever told us you have a degree in Psychology? It amazes me how you can claim to know what you know nothing about.  You'll lie when backed into a corner but swear you're a Christian. You're nothing but a wolf in sheep's clothing. 

Originally Posted by hranbama:

why is christianity a major target for nonbelievers and athiests. why they always saying bad stuff about christians but rarely see them mention buddhism, islam, hinduism and all the others.

 

Matthew 24:8-14 "... you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake... And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved."

___________________________

Why? Have you seen the attacks from Bill Gray against anyone that doesn't agree with him? Have you seen the way he makes fun of others & calls us names? Have you seen how he's always saying bad stuff about people on here that doesn't fall at his feet & worship him? All this from a man that wears the Christian hat. I haven't seen any buddhism, islam, hinduism & any others posting on here so that's probably why they aren't mentioned.

Your scripture mentions how many will betray & hate one another. How false prophets will rise up & deceive many. Those 2 sentences have described Bill Gray to a T. He hates all of us, tries daily to deceive us, but he is no more than one of those false prophets.

If you haven't already, sit back & watch him in action then tell me he's what a Christian should be.

I think you will see that he's one of those wolves in sheep's clothing that the Bible speaks of.

 

 

 


 

Originally Posted by hranbama:

why is christianity a major target for nonbelievers and athiests. why they always saying bad stuff about christians but rarely see them mention buddhism, islam, hinduism and all the others.

 

Matthew 24:8-14 "... you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake... And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved."

hran,

 

This is the TD Forum from the Shoals, in Alabama.  Your point is not discounted altogether, and the other religions you mention are just as silly as Christianity.  But they're less relevant here.

 

DF

Claiming evolution is "just a theory" shows the person making such a claim to be at best ignorant, and at worst a liar. The fact is that theory of evolution is observable, and in some cases, with life forms of short duration, not only observable, but also reproducible in certain genetically modified plants, viruses, and insects. The reason I argue this point is not generated by a hatred of those that persist in pushing a religious agenda, I realize there isn't much hope of making them face reality, but more to stop the relentless propagation of the mental virus known as religion.

Hi Senior,

 

You need to be more explicit.  Are you speaking of micro evolution, i.e. adaptation -- or are you speaking of macro evolution, i.e., Darwinian Evolution which makes claims that one species evolved into a totally different species?

 

Micro evolution, i.e., adaptation is indeed true and we have never questioned it.  People, animals, and plants, when migrated to an environment which is drastically different -- will adapt to that environment.

 

However, as Charley Darwin said, "If science cannot show a transitional fossil -- Darwinian Evolution is dead."  RIP Darwinian Evolution.

 

But, Senior, may I suggest that, instead of calling us ignorant and liars because we do not believe Darwinian Evolution, i.e., macro evolution, to be true -- show us true scientific proof, show us the real "missing link" transitional fossils which Darwin was lamenting 150 years ago.

 

Yes, there have been a number of attempts to present false fossil records to prove the unprovable.  And, there has been quite a few "smoke screen" attempts to pass off an ill-fated "missing link."   But, to date, with millions of fossils records sitting in thousands of museums around the world -- not one true transitional fossil, not one true "missing link."

 

If you have the true "missing link" -- show it and make old Charley Darwin happy.  Otherwise, RIP Darwinian Evolution.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

http://www.sciencemeetsreligio...volution/fossils.php

 

In short, in spite of the near-miraculous conditions necessary for the formation of persistent fossils, not to mention the numerous difficulties of uncovering these fossils, many "gaps" once thought to exist in the fossil record have been filled by transitional fossils. The fossil record is still incomplete, but there good reasons for this. And insisting that two additional gaps now need to be filled whenever a transitional fossil is found is a game that science cannot win. Nor can religion win at this game, since the search for "gaps" in the fossil record is a classic "God of the gaps" theological error, having left a legacy of disillusionment through the ages as scientific research continues its relentless advance. With new and ever-more-remarkable fossil finds now being announced in widely read news sources on almost a weekly basis, those who continue to insist that "gaps" disprove evolution will only heap ridicule on themselves, even in the public eye.

