A question
How do white moths evolve into black moths. What is the time frame.

Through genetic variation, mutation and natural selection. Depending on the selection pressure and how many genes control colour, anywhere between less than one year to more than a million years. Or thereabouts.

Why do you ask, do you want to tell us about the 'truth' in the bible again?

We Richie ten already have an active thread on evolution.
Is this an attempt to muffle it?
I understand you wish to support your view but can you answer mine?
If your God is the true and only one, the savior of ALL mankind how come he lets the others exist?
Can it be that God made some only to destroy them?
Is your God that hard hearted that he saved you but will condemn forever so many?

I'm sure he doesn't really want to deal with the venom that comes with questioning and trying to understand reasoning behind something that somehow is associated with the beliefs of some. Ironic really, considering.

I mean, Fundamental Agnostics tend to be a fraction defensive, as you've so eloquently demonstrated.

I'm outta the other thread for 24 hours because I made a comment and couple of replies. That's great. 24 hours is about the life expectancy of a convo.

Richie 10, the answer to that question is to be found in any high school biology text book - as you undoubtedly know, since it was Darwin's classic example of natural selection in post-Industrial Revolution England.

At any rate, Bugsy's provided a very succinct answer above.

the standard way is to pick the darkest of the whites and gradually concentrate the genes causing the off white..untill black is reached

a few issues usually result as the line gets closer related...as not onl;y the good affects get expression but the bad as well..of course there are some that simply change colour via different diets..as well

anyhow the key is to get them out of the general population...because darwin said a random population of pigeons will retain the wild genotype ..that underpins the individual genomic phenotype

anyhow its not impossable[budgies were all green..but via selective in breeding they got many colours now...the use of mutagins...like that gout mixture makes crossover genes mutate..and if the timing of their expression is during the melinim migration the lack can be made to migrate

another aspect with moths is the shape of their wing scales..some of the beutifull colours reflect of the different scale types..there is also ther pied genbe equivent that makes patterns invert..that isnt overly complicated to figure out

anyhow regardless of what colour it still isnt any proof of evcolution as regardless of the colour they would stil be the same genus[though in time would be classiofied as a new species within its genomic family..

but that would take thousands of generations of inbreeding...and worse mating back to the wild type white wings will see the resseive white return fully...

he children are likely to be carrying the mutation to black..so up to half...via ressesive mendelic ratyio's..of the next generation will have the black..all others will be wild type[white]

anyhow that is micro evolutuion within the species..[darwin explains it well...in his evolution of the SPECIES.....not macro evolution..as espoused by those claiming micro evolutions..within species proves...lol..evolution of genus...into new genus..

pure insanity ...simply speaking not one exta genus mutation case recorded...let alone proven...ever..thus revealing the deception of evolution theory

Due to acid rain in europe the white moth turned black. Upon careful observation it became apparent that as the snow got dirty it was much easier for the birds to see and feast on white moths so the moth population changed colour as the darker moths survived and bred. Science is based on obversation not Belief systems. I have never seen anything to support evelution only a fertile emagination. I have never observed anything to disprove the parts of the bible that I can test through my sences. Anything that happened in the past I have to rely on eye witnesses intregity and supporting evedence. As there is no eyewitness acounts of evelution it becomes a bias on your belief system. Belly The bible tells me that man has dominion over the earth so ALL stuffups are laid squarely at our feet. the buck stops individualy at our feet so we can't blame God. He Loves you so much Belly that he sent his only begotten son to die in your place for your personal stuffups. What you do about it is your choice. If when I die I find you where right what have I lost. Then again if when you die and find you where wrong what have you lost.

"I have never observed anything to disprove the parts of the bible that I can test through my sences."

Richie perhaps you could measure the relationship between a circle's diameter and it's circumference.

You might tell me if a bat is a bird, check first with your senses then look at Leviticus 11:19.

You might also look at MAT 1:16 and LUK 3:23 and tell me who the father of Joseph is.

You might tell me how Judas dies - Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18

Should you answer a fool - Proverbs 26:4-5?

You might tell me how old Ahaziah was when he began to reign

You might look at Genesis 1:25-26 then Genesis 2:18-19 and tell me if humans or animals were formed first.

Any answers should be consistant with treating the creation story as a literal record.

R0bert

Yeah, I really didn't expect anything much more. Thanks for delivering.

I guess even high school level science can be disputed on an 'opinion' site. How dull.

Richie 10: << ...so the moth population changed colour as the darker moths survived and bred. >>

Richie, that's called 'natural selection', and is the basis of Darwinian evolution. Devastatingly simple, really.

Any resemblance to Biblical accounts is mostly coincidental, as R0bert cogently demonstrated.

Since when did I tell you to use your belief system to prove any thing. as that is biased. use your sences, that's called obversation not opinion.

"Since when did I tell you to use your belief system to prove any thing" your attempt to use the moth colour change may not be quite that but it's close enough. You use a very narrow and self serving intepretation of "science" to try and make your point and then duck for cover when challenged about the source you consider an authority.

If you are at all serious about observation get a tape measure, compare the diameter to the circumference of a circle and tell me that you still have "never observed anything to disprove the parts of the bible that I can test through my sences". The bible is close enough on that if you are not trying to use it as a scientific document or plan based on it.

