So I take it that you can't answer the questions? Where did all your truths and facts go?

The questions you feel are unanswered are.......?

Give me something to do tomorrow morning after I kill my limit.....

You had this debate once before about evolution in a thread on the old forum and you never responded to my counter point, so ill make it again. I have two science degrees and a minor in chemistry, I practice science on a daily baisis and that same practice has more than once re-afirmed my faith as well.
You seem to argue for evolution as a proven fact, that it is absolute science. It is not! It it is refered to as the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. By defenition of its very name it is not fact, it is theory. It can not be replicated in a lab, fully measured or quantified by the scientific method. Therfore it is only theory, a possability, and must be believed or not because it can not be proven by science. Thus it requires an element of FAITH.

This element of faith is no different than the belief in a higher power. You Choose to believe in evolutions b/c you see proof in unmeasurable data that can not be unquestionably linked, you say your self there are gaps. This is no different than belief in a religious faith.
Why do you see religion and science as black or white? One or the other? Why do you belive they can not co-exist, that they are not different sides of the same coin? How can you be a scientist if you are closed to the possibility of things that exist that you dont understand? Science and scientific practice by its nature is the study of things we dont understand. And in a way, so is religious faith.

wpevey - wells stated.

I find it funny how the lib crowd likes to point fingers, laugh, call names, and claim that Christians do not believe in science. When those same Christains come back with science, and call them out on thier blind faith in a theory, the libs get all hurt and mad. They made up the rules of political correctness to silence conservatives, and it scares the lib, when the PC stuff does not work any longer, or when their name calling fails. Libs never do well, when a conversation turns to facts and history.

When it comes down to it, I think they really do believe in God, it is just that they hate him. They hate to know that one day they will stand naked in front of him, and answer for their lives. It is the reason they hate Isreael. They see the fulfilled Bible prophecies by the mere existance of Israel, and they just want it to all go away. They want to live in the filth of their homosexuality, their wickedness, their humanistic principle of "if it feels good, do it", but deep inside, they know reality.

If America is so much better now why is suicide, murder,disrespect,crime in general been on the rise? And this country spends more on education than anywhere in the world and we continue to drop in rankings?

Gravity is also referred to as a theory, but I bet you believe in that. -Gravity is not theory, its fact ( you used this lame argument before too). When newton proposed it, it was theory. It is now quantifiable, measureable, weighted and tangible. It was proven w/ the scientific method. Please give me an example of evolution being quantified, measured and applied in a lab? Have we created a new species, sub species, phylum, genis, class of some organism? And if your going to use bacteria as your example, adaptaions of and existing trait to an eviromental change is not evolution, unless the bacteria is no longer a bacteria.
If you had as much of a science background as you claim them you would know how the scientific method works. You have no Idea what my science background is lol. I apply more science in a 24hr day than you do in a whole year. And I still see shit that defies all explination at the same time.Unlike christians, scientists are held to standards, there are rules, they simply can't just make a random claim and call it fact. That is what people like you and ranger do, you quote some scripture and declare it fact or as ranger puts it "bible truths". Simply refusing to believe does not make evolution any less true, that is the beauty of science, it is real whether you believe it or not.People make this same argument about faith, the fact that you state it debunks your entire argument. Evolution is proven, you can balk and thump your bible all day but it won't change the fact that we are the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution, not the creation of a magic being. And yes evolution can be recreated in a lab it happens daily. I am not talking about the misunderstood evolution that creationist like to spout, like rangers poor attempt at discounting the publication I supplied earlier. I also supplied a link to a well put together history of evolution, but I am sure none of you took the time to read it.

So now I ask you, provide proof, other than scripture, that disproves evolution. If evolution is false then prove it. And I would ask the same of you, if a higher existance is false, then provide proof. If life after death is false then prove it. If your so sure God does not exist, prove it.

I also find it funny that now cristians are trying to claim that religion and science are not polar opposites. It was not so long ago that scientists were killed for suggesting that the earth was not the center of the universe or that earth wasn't flat.Yes and just before science knew we wernt the center, science knew the earth was flat. Science and religion both change as our understanding changes, this is how they are the same currency. That is the point I'm trying to make. They are not 2 sides of the same coin, they aren't even the same currency. When faced with the fact that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, you answer with "well you don't know how long a day is to god". Christianity as a whole has a long history of when they are faced with a different belief system that refuses to yield to their views, they assimilate the other religion by bending the text to show that they are one and the same.

Now ranger, I am asking you again to provide the facts you keep bringing up. You are still making false claims and spewing bullshit. Where has a cristian came back with science? And since you brought it up again, if the Israelites are gods chosen people and they practice Judaism, why do you not? So please enlighten me with your history and facts. Show me where science is wrong. If you are not willing to do that, then shut your ignorant, racist, homophobic ass up. I think it just pisses you off that Americans are finally starting to pull their heads out of the dark ages and see your religion for what it really is. Your archaic belief system is dying, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. It must burn your ass that the government is now pumping so much money into evolution and stem cell research. It warms my heart to see religion being pushed from the schools, now real progress can begin when people turn to science for answers instead of listening to old men prattle on about burning bushes and beasts with 7 heads. LOL I'd love to be there when you are lying in a hospital bed asking the doctor for an answer he dosnt have, when science fails you and you left w/ nothing but the long dark. Will science comfort you then, will it ease your fear, numb your uncertainty? Or will you cry as a child, and sink into the realization of how little you really know because you refuse to understand that wether its religion or science they both require a degree of FAITH to believe in something you cant understand. You had a good run though [/quote]

How fitting that this just showed up on my timeline, must be a divine miracle! One generation at a time

Never mind wpevey, just saw your occupation in the occupation thread. I'm not sure that putting a test strip in a jar of piss counts as "science". I have many friends that are RN's so now I understand why you are so confused.

I am second author on a research paper that was just submitted for publication, and am part of another 3 that will be submitted by the end of the year. These are papers that address the phylogenetic relationship of 265 million year old sharks with both extinct and extant species. We used multiple techniques to do this study, I hardly believe that you do more science in a day than I do in a year, and I seriously doubt what you do on a daily basis gives you a deeper understanding of evolution than the 2 hour lecture you sat through freshman year. And that research was all done in my spare time and does not include the work I do for my real job.

