Jesus Christ Orders The Use Of Marijuana For The Suffering.

[borneagle]

 

 

Shoes on .. check

bags packed .. check

Eat a good meal for the road .. check

 

Set my people free.

 

 

Amen my Brother, I feel the same exact way. If you are a cannabis consumer, we are part of the same community.

 

Peace to you.

[+420Atheist]

 

YEP - burden of proof lies with the creationists (I am one of them) - but again, faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen.

 

??? Faith is not evidence.

 

Can you please tell me how to "create" a mountain from nothing?

 

A typical strawman by creationist. No scientist has ever said something was created from nothing. Only creationist say that.

 

There are theories as to how these things have happened and what has transpired over time, IMHO, mine is as valid as any since the lack of evidence is on both sides, and I intend absolutely no animosity.

 

Scientific theory is the very highest level of knowledge in science. Gravity is a theory but we can all easily observe its effects. In science an observation is made and a theory is created. Then predictions are made and experiments done. The theory is then adjusted to meet the current knowledge. It is a circle of expanding knowledge. In science theories are provisional. In science we start with a question and look for answers. Creationist start with an answer and look for questions that support their theory and ignore those that don't.

 

Seriously you are not making the argument that some creationist do that the universe is only 6000 years old are you?

[greenbuddha]

"People have the right to find their 'own' source for the energy that helps them make changes to the world around them, call that source the 'Absolute', God, Nature, the 'Unknown' or just 'self determination'."

 

Can't imagine Adolf Hitler putting it better myself. Good & Evil? Who decides?

 

 

'The will, motivation and energy to change HARMFUL and INHUMANE LAWS comes from many sources.'

 

Wayne good buddy, I think you must have missed this part of what was said.

 

Your question of 'who decides on good and evil'... the decision is very often based upon ... 'do unto others only what you would have done unto yourself'. Usually a very good place to start when making those kinds of decisions.

 

Don't think you read the whole thing, Wayne.

[MI Compassion]

True, but the Yonaguni Monument is under five meters of ocean, so it would seem to have been made at a time when the ocean was lower.

 

Not really sure where you're going with this? The possible existence of submerged megalithic ruins is not under dispute. Some do exist because the current sea level is higher than it once was. None of this proves the existence of God, Atlantis, the Ark, etc. No matter what diversionary sub-plots you draw attention to, none can be satisfactorily extrapolated to prove the young earth thesis.

 

 

Bible Quotes blah, blah, blah

 

YEP - burden of proof lies with the creationists (I am one of them) - but again, faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen. Can you please tell me how to "create" a mountain from nothing? There are theories as to how these things have happened and what has transpired over time, IMHO, mine is as valid as any since the lack of evidence is on both sides, and I intend absolutely no animosity.

 

Using the bible to try to prove that Christianity is right is no different than trying to use Adolf Hitler's Third Reich to determine if being a Nazi is a good idea. It just doesn't make good sense. Please explain to me how you KNOW the information you presented was correct. Simply being from your copy of the bible does not prove any of it to be any more than words written by men 300-500 years after the events which they described.

 

As 420Atheist explained all of science is theories. Scientists come up with a hypothesis, test this hypothesis repeatedly, and if they can find enough evidence of their hypothesis then it eventually becomes a theory (such as gravity), which remains a theory unless proven to be wrong. Do you think because gravity is a theory it's not real?

 

The theory of evolution has remained a theory for hundreds of years because it's yet to be proven wrong.

 

Faith is not evidence of anything, again get out your dictionary and read what the real meaning of faith is... belief in something with no absolute proof.

 

You claim a lack of evidence on both sides, yet I have shared some of the very well researched scientific evidence against Creationism in my previous posts - presented by an educated and experienced geologist, which tells me you that you simply refuse to investigate any of the evidence presented. I don't see how ignoring the data is an improvement over Phil78's typical Christian knee jerk reaction to try to attack and discredit the character of the person presenting the information (whom he has no clue about) rather than address the information presented.

 

You judge dead faith by the results.Does it produce results?

