Head firmly in sand I see.

The proof is everywhere around you.

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/202703

Its 96%. I think that person was making a joke, feral. I suppose it might actually be higher now due to these recent findings about Chromosome 2. It looks bad for creationists. Here is the video. I need to watch it and still have not.

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

Well I can come up with just as many that prove creation and not evolution...so no sorry not proof...and remember again that these are put out by mere mortal men who have their views and their agendas...proof to me is showing me something that has evolved......and not an omemba or a strain of staph because those are still within their own.



Head firmly in sand I see.

The proof is everywhere around you.

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/202703

You posted a thread that has TONS of videos suporting the theory of evolution. You need a cup o' java I think.

No, you can't, because time and time again, ID has been scientifically disproven, and also legally proven to be nothing more than an attempt at getting religion into the public school systems.

I think your right!

FeralCatLady wrote:

"Well I can come up with just as many that prove creation and not evolution...so no sorry not proof...and remember again that these are put out by mere mortal men who have their views and their agendas..."

OK, and who do you suppose wrote the Bible? I'll tell ya, a bunch of uneducated men about 2,000 years ago, at a time when they all believed that the Earth was flat, having concubines and trading women for sheep was just a way of life.

This Holy Book has been revised and altered so many times throughout history to coincide with the writers' and editors' views and their agendas. Example; King James decides he's just gonna rip out these here chapters and writes his own, hence; The King James Version!

Is this book of yours really all that you have to go by? You know, the Quran isn't any better either, and unfortunatly I know that one cover to cover. At 8 years old, I burned my Quran! I'm not making any suggestions here, but let's just say I felt so elevated and free after that!

Much like your camp, which keeps misquoting and 'confusing the 'truth'' of that book of yours, amateurs of the theory of evolution do not necessarily always quote the most recent sceintific facts,
... which unlike the 'bible-inerrant-fundamentalist-dogma', keep changing, as new discoveries are made, researched, and presented to scientific peers for review and validation.

The right percentage of the DNA we share with the great apes, our common ancestors, is two fold, due two scientific progress.

Until recently, couple decades or so, facts in this arena supported 96,97839% shared DNA (chromosones) with great apes (apes had 24 pairs of chromosones, and humans 23).

That begged the questions from the scientific community (that's their thing 'feral' raisong QUESTIONS), if all other 23 human pairs of chromosones are IDENTICAL to the apes 23, how come humans are missing the one chromosone from apes that would confirm without any doubt the common ancestry hypothesis???

Science has been raising that question an researching the human genome for answers, and they have come up with astounding and facinating findingd which amount to nothing less than PROOF of common ancestry. That's right 'feral', the PROOF you've been asking for, which you probably won't agree with, but that is still the RULING PROOF for the rest of humanity.

It is fair to paraphrase today that we share 100% of the great apes DNA, and thereby confirm without any hesitation the 'common ancestry' reality.

If you are interested 'feral', and you should be, given your commitment for 'open-minded' fair and balanced research', I've take the time to include a particularily well done 'tube' explaining the fusion of chromose #2 in great details.

If it turns out to be too much details 'feral', jump to the 3/4 mark of the video or so, for the conclusion.

Eventhough I don't think any proof would ever change your personnal view of things, and that is certainly not my intent (changing your views or beliefs), I trust that at the very least you will stop asking for 'proof' of common ancestry with great apes, and jump to some other doubt shedding misleading question.

Your creationists experts have done just so. When they were asked, in front of a Court hearing, to counter argue the chromosone #2 fusion confirming common ancestry, '... they had nothing to add!!! ...'. They still don't have anything official or substantiated to add or offer as counter argument from a scientific or judicial point perspective.

Also, the expert case for the scientific side of the fusion of chromosone #2 is being made by Ken Miller, a cell biologist, and a devout, most believing christian, whom very much claims his belief in god, ... adding that god to him would never be the kind of deceptive god that would play poorly designed tricks on humans...'

Here's the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0

Whatch it, and tell me what you think.

It could bring us on a whole other ground of exchange 'feral'.