Bill ignores the fact that genetics provides for any "missing links".  Bill never talks about genetics, because it blows the creationist myth out of the water.   "Micro evolution" is a smoke screen, and the only reason that the Creationists admit to it is because it is absolutely undeniable even to them.  Bill and his ilk still try to prove Darwin wrong, and their only argument is "no missing link", while ignoring the ever growing mountains of evidence in other fields that support evolution.   

quote:  Originally Posted by Jennifer Bestworking:

http://www.sciencemeetsreligio...volution/fossils.php

 

In short, in spite of the near-miraculous conditions necessary for the formation of persistent fossils, not to mention the numerous difficulties of uncovering these fossils, many "gaps" once thought to exist in the fossil record have been filled by transitional fossils.  The fossil record is still incomplete, but there good reasons for this.  And insisting that two additional gaps now need to be filled whenever a transitional fossil is found is a game that science cannot win.  Nor can religion win at this game, since the search for "gaps" in the fossil record is a classic "God of the gaps" theological error, having left a legacy of disillusionment through the ages as scientific research continues its relentless advance. With new and ever-more-remarkable fossil finds now being announced in widely read news sources on almost a weekly basis, those who continue to insist that "gaps" disprove evolution will only heap ridicule on themselves, even in the public eye.


Hi Jennifer,

 

Your experts, like those Crusty always trots out, write statements such as this:

 

Elephants. Twenty-two distinct species of elephants have now been identified during just the past six million years, generously filling the "gap" between ancient forms and three modern species (the two currently existing elephant species and the recently extinct wooly mammoth). One recently compiled family tree of these species is shown here [Miller1999, pg. 98]:

 

Well, gee whiz, we had little brown elephants and they "evolved" into big grey elephants.  Wow!

 

And, I suppose that a black dog which "evolved" into a golden retriever also proves Darwinian evolution?   Yes, sir, that surely does prove that ONE SPECIES transitioned, i.e., evolved, into a totally different species.

 

I wonder why no one can find the fossils of that monkey as he "evolved" into a kitten, dog, or possum?

 

My Friends, your "science" writers can talk all around the subject.  But, what I am asking is why are there millions of fossil records in thousands of museums around the world -- and no one can walk right up and show us that slippery old "missing link" fossil which existed between species?   Don't talk about it -- SHOW IT!   That is all we ask.

 

Jennifer, your writer tells us, "The fossil record is still incomplete, but there good reasons for this."

 

I agree with him/her, there is a big reason -- IT DOES NOT EXIST!

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Originally Posted by SeniorCoffee:
Claiming evolution is "just a theory" shows the person making such a claim to be at best ignorant, and at worst a liar. The fact is that theory of evolution is observable, and in some cases, with life forms of short duration, not only observable, but also reproducible in certain genetically modified plants, viruses, and insects. The reason I argue this point is not generated by a hatred of those that persist in pushing a religious agenda, I realize there isn't much hope of making them face reality, but more to stop the relentless propagation of the mental virus known as religion.

Bows and scrapes, kow tows to  Senior Coffee.

 

DF

The refusal of Fundamentalists to accept sound science is to their disgrace.  No one else's.  The world, perhaps America excepted, despite the efforts of her diminishing intellectual element, will continue to progress regardless.  But not without a fight.
I'm not exaggerating when I say that the anti-science element of simplistic American religiosity is a corrosive and retarding vector on not only American scientific progress, but worldwide scientific progress.
These troglodytic, Medieval at best, artards must be resisted at every level, in person and in print.  Never relent.

 

DF

I'm no longer surprised at the lengths of refutable logic, and downright denial of scientific fact that Bill is capable of.   This is exactly the same sort of logic and self-delusion that the followers of Charlie Manson, Jim Jones, the Scientologists and a host of other cultists put themselves through.  It would be sad to watch if they only harmed themselves, it is downright scary when you let them walk the streets unguarded.