 

This is a great point, and luckily there's an easy way of determining the efficiency of faith healing. You can even do this yourself! Simply take a group of people with very physically noticeable and debilitating conditions which the body has not been known to be able to heal on it's own... say amputees for example... Now we can spend a few months praying for the healing of their missing limbs, and observe the results after a year or so. Would you like to make any wagers on the % of them that grow back an arm or a leg?

 

What are the qualities of the results?A system that forces suffering and death is not held in place by the Father of Jesus Christ.

 

Ironically it was the God of the bible that created the idea of a life of sickness, disease, and ultimately death followed by eternity in a fire and brimstone hell with no possible hope for salvation was the best way to punish many generations of people between Adam and Jesus. Your beliefs don't seem to line up with the bible?

[DT61]

You are incorrect, Hell was created for Lucifer and the 1/3 of the angels that followed his rebellion.

Anyone who ends up there now with this knowledge does it by their own free will.

And Lucifer fell because of pride

¹² “ How you are fallen from heaven,

O Lucifer,^[b] son of the morning!

How you are cut down to the ground,

You who weakened the nations!

¹³ For you have said in your heart:

 

‘ I will ascend into heaven,

I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;

I will also sit on the mount of the congregation

On the farthest sides of the north;

¹⁴ I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,

I will be like the Most High.’

¹⁵ Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,

To the lowest depths of the Pit.

 

 

 

"Bible Quotes blah, blah, blah" -

Odd, it is exactly what you had attempted to use - even line by line though taken out of context.

By the way, I have spent much time (many, many years of my life) investigating, ghost writing, co-hosting and also guest hosting a radio show, doing conferences, etc.

I have had face to face conversations with individuals on both sides of the fence (and I mean way opposite) with and without degrees and titles. Opposing views and everything else you maybe able to think of.

You do not even know me yet you attempt to paint as a person who does not understand the subject matter.

Just because we disagree does not make me or you "ultimately" wrong, yet.

You seem to be intelligent so you understand that ultimately the question gets answered for each of us eventually.

There is no need to answer each accusation you sling, because, again a matter of faith and without faith - you can not please God nor begin to understand Him.

[peanutbutter]

faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen.

 

Substance .. odd word.

 

The Greek word used would normally be translated "title deed." Proof of ownership.

 

It is the legal evidence that you are the owner of the property even if you have never seen it before.

 

"By faith we understand .."

 

"faith" is the tool that was used to produce the things listed. It is the tool that God used to frame the worlds.

 

Faith produces bursts of energy. E=MC2 is a reversible reaction. If it wasn't it would look like this E=>MC2 or MC2=>E.

About five grams of U235 was converted into energy by each of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan near the end of WW2.

So, in theory, you could take the same amount of energy and convert it back into the five grams of matter again.

 

The big bang represents one moment in time where a large burst of energy was released into one single location. Enough energy to produce all the physical matter in the entire universe.

 

Sometimes, when God speaks, it echos for a very very long time.

 

That is my Daddy. And I'm supposed to be an imitator of Him.

[MightyMightyMezz]

Not really sure where you're going with this? The possible existence of submerged megalithic ruins is not under dispute. Some do exist because the current sea level is higher than it once was. None of this proves the existence of God, Atlantis, the Ark, etc. No matter what diversionary sub-plots you draw attention to, none can be satisfactorily extrapolated to prove the young earth thesis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did I say anything about the "Young Earth?" I'm talking about the Great Flood. You know, an event of such magnitude it that could have made the oceans rise twenty feet?

[MI Compassion]

You are incorrect, Hell was created for Lucifer and the 1/3 of the angels that followed his rebellion.

Anyone who ends up there now with this knowledge does it by their own free will.

And Lucifer fell because of pride

¹² “ How you are fallen from heaven,

O Lucifer,^[b] son of the morning!

How you are cut down to the ground,

You who weakened the nations!

¹³ For you have said in your heart:

 

‘ I will ascend into heaven,

I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;

I will also sit on the mount of the congregation

On the farthest sides of the north;

¹⁴ I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,

I will be like the Most High.’

¹⁵ Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,

To the lowest depths of the Pit.