Here you go pevey, another example of real world and lab created evolution.

Sure thing, I have a degree in biology concentration in comparative anatomy, A degree in nursing and a minor in chem. I work at a 30+ bed Cardiac/ Neurological ICU that is top 100 in the nation, I have been nominated into top 100 nurses catagory. I have to make decisions every day, sometimes split second, based on science. At the same time Ive seen things in my practice that defies everything science has taught me, things that have been proven, unproven.
You seem to think that I am against evolution or that I dont believe it is possible. You would be wrong. You however are not understanding my point b/c you refuse to. I believe that some things can not be explained and must simply be believed either as science or pure faith. Do you believe in Love? That a person can Love another individual more than life it's self? If so, can you prove love? can you quantify it? Not all things that exist, do so in a lab.
You seem to lump all religon into one group so I lumped evolution into one, be it micro or macro. Is Red hair or blue eyes proof of evolution? What about dog breeds? Does a bacteria resistant to Vancomyacin prove evolution? Nothing that I studied in school or that was taught to me by tenured professors stated that mutations that were adaptations to existing traits written into a genetic code was the end all be all proof of evolution, be it micro or macro. Who is to say that some higher being did not create evolution/mutation? I dont hate evolution, and Im not some crazy bible thumping evangal or religos zealot, but I feel that science and religon both have thier place and require a person to have faith in things that you dont fully understand. Faith that things happen because they are supposed to happen wether you understand the reason or not. You use what you KNOW to deal with what you DONT KNOW.

As far as the death bed argument, some people do exactly that. They do belive God cures or is involved in their health. And virtualy all people believe in a spiritual aspect of their healing process. Go to a hopital and spend some time with sick people, faith is absolutly involved in thier health.

I would love to hear your science background, what is it that you do? I am curious because you seem to be confused about the difference between micro and macro evolution, and evolution in general. do you think that evolution means that a horse suddenly gives birth to a walrus?

And if you are going to use the death bed argument; Why is it that nobody relies on god to cure their cancer or give them a new heart? If you follow your logic, then god is the one that gave you cancer since he controls everything in the universe, so prayers from one of his flock should be enough to cure the disease right? Why turn to science when god is all you need?[/quote]

Did a little research the oldest person recorded died at 122.
Not to shabby with all the medicine and science we have today. Now on the other hand if one believes in the bible (even if you just wanna read it as a history book) the oldest recorded person was over 900 without all the medicine and science. I also did a brief study on life expectancy and it has doubled over the past 200 years but one thing that hasnt changed is the comfort at those older ages. It appears that God has allowed man to figure some things out to let people live longer but he put a cap on the quality of life for the aged. If a person live into there 70s 200 years ago they had the same problems a person in there 70s has today.

Not sure why God decided to change the life span but it changed after the flood. People didnt live as long after the flood as they did before. One thing we know for sure is that He is in control and will allow man to learn how much or how little He sees fit. I find it comical that people like idacraw thinks that man can do anything on there own when everything they have to study God created.

Since 1963 SAT scores dropped, std's up,divorce up,violent crimes up, unwed child birth up from kids on to adult women, alcohol consumption up.


Prayer was taken out in '62

both science and faith have their places and should be supported, I still say they are two sides of same coin. They change over time, both further human development, teach, generate ideas, shape ideals, stimulate growth and move progress forward. to remove one devalues the coin and make the other worthless

100 replies, and over a thousand views, and all because I asked "what if". Cool.


Notice how quick Idecraw is to call names make personal attacks, when someone with some real science in their background speaks up.

Libs are terrified of God. They know he exists, they just want to wish him away, just like the nation of Israel.

idacraw - Your post "Here you go pevey, another example of real world and lab created evolution.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 15_birdflu"



Here is the kicker, You have a virus, that over time adapts, and is still a virus. the point is that it never became anything other than a virus.

Take 100 dogs, of all manner of breeds, to include the tea cup poodle to the great dane. Place them all on an island and come back in 40 years. You will no longer have poodles or great danes, you will have a regular generic looking dog that is similar to the mutts that rund all over third world nations. You could then take these mutts, selectively breed them, and go back to the original breeds that you turned loose. All of these variations are within the DNA of the dogs. What you will not do, is get an animal other than a dog.

What about the fossil record?

The "creationists best friend" (i.e. the fossil record) still shows a distinct lack of transitional forms. Sure, every generation of evolutionists have a few new ones, but none of them have stood the test of time so far. Lately they're trying real-hard-like to claim that "dinosaurs grew feathers" to validate temporary evolutionary theory. This will fall flat too. Wait and see. (They have good artists though, don't they?) They've got great illustrations of "probable" interim forms, without the slightest bit of scientific evidence to back them up. It's sad what they're doing to the children with such propaganda.

What is the difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution?

Macro-evolution is the theory that one kind of life form can become another kind given enough time and chance. Micro-evolution however is the observed biological process showing descendants that are similar to (but clearly not clones of) their ancestors. (Isn't it astounding that the Creator built in such automatic adjustability within each kind!) A child usually inherits visible traits from both parents, etc. Micro-evolution is scientific. This is the way our Creator designed life to be, various speciation could occur within each preset "kind" of life form. Watch carefully--when evolutionists offer their proofs of believed macroevolution, it is ALWAYS instances of microevolution that they cite, hoping that you won't notice the difference. Mendel's laws of genetics show us why microevolution does not lead to macroevolution.

http://www.creationism.org/topbar/faq.htm

ranger, since you are struggling to understand the concept I'm trying to show you, here is a fun game used to help children understand evolution and natural selection. Give it a try and see if you can survive!

Eusthenopteron ~385 million years ago
A pelagic fish, Eusthenopteron is probably representative of the group from which tetrapods evolved. It had a tetrapod-like skull and spine (Prothero, 2007).

Panderichthys ~385 mya
Panderichthys had a tetrapod-like braincase and tetrapod-like teeth, and had also lost its dorsal and anal fins (Prothero, 2007).