"If when I die I find you where right what have I lost" - oh so tempting to run with that but for now lets see how your authoritive source stacks up as a scientific document. If you get brave have a look at the other questions.

R0bert

its funny how the evolving loonies havnt speculated on how species speciate...their blind faith in evolving mantra of evolution..has certainly revealed they follow evolution by faith alone[certainly no knowledge

the ignorance is further agrivated/demon-strated..by not bothering even to research reposted athiest delusions...take the leviticus use of fowl..Lev 11:19

A bat is here called fowl...Fowl means “winged creatures.”..Modern versions read..“birds”..instead of fowl and thus err in being too narrow in definition.

The Oxford English Dictionary has for meaning 4 under “bird:” “flying
winged creature.”..The latter definition includes the bat. ..Deu. 14:18.)

Lev 11:20
Four-legged fowl with vv...21 & 23!..For example, locusts and beetles...“Fowl has been used for bees and butterflies,..hence there are non-flying fowl,..such as the chicken and turkey....but the believers of evolution dont research nuthin..you might call it an inherant trait of mindlessnes

bugsies reply of one year to one million is again revealing the ignorance of the evolving theorists..compounded by the insanity of bellicose<<Can it be that God made some only to destroy them?>>wre you attempting to comect with the god that sustains ALL LIFE..sustaining even the most vile to live..you would see the absurdity of your speculation..gabby..but allas/no..that bridge too far eh mate
<<Is your God that hard hearted>>again a gross deception..god is living lovinmg light sustaining life to live...hard hearted..from the living lovinmg grace..gabby why you persist i missrepresenting the god of life and love?

<that he saved you..but will condemn forever so many?>>an ignorant presumption..yet again...jesus on the cross ASSURED even a thief on a cross today he would be reborn into heaven...get it...we all live again after death...

energy CANNOT BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED..get it?

...your father put life into a egg..that life force..you..has only grown bigger...and CANNOT be destroyed..but i know you evolving retarded faithfull evolutionists..dont/cant read and research out your own facts

its not difficult..here is one i used for the foul..unclean[fowl..winged creatures..unclean...thus foul/fowl

Dear Robert,
What's your beef The fact that I said the creation proves the creator. Or am I stepping on your pet corns. The story about the moths I heard long before I accepted Jesus as my Lord And Saviour and was a byproduct of acid rain caused by polution in Germany killing the trees in the 60's
Most of the moths use to be white and were hard to see on a white background. Nothing complicated about the story. Evolution would have you believe DNA happened by random chance not by inteligent creation. In my lifetime I have found if God said it it is ALWAYS true. If I come to a conclusion I am Often WRONG. I do not put myself on a pedestal But I would like to have a few Aussies to talk to in eternity if Jesus is who he said he is.

Ritchie10 <'In my lifetime I have found if God said it it is ALWAYS true.'
Interesting comment! So, before your' lifetime, whatever God was supposed to have said wasn't true?

When did God 'speak' to you? You sure have tickets on yourself!

What I don't understand is why creationists don't believe that if there was a creator, could he/she not have 'created' the process of evolution?

Why wouldn't this wonderful, magical entity want his/her creations to evolve and change in order to continue to thrive in a changing world that they created?

Another question would be why this creator created species that eventually die out? What would be the purpose of this?

ST G do you understand? do you know your description of those who think differently than you is a mirror image of you?
Richie ten and one under God, you got your thread, but are you even aware you follow one God.
One of so very many, from local Gods to massive numbers in the other 2 major ones.
You have not, will not address those others, or tell me why God, any of them are tools that divide humanity.
We actually kill one another in a Gods name?
Are Gods cruel?
Was it always intended that the world be a battle ground followers of each God constantly at war.
Do you gentlemen think those who do not believe the fairy tale are evil?
Have you ever for a single second looked at the ideas of Darwin?
Can you understand while you are on your knees before your God the finding of our ancestor bought headlines around the world?
That far more know we came from her than cling to primitive belief that denies mankind is one.

Richie my beef is around a couple of factors.
- Some not only want to personally believe their pet myth but have it taught in schools.
- There is something fundamentally grating about those who try and treat their prefered ancient book as established fact (and insist to others that it is) but who refuse to address clear (and easily checked) errors in their prefered books.

Generally evolutionists accept that it is the explaination which best fits the available evidence without resorting to a "and then magic happened" step. Where aspects of the theory (or the detail) are shown to be incorrect they are discarded. Evolutionists don't claim an infallible source for the theory, one proven error does not negate the whole basis of the theory. Creationists don't have that luxury, if your source documents are shown to have errors then your whole basis for treating creation as an historical record is gone.

You have made the point at least twice that there is nothing that you have observed with your senses which contradicts the bible. (not your words but what I take it you mean). I've twice pointed you to a simple example easily measurable with your senses and a basic tool which shows a factual error in the bible and you have completely failed to address that. I've also listed a number of the places where the bible contradicts likewise ignored.

If you want an alternative to evolution why not go for the dreamtime stories (or any one of a number of other creation type myths)?