 

Can you please show me proof of any of this being true? You do realize for anything in this universe to be, that God had to permit it to be, and claiming anything contrary to this would do nothing but disprove the bible's claim that God is omnipotent?

 

"Bible Quotes blah, blah, blah" -

Odd, it is exactly what you had attempted to use - even line by line though taken out of context.

 

I didn't see how the bible quotes you gave helped to prove the point you where trying to make so I removed them to reduce the size of the post. Can you tell me your credentials that allow you to correctly determine the correct context and translation of ancient texts that where destroyed or lost many centuries before your birth and which where written in language that hasn't been widely used in over 1000 years? The world's most highly respected entomologists and linguists have been arguing what the proper translations of even some of the simplest words in Ancient Hebrew for hundreds of years, you should get in touch with them and let them know your findings. Can you help me understand what I took out of context and what context it should be in?

 

By the way, I have spent much time (many, many years of my life) investigating, ghost writing, co-hosting and also guest hosting a radio show, doing conferences, etc.

I have had face to face conversations with individuals on both sides of the fence (and I mean way opposite) with and without degrees and titles. Opposing views and everything else you maybe able to think of.

 

Thank you for your resume but I am not currently hiring.

 

You do not even know me yet you attempt to paint as a person who does not understand the subject matter.

Just because we disagree does not make me or you "ultimately" wrong, yet.

You seem to be intelligent so you understand that ultimately the question gets answered for each of us eventually.

There is no need to answer each accusation you sling, because, again a matter of faith and without faith - you can not please God nor begin to understand Him.

 

Can you explain what I said that attempted to "paint you as a person who does not understand the subject matter"? I simply asked you questions that I feel are important questions to address, and presented evidence that seems to contradicts the ideas you presented. Rather than take the time to consider the questions I've asked, and research the evidence I've presented and point out why you feel it's inaccurate you've manage to dodge every single question I have posed.

 

What "accusations" have I slung, other than asking questions and thinking critically?

 

Rather than being defensive, dismissive, making assumptions about me or my intentions, or trying to impress others with your extensive experience in talking about the subject you should really consider the questions I've asked and the really research the evidence that I've presented and I think you will be amazed at some of the truths you uncover. I don't have the intention of proving religion wrong, I do however have the ability to critically examine information that is presented to me which can have implications that could jeopardize the well being of my soul. My original reason for researching christianity and the bible was not to disprove it, but because I was one of the faithful believers in the God of the bible for over 20 years of my life (for no reason other than it was what I was taught when I was a child) and I set out to prove science and evolution wrong. I had been asked questions that I could not answer, and when I took those questions to other christians (including a number of pastors that I personally know) they had very weak straw-man answers or in many cases no answer at all.

 

There's no one that would be happier than me to find out that we will all be playing cloud bumper cars with Jesus with all our friends and family members, but I until I see some type of proof that this will happen I am not going to go around telling other people that the stories in the bible are true or judging them if they don't believe me, and have no other evidence other than "the bible tells me it's true so it has to be".

 

I am absolutely open to any and all possibilities in this universe, and if anyone has proof to present that will help me reach a deeper understanding of the universe I live in I will be happy to admit that I was wrong, and adjust my beliefs appropriately.

[Wayne'sWorld]

So if the bible is being utilized by prohibitionist's and reformer's alike who has it right and how does an independent observer determine this? Or does the bible allow us to have it both ways? Or neither?

[MI Compassion]

So if the bible is being utilized by prohibitionist's and reformer's alike who has it right and how does an independent observer determine this? Or does the bible allow us to have it both ways? Or neither?

Find the translation that suits your needs the best (there are dozens in every language, many of which are different), and simply put whatever you want into whatever context works best for you. At least that's what most christian churches and church members I know do. There's dozens of different factions of christianity with totally differing beliefs. Take your pick, and hope to God that one of the other dozens of christian faiths or one of the dozens of other major religions in the world aren't right. And be sure to do this with complete faith without any proof or burn in hell for eternity... because God loves you.

 

[Wayne'sWorld]

'The will, motivation and energy to change HARMFUL and INHUMANE LAWS comes from many sources.'