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

I'm no longer surprised at the lengths of refutable logic, and downright denial of scientific fact that Bill is capable of.   This is exactly the same sort of logic and self-delusion that the followers of Charlie Manson, Jim Jones, the Scientologists and a host of other cultists put themselves through.  It would be sad to watch if they only harmed themselves, it is downright scary when you let them walk the streets unguarded.

And people wonder why atheists and scientists are so "strident".  You've nailed it precisely, crusty.  My regards and congratulations.

 

DF

The writing has been on the wall for a long time. Evolution is undeniable. Most people with scruples, regardless of faith, have been on board for a while. Those that still protest make themselves look more foolish with every word. The world has left them behind and they will soon take their preference for ignorance to their graves.

Remember them. They are living relics from an archaic time and mindset. Marvel at their sideshow, while they still exist. Dumbfound future generations with your accounts of close encounters!

Bill, Sorry it took so long, but I finally found the link I've been seeking. http://www.en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinius I realize this is a Wikipedia site, but chose it, because it is probably easier for you to understand, since it is written in layman terms. For the more intelligent among us, the following link is peer reviewed. Http://www.plosone.org/article...journal.pone.0005723 This is just one of the many existing fossils that fill the map spanning the evolution of primates. You only asked for one.
quote:  Originally Posted by SeniorCoffee:
Bill, Sorry it took so long, but I finally found the link I've been seeking. http://www.en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinius I realize this is a Wikipedia site, but chose it, because it is probably easier for you to understand, since it is written in layman terms. For the more intelligent among us, the following link is peer reviewed. Http://www.plosone.org/article...journal.pone.0005723 This is just one of the many existing fossils that fill the map spanning the evolution of primates. You only asked for one.

Hi Senior,

 

One simple question.  Darwinian Evolution tells us that one species evolved into a totally different species.  And, anyone would know that if a Species A is going to evolve into Species B there must be some Species "Hybrids" or in between forms of Species A becoming Species B.  The only way to avoid having some transition species is for Species A to suddenly be zapped into Species B -- therefore not going through any transition stages.

 

And, we all know that even old Charley Darwin did not believe that.  Therefore, if Species A evolves into Species B -- there has to be some transition fossils.   That is the mystery -- there have never been any transition fossils, i.e., "missing links" found.   In all the millions of fossil records in thousands of museums around the world -- not one transition "missing link" fossil.  Why?  They do not exist.

 

Okay, now to my simple question for you.  You seem to be implying that this Darwinius fossil they are calling Ida -- is one of those transition fossils.  Let's say I buy that.  Tell us what animal, i.e., Species A, Darwinius was before it began evolving -- and what animal, i.e., Species B, Darwinius evolved into at some later date. 

 

Obviously, this little creature in your fossil record photos did not evolve into anything -- because he died and was fossilized.  But, his transitional "hybrid" animal type, i.e., his brothers and sisters, must have completed their evolutionary cycle journey.  If that it true, we should have a record of Species B animals -- or, better yet, see some running around, somewhere.  What is the name of the Species B animal?

 

What was Darwinius before it began its transition?  And, what species was Darwinius evolving, i.e., transitioning, toward?

 

I realize that I just a retired Christian computer engineer/salesman; but, if you can answer my question in layman terms that I can understand, I will sincerely appreciate your effort.

 

Thank you and God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Adding Evolution To The Bible-1

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Adding Evolution To The Bible-1

Bill,

It seems you may be smarter than you pretend. You're right life doesn't jump from one life form to another. It evolves. That's why it has taken millions of years to get where we are today.

Your cartoon is also correct. That is exactly how the Scientific Method of testing Theories and seeking Truth is eating a hole in the Wholly Bable.

 

from the URL link:  www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/meteorites‐that‐formed‐earth_n_1315903.html?ref=science   


Yet continual revision of theories regarding Creation, in this case Earth.  I have no problem with revision of theories as time goes on.  What I do find objectionable and unreasonable is when certain people take theories and hypothesis and assign a status of undeniable FACT or undeniable truth to it and then judge others on the basis of whether or not they choose to also accept or believe in such theories.  


