Can you explain what this has to do with your post and/or my reply to your post?

It was an analogy!

There are no analogies in the post quoted above. Are you still claiming that the verse from 2 Peter is an analogy? It's clearly not when all of the verse is read, it contradicts itself...it's circular. The message being conveyed is that God is not constrained by time like we are, so be patient.

Right on! And that's exactly what I'd like evolutionists to understand. Even Intelligent Design is speculated, but it is 100x more likely than evolution; if you really educate yourself on the two.

Fallen from grace, yes. Rejected him? There's nothing in the Bible that says that. There's "accept' him. He was rejected and despised by the pharisees. I'm trying to work with you on this one, but so far I see nothing.

My religion states that I have an innate inability to be a perfect person from the time I'm born til the time I die. And that God loved me enough to defeat the death of my soul by a love offering, a sacrifice made on my behalf.

I'm in love with that God. And there's no greater sense of gratitude I can imagine feeling than that for what he has done for me.

You, sir.. are the one who has rejected Him.

That brings up an important point.

If you do something to help someone, that can be thought of as being "good", right? But what if you expect to get something back for that? If you are only doing good because it will lead to a better afterlife, then your actions are self-serving, not serving towards others. Out of all the religions on earth, only one religion offers no promises for doing good deed.


The third video in this series does a good job in covering this topic.
http://mingle2.com/topic/show/183282

Not true we have many transitional fosslis.
First you need to know exactly what a transitional fossil is. The term "transitional fossil" is used at least two different ways on talk.origins, often leading to muddled and stalemated arguments. I call these two meanings the "general lineage" and the "species-to-species transition":

"General lineage":

This is a sequence of similar genera or families, linking an older group to a very different younger group. Each step in the sequence consists of some fossils that represent a certain genus or family, and the whole sequence often covers a span of tens of millions of years. A lineage like this shows obvious morphological intermediates for every major structural change, and the fossils occur roughly (but often not exactly) in the expected order. Usually there are still gaps between each of the groups -- few or none of the speciation events are preserved. Sometimes the individual specimens are not thought to be directly ancestral to the next-youngest fossils (i.e., they may be "cousins" or "uncles" rather than "parents"). However, they are assumed to be closely related to the actual ancestor, since they have intermediate morphology compared to the next-oldest and next-youngest "links". The major point of these general lineages is that animals with intermediate morphology existed at the appropriate times, and thus that the transitions from the proposed ancestors are fully plausible. General lineages are known for almost all modern groups of vertebrates.

"Species-to-species transition":

This is a set of numerous individual fossils that show a change between one species and another. It's a very fine-grained sequence documenting the actual speciation event, usually covering less than a million years. These species-to-species transitions are unmistakable when they are found. Throughout successive strata you see the population averages of teeth, feet, vertebrae, etc., changing from what is typical of the first species to what is typical of the next species. Sometimes, these sequences occur only in a limited geographic area (the place where the speciation actually occurred), with analyses from any other area showing an apparently "sudden" change. Other times, though, the transition can be seen over a very wide geological area. Many "species-to-species transitions" are known, mostly for marine invertebrates and recent mammals (both those groups tend to have good fossil records), though they are not as abundant as the general lineages . I put a list of numerous species-to-species transitions from the mammals.

Transitions to New Higher Taxa:

Both types of transitions often result in a new "higher taxon" (a new genus, family, order, etc.) from a species belonging to a different, older taxon. There is nothing magical about this. The first members of the new group are not bizarre, chimeric animals; they are simply a new, slightly different species, barely different from the parent species. Eventually they give rise to a more different species, which in turn gives rise to a still more different species, and so on, until the descendents are radically different from the original parent stock. For example, the Order Perissodactyla (horses, etc.) and the Order Cetacea (whales) can both be traced back to early Eocene animals that looked only marginally different from each other, and didn't look at all like horses or whales. (They looked rather like small, dumb foxes with raccoon-like feet and simple teeth.) But over the following tens of millions of years, the descendents of those animals became more and more different, and now we call them two different orders.

There are now several known cases of species-to-species transitions that resulted in the first members of new higher taxa.