R0bert

a large..cluck of..athiests..here today...suzeonline<<When did God..'speak'..to you?>>all that is good..is of god...every time we have a loving thought..it comes..from gods love...bad thought comes from mens fears.[attracting athiest dead/demons/athiests..who actually get aid..and comfort..from the vile things



<<could,,he/she not have..'created'..the process..of evolution?>>the evidence is housework dosnt do itself..[cars dont build themselves/..every affect HAS ITS CAUSE..

science claims the cause of life..happend/evolved..by itself/by chance/..by accident...its counter logic[nuts]..design has a designer[live with-it]

<<why..this creator created species..that eventually die out?>>please present your science...[your..theory/delusional-fear..gets boring..life is energy..[cant be created..nor destroyed]..comes from god/returns to god




jellybelly<<are you even awar.you follow one God.>>define follow..heard of freewill to go where we will?...it is science nutters..who blindly follow/theories..in lue of science/fact

<<One of so very many>>one god..many messengers

<<tell me why God...divide humanity.>>>each nation..recieved their own messenger/..religiously

<<We actually..kill one another..in a Gods name?>>any knowing god is love..strive to do love..till one convinces you..there isnt a god and you then say..ok fine i can thus tear off your head..[and not worry about upseting good/living/loving/god

<<Are Gods cruel?>>>..god is one../and..no

<<was..the world be a battle ground>>..think of it more as..a place for those cast out of..both..heaven and hell/a school/garden

<<followers..of each God..constantly at war.>>deceit mate...SOME/followers of the messengers..make excuses to kill

[but one life-giver sustains all life...even jesus..was sustained to live..thus isnt..the..god..[and didnt say he was...i post..because im an olo poster..[olo and i are one..see me..see olo

<<think those..who do not believe..the fairy tale/are evil?>>of course not yabby.

.there are..ignorantsgenious..who do good/bad..[god isnt a majic bullit..making you love..we strive..to love..for god/good happerns ...its good/fruit..is our life

<<ever/looked at the ideas of Darwin?>>..studied darwin for 5 years[bred pigions/fish/plants/goats/chicken..so did the practical testing of the theories/mendelism/species..is confirmed..[as are the genetics theories..[with the exception of the one huge deception[GENUS/evolution]

<<the finding of our ancestor?>>funny how evidence..comes at the right time...lol..its bits were found ages ago...have you seen starwars..go look at these fosils..[sculpters mould in clay/wax..then cast in plaster/plastic..then make fictions for children...

its all about decieving us long enough..to get us..uselesseaters..dead..via the bird flue vacinations

<<cling to primitive belief>>..darwin emerged from the dark-ages

<<mankind is one.>>..yet of four..[now 5]..mothers...lo

Don't forget about the marijuana OUG, you bred that as well. How's that going BTW?

I see you still don't understand that 'genus' is an artificial construct used by taxoniomists to classify groups of species.

You may at this point want to look up the word "phylogeny". If you post gibberish again, I think I'll have to revert to my standard position of ignoring you.

Phylogenetic groups, or taxa, can be monophyletic, paraphyletic, or polyphyletic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics

<<a phylogenetic tree is based on a hypo-thesis>>>ie its a theory..just like evolution

a..theory..<<of the order in which evolutionary events are assumed>>>assumed..>>..to have occurred.>>...lol very scientific

<<Cladistics is the current method of choice to infer>>lol<< phylogenetic trees.

The most commonly-used methods to infer>>>lol<<<..phylogenies include parsimony,..maximum likelihood,..and MCMC-based Bayesian inference.>>inferance...lol..

<<Phenetics,..popular in the mid-20th century but now largely obsolete,..uses distance matrix-based methods to construct trees based on overall similarity,>>.lol

<<which is often assumed>>>lol..<<to approximate phylo-genetic relationships.

All methods depend upon an implicit..or explicit..mathematical model describing..the evolution of characters..observed in the species included,..and are usually used for molecular phylogeny,..wherein the characters are aligned nucleotide or amino acid sequences.

Phylogenetic nomenclature..,(PN)..or phylogenetic taxonomy..>>lol

<<..is an alternative..to rank-based nomenclature,..applying definitions from cladistics ..or phylogenetic systematics).

Its two defining features..are the use of phylogenetic definitions,..of biological taxon names,...lol

..and the lack of..obligatory ranks.>>>just so taxonomy cant fire friendly fire...an act od subterfudge to give taxinomic debiability...lol

<<It is currently not regulated>>>lol,..but..the PhyloCode (International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature)..is intended to regulate it....once implemented...>>LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_nomenclature

hahaha...lol

but there is more...lol

<<The terms cladism/and cladist..were first introduced by Ernst W. Mayr in 1965...They..sometimes..>>lol<<..refer to cladistics..as a whole,..but often..in particular/the former..refers to phylogenetic nomenclature and those who....

..advocate..a taxonomy...>>LOL<<..founded on cladistics,..>>LOL

<<..going beyond mere use of phylogenetic analyses..as a tool of systematics.>>lol

<<These terms are particularly frequently used by those who prefer a rank-based nomenclature,..and are thus often used somewhat disparagingly.>>lol

Phylogeny...as a central principle in taxonomy:
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB&q=author:%22de+Queiroz%22+intitle:%22Phylogeny+as+a+central+principle+in+taxonomy:+...%22+&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholarr

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA%2CMEDA%3A2008-36%2CMEDA%3Aen-GB&q=Phylogenetics+means+taxa&btnG=Search&meta=

Oh dear, it's like having your favourite meal thrown up on the table in front of you at a dinner party.