Here is yet one quote from the article 

"Earth's building blocks were more eclectic than once thought, according to a new study suggesting our planet formed from collisions of many different types of meteorites.

Our planet is thought to have formed around 4.5 billion years ago from a disk of dust grains left over from the cloud of material that built our sun. These grains slowly clumped together, drawn by gravity into pebbles, then boulders, then planetary embryos. Eventually, enough mass coalesced to form the planet Earth.

Scientists had thought that most of the bodies that merged to make Earth formed from a narrow zone in space and were similar to each other, belonging to a subclass of meteorites called enstatite chondrites. This idea was based on measurements of numerous striking similarities between different types of atoms (called isotopes) of elements such as oxygen, nickel and chromium, between the Earth and enstatite chondrites.

But a new study of the silicon isotope signature of Earth rock samples and meteorites suggests that Earth is made of a more diverse mix of meteorites. [The Solar System To Scale (Infographic)"

Still many make such statements that Evolution is a FACT or reference the Big Bang or how the Earth was created as FACT and decry that anyone who doesn't fall in lock step behind such thinking as being dumb or uneducated or attach some group of highly negative terms to reference about such people.  Science still operates on theories and has no real dogmatic knowledge about how we all got here or how creation was formed.  This article itself considers earth as forming by accident or some accidental grouping of elements drawn together by accident and held by gravity yet fails to explain where gravity came from, to begin with, or explain how this accidental gathering of elements that somehow stuck together after all this time yields a core that is so hot that it cannot be explored by any method due to it's temperature and energy.  The same type people assume life evolved by accidental means also that somehow a grouping of elements or non-life forms/material got together and formed from which somehow life came from non-life by a process we are to just accept as valid.  

 

These same people then have the audacity and arrogance to consider (worse to JUDGE)  anyone who objects, on any basis, as insane or ludicrous because they happen to disbelieve this THEORY as the basis by which all living things became.  We are to accept that all living things evolved from one most basic singular living thing which we are to also assume came from and was made by accidental accumulation of non-living matter and things that somehow just all of a sudden began to live or spring LIFE starting as one most basis and plan singular cell that somehow was defined as alive and having developed or established some form of innate intelligence dividing and over time becomes the basis for all life forms and species we have today.  And people are ignorant and dumb if they somehow find this theory as unacceptable and not feasible by such theories.

 

And it is by the criteria of whether or not you accept such theories as indis****ble truth that some people judge others worth and intelligence making such dogmatic, judgmental, statements.  Those who do such exemplify  the terms pride and arrogance thinking themselves to be something they most obviously are not.  What they are most assuredly is quite gullible.  What is sad is when, just because they choose to accept a certain theory, they judge all others, who do not subscribe to those theories, as being beneath themselves when all they really do is reveal their own arrogance and insecurities. 

 

quote:   Originally Posted by SeniorCoffee:

Bill, It seems you may be smarter than you pretend. You're right life doesn't jump from one life form to another. It evolves. That's why it has taken millions of years to get where we are today.


Hi Senior,

 

You have danced around, but have not addressed my question in the post above:

 

What was Darwinius before it began its transition?  And, what species was Darwinius evolving, i.e., transitioning, toward?

 

Do you want to give a shot at answering the question?  Or, shall we just continue to dance?  Without a previous species -- and the upcoming species; all you have is adaptation.  And, we have all agreed that adaptation, i.e., micro evolution is true.  However, Darwinian Evolution, i.e., macro evolution -- is a pipe dream.

 

I am still waiting to see a legitimate "missing link" fossil record. 

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Bill has had it explained to him many times. He just chooses to ignore the facts and there is no real reason to even attempt to "debate" it with him. I know I have posted sites over and over for him to read, but apparently he isn't reading them, or once more he's ignoring the facts they present because he doesn't want to know/acknowledge the truth. 