 

Wayne good buddy, I think you must have missed this part of what was said.

 

Your question of 'who decides on good and evil'... the decision is very often based upon ... 'do unto others only what you would have done unto yourself'. Usually a very good place to start when making those kinds of decisions.

 

Don't think you read the whole thing, Wayne.

"'do unto others only what you would have done unto yourself'. Usually a very good place to start when making those kinds of decisions."

 

LEO could certainly agree with that. If LEO breaks the law, LEO shall be prosecuted. So shall you. Fortunately for LEO they have an edge on being prosecuted. So should you, but unfortunately that's beyond LEO's control, as LEO does not legislate the laws, write the policies, or risk retalliation from coworkers that could end a career. Not defending this practice just the reality.

[+RevThad]

??? Faith is not evidence.

 

 

 

A typical strawman by creationist. No scientist has ever said something was created from nothing. Only creationist say that.

 

 

 

Scientific theory is the very highest level of knowledge in science. Gravity is a theory but we can all easily observe its effects. In science an observation is made and a theory is created. Then predictions are made and experiments done. The theory is then adjusted to meet the current knowledge. It is a circle of expanding knowledge. In science theories are provisional. In science we start with a question and look for answers. Creationist start with an answer and look for questions that support their theory and ignore those that don't.

 

Seriously you are not making the argument that some creationist do that the universe is only 6000 years old are you?

I would never argue that the world is only 6000 years old, I don't even think the bible or torah claim such a thing. Those claims are made by some fundamentalists.

 

Speaking of theories and scientific observation, the theory of evolution is far from complete and has as many holes as it does facts. Let me first start by stating that I do believe that every creature on this planet does evolve, to adjust to the climate, environment and nature. However, the suggestion that such evolution is responsible all the way up from the single celled organism up to the creatures we are, is at best a farce. If the purpose of such evolution is to better the species from which the mutation occurred, the weaker un-evolved creatures would perish to whatever was not met prior to the mutation. That being said, one must allow for random mutations with no outside cause, and such could account for variations in a particular species.

 

So we are still looking at the entire chain up the evoluntionary ladder? With each step along the way still being evident, as we look at what is alive today, and some extinctions. One must ask some simple questions, if the evolution was for the betterment of each level of the ladder, why are the lower rungs still around? Why are some rungs missing? Why is there no direct connection between man and another species? Scientists will speculate as to the reasons, yet there is no proof. Just as they speculate about certain ancient people being misogynistic or female dominated, it is speculation, nothing more.

 

Have a great holiday all...

[+kurt klaas]

The title for this orginal post is:

 

"Jesus Christ Orders The Use Of Marijuana For The Suffering"

 

If I did not make it clear enough earlier, this kind of statement is highly offensive to me, a liberal Christian. The problem with any statement like this, not found in Scripture, is that the person claiming to make this statement ON BEHALF OF JC, simply has no divine authority. You see, the problem that such claims raise is, JC told me the exact opposite. Who is now to decide between the two contradictory claims? Claiming to speak on behalf of JC with infallibility simply leads to chaos among humans, at least among those who are not part of the Roman Catholic Church. In short, I repeat, to claim that Jesus Christ ORDERS the use of mj is offensive to my liberal sensebilities. And I suspect that the vast majority of educated Christians from conservative traditions would be equally offended. This kind of talk does nothing to promote the medical marijuana cause. It just further muddles the conversation needlessly.

 

Kurt

[MI Compassion]

I would never argue that the world is only 6000 years old, I don't even think the bible or torah claim such a thing. Those claims are made by some fundamentalists.

 

Speaking of theories and scientific observation, the theory of evolution is far from complete and has as many holes as it does facts. Let me first start by stating that I do believe that every creature on this planet does evolve, to adjust to the climate, environment and nature. However, the suggestion that such evolution is responsible all the way up from the single celled organism up to the creatures we are, is at best a farce. If the purpose of such evolution is to better the species from which the mutation occurred, the weaker un-evolved creatures would perish to whatever was not met prior to the mutation. That being said, one must allow for random mutations with no outside cause, and such could account for variations in a particular species.

