Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
In the second edition of this book Darwin continued: “Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends” (Darwin, 1909, p. 339, emp. added). Over 100 years ago, Darwin was speculating that all of these finches may simply be variations of an original pair. The evidence seems to be proving him correct. But if these birds can interbreed, then they offer no support for evolutionary theory. Could it simply be that the 13 finches Darwin collected demonstrated a “gradation” of variations brought about by breeding among various groups? If these birds can interbreed (and science has shown they can), then they no longer should be considered different species.
--Finch Study—More Fodder for Textbook Hoaxes
by [B]Brad Harrub, Ph.D. [/B]
Darwin's work on the Galapagos finches is already over a hundred years old. Try reading something more up to date about the finches. And no those birds are indeed multiple species.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html
Sez there, the medium tree finch COULD NOT INTERBREED with the large tree finch.
And please stop cherry picking quotes from Fred Hoyle. You make baby Jesus cry.
"The creationist is a sham religious person who, curiously, has no true sense of religion. In the language of religion, it is the facts we observe in the world around us that must be seen to constitute the words of God. Documents, whether the Bible, Qur'an or those writings that held such force for Velikovsky, are only the words of men. To prefer the words of men to those of God is what one can mean by blasphemy. This, we think, is the instinctive point of view of most scientists who, curiously again, have a deeper understanding of the real nature of religion than have the many who delude themselves into a frenzied belief in the words, often the meaningless words, of men. Indeed, the lesser the meaning, the greater the frenzy, in something like inverse proportion."
--Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Our Place in the Cosmos (1993), p.14
All I can do is laugh @ JIA's comment.
Evoution today is amzingly different.
Also, the ability to interbreed is not what defines a species.
Darwin aslo speculated that gemules were secreted from every part of the body and transferred into the sperm and egg, creating a new plan for a human being.
Darwin also thought that only the most extreme variations survived.
Darwin was wrong on a hell of a lot of things, but he was right on many too, including the Out-of-Africa hypothesis and Natural Seleciton.
Originally posted by Templares
Why NOT? If you cant PROVE what you PREACH then you are NOT going to CONVINCE anyone to believe what youre saying.
Proof is not absolute (for some people) so why would I go that route? I believe that even if I could prove what I preach someone would dispute that as well. Besides, people do not confess the Son of God--Jesus the Anointed Savior--as Lord and believe that God has raised Him from the dead on the basis of proof anyway brother, they do it on the basis of their faith.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Proof is not absolute (for some people) so why would I go that route? I believe that even if I could prove what I preach someone would dispute that as well. Besides, people do not confess the Son of God--Jesus the Anointed Savior--as Lord and believe that God has raised Him from the dead on the basis of proof anyway brother, they do it on the basis of their faith.
Does this faith make you feel special?
Originally posted by AllianceThe book "The Origin of Species" points out a lot of Darwin's errors and corrects them. More than what I can say for the Bible.
All I can do is laugh @ JIA's comment.Evoution today is amzingly different.
Also, the ability to interbreed is not what defines a species.
Darwin aslo speculated that gemules were secreted from every part of the body and transferred into the sperm and egg, creating a new plan for a human being.
Darwin also thought that only the most extreme variations survived.
Darwin was wrong on a hell of a lot of things, but he was right on many too, including the Out-of-Africa hypothesis and Natural Seleciton.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Proof is not absolute (for some people) so why would I go that route? I believe that even if I could prove what I preach someone would dispute that as well. Besides, people do not confess the Son of God--Jesus the Anointed Savior--as Lord and believe that God has raised Him from the dead on the basis of proof anyway brother, they do it on the basis of their faith.
How do you expect anyone else to beleive what you beleive when you cannot prove it to us, and when we are in disagreeance with your belief already ?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You fail, because you do not take the time to understand people.
I haven't failed anything. My job is to tell people about God's love and how to be saved. Anything else that I do simply promotes this objective.
God will not hold me responsible for whether or not someone chooses Christ, I have no control over anyone else's will. Remember I wrote:
[i]Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, brother, JIA does not think that he is Jesus. But I wish I was then I would supernaturally save every person from Hell. But then that would violate everyone's free will. I would be forcing people to live with me in Heaven. But that would not be voluntary love if people didn't have a choice in the matter.[/i]
🙁
So, if it was up to me everyone would choose Jesus Christ and go to be present with Him in Heaven. But it is not within my control.
🙁