GBRK

 

"Still many make such statements that Evolution is a FACT or reference the Big Bang or how the Earth was created as FACT and decry that anyone who doesn't fall in lock step behind such thinking as being dumb or uneducated"

That is sadly true. Scientific theories are made of facts. It is a fact that live evolves. We see it in the laborotory even now with bacteria and viruses evolving to thwart our medicine. We see it in action with millions of higher animals .....just not as quickly because evolution takes thousands of generations before changes are outwardly aparent. It is a fact that older geologic layers have older embedded fossils in them. It is a fact that these older fossils appear to be more primitive than fossils found above them, more modern than fossils found below them. It is a fact that mutations, artificial and natural selection are the main mechanisms behind the evolution of one species into another. It is a fact that genes allow us to track our ancestors and inter-relatedness between species. We humans share about 40% of our genes with the banana plant. Yes, we are related to the banana tree. Genetics show us that there is almost as much genetic diversity between humans as there is between us and our closest relatives, the Chimpanzee.  Evolution has million upon millions of facts that support it. All these facts make up a theory. All you need to topple that theory is to find one single fossil from a "modern" specimine in a geologic strata that is much older. All you need to do is topple the entire field of genetics. Now, your challenge is to produce a contradictory theory that is also supported by all these facts. Men have been trying and failing to do this for at least 150 years. So what scientific theory do you have that is supported by the facts that is strong enough to convince the entire medical community that evolution is wrong? It sickens me deeply that so many otherwise smart people have closed off their minds to legitimate science because of religious fundamentalism. I know very well where the atheists derive their venom against these people. in my profession, I see very caring parents decide against a life-saving procedure (transfusions) because their fundamentalist beliefs go against modern science.  So GBRK when you are called "dumb" or "ignorant" for your beliefs, this is why: Your beliefs can and do kill people.

Bill,

"What was Darwinius before it began its transition?  And, what species was Darwinius evolving, i.e., transitioning, toward?  Do you want to give a shot at answering the question?"

I've seen this same question from you answered quite convincingly by many on this blog and you obviously don't listen. So I'll try this: Language is a very good metaphor for evolution.  Your question is exactly the same as asking "What was English before it was English?" The answer is "Lots of other languages"

 

The language we now call English is actually a blend of many languages. Even the original Anglo-Saxon was already a blend of the dialects of west Germanic tribes living along the North Sea coast:  The Saxons in Germany and eastern Holland. Our language has influences from just about all "species" of European languages. Those languages have roots in older languages and so on and so on all the way back to the era when proto-humans gained the ability to vocalize.English is now a "species."  Though there are similarities between English and Spanish, communication between them is impossible, English and Spanish are separate "species" now.  But as the world get more mobile, these languages are slowly influencing each other,. English is spoken just about everywhere now. It is injecting its "genes" into other languages.  Eventually, if the political environment remains as it is, English will become predominant and all other languages will shrink in influence until they join other ""extinct" languages.English didn't just pop up as an official language one day. It came to be over many hundreds of years of "genetic" blending between cultures.

Chinese and other oriental languages evolved almost completely isolated from other languages so there is almost no similarity between their language and ours. While English and Spansh can be comapred to the difference between homo sapiens and neanderthals, the comparison ebtwen chinese and English is more like the difference between homo sapiens and cro-magnon: you can tell they are related but so vastly different that is almost has no resemblance.