 

So we are still looking at the entire chain up the evoluntionary ladder? With each step along the way still being evident, as we look at what is alive today, and some extinctions. One must ask some simple questions, if the evolution was for the betterment of each level of the ladder, why are the lower rungs still around? Why are some rungs missing? Why is there no direct connection between man and another species? Scientists will speculate as to the reasons, yet there is no proof. Just as they speculate about certain ancient people being misogynistic or female dominated, it is speculation, nothing more.

 

Have a great holiday all...

[borneagle]

The title for this orginal post is:

 

"Jesus Christ Orders The Use Of Marijuana For The Suffering"

 

If I did not make it clear enough earlier, this kind of statement is highly offensive to me, a liberal Christian. The problem with any statement like this, not found in Scripture, is that the person claiming to make this statement ON BEHALF OF JC, simply has no divine authority. You see, the problem that such claims raise is, JC told me the exact opposite. Who is now to decide between the two contradictory claims? Claiming to speak on behalf of JC with infallibility simply leads to chaos among humans, at least among those who are not part of the Roman Catholic Church. In short, I repeat, to claim that Jesus Christ ORDERS the use of mj is offensive to my liberal sensebilities. And I suspect that the vast majority of educated Christians from conservative traditions would be equally offended. This kind of talk does nothing to promote the medical marijuana cause. It just further muddles the conversation needlessly.

 

Kurt

 

Let me get this straight.

 

You take offense with anyone who does not believe exactly like you do?

 

You want to nail me to the cross because I am not like you?

 

I have a right to my beliefs just as much as you or anyone else... in case I didn't make it clear... you don't like my posts... SKIP THEM!!

 

I'll tell these same truths in prison, in the street, or anywhere else my Lord puts me.

 

I follow where my God leads... you think you can stop me? Take your best shot.

 

This very relevant subject (with great interest forum wide) has already been moved to the back of the bus in a category titled "let's get personal". (Like that has anything to do with anything).

 

Isn't that good enough for you?

[Wayne'sWorld]

The title for this orginal post is:

 

"Jesus Christ Orders The Use Of Marijuana For The Suffering"

 

If I did not make it clear enough earlier, this kind of statement is highly offensive to me, a liberal Christian. The problem with any statement like this, not found in Scripture, is that the person claiming to make this statement ON BEHALF OF JC, simply has no divine authority. You see, the problem that such claims raise is, JC told me the exact opposite. Who is now to decide between the two contradictory claims? Claiming to speak on behalf of JC with infallibility simply leads to chaos among humans, at least among those who are not part of the Roman Catholic Church. In short, I repeat, to claim that Jesus Christ ORDERS the use of mj is offensive to my liberal sensebilities. And I suspect that the vast majority of educated Christians from conservative traditions would be equally offended. This kind of talk does nothing to promote the medical marijuana cause. It just further muddles the conversation needlessly.

 

Kurt

Were I ever to return to the church I couldn't agree with you more. But therein lies the problem.

[MI Compassion]

The title for this orginal post is:

 

"Jesus Christ Orders The Use Of Marijuana For The Suffering"

 

If I did not make it clear enough earlier, this kind of statement is highly offensive to me, a liberal Christian. The problem with any statement like this, not found in Scripture, is that the person claiming to make this statement ON BEHALF OF JC, simply has no divine authority. You see, the problem that such claims raise is, JC told me the exact opposite. Who is now to decide between the two contradictory claims? Claiming to speak on behalf of JC with infallibility simply leads to chaos among humans, at least among those who are not part of the Roman Catholic Church. In short, I repeat, to claim that Jesus Christ ORDERS the use of mj is offensive to my liberal sensebilities. And I suspect that the vast majority of educated Christians from conservative traditions would be equally offended. This kind of talk does nothing to promote the medical marijuana cause. It just further muddles the conversation needlessly.

 

Kurt

 

Worth repeating...

 

"Condemnation Without Investigation Is The Height Of Ignorance" - Albert Einstein

[MI Compassion]

Did I say anything about the "Young Earth?" I'm talking about the Great Flood. You know, an event of such magnitude it that could have made the oceans rise twenty feet?