Dendrerpeton acadianum (early Penn.) -- 4-toed hand, ribs straight, etc.
Archegosaurus decheni (early Permian) -- Intertemporals lost, etc.
Eryops megacephalus (late Penn.) -- Occipital condyle splitting in 2, etc.
Trematops spp. (late Permian) -- Eardrum like modern amphibians, etc.
Amphibamus lyelli (mid-Penn.) -- Double occipital condyles, ribs very small, etc.
Doleserpeton annectens or perhaps Schoenfelderpeton (both early Permian) -- First pedicellate teeth! (a classic trait of modern amphibians) etc.
From there we jump to the Mesozoic:

Triadobatrachus (early Triassic) -- a proto-frog, with a longer trunk and much less specialized hipbone, and a tail still present (but very short).
Vieraella (early Jurassic) -- first known true frog.
Karaurus (early Jurassic) -- first known salamander.
Finally, here's a recently found fossil:

Unnamed proto-anthracosaur -- described by Bolt et al., 1988. This animal combines primitive features of palaeostegalians (e.g. temnospondyl-like vertebrae) with new anthracosaur-like features. Anthracosaurs were the group of large amphibians that are thought to have led, eventually, to the reptiles. Found in a new Lower Carboniferous site in Iowa, from about 320 Ma.


And there are many many more, these are just a few.

Your list is only a list of certain species of this or that.

Much like wolves to coyotes to dingos to rat terriors to chiwawas (sp).

You cannot "prove" that one species became a second species.

of course not, but the evidence is there.
unlike ID where there is no evidence what so ever it's just something someone made up.
There is as much evidence that a giant turtle puked up the universe as there is that a god or gods did it.
We have evidence of evolution.

All we're asking for here is good hard evidence, and other than the already known species, you have no examples of intermediary species.. none whatsoever. If so, sir, please hand them over..

The chance and Probability of creation without God is based on unintelligence.

"An Intellectual knows more and more about less and less until they know everything there is to know about nothing."

Although I am a Christian, biblically in many areas I disagree with the Christian norm.

Absolutely.

If the Christian Bible is true and Jesus is offering to be the sacrificial lamb to pay for my imperfections, then I decline.

I'll gladly go to hell before I'll allow Jesus to pay for my failings.

You're damn right I refuse.

No way will I condone Jesus being crucified for my sake.

Absolutely not.

In fact, before you send me to hell, I'll even offer myself up as a sacrifical lamb. You can nail me to a cross to save some other idiot since God is so anxious for blood sacrifices He'll probably enjoy that.

I want no parts of any heaven that is run by such a demented God anyway.

This is the sickest religion ever.

What depressing spirituality.

I can't believe that people romantize this crap.

sighhhhhh

You're not alone.

Probably 99.9% of the people who call themselves "Christians" disagree with the Bible.

Why they insist on calling themselves "Christians" is beyond me.

Most 'Christians' truly don't believe in Christianity at all. They just cling to the name of Jesus and make up their own story of what that supposedly means.

1869 marks the discovery of the first such creature. Discovered in Germany, Archaeopteryx lithographica is a bird with reptilian features not found in modern birds, including a long bony reptilian tail (with many vertebrae), teeth, a reptilian mouth, a neck that attaches to skull from the rear. This is important to keep in mind because evolution-deniers generally cite its avian features and ignore its reptilian features as though they didn't exist.

Archaeopteryx appears in the late Jurassic, which is where we'd expect a transition between reptiles and birds if the latter evolved from the former. Archaeopteryx appears well before more modern birds, but well after reptiles first appear in the Permian (320 MYA). Theropod dinosaurs (ie like Velociraptor), appears in the Triassic (230 MYA). The general consensus is that birds evolved from theropods, but a small yet vocal minority argue that they in fact, descend from another class of reptiles. It's also important to note that Archaeopteryx is not the only transitional fossil to be found. A number of other fossilized birds with reptilian characteristics have been discovered, as have feathered theropods. In fact, the line between feathered theropods and birds has becomes blurred as discoveries continue.