You find "transitional" languages in Frisian, a dead language that is spoken only in Northern Norway. It is very nearly extinct.Here is an example of Frisian "De Friezen binne in Germaansk folk, troch Tacitus rekkene ta de Ingvaeones, de Germaanske folken oan de Noardseekust.Oan it begjin fan ús jiertelling skreaunen de Romeinen fan de Friezen oan de kust fan de Noardsee. Om't de Friezen útwreiden nei it suden wylst de Romeinen nei it noarden kamen, moeten de twa folken inoar, en doe't de Romeinen in grins fêststeld hienen, wienen der Friezen binnen en bûten it Romeinske Ryk. De Romeinen hienen it oer Frisiavones foar de minsken dy't besuden de Ryn wennen, en dermei part fan it ryk wienen, en fan Frisii foar de lju oer de Ryn, dy't gjin fêst part fan it ryk wienen, al waarden se al troch de Romeinen betwongen. Sjoen troch de eagen fan de Romeinen wienen de Frisii in nuver folk, om't se libben yn in gebiet dat twa kear deis ûnder wetter rekke."

Isn't that interesting? You can clearly see the "fossil" of modern English in there. You can tell it is related to our language but it is not our language. Because we cannot communicate with those people, it is a separate "species" that is almost extinct. So, Bill, every single fossil out there is a "transitional" fossil. When you are finally planted in the ground, some scientist a million years from now may find your body and determine that you were a "homo sapiens" that is related to whatever they call their species.

Arguing with Bill is a form of *********ion.  Nothing will ever be accomplished except for a certain shallow self-satisfaction.  He is not worth your efforts.

 

Resisting the anti-science agenda of the religious element prevalent in the Shoals, and elsewhere, is of utmost importance and of profound importance.  The strident efforts of fundamentalist regiosists to return us to the Dark Ages is no laughing matter, when roughly half of the American populace entertains the literal fiction of Genesis.

 

We have a fight on our hands which we must win if the human species is to continue to flourish.  Nowhere is this fight more important than here and at no time more important than now.

 

Those who challenge scientific biology must be challenged with facts and demonstrable knowledge.  Their superstitious, weak attempts to undermine science must be met with  a fierce defense of the best of the human intellect, against which they are helpless.

 

 

The only thing necessary for ignorance to prevail is for intellectuals to do nothing.

 

DF

Deep, you are the most moronic self proclaimed "intellectual" I have ever witnessed.  Some of the things you post border on insanity.  I truly feel sorry for you...You are amazing, and that is not meant as a compliment.  Yes, as you can guess, I am one of the idiot Christians you find a need to constantly belittle.  I could list pages of reasons that I believe as I do, but I know it would mean nothing to you and several other frequent posters.  I hope that some day there is an event that will allow you and the others to see the light.  I can also absolutely guarantee that there are people who are believers in this world whose intelligence level is way beyond the greatly exaggerated level you believe yourself to reside.  You make it very obvious that you are not nearly as intelligent as you sadly wish you were.  Sad, sad DF....

Hi Crusty,

Thank you, my Friend.  I took your challenge and examined the web sites you gave us.  Below is what I found in each of the three:


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UNDERSTANDING EVOLUTION:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/...ary/article/lines_02


Fossil evidence:  Nicholas Steno's anatomical drawing of an extant shark and a fossil shark tooth.  Nicholas Steno's anatomical drawing of an extant shark (left) and a fossil shark tooth (right). Steno made the leap and declared that the fossil teeth indeed came from the mouths of once-living sharks.

The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time.

Early fossil discoveries:  In the 17th century, Nicholas Steno shook the world of science, noting the similarity between shark teeth and the rocks commonly known as "tongue stones."  This was our first understanding that fossils were a record of past life.

Two centuries later, Mary Ann Mantell picked up a tooth, which her husband Gideon thought to be of a large iguana, but it turned out to be the tooth of a dinosaur, Iguanodon.  This discovery sent the powerful message that many fossils represented forms of life that are no longer with us today.

Additional clues from fossils: Today we may take fossils for granted, but we continue to learn from them. Each new fossil contains additional clues that increase our understanding of life's history and help us to answer questions about their evolutionary story.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TRANSITIONAL FORMS:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/...ticle/0_0_0/lines_03


Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern gray whale — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!

 

Bill Gray note:  Gee, a whale became a whale!  Amazing discovery!


