This is what the confirmed evolutionists claim, but where is the evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs?  

Yes, they found fossils of birds with feathers and fossils of dinosaurs, but nothing in the fossil record to show the transition from reptiles to birds. Don't give Archaeopteryx, for the science community has declared long ago that Archae fossil is only a bird and not a reptile or half-bird/half reptile...that was after mounting evidence was produced to prove it was a carefully contrived fake.  

Btw, Wells has a chapter in his book on this very topic. It would do you well to read it.  

.............

Yup, most science textbooks have the supposed horse series charts as proof of macro-evolution. But here's what we know..

Bones of modern horses were found right alongside Eohippus which is supposed to be the first horse.  This should have happened if Eohippus had gradually changed into a horse..for he should have died out millions of years before horses showed up! nope, Eohippus was not the ancestor of horses. Many think Eohippus was a Coney or a Hyrax. 

The evolution of the horse is a myth in the guise of science, but hey what do unwary, uncritical, gullible students know...or their teachers for that matter!  

................

I bet it is, only problem is there are no compounded effects of microevolution because there is no change beyond species occurring. Not then, not now, not ever. This is clear from the insufficiency of the evidence. 

Actually, the difference between micro and macro is most fundamental.... micro-evolution is true and can be scientifically proven while macroevolution is a philosophical dream of evolutionists..to the point it's become a world-view rather than empirical science. 

..................

PS. I'm looking forward to reply to your #50, but am having trouble with my computer, so if I'm not responding for a few days, you know why! 

All my arguments stem from my personal determination that the bible was a work of fiction, an internal church document at best. And because I do not believe it has one word from any deity in it, I don’t rely on it for anything … not as advertised. If you could become less hostile there are a few things you need to at least understand. I have nothing besides the evidence presented to me through the various sciences to work with, nothing at all so don’t seem surprised when I defend my argument in that way. There is nothing I could possible add or subtract from our knowledge base because I am not qualified to do so, I am only allowed an opinion just like you. I am not required to accept / reject anything I don’t want to any more than you, I just seem to understand things better probably because I am not trying to break anything, just trying to understand things better.

Your battle is with the age of the earth so you can try and justify ‘original sin’ which doesn’t allow for evolution at all, that same evolution you are arguing about??? What is the point of your arguments if everything is less than 5,903 years old ... or is that the point of your arguments?

PS - Creation of Adam (+ 1,556 y) to Noah’s Son Shem (+ 390 y) to Abraham (1945 y) to birth of Jesus = 3891 years since creation. Add in this year +2012 and the earth is biblically 5,903 years old … the hell with evolution girl!

Check your source.  He promised not to destroy the world again by flood.

She says a lot more than I do, that's for sure.

Arguing with you hasn't helped either of us so I stopped.

If you ever have any actual questions about what the Bible means, feel free to ask me.  This is as opposed to you making up a nonsensical meaning to laugh at Christians about.

Haven't we actually seen new species develop through macroevolution?

I accept the entire Bible as true.

Well, given that the argument has been made to me elsewhere that speciation has been observed yet Lula claims that speciation doesn't happen, I was hoping you would 'bring the science' on her and show her where that speciation happened.

I don't know the background of these observations, but I thought you might be able to point me in the right direction to find out about them.

As for believing the whole Bible is true:

We know who wrote it.

The message of each passage has not changed over time.

The first Christians preserved certain writings as scriptures.

The qualifications for those writings to be scriptures were:

It does not contradict other scriptures

The writer was an apostle or a close associate of an apostle.

Other churches considered it to be scriptures.

If they could not trace it back to an apostle, it got thrown out.  If it contradicted other scriptures, it was thrown out.  If other churches weren't using it, it got thrown out.  In the end, you had hundreds of churches using the same scriptures.  Then, a church council was called to 'decide' what books would be in the Bible, but it was pretty much already decided.  A few outliers existed, with extra books in their particular church, but for the most part the books of the Bible were set and then ratified.

Jythier, I appreciate your confidence but you know that Lula will scoff at all the examples I could produce regardless of the support offered. That is why I am waiting for her personal objections because I at least want her committed before I do additional study. The sad thing is that I am not an expert on anything more a ‘jack of all trades’. You two do seem to present yourselves as experts extraordinary … on everything. There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on the extent to which speciating populations are isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry, agriculture, or laboratory experiments.