 

Sea level has been rising for many thousands of years...

 

 

So again I am really not sure how you see this as proof of Noah's flood (which is part of the young earth thesis).

 

And there just so be happens lots of evidence against the Noah's flood story...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2HxZXuTb8Y

[MI Compassion]

Let me get this straight.

 

You take offense with anyone who does not believe exactly like you do?

 

You want to nail me to the cross because I am not like you?

 

I have a right to my beliefs just as much as you or anyone else... in case I didn't make it clear... you don't like my posts... SKIP THEM!!

 

I'll tell these same truths in prison, in the street, or anywhere else my Lord puts me.

 

I follow where my God leads... you think you can stop me? Take your best shot.

 

This very relevant subject (with great interest forum wide) has already been moved to the back of the bus in a category titled "let's get personal". (Like that has anything to do with anything).

 

Isn't that good enough for you?

 

Well said!! :goodjob: :thumbsu:

[+420Atheist]

I would never argue that the world is only 6000 years old, I don't even think the bible or torah claim such a thing. Those claims are made by some fundamentalists.

 

Those claims go back many years. Most bible historians seem to place the age of the earth between 6000 and 10,000 years. I have never counted all the begets in Genesis so I will take the biblical scholars word on this. Many Christians like yourself agree that the young earth thing has been disproved beyond the need to debate it at all. There is a deep scientific well of knowledge from geology, cosmology, chemistry, physics, and other disciplines that prove an much older origin.

 

Speaking of theories and scientific observation, the theory of evolution is far from complete and has as many holes as it does facts. Let me first start by stating that I do believe that every creature on this planet does evolve, to adjust to the climate, environment and nature. However, the suggestion that such evolution is responsible all the way up from the single celled organism up to the creatures we are, is at best a farce. If the purpose of such evolution is to better the species from which the mutation occurred, the weaker un-evolved creatures would perish to whatever was not met prior to the mutation. That being said, one must allow for random mutations with no outside cause, and such could account for variations in a particular species.

 

You are correct that evolution is not complete as no scientific theory ever is. But I disagree about there being many holes. Many creationist point to Darwin himself who said there were no transitional species. What they fail to recognize is that was 150 years ago when Origin of Species was written. The fossil record is far more vast than most people realize. We now have fossils that follow mans evolution back to a clad that has traits of both lemurs and old world monkeys. The truth is the whole fossil record is transitional. It is easy for even us laymen to see. The deeper down you go the more simple the organism become. The very oldest and deepest organisms are single celled. The then progress up to bug like trilobites and eventually to small mammals and dinosaurs.

 

So we are still looking at the entire chain up the evoluntionary ladder? With each step along the way still being evident, as we look at what is alive today, and some extinctions. One must ask some simple questions, if the evolution was for the betterment of each level of the ladder, why are the lower rungs still around? Why are some rungs missing? Why is there no direct connection between man and another species? Scientists will speculate as to the reasons, yet there is no proof. Just as they speculate about certain ancient people being misogynistic or female dominated, it is speculation, nothing more.

 

Because lower "rungs" are not still around. Every tiger is a cat but not every cat is a tiger. However they all came from a common ancestor. That does not make lions lower on the ladder than tigers. It just means that different traits emerged in genetically isolated groups.

 

For many species you may be surprised how far back they go before there are any missing "rungs." As I said before the fossil record is far more complete today than most people know. With a couple of critical links for humans found within the last 20 years.

 

And for the record scientist never speculate. Any research papers that are released go under deep scrutiny with the peer review process. If the evidence is not demonstrative the work is rejected. Just ask any scientist who has submitted work for peer review how grueling the process is.

 

Evolution is a extremely difficult subject. I know of no other area of science that is so vast in its scope. To understand evolution you have to know about taxonomy, phylogenetics, biology, genetics, geology, physics, zoology, and I'm sure others I have missed. For lay people even if they were high school science teachers at one time to claim to understand evolution are overestimating their knowledge. I would never claim to be able to discuss evolution at a level it deserves. But I can understand that if we were created from scratch as we are there would be no reason for us to share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees.