Given that 99,997875% of all christians believe in god, and subscribe to the reality of evolution without any difficulty, I say to myself, why not you!!!

It's a win/win all the way. A perfect christian life, with room for reality!!!

And you understand that the reaity of this photo comes from the mind of the designer and the scultpter that molded it - don't you.

I swear I have seen someone where I live look just like that Eijay

Well - those 99.997 % who accept that God's word evolves never read the text. It explicitly states that not one "jot or tittle" would change, and anyone wo adds or detracts from it brings eternal damnation on themselves.

I think that if christains believe the word is evolving - hey need to check themselves on whether or not their a christian. For if they don't know Jesus - I doubt he knows them.

So where's the documentation on the experimental evidence of recreating the evolving of man from this "Ancestrial not-an-ape-but-close-enough"
in the lab.

I'd like to read it for myself.

And you understand this sculpture was created by Forensic model makers who work for investigative authorities. They took the actual skeletal remains of Australopithecus Afarensis or you might remember her as "Lucy." Im not sure how familiar you are with missing persons but when the police locate a skull and that is all they have to go on, they employ these forensic artists to literally reconstruct the face from the ground up. The same was done with this skull. Some of these reproductions have been so close that family members have been able to identify their loved ones using them. I feel its a reasonably close replica. Here is a drawing also.

Isn't Hollywood amaizing!

So real, it's almost believable.

What does that mean?

Obviously some do not know the history of the bible and how it came to be what we have today if they believe it has not been edited and converted to fit certain agendas. Look it up or here I will help.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)

Old Testament
Genesis | Exodus | Leviticus | Numbers | Deuteronomy | Joshua | Judges | Ruth | 1 Samuel
2 Samuel | 1 Kings | 2 Kings | 1 Chronicles | 2 Chronicles | Ezra | Nehemiah | Esther | Job
Psalms | Proverbs | Ecclesiastes | Song of Solomon | Isaiah | Jeremiah | Lamentations | Ezekiel
Daniel | Hosea | Joel | Amos | Obadiah | Jonah | Micah | Nahum | Habakkuk | Zephaniah | Haggai
Zechariah | Malachi


[edit] New Testament
Matthew | Mark | Luke | John | Acts | Romans | 1 Corinthians | 2 Corinthians | Galatians | Ephesians | Philippians | Colossians
1 Thessalonians | 2 Thessalonians | 1 Timothy | 2 Timothy | Titus | Philemon | Hebrews | James | 1 Peter | 2 Peter | 1 John | 2 John | 3 John
Jude | Revelation


[edit] Deuterocanonical books
The deuterocanonical books (meaning "second canon") are not recognized as part of the canon of the Bible in Protestantism, but are recognized as canonical by the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. They are also known as the Apocrypha. These books came from the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament used by early Christians and Jews. They were included in the first editions of the King James Bible, but were removed from some editions by reformers during the 16th century. By the mid-19th century, the deuterocanonical books were generally rejected by Protestant Christians. Judaism used the Septuagint until about the second century AD, but doesn't recognize either the deuterocanonical or New Testament books as part of their own canon, which is known as the Tanakh.

Additions to Daniel
Judith
1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Additions to Esther
Susanna
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Prayer of Manassheh
Sirach
Wisdom of Solomon
Baruch (including the Epistle of Jeremiah)
Tobit
Bel

[edit] Copyright
The King James Version is also known as the Authorized Version. Note that in the United Kingdom, this work is still copyrighted and is subject to a eternal copyright term. Thou shalt obtain permissions to publish in England and Wales by following the guidance in A Brief Guide to Liturgical Copyright, third edition (RTF file). If thou wishest to publish in Scotland, thou shalt contact the Scottish Bible Board for permissions.




This work is in the public domain outside the United Kingdom because the author has been deceased at least 100 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, this work is under an eternal copyright in the United Kingdom.

Oh eljay, even you watched that video on Neanderthal man. You are perfectly aware that is an accurate depiction of them. At least you weren't arguing then.

Here is some more information on different versions of the bible and the changes to it.

Question #39

QUESTION: Isn't the New Scofield Bible a King James Bible'?