Tiktaalik ~375 mya
Though still a water-dweller, Tiktaalik had fins that were halfway towards being feet, and ears capable of hearing in air or water (Prothero, 2007). It was capable of crawling around in very shallow water, and it had a neck, unlike fish but like tetrapods (Coyne, 2009).

Ventastega ~365 mya
The bones of Ventastega are intermediate between Tiktaalik and Acanthostega (Ahlberg et al, 2008). Sadly, the fossil is incomplete and we can't see its fins/feet.

Acanthostega ~365 mya
Possessing four definite legs, Acanthostega was presumably capable of movement over land (Coyne, 2009), though the legs were still better suited for crawling along the bottom of the water (Prothero, 2007). Its tail was still adapted for propulsion through water, and it still had gills (Ridley, 2004).

Ichthyostega ~365 mya
Slightly more like a land animal, Ichthyostega had powerful shoulders implying it did indeed use its legs to move over land, at least sometimes (Clack, 2005). Even now, the skull still closely resembled that of Eusthenopteron (Futuyma, 2005).

Pederpes ~350 mya
The foot of Pederpes "has characteristics that distinguish it from the paddle-like feet of the Devonian forms [i.e. the above animals] and resembles the feet of later, more terrestrially adapted Carboniferous forms" (Clack, 2002).

Synapsids-Mammals:

Archaeothyris ~305 million years ago
Mostly lizard-like. However Archaeothyris is one of the earliest known synapsids; a group defined by possession of a single temporal fenestra (Ridley, 2004).

Dimetrodon ~280 mya
Dimetrodon had specialised canine teeth (Prothero, 2008) akin to those of modern mammals.

Lycaenops ~260 mya
More mammal-like, especially in how it held its limbs: closer to its body like modern mammals, rather than sprawled to the side like Dimetrodon (Prothero, 2007). It still had a great many "primitive" features, such as ribs in the lumbar area (Prothero, 2007).

Thrinaxodon ~245 mya
Had the beginning of a secondary palate in its skull (Prothero, 2007); in modern mammals, this allows eating and breathing at the same time, and is a sign of a more active lifestyle (Ridley, 2004). Its more advanced skull also allowed it to chew its food; and indeed it had premolars and molars with which to do so (Prothero, 2007). The skeleton was not yet fully mammal-like, but it had lost those lumbar ribs.

Probainognathus ~225 mya?
Probainognathus still possessed a reptile-like jaw articulation (Macdonald et al 2009) but also had "the initiation of the articulation which was later to become the more highly developed glenoid-condyle articulation of the mammal" (Romer, 1969). It had a well developed zygomatic arch (Macdonald et al 2009). However, its braincase was very unlike that of modern mammals (Romer, 1969).

Diarthrognathus ~210 mya?
The fascinating Diarthrognathus had a jaw that contained both the old reptile-like joint as well as the new mammalian joint (Prothero, 2007).

Land Mammals-Aquatic Mammals:

Indohyus ~48 million years ago
Although only a cousin species of the ancestor of whales, Indohyus had bones denser than normal mammals, indicating it was partially aquatic: heavy bones are good ballast (Thewissen et al, 2009). Its ears shared a feature with modern whales: a thickened wall of bone which assists in underwater hearing; non-cetaceans don't have this (Thewissen et al, 2009).

Pakicetus ~52 mya
Perhaps the actual ancestor, Pakicetus was probably semi-aquatic; like Indohyus, it had dense bones for ballast (Thewissen et al, 2009). Its body was "wolf-like" but the skull had eye sockets adapted for looking upwards, presumably at objects floating above it (Thewissen et al, 2009). Although initially known from just a skull, many more bones were found later (Thewissen et al, 2001).

Ambulocetus ~50 mya
With a streamlined, elongated skull and reduced limbs, Ambulocetus probably spent most of its time in shallow water. Its reduced limbs meant it could only waddle on land (Coyne, 2009). It resembled a crocodile in some ways.

Rodhocetus ~45 mya
The nostrils of Rodhocetus have started to move backwards (towards the blowhole position) and the skeleton indicates a much stronger swimmer (Coyne, 2009). On land it would struggle, moving "somewhat like a modern eared seal or sea lion" (Gingerich et al, 2001). Its teeth were simpler than its predecessors (Futuyma, 2005), a trend that continued to the present.

Maiacetus ~47 mya
Seems similar to Rodhocetus. One fossil was found with what appeared to be a foetus, in a position indicating head-first birth (Gingerich et al, 2009) unlike modern whales. However this is disputed; the "foetus" might just be a partially digested meal (Thewissen and McLellan, 2009).

Basilosaurus ~40 mya
The whale-like, fully aquatic Basilosaurus had almost lost its (tiny) hindlimbs, but they had not yet vanished entirely (Prothero, 2007).

Dorudon ~40 mya
Also fully aquatic, Dorudon also had tiny hind limbs, which "barely projected from the body" (Futuyma, 2005).

Aetiocetus ~25 mya
The blowhole in Aetiocetus is about halfway to its position in modern whales on top of the head. Aetiocetus also represents the transition from toothed whales to the filter-feeding baleen whales, being similar to baleen whales in most respects, but possessing teeth (Van Valen, 1968).

Dinosaurs-Birds:

Anchiornis ~155 million years ago
Although many feathered dinosaurs are known, Anchiornis is the first to be found that probably predates Archaeopteryx. The feathers were "not obviously flight-adapted" (Hu et al, 2009).

Archaeopteryx ~145 mya
The famous Archaeopteryx had feathers and was probably capable of at least gliding, but it also had dinosaur-like teeth, claws, and a long bony tail. Its skeleton was "almost identical to that of some theropod dinosaurs" (Coyne, 2009). Precisely how closely related it is to the main line of bird evolution remains the subject of controversy (Xu et al, 2011).

Confuciusornis ~125 mya
Confuciusornis had a bird-like tail and a pygostyle, which is a feature of modern birds. It retained dinosaur-like claws (Prothero, 2007). It had strong shoulder bones, but was probably not capable of true flapping flight (Senter, 2006). It may have glided. It is the earliest known bird with a toothless beak, but other lineages continued to have teeth for a long time.