If I ever have one, I'll know who not to invite.

OK OUG you will have to admit I have never been rude to you.
Yes I once ,trying to help not hurt told you about spell check.
And yes I am opposed to your beliefs and the way you present them here.
But I have refrained from being rude, you have not.
Often using insults and in a most unchristian way.
So here are my views on you, sometimes you do not seem to be in control of your thoughts.
Often you seem to think your Christianity gives you the right to be rude.
I have seen you hint at use of some vegetation not quite legal.
OK no saint myself but why tell us about it.
Some times one under god I think your self belief is miss placed.
And bloke you tread a path different than mine I like to know answers to questions, every thing man is and has been but you regard anything that may prove you are deluded as wrong.
Stay in control one under god if you can that is.
And read your Bible I did you know, followed it word for word, maybe a different one than yours?
The God I once believed in but no longer do, would not be happy with your presentation in his defense.

belly<<..I have refrained from being rude,you have not.>>oh belly..robust..but your right...i thought you could be..revealed the better man...i agree
<,Often using insults and in a most unchristian way.>>only against those who should know better..[ps im not xtian...

<<sometimes..you do not seem to be in control of your thoughts>>...in reading others posts...yes i have an open mind..and can change opinion with the right facts...so yes others affect my thinking

<<Often you seem to think your Christianity>>>im not xtian

<<gives you the right to be rude>>>nom mate..nothing to do with religion...im ignorant..but not as idiotic..as some think me to be.

<<vegetation not quite legal.<>>>more than hint i smoke yanndi[oldman weed al the time..non stop...chainsmoke..grow the herb/study genetics/law/politics...whats it to do with you?

<<why tell us about it.>>>often what i say..has no rebuttal...so the dope..gives them something to make their point with...i just slam it back to em

<<your self-belief is miss placed.>>>..mate im lower than low[scum...but i know god loves me..like he loves you...i dont believe in this meat..i simply believe in god...full-stop

And bloke you tread a path different than mine I like to know answers to questions, every thing man is and has been but

<<you regard anything that may prove you are deluded as wrong.>>..mate...i takes me lumps...i have no fear...really cant be bothered to censor my thoughts nor thinking...

its in writing..and can be quoted..via link at any time...by anyone...please provide links that prove your case...truth is often stranger than fiction...i know what i have done..you cant..except by what i chose to reveal

<<Stay in control one under god..if you can that is.>>mate im speachless...i value control..of the self/flesh..our god/given/spirit animates..

<<read your Bible..I did you know,..followed it word for word,..maybe a different one than yours?>>>i more than likely read youyrs..but no way you read mine...first was a new age/language version of new terstiment/then kingjames..

then marybakereddie/swedenborg/arcana celestia//book of morman/badinski/koran/talmud..hundreds i have read..[plus the science holy texts..19,000 books last time i counted..plus non stop radio/tv...now internet...im sort of over reading..but know what i know.and evolution is a theory/not science

It's high time OLO installed a creationist sub-forum so that this rubbish can be banished to an appropriate e-ghetto.

No-one's forced to accept the theory of evolution, or the theories of gravity and relativity for that matter. If an illusion of divine specialness is what someone's ego requires to survive, good for them. They will make no contribution to our understanding of the natural world, and in Australia their votes are too few to have any significant effect in elections (preferencing stunts by major parties notwithstanding).

Richie10, OUG, runner nor any of OLO's other creationist diehards will be convinced by observable, testable scientific data, and it's folly to try. They don't start these threads in order to gain knowledge; they're testing their faith to prove beyond doubt that no amount of factual information can shake their comfortable preconceptions.

G'day all
May as well put my two bobs worth in
More wars and deaths have occurred over religion than any plague that has ever befallen mankind

My father said noone can prove god exists noone can prove he doesn't
If we live our life according to his rules and get tothe end of life and no God big deal we have lived a good life BUT if we live our life according to his rules and there is a God we may have bought a favour or two and if God is what they reckon he is a favour or two in the hip pocket might be worth having

I said to the old man that's buttering your bread both sides, Dad didn't think that to bad you only got a greasy hand and you can always wash it

As far as the bible(the book) it is more contradictory than any other writing that I have read

All I can say is that when I tried to catch that ton of steel in Nov 1985(yeah stupid I know) there was definitely something there

Yes God is supposed to be all caring loving and all those good words BUT he is also the most vile evil entity as well

Why? God says I AM ALL THINGS you imagine your worst nightmare then multiply it one thousand times over and that is what hell is

Belief is ones own and to impose that upon another is not right unless you have solid proof that there is no argument against it

Thanks All have a good life from Dave
with or without God

The Intelligent Design concept inevitably leads to the next step - the professed Biblical age of the Earth, and you just can't have a logical argument with anybody who believes The Flintstones was some sort of documentary.

Hello Wobbles- lol!
You have said the most sensible statements I have heard in this debate.
Thanks for making me laugh out loud!
Cheers,
Sue.