ANSWER: Not only is the New Scofield Bible NOT a King James Bible, it is not even a "Scofield" Bible.

EXPLANATION: The first and most weighty reason why the New Scofield Bible is not a Scofield Bible at all is shamefully simple. Dr. C.I. Scofield did not edit it. Dr. Scofield died in 1921! Barring a very "selective" resurrection, it is impossible for a man who died in 1921 to edit a book in 1967.
The publisher's justification for a new "edition" is that Dr. Scofield, whose reference Bible was first published in 1909 added material and published another edition in 1917. But it is an author's preogative to alter his own works, but that certainly does not give others, more than 45 years after his death, a blank check to make alterations and then sign his name to it!
If we altered the ending of "Macbeth" we would be less than honest to claim that the change met Shakespeare's approval.
Secondly, the editors exercised great liberty in changing attributes of Dr. Scofield's reference work that Dr. Scofield himself felt important enough to include in his work. In the introduction to their doubly dishonest 1967 publication they admit such changes.
New Scofield: "Among the changes and improvements in this edition are: important word changes in the text to help the reader; a modified system of self-pronunciation; revision of many of the introductions to the books of the Bible, including designation of the author, theme, and date; more subheadings; clarification of some footnotes, deletion of others, and the addition of many new notes;: more marginal references; an entirely new chronology; a new index; a concordance especially prepared for this edition; new maps; and more legible type. Some of these features are explained below."
By their own words, they admit to altering Dr. Scofield's text (the King James Bible), introduction of books of the Bible, notes, marginal references, chronology and many other features.
Did Dr. Scofield give his approval to these changes? Not unless one of the nine committee members had the witch of Endor conjure him up as she had Samuel!
In fact, the publisher even admits that the changes made were arbitrary choices of the revision committee.
"Each position taken represents the thinking or conviction of the committee as a group."
What are the results of such shenanigans? One example will suffice. Let us examine the footnote found in Acts 8:12 of the New Scofield Bible concerning baptism.
"Baptism has, since the apostolic age, been practiced by every major group in the Christian church and, in Protestant communions, is recognized as one of two sacraments - the other being the Lord's Supper. Since early in the Church's history three different modes of baptism have been used: aspersion (sprinkling); affusion (pouring); and immersion (dipping)."
Here we see that the nine revisors (NOT Dr. Scofield) believe that there is a difference between the true Christian church and Protestant "communion". Might I ask? When one group is defined as "Protestant" what is the other group called?
Secondly, the nine apostate revisors (NOT Dr. Scofield) claim, without scriptural proof that Christians baptize by pouring and sprinkling as well as immersion.
Remember, the footnote is found in a S-C-O-F-I-E-L-D of 1967. A book which claims on its title page that a dead man (Dr. Scofield) is one of its editors.
What does the footnote for Acts 8:12 in the REAL Scofield Bible of 1917 which had a living Dr. Scofield as its editor say?
Nothing. There IS no such footnote!
That's right! The New "Scofield" bible has a "Scofield" note added after the death of "Scofield" the editor which the REAL Dr. Scofield never approved of and never had in a text anytime in his life time!
I ask you, is this honest?
Proof that the New Scofield Bible isn't a King James Bible is found on almost every page where the margin notes the twin Bible reading as "KJV". The text of the New Scofield Bible is NOT a King James Bible and it is NOT a Scofield Bible.
It might be noted that in recent years the size and shape of the New Scofield Bible has been changed to more resemble the Scofield Reference Bible. Many Christians who desire a true Scofield Reference Bible have purchased a New Scofield Bible by mistake.
The "Bible" business is lucrative. Isn't it?

And you know that "Lucy was found with no hands - and no limbs, so they have "created" Lucy from imagination. And you do know that a forensic scientist created this model under the presumption that "Lucy" has human qualities. If you told that same forensic culpture that this skull was from an Ape, Lucy would look a lot different.

What does that mean? You don't know?

"Real Science" is derived from repeatable observable data. Like - well - Micro Evolution.

Macro evolution is a presumption that because we observe micro evolution, macro evolution should have occured. Didn't they teach you that in school?