Sinornis ~110 mya?
Sinornis "still had teeth, an unfused tarsometatarsus, and an unfused pelvis" (Prothero, 2007) but resembled modern birds in other ways, with reduced vertebrae, a flexible wishbone, a shoulder joint adapted for flying, and hand bones fused into a carpometacarpus (Prothero, 2007).

Vorona ~80 mya?
The legs of Vorona are all that we have (Benton, 2005), but they show a combination of bird characteristics and maniraptoran (dinosaur) characteristics (Forster et al, 1996).

Ichthyornis ~80 mya
A strong flyer, Ichthyornis was very nearly a modern bird (Prothero, 2007), and yet it still had teeth.

Protohorses-Horses:

Hyracotherium ~60 million years ago
A cousin species of the ancestor of horses. The forelimb of Hyracotherium had four toes (Raven et al, 2008).

Protorohippus ~50 mya
Bigger. The forelimb had four toes.

Mesohippus ~35 mya
Bigger. The forelimb had three toes (Raven et al, 2008).

Miohippus ~35 mya
The skull and snout of Miohippus are becoming more horse-like (Prothero, 2007).

Parahippus ~23 mya
The skeleton of Parahippus was more adapted to long-distance running, for escaping predators in an open environment (Evans, 1992). About this time, grasslands were becoming common in North America, where horses evolved (Raven et al, 2008). They would later die out in America (Dawkins, 2009).

Merychippus ~17 mya
With bigger teeth, Merychippus was more adapted to the grazing lifestyle of modern horses. Earlier species were likely browsers that ate leaves, but Merychippus could also eat grass (Raven et al, 2008).

Pliohippus ~12 mya
Pliohippus still had three toes, but only the central toe touched the ground; the others being too small. This was probably not a direct ancestor of modern horses.

Dinohippus ~5 mya
Some specimens of Dinohippus have three toes; but some have one, like modern horses (Florida Museum of Natural History).

Apes-Us:

Ardipithecus ramidus ~4.4 million years ago
Ardipithecus ramidus had a brain the size of a chimp's, but probably walked upright on the ground, while still able to go on all fours in the trees, where it would find its opposable big toe useful (Gibbons, 2009).

Australopithecus afarensis ~3.6 mya
Australopithecus afarensis was a more advanced walker, with nongrasping feet (White et al, 2009), but it still had the brain size of a chimpanzee (Dawkins, 2009). Probably not a direct ancestor of modern humans (Rak et al, 2007).

Australopithecus africanus ~3 mya
Similar.

Homo habilis ~2 mya?
Homo habilis had a brain about 50% bigger than a chimp's. The fossils are found with a variety of stone tools; this is the earliest human which we're sure used tools (Coyne, 2009).

Homo erectus ~1 mya
A tool-maker, Homo erectus had a brain size of about 1,000 cc, still smaller than our own (Dawkins, 2009).

Homo heidelbergensis ~0.5 mya
Homo heidelbergensis had a brain size approaching our own, and shows a mix of Homo erectus and modern human features (Coyne, 2009).

Is that all you've got? Tony would need to upgrade to a new server if I did that with the bible. You are clutching at straws there ranger. At any rate that just shows that scientists don't declare something fact without enough evidence to definitively prove it, unlike creationists who claim fact with NO proof.

that was about thirty seconds worth of glazing over it. Probable just jumped out, with a whole lot of other guessing, and creative drawings. Once again, my background is not science, fossils.... As always, I go and do some google searching, and read. From what i am reading, there is a whole lot of "guess work" in the transitional fossils. One could make some pretty big guesses just at looking at the variations in nature. everything from the duck bill platypus, to the opossum, and the giant sturgeon fish.

All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart. Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and museums has been "discarded" and is considered a "phantom" and "illusion" because it is not proof of evolution. In fact, the first horse in the series is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can't be counted on being a horse then we've got trouble, real trouble right here in River City.

Concerning transitional fossils, world famous paleontologist Colin Patterson admitted that "there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Not one.

Surely it is not necessary for me to remind college professors that Piltdown Man was a total fraud and Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig, not an ape man! And in recent years we have discovered that Neanderthal Man was simply a man with rickets and arthritis, not the much desired "ape man." Need I go on? The truth is that only a fool says evolution is a fact compared to gravity, and to equate scientific creationists with flat earthers as many evolutionists do is outrageous irresponsibility.

Biologist, Dr. Pierre Grasse, considered the greatest living scientist in France, wrote a book to "launch a frontal assault on all forms of Darwinism." Grasse is not a religious fanatic, yet he called evolution a "pseudo-science."

Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea in Sweden wrote, "I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar 'Darwinian' vocabulary...thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events." He went on to say, "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." He also said, "Evolution is 'anti-science.'" And so it is.

Do those who teach evolution know that scientists have characterized Darwinism as "speculation," based on faith," similar to theories of "little green men," "dead," "effectively dead," "very flimsy," "incoherent," and a "myth." Hey, with friends like that, evolutionists don't need scientific creationists to hold their feet to the fire.

World known Swiss scientist Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith (who recently died), with three earned doctorates in science and considered to be an expert by the United Nations, confessed after seeing the fossilized dinosaur tracks and men prints within inches of each other at Glen Rose, Texas, "...all this makes evolution impossible." And so it does.

I have assumed that the college professors are familiar with all the world famous scientists I have quoted above. All of them! If not, they are really uninformed, and should stay out of the evolution/creation discussion until they spend some time to bring themselves up to date.

So you see evolutionists are dishonest or uninformed when they suggest that creationists are backwoods, snake handling fanatics. In fact, over a thousand scientists with advanced degrees belong to one group that takes a stand for scientific creationism and against the guess of evolution.

The college professors were correct in stating that Darwin's book does not deal with the origins of life even though its title was "Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." So a book about origins does not deal with origins! Later Darwin suggested that life began in a warm little pond, but he never suggested where the pond came from! Most evolutionists teach that life started there also, but scientists have proved conclusively that spontaneous generation is impossible. So where did the first spark of life come from? You think maybe God was involved?