Sancho, good idea about a subforum for creationists.
Then again, who would we all have to argue with if they all just preached to each other on their own forum?

Oneundergod, while I appreciate your enthusiasm for your subject, I can't help but wonder if you are maybe a little too exuberant?
No doubt others on this forum have expressed concern about you before?

wobbles no one seriously thinks the earth is only 6998 years old[except the jews...but they clearly are decieved..please restict your speculations to the trhings we actually say please

sanchos quote<<creationist diehards will be convinced by observable, testable scientific data, and it's folly to try.>>.even with the three names removed its a nonsense article...expecuially to anyone reading the evidence produced here ...lol

but mate please present...your OBSERVABLE?TESTABLE SCIENTIFIC DATA...lol..your dreaming mate...try putting some up

<<They don't start these threads in order to gain knowledge;>>>knowing the evfolutionists by and large are ignorant of the facts claimed behind their god free theory...lol

<<they're testing their faith>>.a generalisation so typical of the mindless athiest evolutioists..testing my faith i care not in the least...i come from the place where i know god is real...and am confirming my hypothesis...and so far all your so called evolution '''proof'' has been fully and scientificly rebutted where it was presented

please provide proof of the proof you claim you offered[any post]i will rebut it...for a surity..you sanchos cant prove bukis..because its not science..it cant have faulsifyables..

.because every faulsifyable..you lot raise..has been proven errant/wrong/fraud/or miss reported

...im only saying evolution..isnt what you lot..think it is...

evolution..has no scientific validity..because it has no proof...cant even replicate..this first acidental/chance..life...lol...science prooves...life comes from life...live with it..till you reproduce/it its not science

lol..<<to prove beyond doubt..that no amount of factual information can shake their comfortable preconceptions>>>..

WHY DONT YOU VALIDATE THAT INSANE CLAIM....BY PRESENTING YOUR ....lol..<<'FACTUAL INFo'>>....lol

because its you lot..that have...<<comfortable preconceptions>>.lol

..imagine..you lot claim science...
yet cant even quote it....lol...ha ha ha ha
forgive them lord..

they know not why they believe/disbelieve..as they do...lol

Dear Belly,
I will try to answer your question from the only source I have which is the bible.
In the book of genecis we read that God is the creator and he made man in his own image So we are inteligent beings with the ability to reason which we do with our soul [mind,will,and emotions].
He then warns Adam Not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for on that day you will surely die. Adam ate and what God said happened. Sin and death entered the human race. So what did God the creator, the God of Love do, remember the penalty for sin is death, He took an animal and killed it and made a covering for Adam. The life is in the blood so the blood covered Adams sin. we move on to Abraham the father of faith. At a 100 years old he sired a son out of his barren 90 year old wife. Remember "I AM" the Lord I changeth not" so can you imagine a dry barren 90 year old having a child. Impossible for man but possible with God the creator who uses the word to create. 20 years down the track God tests Abraham to see if he will still trust's his word. Take this son who I said is going to have decendants as many as the stars in the sky and sacrefice him. Abraham trusted and God Provided a goat as a subsitute for Issac. God sent his word through the prophets that he would send his son to die on the cross as a ransom to take away "not cover" the sin of the world and that includes all people not only the natural seed of Abraham. Again he supplied the sacrefice for the sheding of blood. The Law came through Moses and is a guide on how to live but does not deal with sin and death. Grace {undeserved favour} and truth came through Jesus Christ.For by Grace we are saved.

What was Gods method again "the word".All other gods require blood sacrefices so I cannot reconcile the god of religion with a God of love for Hitler sacrefised milions of PEOPLE to his god.The God of the bible wants a family not religion so again he can walk and talk in the garden in the cool of the evening with his
son. All found in the bible but you have to dig it out like precious gems. Relationship, obedience not sacrefice. The price is paid to enterinto the Holy of holies where God lives. sacrefices are finished. The price is paid. Only believe to recieve Gods' free gift of eternal life. So again I repeat your future is in your hands. Your call. Ps Belly my fathers beliefs were the same as yours. A good man who I loved dearly and still miss for I enjoyed the talks in the garden in the cool of the evening after a hard days work. Gods greatest desire is to resume that relationship with All his children.
The bible tells me that the devil is am imitater of Christ but he is negative not positave. The true God adds life All others are only counterfeit and take life. Remember if the same spirit that raised Jesus from the dead doesn;t live in you you arn't a christian at all.
Does the bible stand up to scruteny . A web site : y-jesus.com will answer that much better than I can.
Belly a post script when sin enters the presence of God sin is destroyed. Use your imagination to picture a battery, If you connect the positive terminal to the negative terminal the battery is destroyed, The greatest key I have found in understanding the bible is realising that natural laws and principles don't change.

Ritchie10, I admire your unflagging faith in the Good Book.

However, I believe that evolution was in play in the this world long before some men wrote stories they claimed are from their God in a book 2000 years ago.

Christian or not, people believe in evolution because it is a more plausable explanation than that displayed in the Good Book.
And no, I don't want any more quotes from this book!

