A passage of the Gospel of John (John 3:22-30) explicitly states that Jesus did baptize. According to the The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, this passage confirms the central place of baptism in Jesus' message. The Cambridge Companion further states that the initiatory baptism of Jesus and the requirement to "repent and accept baptism" in earliest Christianity were further evidence of baptism's central place in the "good news".

A passage in the next chapter of the Gospel of John (John 4:1-4) mentions both that Jesus baptized and did not baptize. Many scholars consider the statement that Jesus did not baptize, but rather his disciples baptized (John 4:2), to be a later editorial insertion.

Krimsa & Eljay,


In addition to the Ken Miller tube on chrom. #2 above, I thought you you both find this link below very interesting.

It deals with the 'elusive' claim of 100 presumed scientists rejecting evolution.

While it doesn't help your side of the debate Eljay, I know you will appreciate the process through which the author 'proofcheked' the claim presented presented to him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM&feature=related

Thanks I will look. While I appreciate that information I will also state that there ARE people who reject the theory of evolution who might work in the field in science. Of course there is. Statistically it would be impossible for there not to be. So I will give Eljay that one of course. Besides, the whole point is that we BOTH don’t want to be silly fools here and insist that "whoever has the longer lists of scientists is correct." If we are going to decide our debates based on such nonsense then we might as well just go out to a sandbox right now and throw punches at one another.

Agreed Krimsa,

I have stated the same point in an earlier post ('long list' popularity contest).

The integrity of the process is what matters most. And in that light, the credibility of those making claims is central.

The video is quite effective in demonstrationg how one's claim completely breaks down when you show disregard or disrespect for the integrity of the process, integrity of the topic, or integrity of your opposing party!

Worth the watch.

Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time.

For example, imagine if you will a rabbit farm high on a mountain. The farmer buys a thousand rabbits, some have longer fur and some have shorter fur - it's a quite mixed group of rabbits. The length of the fur on the rabbits is determined by their genetic makeup. Some have genes for long fur, some for shorter. Now, this farm (or ranch, if you prefer) is in an area that gets extremely cold for most of the year. The rabbits survival depends upon having enough fur to keep them warm. Those with short fur will freeze to death and die (our fictional farmer doesn't have much business sense).

Because of the situation these unfortunate creatures are in, they are subject to natural selection. There is a selection pressure for longer fur. More baby rabbits are born than can possibly survive in the environment. This is an important part of the process. Their genetic makeup is a determining factor in their survival. Rabbits that die of cold will not pass on their short-fur genes to their offspring (as they won't have any), whereas rabbits with long fur will be more resistant to the cold and therefore much more likely to reproduce, passing on their genes for long fur.

Over many generations, the farm will consist almost entirely of long-fur rabbits. The frequency of genes for short fur has decreased, and the frequency of genes for long fur has increased. Far fewer short-haired rabbits, and eventually none at all, will be born - their genes will have been lost from the gene-pool.

Some rabbits may have developed genetic mutations which further increase the length of their fur. These mutations will clearly give those rabbits an advantage in their environment, and those beneficial mutations will spread through the gene pool of the population. Mutations that are detrimental to the survival rate will clearly be lost quickly, as those unfortunate rabbits will have a reduced chance of surviving long enough to mate. In this way, useful mutations stay on in the population. It's a positive feedback loop - this is the second important thing to remember.

These rabbits have evolved. It's really that simple.

Evolution is a directly observable phenomenon. There is no debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution occurs, any more than there is debate about the Earth orbiting the Sun. Gene pools change - evolution happens. This is obviously a rather contrived example, but it serves to demonstrate some of the basic principles.

Now, objectors will say "Ah, but they're still rabbits, aren't they? That's not the same as amphibians turning into reptiles, and then mammals, is it? That still doesn't explain how a human can evolve from an ape-like ancestor, does it?"

Yes, it does. The change from mixed-fur rabbits to long-fur rabbits (in this example) is often referred to as micro-evolution - a minor change within a species. Larger changes are known as macro-evolution, and take far longer to occur, but the process involved is exactly the same - genes changing over time. It is a cumulative process - the minor changes build up over many generations into major changes. Given time, the descendants of these rabbits could become an entirely novel species of rabbit, and eventually a creature that can no longer be called a rabbit.

To say that you accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is akin to saying that it is possible to walk to the end of your street, but it is somehow impossible to walk to the next town. The process involved, putting one foot in front of the other, a single step at a time, is exactly the same although the end results may be completely different.

Evolution is a fact. This is not open to debate.

Did you ever think that we could of evolved all by ourselves. Just because we share dna with other animals doesn't mean we were that animal ever. And how convenient that it takes so long.....so lets say 5 million 999 thousand years ago there was something else that was evolving would not it show up today...There has to be something that you science hounds can give me to prove your point...because if not then again I say it's crapola.

well I did prove it but you obviously did not read it.
And your main problem is you know absloutly nothing about evolution, so of course you don't believe it you don't understand it.
And we always fear what we don't understand.