Fossilization is a rare occurrence. Given the requirements needed for a dead specimen to become fossilized before becoming host to scavengers, erosion, and other forces that can destroy an animal's carcass, it's amazing we have as many transitional fossils as we do (so far 8 Archaeopteryx's have been found). It's important to understand this, because there is no way of knowing whether Archaeopteryx is in fact a direct ancestor to modern birds, or a close relative thereof. What's important is that it appears in the layers after the first reptiles, and before modern birds, and that it contains physiology of both.

Another common fallacy is the straw man argument that if one class or animal evolved from another, then every member of the older class must have evolved into the newer one. But evolution is about adaptation, diversification, and the filling of niches, not a change that happens in unison. The fact that a line of theropods become birds over millions of years, does not mean that all theropods must uniformly become birds. However, this doesn't stop anti-evolution sources from pointing out the fact that theropod dinosaurs still exist in the late Jurassic, and that these are supposed to be ancestral to Archaeopteryx. This common fallacy is based on a gross misuncerstanding of evolution, which is also responsible for the common rhetorical question; "if humans evolved from monkeys, then why are monkeys still around?"

I'm sorry. the pterodactyl is your example? Look, we have reproductive similarities to goats, was my grandmother a goat? I mean, seriously guys. evolution is laughable at best. you can't take similarities and say that one was derived from the other without watching this process over the years.

If..

You had a reptile that had a bird's vertebrae in this stratum of the earth...

Then one with a.. say.. toe of a bird in the next layer..

Then one with an ankle of a bird in the next

And so on and so forth, you MIGHT be able to conclude some of your findings, but drawing conclusions from the amount of evidence you have is pure lunacy..

So because there are gaps, it's lunacy?
And to say that some invisible man did it is sane?

Transitional fossils are frequently misunderstood, and like macroevolution, creationists tend to redefine the term to suit their purposes. As explained above, transitional fossils are fossils that have characteristics that are intermediate between other organisms. If the transitional fossil can be dated to a time between the organisms it is an intermediate to, it is strongly suggestive of an evolutionary relationship between the organisms.

Creationists will also sometimes state that a transitional fossil is not, in fact, a transitional. For example, with archaeopteryx, some have claimed that it is not a transitional between reptiles and birds and instead assert that it is a true bird. Unfortunately, this is another example of a creationist lie or distortion. If you look at the evidence it is clear that archaeopteryx has characteristics in common with reptiles that modern birds do not posses. Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil.

In general, creationist arguments that transitionals are not real are based on their ignorance of what a transitional fossil is or simply on outright distortions of fact. It is not that there isn't room for debate on the nature or categorization of various fossils, because there is always room for debate. However, creationist debates are almost never informed debate and as such do not accomplish much.

Finally, creationists will sometimes belabor the fact that there are gaps in the fossil record. Even if we have a transitional fossil between two groups of organisms that is suggestive of an evolutionary relationship, creationists will demand intermediaries between the intermediaries. And, if those are found, creationists will want intermediaries between the new organisms. It's a no-win situation. Since creationists insist that if we do not have a record of every single organism in the chain we can't say some organism is an ancestor of another.


"WE HAVE THE FOSSILS. WE WIN!"

This comes from people who are arguing that a totally ludicous and extremely absurd Mediterranean mythology should be believed as the word of God?

We shouldn't beleive in evolution because we don't have fossil records of every little tiny detail, but we should believe in a God who demands that people should judge each other and stone sinners to death?

We should believe in a God who directed people to murder heathens, their wives and children, and in fact kill everyone in the towns from whence they came?

We should believe in a God who is a male chauvinist pig?

We should believe in a God who is supposedly at war with a fallen angel and is losing the vast majority of souls that He creates to that angel?

We should believe in a God who drowns out his creation because He isn't a good enough Father to teach His own children how to behave correctly?

We should believe in a God who lusts for blood sacrifices before He can forgive people their sins?

We should believe in a God who was so unwise that he designed a universe in such a way that the only way to save a few souls would be to have his own son incarnated and nailed to a pole?



You call evolution lunacy?

What a joke.

Must you always come into these threads with common sense and logic! Gee you spoil all the fun!