Dear Suze,
If you are ever interested in the facts try a web site
allaboutthejourney.org. The results may surprise you.
Regards Richie

Suzie it does not look much like unflagging faith in the book. Richie has failed to address my question about the relationship between the diameter and a circle dispite claiming that he has never seen anything with his own senses which conflicts with the bible. He has also failed to address my questions regarding detail from the bible. I suspect that he knows that there is a problem and the simplest way to deal with it is by pretending it's not there.

It's not a real belief in the book, it's a determination to believe selected bits of the book whilst knowing in the back of your mind that there are problems and putting your hands over your ears and saying NaNaNaNaNa..Na when someone asks awkward questions (but feeling freeling free to attack others views at the same time).

Richie has tried to use a weak attack on evolutionary theory as vehicle to push his preferred faith. He has failed to engage with some very good points others have made.

R0bert

ROBERT<<Richie has failed to address my question about the relationship between the diameter and a circle>>...thats so typical of the evolultion debait

discussion topic is evolution...and the proof offered for their belief is circles and pye/radius/squared...in other words geomitry...lol

just about as low..as sanchos lack of evidence...after making such authoritive plausability..typically bluster and bluff...not a science thought between them[except consoling each other with..dis- belief in a theory..none of them can validate

it would be funny if it wernt so sad
pathetic really...rejecting the living loving god
who gave us all our lives...for what a man made delusion..

that if it has any true validity ...it alone applies to species not genus..

but the dummies claiming faith...lol.in science...lol..science ...yet..cant tell their genus/from their species...even decry it..is a relitive concept...

striving so hard to reject the love..self evident in gods nature/..natural creations..even claiming gods natural selectors..as their science of natural selection...lol...droll

its so sad its pathetic to watch
reading confirms...the evolving evolutionists are as mindless..as others taking their thinking direct from spin merchants/media/magazines..and other self sustaining decievers fooling only eachother

...carving out their little bit of faulse idiology...claiming their faith in scioence god heads...is different that others faith in books/or messenger..[they are all authers..selling their words..get it?

its so sad
its pathetic

not a science thought/reason,..nor reasoning...about their beliefs..between the lot of em...lol...just your bassic..no fact belief..un reasond..[unreasoning/unreasoned/unreasonable..

lol faith in the lol thunmbnail.summation...[they..yet cant definitivly quote]..

lol..science faithfull every bit as ignorant..as mindless blind faith in specific messengers/or yet other books/belief systems...how droll

Dear Robert,
Did I realy say that? I thought that I said the parts of the bible that I can test with my sences have all turned out to be right, eg everything reproduces after its own kind. When vou give me the evedence that animals reproduce diferent species I will take the time to reserch the corolation or relationship between diameter and circle. I have never behaved in the manner that you proport. I have never clamed to be Enstein that is your interpritation alone. please forgive if my take on your post is not what you imply.

Richie, you have made a claim repeatedly about testing with your senses.

"When vou give me the evedence that animals reproduce diferent species I will take the time to reserch the corolation or relationship between diameter and circle."

I've provided you with a simple test where the bible is clearly in error and which can be easily tested with senses. The bible's error in that point is not large but enough to demonstrate that it's not a science document. I also provided a reference where the bible claims that bat's are birds, something else which can be easily tested.

Proving the relationship between the diameter of a circle and it's circumference is an easy check which most of us could do in a few minutes, proof of evolution is a much more complex business.

I've given an example in response to a specific claim which you have made a couple of times. By insisting on evidence for a complex issue before you test a simple issue put as a response to your own claims you are behaving exactly as I suggested.

R0bert

roobert<..relationship between diameter and circle."

I've provided you with a simple test where the bible is clearly in error and which can be easily tested with senses.>>>as richie has replied...he uses the self same senses..yet your both divergent...looks like your spinning on about bibles/birds/boundry of circles isnt proving evolution

<<The bible's error in that point>>>that point being censes or sircles?

<<is not large but enough to demonstrate..that it's not a science document.>>..see thats not the point in dispute...its so typical of those asked to validate their THEORY...to demons=-straight..anything but proof of the theory

<<I also provided a reference>>>to a non science book...lol..[its a law book by the way...that eventually simplifies the law to love god/love neighbour...and not to take oath...mathew5;33-48..matt 23;16-26

<<where the bible claims that bat's are birds>>>as it has been explained,..thats a miss translation..<<something else which can be easily tested>> mainly because..no one claimed it science...lol.

<<proof of evolution is a much more complex business>>>interesting the use of ..'busines''..lol...see how many words you have used avoiding saying that you clearly are unable to explain...lol its too complex...yet you quoted..missquoted...the bible...out of context...it has no science weight..and..dosnt make/claim to.

<<I've given an example..in response to a specific claim..which you have made a couple of times>>...gee i must have missed it[that was your bible quotes rebutting to be science[right?]

<<By insisting on evidence..for a complex issue..before you test a simple issue..>>>was a good begining...but then you waffle on with...<<..put as a response..to your own claims>>...lol..<<you are behaving exactly as I suggested..>>..please advise where...lol

while were at it can you explain what your trying to say...and as ps..present some science.

Do a skit on Hey Hey.

