Ring, ring.
Posted on 02/28/2006 4:05:45 AM PST by PatrickHenry
No, I've just been watching free radicals making speeches.
No it isn't. Common design fails to account for the parts I bolded in that post, namely the fact that ERVs in two Asian species of ape will inevitably be found in all African apes, including ourselves.
Since the Asian environment differs from the African one by having different foods, predators, diseases, and parasites, one (or at least I) would think that if two things were designed for the Asian environment, they would have more in common with each other than they would with things designed for Africa.
But the genetics says that's not the way it is.
How does design account for this in any but the most banal "that's just the way the designer did it" way?
More importantly, for advancing ID to the status of a theory, it must make predictions about what to expect when other families, orders, etc have their genes sequenced.
So far, nothing.
Ring, ring.
Mark says that, "Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis." (Mark 7:31, NIV)
In Matthew 15, Matthew says the same thing.
How has the geography been confused?
Do you have evidence/proof that Jesus did not take this route that Mark and Matthew give account of?
If this is the only/best evidence you have against the Bible containing eyewitness testimony...You might want to re-evaluate.
Yes. This was known in the 1700s, and that French descended from Latin was known by 800.
God's memory is limitless.
In Neil Smith's The Probability Broach the Vice President is a gorilla, and the the best restaurant is run by Mr. Meeps, a chimp, who advertises "Our food is untouched by human hands"
Actually there is good solid scholarship that Mark wrote down Peter's eyewitness testimony. Since you are no theologian or bible scholar, you will have to provide evidence or refrain from those types of statements.
Anyone who had the slightest clue about the theory of evolution wouldn't make such a silly assumption.
"Actually there is good solid scholarship that Mark wrote down Peter's eyewitness testimony."
And is therefore not eyewitness testimony, but is rather Mark's hearsay of Peter's alleged eyewitness testimony. QED.
Linnaeus called them both carnivores.
The modern ToE makes that prediction that any ERV (or other genetic marker) found in the same place in the genome of any species of dog and in any species of cat will also be found in in the same place in the genome of every species of dog, every species of cat, and every species of bear.
Neither creationism nor ID is capable of making such detailed, testable, predictions.
(As far as it's been tested, it's true)
Doesn't matter who copied it down. Oral history is just as good and authoratative as eyewitness, sorry Charlie
authoritative, good grief, don't want a schoolmarm to get me
"Doesn't matter who copied it down. Oral history is just as good and authoratative as eyewitness, sorry Charlie"
Sorry, there is no independent evidence that this is unedited eyewitness testimony. It's hearsay. If you attempted to enter in a similar document as "testimony" in a court of law, it would not be classed as such. It's hearsay.
"Well it has entered its court of law and been accepted, so it's moot anyway."
Please provide the case citation where it was accepted as testimony in a court of law.
You're correct, I didn't read close enough, but now that I have, I'm kind of LOL. If I could do that, I wouldn't be posting on FR, now would I? I'd be accepting the Nobel Prize. And raking in bazillions of dollars in speaking engagements. And having my picture taken for the covers of Life, Time, Newsweek, and, what the hell, the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.
I obviously cannot satisfy your request. Are there folks who take their beliefs so far to become unethical in their distribution. Absolutely. Both sides equally guilty. Again, I choose not to paint the large majority with the miniscule percentages who do behave unethically.
1. What evidence would prove to you that there was a global flood?
2. Does the account of the tower of Babel state that all languages came into the world at the same instant? (no it does not...and what is your evidence for the evolution of language at all?)
3. Does incest, if it ocurred, refute that Scripture contains accurate eyewitness account? (no.)
4. Mark and Matthew both give the same account of Jesus's journey out of the vicinity of Tyre, through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of Decapolis (Mark 7 and Matthew 15). Do you have evidence that Jesus did not take this journey as written? How does this route demonstrate that Mark manages to mislocate some important sites in Palestine?
That would be Mark et al/ Christian Witnesses, world court of public opinion, year 0 to year 2000.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.