Horse evolution tree:   Our understanding of the evolution of horse feet, so often depicted in textbooks, is derived from a scattered sampling of horse fossils within the multi-branched horse evolutionary tree. These fossil organisms represent branches on the tree and not a direct line of descent leading to modern horses.

 

Bill Gray note:  And, a horse becomes a horse!  My mind is blown!


But, the standard diagram does clearly show transitional stages whereby the four-toed foot of Hyracotherium, otherwise known as Eohippus, became the single-toed foot of Equus. Fossils show that the transitional forms predicted by evolution did indeed exist.

As you can see to the left, each branch tip on the tree of horse evolution indicates a different genus, though the feet of only a few genera are illustrated to show the reduction of toes through time.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FOSSIL EVIDENCE
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/e...fossil-evidence.html
By Rima Chaddha, Posted 11.01.07, NOVA


In 2004, scientists digging in the Canadian Arctic unearthed fossils of a half-fish, half-amphibian that all but confirmed paleontologists' theories about how land-dwelling tetrapods – four-limbed animals, including us – evolved from fish. It is a classic example of a transitional form, one that bridges a so-called evolutionary gap between different types of animal. In this slide show, examine five important cases.

 

Bill Gray note:  Once more, lots of drawings -- but, not actual "missing link" photos.  Gee, I wonder why?


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++


So, what have we found in these web sites?   We found that a horse evolved into a different size horseWe saw fossilized shark teeth that folks in older days thought were just stones.

And, we say DRAWINGS of Transitional Fossil proof.   Wait a minute?   DRAWINGS of the proof?  If the proof exists, if the "missing link" is no longer missing -- show us the REAL TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL RECORD.   Don't give us drawings from someone's overactive imagination.

So much for your PROOF of Darwinian Evolution.   As I have said many times -- yes, MICRO EVOLUTION, i.e., adaptation -- one horse evolving into a larger horse or a smaller horse -- is indeed true.   However, all you have to prove Darwinian Evolution are drawings.  Okay!

On the other hand, we have, on undeniable authority, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"  Genesis 1:1.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Fish_Eating_Darwin

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Fish_Eating_Darwin

Typical of Bill, he looks through the sites loaded with information just to pick at "transitional" fossils.  He still claims that evolution is about fish becoming birds and horses, dogs.  His continued misunderstanding is obviously purposeful since admitting to the fact of evolution destroys his house of cards.  He would rather place his scientific understanding on allegories an drug induced dreams. 

 

So, Bill, besides poo-pooing the parts you listed, what about those parts is wrong?  Oh, and there were plenty of pictures on those websites.  Did you see them, or not?  It is too bad you didn't learn anything, but now you can't - assuming you read through the sites completely - claim to be ignorant. 

Originally Posted by daddy joe:

Deep, you are the most moronic self proclaimed "intellectual" I have ever witnessed.  Some of the things you post border on insanity.  I truly feel sorry for you...You are amazing, and that is not meant as a compliment. I can also absolutely guarantee that there are people who are believers in this world whose intelligence level is way beyond the greatly exaggerated level you believe yourself to reside.  You make it very obvious that you are not nearly as intelligent as you sadly wish you were.  Sad, sad DF....

____________________________________

Bill needs this post directed at him much more than Deep does. He does more to hurt the Christian cause than Deep could ever think of doing.

quote:  Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

Oh, and Bill, here is your photographic list of fossils that show the evolution of man. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...an_evolution_fossils 


Hi Crusty,

 

Your web site is showing a bunch of skulls and bones.  We could go to graveyards and find millions of those.

 

However, show us the PROOF that even one of these is a "transition" fossil record between monkey and man -- or between fish and fowl. 

 

Crusty, I can show you a rock or bone -- and make any claim I want about it.  But, I could not prove that it used to be a monkey and now is a man.  And, neither can you, nor your evolutionist scientists.

 

Good try, my Friend (for a bluff!) -- but, no cigar, Billy Bob.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

WHAT WAS THIS BEFORE -- AND WHAT IS IT BECOMING?

Australopithecus Sediba

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Australopithecus Sediba

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×