LatentAuthor

So far, the only evidence for the Bible's reliability is that it mentions some known historical places and people - I am just pointing out that historical fiction also includes these things, and that they do not show that the stories written therein are reliable. Except when it isn't. There is no evidence showing anything about the exodus story is accurate, mountains of evidence contradicting stories found in Genesis such as the Creation and Flood narratives, and notable problems elsewhere as well. The bible does get some things right - but it gets many other things wrong. I did not claim that the apostles did not exist - I asked for evidence that they were all martyred because they refused to recant their beliefs about Christ's resurrection. Are you saying that no serious historian doubts this?

Actually I'm referring to the authors of the Gospels, which are anonymously written. However, since the gospels specifically mention many of the OT prophecies they claim to fulfill it stands to reason that they were aware of them. If you're writing a story and you're aware of a prophecy isn't it possible to change details of the story to fit the prophecy? So you think that any story that references historical places and people is credible? Are you saying that all historical fiction is thus reliable history? If you don't want to answer my question that's alright. Which happens more often: people rising from the dead or people stealing bodies? Actually Mark, the earliest gospel, ends with the women finding a stranger in the tomb who tells them he is risen and they hurry off, afraid, and tell no one. You can claim the Bible is history, but that does not make it so. It goes without saying that the same applies to your claims about the apostles - if you want to make a historical claim about them you'll need to supply some references to back it up. Archaeology has found no record of a global flood, and plenty of civilizations around the world that apparently didn't notice they were all underwater and neglected to drown.

Hi D-9, This is really fascinating. Although it seems unbelievable, I guess I can certain envision the evolution of an incomplete metamorphosing animal into a complete metamorphosing animal, especially if, as you say the genes are quite similar. But how does mutation and natural selection explain the step of going from a non-metamorphosing animal to the incomplete metamorphosing animal? I'm thinking that you'd need to add quite a bit of information to the animal's genome to do this. At the very least you'd need the information to not only specify what changes need to occur, but where they should occur, and also when. It wouldn't make sense for an insect to develop antennae inside its belly, and it would make sense to have antennae before it has the software to interpret the signals coming from the antennae, etc. Then I'm also wondering if biologists have identified a plausible lineage? Have they found fossilised precursors of metamorphosing animals? The reason I'm asking this is because I wonder if it's at all possible to identify such precursors as the adult and the juvenile animals would have different characteristics, they're most likely to be classified as different families instead of being seen as a juvenile and adult versions of the same species, not so? There is a vast amount of research easily available on this topic - perhaps it warrants investigation on your part. It certainly couldn't hurt.

There is a lot of evidence geologically in terms of stratas made up of sediment that appears to be have been laid down rapidly and this is found worldwide not just in localized areas. Animal and plant fossils show evidence of having been trapped in the abrubt deposit of sediment. The fact that marine life is found having been found on mountain tops clearly shows that the mountains were at one time covered with water which is consistent with the global flood mentioned in the Bible. The explosion of Mt. St. Helens proves how rapdidly plants and animals can be fossilized. Trees that were swept down the flow of the side of Mt. St. Helens were found to have petrified in about three months. I'm afraid that's simply an invention of people who are trying to take advantage of you not understanding geology - which isn't a bad thing, I mean, it's not like it's something that comes up a lot in every day life. Sure, there are a lot of places where we can see that some sediment has been laid down rapidly. . .but that happens all the time - we don't find a giant, consistent layer of stuff everywhere showing one global event that laid down stuff rapidly. Marine ecosystems spanning millions of years are not consistent with any biblical flood accounts that I'm aware of. If you think you can form a series of marine environments complete with fossilized tracks and worm burrows on mountaintops with a global flood you are free to try and demonstrate it. The Mount St. Helens eruption showed that volcanic ash can bury stuff really fast. . .but that happens all the time - it's not evidence for a flood at all.

The story has been around for a while, it's never been substantiated and always seems to originate from people known for hoaxes. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if someone wants to try to substantiate this claim. The last time I heard it was from Ron Wyatt, who doesn't appear to understand much about coral, not to mention honesty.

Are you somewhat bummed out at the thought of the beginnings of life according to evolution? Not particularly.