CollapsedtreeLabels-simplified   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CollapsedtreeLabels-simplified.svg

As you can see from this pic, you had better be prepared to learn a new lexicon just to be able to converse with the scientific community. That has been an ongoing problem because most creationists and christians just don’t seem to know how to ask a reasonable question without it dripping with their religious dogma. I know you are not a Catholic but I have found it difficult to talk with those who just call themselves Christians because they have to be dealt with as individuals (as it should be) but there are just too many flavors out there. The only thing I find in common with Christians is that they all rely on the bible for their wisdom regardless of how they choose to use their bibles or which parts are to be considered more important than others, which is beyond my control. So I look at the bible as a whole because I do not know how or why to restrict its usage. For thousands of years, the bible was offered as the true words of their deities without restriction and without errors. But as the sciences came into their own it suddenly became difficult to take the bible as a history of the universe because it is scientifically impossible and because the authors were clueless about the real universe or even the scope and depth of the flora and fauna on earth. And since they were clueless so were the people so they could (and did) insert anything desired and none of it could be argued against at the time because nobody knew how … but we know how now.  

Well I just ran across an ‘atheist’ site that has all the forever used reasons why creation is considered a myth (among other biblical things). Most of what I have read so far (just started) seems straight forward and obvious but they are there if you are tired of researching the bible or the scientific literature and need a prepared reference. This is more a collection of arguments atheists have been making for hundreds of years than a creed to live by for sure but geese, they even have an ‘index to creationist’s claims’ just like the Catholics have only in reverse. This would be good information for creationists to read IMO.

The TalkOrigins Archive   http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

PS - I had started this post last night and wanted to post it before I address your post.

PSs - I know Lula, I don't plan on going away so get back up to speed and then let me have it.

Corruptible but through the power of God.

God works through people.

I believe God worked through his people to keep the Bible the way it's supposed to be.

Genesis 1 and 2 have no contradictions - but we shouldn't talk about that, because you won't understand what I'm saying when I try to tell you what you are misinterpretting.

Matthew (the tax collector) wrote Matthew, John Mark wrote Mark, Dr. Luke wrote Luke (he traveled with Paul and did other things with the church), John wrote John (brother of James).

I'm sorry you are unable to trace these back to them, but apparently those in the first few centuries could, and I'll take their word for it over yours.

General creation account, specific creation account.

Give me a break.

Finally...I'm back in action! Got a new computer with Windows 8 and learning it is tough going for an old dinosaur like me!

Your examples do not show the CC dogmas are hypocritical.

Opponents may not believe, agree with or like the Church or its dogmas, but no one can't rightly say that they are hypocritical.

Remember we discussed truth in other blogs? Truth is in possession...you can't give truth if you don't possess it. Christ set up His Church to teach His truths on faith and morals...those truths are dogmas, solemn pronouncements of the deposit of Faith.  

A CC dogma is a truth directly taught or defined by the teaching Magisterium of the Church for our belief. e.g., our Scriptures are the inspired Word of God; the popes are successors of St.Peter in the primacy, the dogma of Hell, and so forth.

Historically, the CC has always claimed to teach Faith and morals with Divine authority and infallibility. the history is a long one extending over 2 thousand years and it's easy to say in any period, "Here was the Church, these are its infallible teachings (dogmas). Read in the Book of Acts about the Church's first council at Jerusalem, or history records the account of the Council of Ephesus, or at the Fourth Lateran, of Nicea, Trent or Vatican I and we see they acted overtly under Papal authority. There is no CC dogma which has been proved to be hypocritical.

Agree. I didn't write the Bible and I am not responsible for it, but I believe it is true. You didn't write Evolutionary Theory and are  not responsible for it, but you've indicated you believe it is true. That I believe the Bible is true is nothing less than unwavering faith in God as it's principal Author. That you believe  Evolutionary Theory is true is nothing less than unwavering faith in the myths of evolutionists now commonly known as Darwinian Evolutionism.   

Rather than Science, Darwinian Evolutionism is a philosophy---belief (faith) in the myth of macroevolution.

Ok, back to the basic question of human origin..who, why, when, how? Both Religion, the Church, the Biblical testimony on Creation and Science (I'm thinking historical geology and genetics ) can help give us some explanation as to a plausible Origins concept.  

So, to answer the basic why, who, when, how questions of human origins, on the one hand, we've got the scientific researcher who begins with the  belief the Bible contains a description of true history, and on the other hand, we've got the scientific researcher who begins to answer the basic question of human origins with the philosophical mindset of Darwinian Evolutionism.   

The first scientific researcher believes metaphysics, theology and scientific analysis of natural phenomena are valid paths to gaining knowledge while the other scientific researcher believes Darwinian Evolutionism is the only valid path to knowledge. They regard the existence of a transcendent Creative God beyond this natural world as invalid and unscientific.  It's not strange at all that Darwinian Evolutionism is so popular among  atheists and agnostics. For them, it's everything! The all-important priority is maintaining the Darwinian Evolutionism philosophy, even if it's a 200 + year old theory that has utterly failed in their attempt to prove scientifically that there has been a descent with modification evolutionistic origin of humankind.  

But back then in Darwin's day, they didn't have the modern science of Genetics which has today disproved Darwin's ideas of macroevolution as wholly mistaken.