And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the alleged ape men than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne, Professor Edwin Conklin and others preached white superiority – because of their evolutionary bias. The haters for a hundred years after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all, evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the animals rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible teaches, so what's a few million lives to be concerned about?

I don't have the space to deal with numerous problems that evolutionists have such as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, origin of the universe, beginning of life from non-living matter, the Cambrian explosion, etc.

Evolution is a guess, a speculation, an hypothesis, a theory, a faith. Yes, evolution is a religion as I document in my book, "Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith?" And, since it is a faith, it should not be taught in public schools. At least, any thinking, honest person would agree that if it is, then scientific creationism should be taught along with it. After all, we do believe in balance and fairness, don't we? Or do we?

It's interesting that the hypocrites at the ACLU (who helped fund the Scopes Trial) whined in Dayton that only one theory of origins can legally be taught in Tennessee and that's unfair. Well, now they are on the inside, and demand to keep the same monopoly that they argued against. When I asked the ACLU to support my bill in the Indiana House of Representatives that required Indiana schools to teach scientific creation and evolution equally, they refused to support my bill! Surprise, surprise, surprise. I thought various ideas should be presented to students so they could make up their own minds. Could it be that evolutionists are not as sure of their faith as they pretend to be? I think so. They are like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat – that isn't there.

Sorry professors, evolution is NOT a fact. It is a fraud, a fake, a farce and a faith, and taxpayers should demand that the religion of evolution be kept out of public schools unless the truth of scientific creationism is also taught.


http://www.cstnews.com/Code/FaithEvl.html

Facts ranger, not loose interpretations of science written by men like you, facts. You continue to talk in circles and quote christian "scientists", provide facts, proof, evidence, anything other than opinions of men paid by the church.

I quote Christian scientists, and you quote atheist scientists that like to say "probably" a whole lot. Go figure.

The main difference, and it's an important one, is that christian scientists falsify results and research in order to push their agenda, real scientists perform research for the sole purpose of furthering their, and our knowledge of our world past and present. That is why you see finding change sometimes as new techniques and data become available. Real scientist do research for the benefit of everyone, christian scientists do research for the benefit of people like you, to give you something to read that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside and give you something to quote when confronted with real facts.

So one more time, are you going to answer the questions? I am answering yours and everyone else's, why are you dodging the opportunity to show your knowledge of bible truths, history, and facts?

Idecraw - "christian scientists falsify results and research in order to push their agenda, real scientists perform research"


Hmmmmm, we know that the atheist falsified all manner of their evolution tales, to include the piltdown man, nebraska man, neandrathal man, pinning moths to trees...... They keep trying to switch out macro evolution for micro evolution.....

The Creation story has remained the same since Moses penned Genesis 1:1. It has not changed.

In the Fossil Record

Lacking laboratory evidence to support the claim for unlimited change, evolutionists have recognized that the fossil record is of supreme importance to their theory.

Nicholas Hotton, curator of fossil amphibians and reptiles at the Smithsonian Museum wrote: "In consequence, most living species do not in themselves show recognizable evolutionary change…. All the evidence we have of the history of organic evolution is provided by the fossil record." (Nicholas Hotton lll, 1968, The Evidence of Evolution, American Heritage Publishing Co., Smithsonian Institution, pp. 42, 45).

British evolutionist W. Le Gros Clark wrote, “That evolution actually did occur can only be scientifically established by the discovery of the fossilized remains of representative samples of those intermediates types which have been postulated on the basis of the indirect evidence. In other words, the really crucial evidence for evolution must be provided by the paleontologist whose business it is to study the evidence of the fossil record.” (W. Le Gros Clark, Discovery, January 1955, p. 7).

Darwin explained the reasoning behind this prediction and expectation saying, "… if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed...." (Darwin, Origin, Chapter Six: Absence or Rarity of Transitional Varieties).

Evolutionists predict that the entire collection of species in the fossil record will show unlimited ability for genetic change and a subsequent progression of descent with modification originating from a single cell resulting in the wide variety of species that exist today. Thus, all their observations are interpreted with this premise in mind.

In contrast, with laboratory evidence supporting limited change, Creationists propose that the fossil record should be and is best explained by organizing organisms into identifiable groups, classes, kinds, or typologies which are genealogically isolated from all others. This is reflected in the classification that exists today developed by creationist Carolus Linnaeus.

Wayne Friar describes the movement among scientists saying, “Now baraminology (with discontinuity systematics) has developed into a fruitful approach to classification within the creation model. Terminology and methodology have been developed, and the first scientific baraminology conference was held in the summer of 1999.” (Wayne Frair, Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms, CRSQ Vol 37 No 2 pp82-91 September 2000).

“Baraminology may be thought of as a typological approach to classifying forms of life, both living and fossilized. In former centuries scientists theorized typologically more commonly than they do at the present time. However, because of the many difficulties (for example, convergences and reversals) which plague the macroevolutionary thinker, there is a growing receptivity to typology.” (Wayne Frair, Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms, CRSQ Vol 37 No 2 pp82-91 September 2000).

1. Fossil evidence for systematic discontinuity.
Following are a few descriptions of the fossil record.

Dr. Gould, a Harvard paleontologist, wrote in his book, The Panda’s Thumb that, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” (Gould, Stephen, The Panda’s Thumb, New York: Norton, 1980, pp 181, 189).

Francis Hitching explains in his book, The Neck of the Giraffe: where Darwin went wrong , that “when you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group and that.” (Hitching, Francis, The Neck of the Giraffe: where Darwin went wrong, New Haven, Conn.: Ticknor and Fields, 1982, pp 56-57;.p. 19). The alleged missing links that are paraded before the public and unsuspecting students are not established facts for the evolution of one kind into another but disputable and inconclusive interpretations.

In other article, Dr. Gould writes, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." Gould, S. J., "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol 6(1), p. 119-130 (1980).

More recently in 2001, Ernst Mayr wrote, "Wherever we look at the living biota … discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent…The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates." (Mayr, E. 2001. What is Evolution, pg. 189).

Dr. David Kitt writes, "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of `seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of `gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p.467).