I'm afraid you are completely wrong about archaeological evidence supporting a global flood as reported in the bible - but you are welcome to substantiate this claim. Many cultures have stories about floods, consequently floods happen a lot. This isn't evidence of anything other than that rivers sometimes flood. . .which isn't exactly news. We find marine layers of strata in mountains because those mountains were once part of an ancient ocean - that's why there's a fossilized layer showing everything you'd expect to see from a calm ocean floor existing for eons rather than a jumble of sediment that you'd expect to see from a big flood. That's just basic geology. The fact of the matter is that archaeologists haven't found any compelling evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, or that they wandered around Sinai - even those archaeologists from Israel who have every conceivable political and religious motivation to do so. Also, I'm afraid that the claim about chariot wheels being found in the Red Sea is a very old hoax.

Caterpillar DNA evolved in the same way that all DNA evloves: random mutations that were selected for by the environment. DNA is constantly changing, you for example have somewhere around a hundred mutations in your genome that your parents do not. Almost all of these changes are neutral - they don't do much of anything. A very few are harmful, and fewer still are beneficial. Any harmful mutation is probably going to get weeded out pretty quick because it will increase the chance that an organism will die before reproducing to pass on that harmful mutation. Any beneficial mutation is probably going to be passed on because it will increase the chance that an organism will live and reproduce to pass on that beneficial mutation to its offspring. This is evolution: descent with modification.

Apparently it is efficient enough.

How would Jews not know of these alleged prophecies if they were written in the OT? So we are agreed that simply having a story which contains references to historical places and/or persons does not make a story credible. There are people living today that claim to have performed miracles, and who have followers that will testify to having witnessed this firsthand. If you discount this as insufficient evidence, then how can you not do the same with ancient, anonymously written, second hand accounts that lack any outside corroboration? Does my scenario not fit the pieces of evidence that you presented? Is my scenario less likely? That's actually not true, the copies vary significantly depending upon the age. For example, the ending of Mark and the story of the woman taken in adultery are two stories that were added to later copies for purely theological reasons - this is so well known that if you check the footnotes in your bible it will likely note this. References please. Certainly, there are numerous books and papers on archaeology that contradict the Bible's accounts of creation, the flood, and the Exodus - which, consequently, doesn't appear in the ancient Egyptian records at all.

Isn't it possible that the writers of the gospels were aware of these prophecies? In some cases yes, in others not so much. There are lots of old stories which reference real places and people, this doesn't make them "obviously credible" does it? It certainly appears so, but this doesn't make all the stories we have about him credible. After all, there are real people I can watch on youtube right now claiming to do all kinds of crazy things, but the fact that they are real doesn't make their claims accurate. Isn't it also possible that a group of his followers stole the body and, in the process of traveling at night, were stopped by soldiers for being suspicious. A fight breaks out and the men carrying the body are killed. The soldiers don't know or particularly care about them or the body they were carrying, and so leave them in an unmarked grave. Admittedly, I just made this up off the top of my head, but it fits your claims equally well: Jesus was a historical person & lots of people say the tomb was empty. In addition, consider which is more likely: that a someone rose from the dead or that someone stole his body and was killed in a relatively mundane way? All this to say, the fact that Jesus likely existed and that many later writers note that Christians believed the tomb to be empty does not show that the bible is credible. That is the story, yet there are no first-hand accounts of this - only copies of copies of second hand accounts. Oh? And you know this how? No other book makes historical claims that differ from the bible?

If you're asking why I favor evolution as an explanation of the origin of man over instant creation, the answer is because the Theory of Evolution explains the evidence we have whereas instant creation is contradicted by it. If this isn't what you're asking perhaps you could re-phrase your question.

What do you mean "the evolutionary path"?

It means that individuals with adaptations that help them survive are more likely to survive and reproduce than those who lack such adaptations. Many species have adapted to survive, many are very good at it. There may very well be more butterflies than people. . .so what? Because that's not what it means - it's talking about individual adaptations within a population and describing how nature typically operates.

I don't know what you mean by this - it certainly doesn't reflect anything in the actual theory so I think you're misunderstanding something. If you could explain a bit more what you mean I might be able to help clear it up. No. Get rid of any thoughts about things "trumping" each other, or of "full potentials". None of it has anything to do with evolution.