So why is Darwinian Evolutionism still being sold to school children and the public as true fact?

Because Evolutionary Theory has moved from a set of hypotheses to be tested to a naturalistic philosophy...a world-view Empirical science is not the primary value at stake for if it were, it would have long ago been limited to microevolution, change within kind.

"the conclusions of science can then be misleadingly p;ortrayed as refuting arguments that were in fact disqualified from consideration at the outset. As long as scientific naturalists make the rules, critics who demand positive evidence for Darwinism need not be taken seriously> They do not understand how science works. To question whether naturalistic evolution is "true", on the other hand is to talk nonsense. Naturalistic evolution is the only conceivable explanation for life, and so the fact that life exists proves it to be true. ...The important question, however, is whether this philosophical viewpoint is merely understandable professional prejudice, or whether it is the objectively valid way of understanding the world. That is the real issue behind the push to make naturalistic evolution a fundamental tenet of society, to which every one must be converted." Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial", pages 115, 121.  

Hmmm? Macroevolution (change beyond kind where new higher genetic information is gained) is not speciation. Speciation is "microevolution" or simply change within kind due to reshuffling of genes.

So, if we've observed anything, it's microevolution, BIG difference from macroevolution.

Well, those who believe in Special Creation agree that Darwin's Evolutionism (change beyond kind) cannot occur, but I've found they tend to be all over the place on the question of the age of the Universe or in this case the earth.

 I answer this way. I really believe that in addition to believing in God and taking Him at His word in Genesis 1-11, scientists in their respective fields can investigate the empirical scientific data (like Genetics) and deduce that an Intelligent Designer must have created the universe, earth, and all life, plant, animal, sea and human.

On Genesis 1-11, Pope Leo XIII formally directed Catholics that the literal and obvious sense of the Scriptures must hold pride of place until rigorously disproved, those who support an age of billions of years have the onus of proof upon them to prove their case.

Yet, while both Darwinian and Stellar Evolution has long been presented in the public arena as "fact" as "beyond credible doubt", what gripes me is that unchallenged acceptance of such Stellar Evolution "facts" has enabled some aspects of revisionist theology to appear credible to many in the Church. That's why there is a movement amongst Catholics to petition the Church to dogmatically declare a Creation doctrine. See, if the Church declares it, then we will know for sure what is the truth.

Meantime, discussion on the question of age is warranted, desirable and goes on.  

So, I'm thinking with the Pope who directed Catholics that the literal and obvious sense of Sacred Scripture must hold pride of place. I am quite comfortable supporting that mankind was created by God 6,000 years ago.

The Church's teachings on death challenge Evolutionist's inconceivable time-frame assumptions of a 4.5 billion year old earth. That is also against the majority of opinion in Tradition from Church Fathers that the sacred writers of Genesis, including God as the principal Author who inspired them to write), intended to assert a literal as given meaning for "yom" creation days of 24 hours.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Even the Bible itself St.John 21:25, tells us "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, Would not be able to contain the books that should be written." 

While the Bible is important as a source of knowing the Faith or of Our Lord's life, it isn't all there is. That's where Sacred Tradition comes in and the writings, sermons, and documents of the Church Fathers and Doctors, including first century documents. That's what I read. The Bible wasn't even in print for 15 centuries and the Faith and life of Christ was taught by the Church's Sacred Tradition. The Catholic Faith, the Gospels, and Christ's life  was taught and passed down through the centuries by hearing, not reading the Bible.  

You need to stop trying to redefine the termonology of evolution to fit your view unless you would actually care to  look them up yourself in a PRO evolutionary book so that you can understand what is being promoted. You do not of course have to believe any of it as you please, but you have to do this if you want to try and be a little accurate. Darwinism usually refers strictly to biological evolution (only man in your case), but the term has been misused by creationists to refer to the origin of life and has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution which of course have no connection to Darwin's work at all. Darwin's theories were produced 150 years ago and surely even you must agree that we have come a long way (not you) since that time. It seems we are at an impass here because I will not discuss evolution with you unless we are talking in a 'millions of years' time scale which of course you will not do. As I see it you cannot use evolution (and shouldn't) and I cannot use the bible (and won't).  On the Origin of Species, well it is just a book whose roots go back to the 18th century with the work of Erasmus Darwin. It is not a 'bible' with perfect knowledge and was never intended to be, it is just the best that could be produced with the scientific knowledge we had at the time (no genetics, no accurate hereditary theory, no electron microscopes, no venue to draw from and against the church absolute denial). Denial without proof is not proof of anything besides dogmatism. Why you insist on attacking Darwin instead of modern evolutionary theory should be obvious to all. And you are not qualified to 'disqualify' anything evolutionary from the get go or anywhere else ... especially without proof.