Dear under one god,
I imagine your favourite scripture is " A merry heart does good like medicine, But a broken spirit dries the bones." There is no point in foolish arguments over words . If I offend you please forgive me because I don't ever want to be a stumbling block preventing anyone from a relationship with his heavenly Father.
Richie

Ritchie10 <"...give me the evedence that animals reproduce different species..."
What?
Who ever said that happened? Certainly there is plenty of evidence that animals EVOLVE into more advanced animals as climate and environmental conditions change eg Mammoths into Elephants.

I haven't ever heard of one animal reproducing another different animal as such. Has anyone else?

On the other hand, the bible expects us to believe that 2 animals of each species on earth sailed on the ark with Noah and his family during the great flood, and then must have had incestuous sex with their progeny to produce all the animals to populate the earth when it dried out?

Amazingly, we are expected to believe there was not massive amounts of deformed animals produced in this manner.

However,we have plenty of examples in our history, and even today, where inbreeding of animals cause untold problems.
Why not on the ark?

from
http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/images/v26/i1/wright_feather2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/planes.asp&usg=__NZBdIC0odfacAGGH9JwCQjZmfZY=&h=131&w=200&sz=26&hl=en&start=51&sig2=7W32aCgvSY5j6Rq6x6A9OQ&tbnid=mXMuzSMj32lK9M:&tbnh=68&tbnw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfossil%2Bfeather%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DMEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB%26sa%3DN%26start%3D36&ei=gErPSpzBNZXe7APnuZj3AQ

Conclusions
Even though fossil impressions..of feathers..are abundant in the fossil record,..and much has been written..speculating on how scale-to-feather/evolution..could have..occurred,..not a shred of fossil or other evidence..has ever been found to support/the scale-to-feather evolution theory.

The evidence supports Klotz’s early conclusion..that the..‘origin of feathers is still a real problem’..for Darwinism,..and all contemporary theories..of feather origin..are hypothetical ideas that..‘can only be characterized as judicious speculation’.

Although much speculation and major disagreements exist on how feathers..‘could have’..evolved,..all existing theories are..‘just-so stories’,..unsupported by fossil or historical evidence.

The profound evolutionary enigma of feathers noted by Darwin..and Heilmann..remains,..even today.

The lack of evidence for feather evolution is not only a major problem for Darwinism,..but the design and function of feathers provides evidence for both intelligent design and irreducible complexity...Flight and feathers are indeed a..‘miracle’...Feather evolution is related to the question of bird evolution.

Periodically,..new bird fossils are found,..but most of them have been of little or no use..as evidence of bird evolution,..and the few claimed examples typically generate much debate.

For instance,..Feduccia concluded that one recent find,..known as Apsaravis,..contributes little..‘..to our understanding of avian evolution,..and its lack of a clear relationship ..ith any kind of modern bird makes its significance ambiguous'.

If Apsaravis is not related to any modern ornithurine,..how can it tell us anything important about the evolutionary questions raised by [its discoverers] Norell and Clarke?’79

Conclusions on these finds will require much more study,..and yet already have produced much debate and controversy.

In conclusion,..we agree with Brush:..‘Uncountable numbers of words have been written in attempts to..reconstruct the primitive feather and explain why feathers evolved’..So far,..all of these attempts have not only failed,..

but also have led to the conclusion that how feathers..‘arose initially,..presumably from reptilian scales,..defies analysis’.

Dear Suze,
No matter how species were propighated inbreedingh took place and you are very nieve if you think otherwise. In cattle inbreeding was practiced last centuary to identify and get rid of inferior lines in the breed. Outcrossing is a much less harsh way to breed as when inferior animals show up in inbreeding the WHOLE line is culled. The Bull monkey was used over his daughters and grandaughters to fix the type in santa gertrudus breed. Monkey was the foundation sire of the breed.
Richie

hey ritchie..[i never recalled that one]...no im more into jesus's stuff..tares/wheat/love god by loving neighbour..emmanuel[god with-in]

and dont sweat about me..[and pop]...dad loves us all equally,
sure it could get annoying/or a worry for some.
.but dad loves everyone..[even them pesky a'thiest loyalists of evolving faith/cvhance..who insult/fear/dread..that they cannot concieve...thats all living/all loving..light sustaining life/logic/love

sussieonline quote<<<I ..haven't ever heard of one animal..reproducing another..different animal as such...Has anyone else?>>>thats sort of my point dear/...lol...

remember your on the side/..of apes breed humans...that fish produced mammals...that fish changed genus..from cold blood..into warm blood..scales into fur..fur into feathers..teeth into beaks...

come-on its your theory...your the one claiming..<<..one animal..genus>..reproducing another/..different animal..genus....<<as such...Has anyone else?>>..not even science has recorded nor observed it to happen..[or have happend....see its the..'THEORY..of evolution...get it...THEORY...


life makes life..thats NOT..what your saying...
birds breed birds/..apes breed apes/..fish/breed/fish/..spiders breed spider...its your theory.;.scaley/gilled..fish breed..land lizards with lungs..[and shoulderblades/pelvisbones feet/hooves...etc]..not me

http://dinosaurs.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&zTi=1&sdn=dinosaurs&cdn=education&tm=14&gps=84_704_1259_654&f=00&tt=14&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/dinosaur/supertree.html

here is a dinosaur tree..please advise how..that fish creature..that became mamal...became dinosaur/..became monkey became you..ie..how fish evolved..evolved into dinosaurs/..spiders/snakes lizards..frogs etc...hoe doth the din0saw tree..joins into it..all

but thats ok ..you lot dont have a clue...dosn't dino extinction...sort of limit the time for the ape to become man,..timming is everything..