Within a species I am all for it.

The problem is that some people cannot seem to broaden their thinking to consider the evolution of beings in general. How do fish become people? But when you get into the scientific research, of which I am no expert at all but have read enough to get a basic understanding, one can start to understand the evolution of beings in general and how it is possible for bacteria to evolve and become fish, fish to evolve and become mammals, actually that is far to simplified but it is understandable once you get into the processes, data and finally the proof in the bones which tell alot.

We and apes are from the same species.
We have a common ancestor.

She just doesnt understand. She keeps insisting we evolved from chimps. Its a mental block on her part.



NO! Not other animal[s]. Chimp ONLY. The reason why you don’t see any of the in between levels today is because they went extinct. This happened with all animals. Dogs, cats, elephants, horses.

That's right 'feral':

Evolution exists on a 'bible accommodating' hand (GOD-GOOD-micro),

But wait,

Evolution doesn't exist on another 'BIBLE OFFENSIVE' hand (SATAN-EVIL-macro).

Let's see, are there any 'faith-shopping onlookers' reading these posts right now???

If so, DO YOU ACTUALLY BUY 'FERAL's and her fundamentalist friends claim that evolution exists, but then again evolution doesn't exist???

Just curious!!!

SATAN-EVIL-macro

And may I ask what all the fuss is about...I had already stated before that Jesus Baptized and just for clarity in John 4:1 His disciples were baptizing not Jesus. So did Jesus well of course he would have. And He also Baptized them in the Holy spirit so what exactly is your point here.

In 4:1 it's clarifying that he did baptize but he did not so at this particular time. So again no contradiction just misunderstanding.

A passage of the Gospel of John (John 3:22-30) explicitly states that Jesus did baptize. According to the The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, this passage confirms the central place of baptism in Jesus' message. The Cambridge Companion further states that the initiatory baptism of Jesus and the requirement to "repent and accept baptism" in earliest Christianity were further evidence of baptism's central place in the "good news".

A passage in the next chapter of the Gospel of John (John 4:1-4) mentions both that Jesus baptized and did not baptize. Many scholars consider the statement that Jesus did not baptize, but rather his disciples baptized (John 4:2), to be a later editorial insertion.

I think I already covered

What does that mean? Are you insisting that your explanation is superior to mine in some respect?

So, we are supposed to take your interpretation of a book as a fact, but when you are presented with facts of the existence of something you choose not to belief, we are wrong?

Anyway, that needs to go on its own thread of biblical contradictions. Aren't we discussing evolution on this one or has that totally gone by the wayside?

Okay - I can now operate an aerial lift without killing myself (See Boston Globe for tradgedy of accident on Saturday. Right after my class - this happened less than a ile away)

Now... The video.

I have two problems with this agrument about #2 Chromosone - one being what was said, the other with what has been conviently not stated.

The difficulty with what was said is that it asks the question "IF we shared common ancesters we should be able to solve the cromo' issue". Well, alright - that's a given. Of course there are a lot of other dissimilarities which need to be adressed - but let's just examine "THIS ONE".

The explination is almost plausable - except it does not explain why the fusion of the #2C took place, and why it only happened once! Also - how does this now not explain that we are directly discendent from the Ape - for how else can one justify that there was a previous "common" ancester that puts man "side by side" on the evolutionary tree, and not a direct descendant?
What are the presumed characteristics of the Genome of this mysterious common anscester that does not indicate that the #2 chromosone SPLIT and that apes are not directly discendant from man? None of this is even asked - yet, how can I see this as a clear question to ask, yet those in the field who spend their life studying this not?

Also - what is not adressed is that there are more than just the difference in the number of Chromo's that need to be adressed... There is an obsevable difference in the size of the end markers as well. What is the explination for this occurance - as there is no effect on the information caused by this difference - yet it is there. Shouldn't this difference be explained by cuasation - rather than occurance.

Sorry Voile - I'm not convinced. This video is a clear example of circular reasoning to attempt to explain what occured with no reasoning behind the why. I know that science is not about the why, but science also tells us that we share lots of things with other animals. Similarities are - two eyes, two arms, two legs, ears, a nose, a heart, lungs... the list goes on. I would be suprised to see that we don't have NUMEROUS similarities with everything that walks on the planet - including those that don't (those that crawl - plant's - single celled whatever's) Yet - it would seem that just a single difference is enough to indicate that every "like kind" is unique unto itself through the generations, and nothing is definitive in the reverse extrapolation into the past - unless it can be demonstrated by repeating it - something that the science of Evolution (and I use that term science loosley) has yet to demonstrate, and likely never will.