Um, Jesus was from Judea, his parents traveled to Bethlehem to pay their taxes(for that was the city of David) had Jesus there. Later, when the king decreed all the children would be killed, they were supernaturally led to Egypt, until that King died, then they returned. And the Bible actually agrees with science, although evolution has no basis in science...
it actually speaks of the water cycle, and other things unknown to man until much, much later (like the nineteenth century) and there IS NO basis for evolution, otherwise where are the "middle creatures" how do you explain how virus' "evolved" before more "complex" creatures, though virus' require a host to survive? It is literally impossible for a complete mutation to survive, to create it's own species. It would require that there be at least two of the species, at the same time, that have reproductive systems INTACT, perfectly functioning, to create a species from the mutations. And if each subsequent species is better than the previous one, why didn't the previous "versions" die off? Even your precious Darwin knew there was no basis for his Hypothesis. Curators of natural history museums, including the one in London, which is the LARGEST in the world, have no evidence that ANY species evolved into another. It seems to me to be a bigger leap of faith to say that we are the product of about a million "chances" happening in order and all working, than it is to accept the fact that God created us in his image.
Oh jesus....
OK, to the water cycle: prove to me we didn't know about it until the nineteenth century.
and where exactly does it speak about the water cycle? Don't give me some ambiguous phrase literally referring to loins, either, I want PROOF.
To your evolution scpiel:
Take a cup of beans, 50 white beans, 50 black beans.
The beans represent bunny genes, the white ones are the genes for NO HAIR, the black , FOR HAIR. If you get two white(recessive), the bunny dies, because the climate is cold.
Pick 2 beans at random until all the beans are gone, put the double whites in a separate pile, because bunnies are dead.
when you finish em all, put the beans back in a cup and do that over again.
what do you notice, NO HAIR bunnies become rarer and rarer.
POOF, evolution.
Now to crush your ignorance:
It is literally impossible for a complete mutation to survive, to create it's own species. It would require that there be at least two of the species, at the same time, that have reproductive systems INTACT, perfectly functioning, to create a species from the mutations.
Here's your preoblem. YOU ASSUME that a mutation CHANGES THE original animal's SPECIES, this is incorrect, because, as you probably don't know, evolution occurs over millions and millions of years.
Think of this, if a couble has a kid with a big nose, that big nosed kid CAN STILL REPRODUCE with other non-big nose people, in having kids, he passes his BIG NOSE GENES on, thus, evolution.
And if each subsequent species is better than the previous one, why didn't the previous "versions" die off?
again, your species assumption is glaringly wrong. refer to the bunny example above.
Even your precious Darwin knew there was no basis for his Hypothesis.[quote]HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, you've obviously never even SEEN his book.
[quote]Curators of natural history museums, including the one in London, which is the LARGEST in the world, have no evidence that ANY species evolved into another.
So? Becoause some brit curator is an ignorant fool, evolution is incorrect? check your logic.
It seems to me to be a bigger leap of faith to say that we are the product of about a million "chances" happening in order and all working, than it is to accept the fact that God created us in his image.
Not really, you just have no clue what you're talking about 馃檪
two units of the same species reproducing is not evolution, it is random genetic melding. I'm talking about, where are the subsets of a particular species, that resemble a "later" species? And don't tell me about microevolution, because i see microevolution occur, but macroevolution cannot. If we are evolved, how do we have such specialized organs, such as the eye? How did the precision of such sensory organs happen? Theres no way it happened by chance...If evolution does not change the original species, where is the proof, the half-newt half-robin? And, by calling the british curator an Ignorant fool, are you saying that you have proof that he does not, or that you really dont have anything to say, so why not demean him, it'll make you feel better, right?
OK, I'll address this:
two units of the same species reproducing is not evolution, it is random genetic melding.
THAT'S WHAT EVOLUTION IS. Did you read my bunny example!?
I'm talking about, where are the subsets of a particular species, that resemble a "later" species?
You're talking wrong. Is they resemble one another, they could have similar evolutionary origin, and like conditions, which would not require radical change, OR have different origins, yet, because of like environments, look alike because of some function. Bats and butterflies come to mind here.
And don't tell me about microevolution, because i see microevolution occur, but macroevolution cannot. If we are evolved, how do we have such specialized organs, such as the eye?
And this, my friends, is called dodging the question. He can't take me on the battlefield, so he wants to play chess(using verbose terms).
Specialized organs are just that: SPECIALIZED, you answered your OWN QUESTION. They are fitted to our environment, and means of survival.
How did the precision of such sensory organs happen?
The guy with the blind/deaf/mute genes never got laid, the guy with the 20/20 vision did, thus, evolution.
Theres no way it happened by chance...
Brash statement followed by...an ambiguous question? GOOD FORM![sarcasm]
If evolution does not change the original species,
Never said that. You must be mixing up what I and your sunday school teacher have told you 馃檪
where is the proof, the half-newt half-robin?
Uhm, OK, where's YOUR proof of a moon made of cheesecake!(see how rediculous that sounds?)
And, by calling the british curator an Ignorant fool, are you saying that you have proof that he does not, or that you really dont have anything to say, so why not demean him, it'll make you feel better, right? 馃檮 馃檮 馃檮 馃檮 馃檮
I'm saying, if he's backed down against the belligerent Jesuscrats, he is a fool, and has obviously never read anything By darwin, or anything on evolution, for that matter.
and when did I say I had definite proof? It's a THEORY for a reason, mainly, because we can't sit around for 10 million years to observe it.