Dr. Denton wrote, “Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. The intermediates have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record. (Denton, Michael, 1986, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 162)

Darwin explained the significance of failing to find transition evidence in the fossil record saying, "... I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume … One, namely, the distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together innumerable, transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty." (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, A.L. Burt Company, pages 312-313.)

Guided ultimately by the bias atheistic naturalism, evolutionists force a natural interpretation on the fossil record in spite of the evidence. In light of the failure to find significant transitions in the fossil record, biochemist Barry Knox describes how some evolutionists are rethinking the fossil record evidence saying, "Many people suppose that phylogeny can be discovered directly from the fossil record by studying a graded series of old to young fossils and by discovering ancestors, but this is not true. The fossil record supplies evidence of the geological ages of the forms of life, but not of their direct ancestor-descendant relationships. There is no way of knowing whether a fossil is a direct ancestor of a more recent species or represents a related line of descent (lineage) that simply became extinct" (Knox B., Ladiges P. & Evans B., eds., "Biology," [1994], McGraw-Hill: Sydney, Australia, 1995, reprint, p.663).

Let there be no doubt, evolutionists believe in their theory, and many are convinced that they have found documented transitions in the fossil record. But this is the point. The existence of these transitional forms between major groups is debated even among evolutionists. Debate and argument indicates uncertainty about an organism’s transitional role and casts doubt on the presence of transitions. If there are evolutionists who are not convinced that transitional fossil exist, then they are obviously not conclusive facts of evolution. A few questionable examples are not convincing or sufficient to call evolution a fact.

The failure to produce incontrovertible evidence of ancestral-descendent transition in the fossil record has prompted evolutionists to deny its significance. Evolutionists Mark Ridley of Oxford University wrote, “... no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.” Nonetheless, he adds, “This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven.”

The fact is, all modern and fossil populations of organisms are observed as fully formed and functional types. From an evolutionary perspective, there is no evidence of transitional forms linking one typology to another. Denton writes his opening remarks about the fossil record saying, “The overall picture of life on Earth today is so discontinuous, the gaps between the different types so obvious, that, as Steven Stanley reminds us in his book Macroevolution, if our knowledge of biology was restricted to those species presently existing on Earth, ‘we might wonder whether the doctrine of evolution would qualify as anything more than an outrageous hypothesis.’ Without intermediate or transitional forms to bridge the enormous gaps which separate existing species and groups of organisms, the concept of evolution could never be taken seriously as a scientific hypothesis.” (Denton, 158)

Denton writes, “… at levels above the species, the typological model holds almost universally. Indeed, the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature have been self-evident for centuries, even to non-biologists.” Denton 105.

The typological model of the intelligent design theory predicts and explains the gaps existing between groups of organisms. Further, the fossil record conforms to the observations made in the laboratory that suggest change is limited. Whereas the laboratory and fossil evidence supports the creation model, evolutionists have only excuses for the absence of evidence.

Dean Kenyon, professor of biology at San Francisco University, stated: “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” (Dean H. Kenyon, affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appelants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, Oct. 1985, p. A-16).

Jeffrey Levington laments in Scientific American that, “Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?” (Jeffrey S. Levington, “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution,” Scientific American. Vol. 267, Nov 1992, p. 84).

The creation model attributes this observed fact in the fossil record as being due to the non-existence of such body plans and to the limited change that is possible in the created body plans.





2. Fossil evidence for resistance to change
The fossil record shows that populations resist change and demonstrate genetic stability. These observations are consistent with and supportive of the creationists’ predictions and their claim that all species can be identified in typological categories. Evidence for typological isolation in the fossil record confirms the laboratory evidence that change is limited and the creation model prediction that populations resist change. This contrasts with the Darwinian claim that populations are ever changing and evolving.

Convinced that evolution is a fact, evidence of the fossil record has caused evolutionists to rethink their model of how evolution took place. Oxford zoologist Mark Pagel explains that, "Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years-patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation." (Pagel M. February 25, 1999. "Happy accidents?," Nature 397:665).

Some paleontologists have proposed an explanation for why the missing links are missing and why organisms suddenly appear in the fossil record fully formed and fully functional rather than progress through gradual stages of development. They propose that organisms resist change for long periods of time and then periodically experience rapid change. This hypothesis is called Punctuated Equilibrium. This hypothesis acknowledges that populations resist change and that long term equilibrium is observed and confirmed in the fossil record. It explains that when change occurs, it is so rapid that the numbers of transitional organisms are too few to be fossilized. Therefore, evidence for the evolution of one organism into another kind is not documented in the fossil record. Observation in the fossil record reveals only populations in the stage of equilibrium after rapid change occurs.

Punctuated equilibrium is one way to explain the fossil record, but it is not evidence for evolution. It is an interpretation of the evidence. It is in fact an excuse for the absence of evidence. Punctuated Equilibrium is an admission that the evolutionary transitions between major groups of organisms are not documented in the fossil record. Though not all evolutionists admit that missing links are missing, many evolutionists and creationists dispute the existence of alleged transitional links. The debate among evolutionists over transitional forms shows that the fossil record is incomplete and disputable.



Homologies

In the absence of transitional fossils, evolutionists refer to homologous structures between organisms to derive relationship. However, the fallacy of making a genetic relationship based on homology is easily exposed.

Evolutionist T. Berra explains the thinking behind homologies saying, "If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious. This is what paleontologists do with fossils, and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that it cannot be denied by reasonable people" (T. Berra, Evolution and the myth of creationism,1990, pg 117-119). Berra unwittingly uses an example that involves intelligent design. Rather than explain genetic relationship and descent with modification, his example shows that similarities are by intentional, intelligent design.

Woese questioned the assumption of homologies by pointing out that, “Incongruities found in organisms: ‘are sufficiently frequent and statistically solid that they can neither be overlooked nor trivially dismissed on methodological grounds….’ ... It is time to question underlying assumptions" (C. Woese, Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (1998), pg 6854-6859). In other words, if homology suggests relationship, then incongruity should suggest equally non-relationship. This reasoning simply exposes the fallacy of using homology as evidence for genetic relationship because it cannot rule out alternative explanations such as similarity by parallel (convergent) evolution or similarity by intelligent design.