 

This video will be the best 13 minutes you can spend to understand evolution.

 

 

Have a great holiday all...

 

You too my friend.

[MI Compassion]

Those claims go back many years. Most bible historians seem to place the age of the earth between 6000 and 10,000 years. I have never counted all the begets in Genesis so I will take the biblical scholars word on this. Many Christians like yourself agree that the young earth thing has been disproved beyond the need to debate it at all. There is a deep scientific well of knowledge from geology, cosmology, chemistry, physics, and other disciplines that prove an much older origin.

 

 

 

You are correct that evolution is not complete as no scientific theory ever is. But I disagree about there being many holes. Many creationist point to Darwin himself who said there were no transitional species. What they fail to recognize is that was 150 years ago when Origin of Species was written. The fossil record is far more vast than most people realize. We now have fossils that follow mans evolution back to a clad that has traits of both lemurs and old world monkeys. The truth is the whole fossil record is transitional. It is easy for even us laymen to see. The deeper down you go the more simple the organism become. The very oldest and deepest organisms are single celled. The then progress up to bug like trilobites and eventually to small mammals and dinosaurs.

 

 

 

Because lower "rungs" are not still around. Every tiger is a cat but not every cat is a tiger. However they all came from a common ancestor. That does not make lions lower on the ladder than tigers. It just means that different traits emerged in genetically isolated groups.

 

For many species you may be surprised how far back they go before there are any missing "rungs." As I said before the fossil record is far more complete today than most people know. With a couple of critical links for humans found within the last 20 years.

 

And for the record scientist never speculate. Any research papers that are released go under deep scrutiny with the peer review process. If the evidence is not demonstrative the work is rejected. Just ask any scientist who has submitted work for peer review how grueling the process is.

 

Evolution is a extremely difficult subject. I know of no other area of science that is so vast in its scope. To understand evolution you have to know about taxonomy, phylogenetics, biology, genetics, geology, physics, zoology, and I'm sure others I have missed. For lay people even if they were high school science teachers at one time to claim to understand evolution are overestimating their knowledge. I would never claim to be able to discuss evolution at a level it deserves. But I can understand that if we were created from scratch as we are there would be no reason for us to share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees.

 

This video will be the best 13 minutes you can spend to understand evolution.

 

 

 

 

You too my friend.

 

Very interesting video, thanks for sharing.

[DT61]

So, let us agree to disagree, as perhaps continue the conversation some day in person (?) while remaining civil and perhaps friends.

 

One other question.........Would you like to hit this?

[+420Atheist]

Very interesting video, thanks for sharing.

 

Thanks. Notice the confirmation of what science had figured out morphologically has been confirmed genetically. That really proves there is nothing ambiguous about evolution. You have two disciplines of science independently confirming each other. Creationist seem to require a much higher standard of evidence from us than they are able to produce but I would challenge them to present evidence as demonstrative as this for creationism.

[+420Atheist]

So, let us agree to disagree, as perhaps continue the conversation some day in person (?) while remaining civil and perhaps friends.

 

One other question.........Would you like to hit this?

 

Let me play devils advocate my fried. You can always argue that god created man using evolution. There is no evidence for that and the odds that a god was involved is infinitesimal but not zero. In this case I would argue Octon's Razor that a god is not necessary in evolution so the simpler answer is more likely the correct one. Still saying god used evolution is a more logical argument than denying the evidential truth of evolution.

[+420Atheist]

 

The thing that has always confused me about fundamentalist evolution is it's random nature.

 

There is nothing "fundamentalist" about evolution. As I have pointed out a couple of times everything in science is provisional and subject to change as our understanding grows. I will without any hesitation change my understanding as more evidence is presented. That is the only way our understanding of our universe can move forward.

 

I love you BB but saying evolution is random just shows you have not taken the time to understand it. The very essence of evolution is natural selection. Selection is the opposite of chance. I understand where this confusion comes from as mutations happen by chance. However it is only the mutations that offer greater reproductive opportunities that are passed on to offspring. That is how nature selects the most beneficial mutations to continue.