http://www.answersingenesis.org/onlinestore/gateway.asp?PageType=detail&UID=10-3-014

how about the feather thing..[any of you read it...all..[thought not]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0315_060315_dinosaur.html?source=rss
Scaly New Dinosaur Creates Flap Over Feathers' Evolution

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0315_060315_dinosaur_2.html
Chiappe says the new fossil didn't seem to bear any physical evidence of feathers, missing or not.

"You could expect to see follicle..[in the skin],..small pits that contain feather buds...We don't see them in Juravenator,"..Chiappe said.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7082/full/nature04579.html
The absence of feathers or feather-like structures in a fossil phylogenetically nested within feathered theropods5,..indicates that the evolution of these integumentary structures might be more complex than previously thought.

Scaly Dino Find Complicates Feather Evolution
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scaly-dino-find-complicat

http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=55F34354-2B35-221B-676E19DEFD1A3F51
The origin of feathers..is a specific instance..of the much more general question..of the origin of evolutionary novelties..structures that have no clear antecedents..in ancestral animals and no clear related structures..(homologues)..in contemporary relatives.

Although evolutionary..theory..provides a robust explanation.for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts,...it does not yet..give as much guidance for understanding the emergence..of entirely new structures,..including digits,..limbs,..eyes and feathers.


but..
http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://c0116801.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/090926Dino2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://richarddawkins.net/article,4368,n,n&usg=__Q7uLmHRR2MKzu9TrgHccV48x2c8=&h=230&w=350&sz=70&hl=en&start=129&sig2=lZ4lqkG2iE8a_H6NS662uQ&tbnid=UXNwxJO-Yt7R1M:&tbnh=79&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfossil%2Bfeather%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DMEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB%26sa%3DN%26start%3D126&ei=fsTPSuC9CJri7AP8rK33AQ

DORKINS reports it confirms feathered dinosaurs...lol
guess which article he quoted
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/24/dinosaur-fossil-discovery-china

loll word for word[..cutting off the last bit...lol
does give an imaginative deception[picture...of the non bird anyhow...droll...lol

or try here..with the dorkins..going head to head with a creationist...lol...looks like he got caught..with his hand,..in/on the cookie box...evolution is for those...with a mind full of feathers..lol

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=265153670&blogId=505887230

ok sancho's...
will see your link
and raise my own

Ancient feathered animal challenges dinosaur-bird link
http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://osu.orst.edu/dept/ncs/photos/longis.jpg&imgrefurl=http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Jun00/birds.htm&usg=__ZpOY8vPAnPVItTjOVm4NKJ9Qces=&h=937&w=1296&sz=778&hl=en&start=73&sig2=7tpOMMIu9pBFVlLw00X-eQ&tbnid=qX1rowzcJdvq2M:&tbnh=108&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfossil%2Bfeather%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DMEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB%26sa%3DN%26start%3D72&ei=pFvPSvHrGZaY6gOXjPXtAQ

and raise these other isues..[i left off last nights search

dino feathers are no such thing

http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.amnh.org/learn/pd/dinos/gallery/images/W3G_1_sinosaur.jpg&imgrefurl=http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/05/dinosaur-feathers-are-no-such-thing.html&usg=__ezWWf6Ga9znMDaxXGCBQnHUFluQ=&h=1128&w=580&sz=214&hl=en&start=96&sig2=qfiztBMN-gNA0es2ahtB_g&tbnid=zaZhVdrb9j6BFM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=77&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfossil%2Bfeather%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DMEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB%26sa%3DN%26start%3D90&ei=q13PSsGSMpPQ6gOUq7zxAQ

dorkins plagerised quote[and source link]

http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://c0116801.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/090926Dino2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://richarddawkins.net/article,4368,n,n&usg=__Q7uLmHRR2MKzu9TrgHccV48x2c8=&h=230&w=350&sz=70&hl=en&start=128&sig2=mTWPrgh-FNIdCexrz7E3iA&tbnid=UXNwxJO-Yt7R1M:&tbnh=79&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfossil%2Bfeather%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DMEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB%26sa%3DN%26start%3D126&ei=7GPPSrnqLZvo7APqruH6AQ

the desperate search for feathers
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/05/23/science-dinosaur-feather.html

an evolution holy book
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=mMDFQ32oMI8C&pg=RA1-PA76&lpg=RA1-PA76&dq=feathered+dinosaurs+rebutted&source=bl&ots=sET_lIO3uN&sig=4w-6leaWR59LLeD1IMdiVcO4Fcw&hl=en&ei=MH7QSpH-LYOG6wPk8uHuAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CB0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

its sad that those who claim evolutions/faithlessness in the godhead concept...never read darwins works

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1583&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

sorry about the size of the links

dear One under God,
Is it a relative of darwin's writing Obama's Health Care bills. Think of all the climate change with long windedness.