Michael Denton exposed another fallacy of homology evidence saying that, "… the hind limbs of all vertebrates also conform to the pentadactyl pattern and are strikingly similar to the forelimbs in bone structure and in their detailed embryological development. Yet no evolutionist claims that the hind limb evolved from the forelimb, or that hind limbs and forelimbs evolved from a common source.

"There is no doubt that in terms of evolution the fore- and hind limbs must have arisen independently, the former supposedly evolving from the pectoral fins of a fish, the latter from the pelvic fins. Here is a case of profound resemblance which cannot be explained in terms of a theory of descent.

"Whatever the ultimate explanation for this remarkable pattern turns out to be, there seems little intellectual satisfaction in attributing one case of correpondence to evolution while refusing it in the other" (M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, pp. 151 & 153).



Evolutionists cite universal traits such as cilia and the genetic code as evidence of common ancestry. However, universal traits can serve equally as evidence for design efficiency. Homologies are not evidence for descent with modification.

Carl Dunbar explains that, "Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms." (Carl O. Dunbar, Historic Geology, John Wiley and Sons, 1960, pp. 47). The only connection between homologies is the premise that all things evolved. But as already pointed out, the fossil record fails to document such a relationship.



Homology of DNA
Because of the failure of the fossil record to demonstrate evolutionary relationship, some evolutionists are pursuing a fossil-free phylogenetic tree. Such an approach is called cladism. Evolutionists claimed that fossils would be found to demonstrate evolutionary relationship between organisms. They have not succeeded in doing this and the phylogenetic tree illustrated in biology textbooks gives the false impression that the genealogical relationship of all life forms is actually documented with fossil evidence. As mentioned above, it is not, and many evolutionists are looking to genetics for evidence of evolutionary descent. The famous evolutionary tree that is found in almost every biology textbook has always been theoretical, not a fact. The only connection between the organisms in the phylogenetic tree is in the minds of evolutionists and the lines drawn by artists.

Kuhn-Snyder and Hans Rieber wrote in their book Handbook of Paleontology that, “The genealogy of animal remains is mostly imperfect and incomplete. Paleontology contributes only chronologically ordered findings, as it cannot observe the speciation process. Still, on the basis of the homology research, certain finds can be logically connected and ordered in succession. The succession lines give a broad outline of the probable course of the phylogeny. All the same, the resulting phylogenetic trees remain hypothetical....” (Kuhn-Snyder and Hans Rieber wrote in their book Handbook of Paleontology The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. 1986. p. 2).

In other words, phylogenetic trees proposed by evolutionists are organizational charts designed to conform to their model. The understanding that they represent ancestral/descendent relationships is presupposed by the theory of evolution and the assumption of phenotypic homology. The phylogenetic charts are interpretations not evidence supplied by evolutionists. Bruce MacFadden writes, “Science, like history, is composed of fact and interpretation. Therefore, it is impossible for paleontologists to identify the actual sequence of events that occurred millions or tens of millions of years ago.” (MacFadden, Bruce J. Fossil Horses, systematics, paleobiology, and evolution of the family Equidae. 1992. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. P. 22).

Interestingly, the evolutionary tree based on genetic homology proposed by the cladists does not agree with the tree based on phenotypic homologies. This was somewhat unexpected because phenotype derives from genotype. Therefore, it is reasoned that homologous phenotypes between genetically related organisms should show homologous genotypes. The observe discontinuity between homologous phenotypes and genotypes shows that comparing homologies is artificial and serves only as a means of organization design not relationship.

Gavin De Beer wrote, "What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same 'patterns', in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered" (Gavin De Beer, Homology: An Unsolved Problem, Oxford University Press, London, 1971, p. 16).

Likewise, the development of homologous organs fail to develop from homogous embryological regions and structures. Pere Alberch, a developmental biologist, noted that it is, "the rule rather than the exception that homologous structures form from distinctly dissimilar initial states" (Pere Alberch, "Problems with the Interpretation of Developmental Sequences," Systematic Zoology, 1985, vol. 34 (1), pp. 46-58).

Michael Denton writes, "The validity of the evolutionary interpretation of homology would have been greatly strengthened if embryological and genetic research could have shown that homologous structures were specified by homologous genes and followed homologous patterns of embryological development. Such homology would indeed be strongly suggestive of ‘true relationship’; of inheritance from a common ancestor." He goes on to say that, "Homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into embryology. "In some ways the egg cell, blastula and gastrula stages in the different vertebrate classes are so dissimilar that, were it not for the close resemblance in the basic body plan of all adult vertebrates, it seems unlikely that they would have been classed as belonging to the same phylum. "There is no question that, because of the great dissimilarity of the early stages of embryogenesis in the different vertebrate classes, organs and structures considered homologous in adult vertebrates cannot be traced back to homologous cells or regions in the earliest stages of embryogenesis. In other words, homologous structures are arrived at by different routes" (M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, pg 145).

Denton concludes saying, "The evolutionary basis of homology is perhaps even more severely damaged by the discovery that apparently homologous structures are specified by quite different genes in different species." (M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, pg 149).

Cladists argue that DNA homology is the only conclusive method to establish genealogical and subsequently evolutionary progression. While DNA homology offers yet another way of classifying organisms, it serves as nothing more than a convenient means to organize organisms based on similarity in design. The hint of genetic relationship is too infrequent to serve as the rule.

Homology derives from evolution as a prediction. However, homology is not exclusive and other explanations are possible. Also, homology does not necessarily result from genetic relationship as evidenced from phenotype-phenotype comparisons, genotype-phenotype comparisons, and embryological derivations.



Fossil Summary

The absence of evidence showing evolutionary transition in the fossil record is the reason that the general theory of evolution is not a fact. Though tons of fossils have been examined for over a hundred years from all over the world, evolutionists cannot document in the fossil record the evolution of any species back to the hypothetical single cell. Instead, they offer excuses for the absence of evolutionary evidence in the fossil record. Without exception, tracing the ancestral genealogy of a species always shows: (1) that typological characteristics in populations appear abruptly fully formed and functional, (2) that populations of organisms resist change, and (3) that populations of organisms retain their distinction from other kinds of organisms. The fossil record conforms to the explanation and predictions of the creation model.

As evidence for evolution continues to elude the paleontologist in the fossil, the conclusion of Dr. Albert Fleischman, a professor of comparative anatomy many years earlier at Erlangen University rings ever more true saying, “The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts. The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.” (Fleischman, Albert. Victoria Institute, Vol 65, pp 194-195). There are many today who agree with Fleischman. Certainly evidence for horizontal change within kinds is observed, but only the underlying assumptions of evolution ties together the populations of kinds.

The insistence by Darwinian evolutionists that transitional forms exist, in spite of the contrary opinions of evolutionary colleagues, shows their biased treatment of the data. The model of Darwinian evolution proposes that because organisms are continually changing, there should be evidence of continuous change. Other evolutionists have concluded that the Darwinian model does not accurately predict or explain the data. Rather than manipulate or twist data into conformity with the Darwinian model, some evolutionists have courageously challenged the popular model to conform to data. In light of the facts of the fossil record, one can conclude that adherence to the evolutionists’ fossil tree is the result of a naturalistic philosophy and not physical evidence. Phillip E. Johnson of the Berkeley law school says, “Darwinism is not so much an inference from the facts as a deduction from naturalistic philosophy.” (Johnson, Phillip. The evolution backlash: Debunking Darwin. World, March 1997 p. 13). John Weister, chairman of the Science Education Commission of the American Scientific Affiliation, states more bluntly that “Darwinism is naturalism masquerading as science” (World 1997, p. 14).

The significance of not finding fossils that document descent with modification is that evolution fails to provide the evidence for unlimited change. Remember, the crucial point between creation and evolution is whether genetic change is limited or unlimited. Laboratory evidence shows that change is limited and the fossil record affirms this observation. Laboratory and fossil evidences support the creation model.


http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/species.htm

Christianity appears to have already been changing even during the apostolic era, and has continued to evolve, to this day. The early Christians believed that there were seven heavens, one physically above the other, with an anthropomorphic God enthroned in the highest heaven. The voice of God came out of the sky at the baptism of Jesus and during the transfiguration, because that is where God was. The heavenly throne is mentioned, for example, at Revelation 4:2. The notion of "up there" and the pearly gates still remain in popular imagination, but modern Christianity generally regards heaven as a spiritual domain that can not be physically located. God is now perceived as omni-present, rather than enthroned in the highest heaven.

St Paul, writing in the forties or fifties of the first century, differed in some important ways from the teachings of the early Jerusalem church, as well as from the teachings of the gospel authors who wrote later in the same century. Paul even warned his followers of those who taught "a different Christ".

Paul taught that Gentile converts need not follow Jewish dietary laws nor be circumcised, while the Church in Jerusalem, under James, initially taught that they must accept Jewish rules including circumcision.

Paul taught that salvation came from faith alone, while the Epistle of James says that salvation comes from good works.
In 1 Corinthian 15:5-6, Paul says that the risen Jesus was seen by Cephas, then the twelve, then James, then all the apostles, then finally by more than 500 brethren. By the time of the gospels, Cephas was included in the twelve. The gospels also say that by the time of the resurrection there were really only eleven disciples.

The author of 1 Peter does not seem to have believed in a physical resurrection, since verse 3:18 speaks of Jesus put to death in flesh but made alive in spirit. This is reflected by Paul, who saw the resurrection and ascension to heaven as being the same event - in which case the appearances mentioned by Paul were probably meant to be spiritual rather than physical.

Christian belief can even be seen as evolving from the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, through the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John. For example, the account of the appearances by the risen Jesus evolved from one gospel to the next:

Mark's Gospel, believed to have been written around the year 70 CE, did not originally mention appearances by the resurrected Jesus, although a resurrection is implied. Some scholars say that the "longer ending" (verses 16:9-20) was added clumsily by a later author, to bring this Gospel more or less into line with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Matthew's Gospel, believed to have been written in the 80s, says the women who had gone to the tomb saw Jesus while on the way to tell the disciples of their experience. The eleven disciples went to a mountain in Galilee and saw Jesus. Or at least some of them believed they did and worshipped Jesus, while others doubted it was Jesus.

Luke's Gospel, written some time later, records that Jesus appeared to two men, Cleopas and (presumably) Peter, on the road near Jerusalem but they did not recognise him, until they were together at dinner. In Jerusalem, he appeared once more to the disciples before being drawn up into heaven.

In John's Gospel, Mary Magdalene saw Jesus but did not recognise him. Jesus next appeared amongst the disciples, except Thomas, showed them his wounds and breathed the Holy Ghost upon them. Eight days later, Jesus appeared again to all the disciples in Jerusalem. Finally, Jesus appeared to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberius.

The early Christian movement was divided, with the two major groupings, being one later to be known as the proto-Catholic-Orthodox Church, and the Gnostics. Within this framework, there were other sects, such as the Ebionites and Marcionites. In some ways, the beliefs of the Gnostic Christians differed dramatically from those of the Catholic-Orthodox Christians, however they are necessarily outside the scope of this question.

Favour by Emperor Constantine gave the proto-Catholic-Orthodox Church the upper hand, and the Gnostics soon faded from history. However, the Arians, a breakaway group from the Catholic-Orthodox Church, had substantial influence for some time.

The Council of Nicaea, called and chaired by Emperor Constantine in 325 CE, put in place some important doctrines, such as the concept of the Holy Trinity, as well as defining many church practices.

The Great Schism of 1054 changed the Christian Church forever, with at least two centres of power and doctrine.

The Protestant Reformation, which began in the 16th century, meant that many Christians abandoned important doctrines, theological opinions and disciplines of the Catholic Church - such as purgatory, limbo, indulgences, confession to a priest, and even some deuterocanonical books of the Bible.

The Mormon Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), founded in the early 1800s, initially championed the practice of polygamy. It also re-introduced the concept of more than one god.



What was that? What hasn't changed?