The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

MrPudding wrote: »

Ah, so "kinds" make as much sense as the rest of the rubbish they spout then...

MrP

Pretty much, it's basically the Chewbacca defence.

man of faith

monosharp wrote: »

Wow I just realised.

Darwin was 73 years old when he died. My copy of the origin of species is about 643 pages long and it was published 150 years ago.

643 - 150 is 500 minus 73 is 420. 420 divided by 10 is 42.

42 = The meaning of life

Thats absolutely amazing. :eek:

My intention is not to enter a long winded sarcastic disucussion. I'm not here to hurt your pride or make you look like a fool.
You must be able to concede though that this numerical phenomena in the Bible is truly amazing, and very far from the sarcastic parallel that you have put forward in some attempt to make me look like an idiot.

You atheists have a very cynical, mean condescending attitude towards us. We Christians are simply amazed by the incredible wisdom of the Bible and some of us are wise enough to concede just how much we don't know so we believe that God knows all - He is omniscient. My mind is in awe of the incredible complexity of life that is all around us and I won't put my faith in some mans theory from 150 years ago. I would much prefer to put my trust in God, when you consider the fact that the code of our dna stretches from here to the moon! literally!

MrPudding

man of faith wrote: »

You must be able to concede though that this numerical phenomena in the Bible is truly amazing, and very far from the sarcastic parallel that you have put forward in some attempt to make me look like an idiot.

I really don't think he was trying to make you look like an idiot. Patterns are every where and they don't always mean something.

MrP

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

My intention is not to enter a long winded sarcastic disucussion. I'm not here to hurt your pride or make you look like a fool.
You must be able to concede though that this numerical phenomena in the Bible is truly amazing, and very far from the sarcastic parallel that you have put forward in some attempt to make me look like an idiot.

We must concede nothing of the sort. As PDN pointed out, the division of the Bible into Chapters did not take place until around 1200AD, and the verses were not introduced until 1551. So anyone reading significance into the arrangements of chapters and verses are constructing arguments on man made traditions rather than the Word of God.

man of faith wrote: »

You atheists have a very cynical, mean condescending attitude towards us. We Christians are simply amazed by the incredible wisdom of the Bible and some of us are wise enough to concede just how much we don't know so we believe that God knows all - He is omniscient. My mind is in awe of the incredible complexity of life that is all around us and I won't put my faith in some mans theory from 150 years ago. I would much prefer to put my trust in God, when you consider the fact that the code of our dna stretches from here to the moon! literally!

The code of our DNA could actually fit onto a single CD. I'm all for putting my faith in God, if there is any being that is deserving of faith it's the omniscient creator of the universe, however that does not automatically translate to putting faith in the bible or Jesus any more than it translates into putting faith in the Qu'ran or Mohammed. Until the validity of either book is conclusively proven (or any of the other thousands of religions for that matter) there is every likelihood that instead of putting your faith in "some mans theory from 150 years ago" that is supported by mountains of evidence, you are putting your faith in "some mans story from 2000 years ago" who simply claimed to be speaking for the omniscient creator of the universe. All religions claim to be doing so and they can't all be right but they can all be wrong.

Rest assured the observable fact of evolution which is described by the scientific theory of the same name, more than accounts for the complexity in our DNA. Also you do realise that gravity is also "some mans theory" and evolution is supported with as much evidence as it?

Zombrex

MrPudding wrote: »

Ah, so "kinds" make as much sense as the rest of the rubbish they spout then...

MrP

Pretty much

Because a "kind" has never been defined properly it allows Creationists to claim that scientists can't show that kinds don't effect evolution.

Wolfsbane says nonsense such as no one has ever observed a "fly" evolve into something other than a "fly", what ever the heck that means (how does one define a "not fly"?) The apparent conclusion Wolfsbane draws from this is that there is a "fly" kind and that things can't evolve outside of it. Ask him to define the biological characteristics of a "fly" and he won't, because as soon as he does he risks biologists finding an example where a species of fly evolved into another species that no longer falls into the classification Wolfsbane would use to classify a "fly", thus jumping the kind barrier.

All of which is true, we can't show that kinds aren't effecting evolution because no one has bothered to define a kind in the first place. Without a definition of what makes one species one "kind" and another species a different kind no biologist can say anything about kinds.

At the moment "kind" is just a slightly dodgy reading of the Bible, assuming that there exists a classification in nature of "kinds" simply because Creationists can't figure out a way to get all species on to the Ark ("two of every kind of animal").

No one can demonstrate my invisible unicorn isn't making the stars twinkle either.

Ignorance is bliss as they say. It is in the Creationist's interest to keep things vague and fuzzy because then they cannot be demonstrated wrong. The exact opposite of science

monosharp

man of faith wrote: »

My intention is not to enter a long winded sarcastic disucussion. I'm not here to hurt your pride or make you look like a fool.

Well so far you've made me laugh. Was that your intention ?

You must be able to concede though that this numerical phenomena in the Bible is truly amazing, and very far from the sarcastic parallel that you have put forward in some attempt to make me look like an idiot.

2 points.

1. As PDN already pointed out to you, this 'numerical phenomena' is completely dependent on what language your reading the Bible in, what version of the Bible as well as decisions made by the printer of that Bible in that particular language and for that particular version as well as the addition of chapters and verses in the 13th and 16th century respectively.

i.e > This is a completely man-made phenomena which only occurs in that particular type of bible in that particular language.

2. Regardless of all the above, the numbers are meaningless anyways. You might as well make up some mathematical nonsense using the number 330 million for Hinduism.

You atheists have a very cynical, mean condescending attitude towards us.

Well I'd hope most Christians I know, including some here, would not think that about me because I have a lot of respect for religious people of many faiths.

Of course if by 'us' you mean fundamentalists then yes, yes I do.

We Christians are simply amazed by the incredible wisdom of the Bible and some of us are wise enough to concede just how much we don't know so we believe that God knows all - He is omniscient.

Hooray!

My mind is in awe of the incredible complexity of life that is all around us and I won't put my faith in some mans theory from 150 years ago. I would much prefer to put my trust in God, when you consider the fact that the code of our dna stretches from here to the moon! literally!

Oh the irony.

You use a scientific discovery to defend a stance saying we shouldn't trust science. :pac:

I think your in here to have a laugh.

monosharp

Wicknight wrote: »

Ignorance is bliss as they say. It is in the Creationist's interest to keep things vague and fuzzy because then they cannot be demonstrated wrong. The exact opposite of science

So JC/Wolfsbane howabout giving us a definition of a 'kind' ?

Give us a biological definition of a 'fly'.

man of faith

This numerical phenomenon is one of many. Google Bible Numerics!

If what you are alleging is true, and this was all somehow clevery and miraculously contrived by man when the Bible was arranged into chapters and verses, then tell me more about who this man is. He must have been some incredible genius - he would make Albert Einstein look like a moron! LOL

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

This numerical phenomenon is one of many. Google Bible Numerics!

If what you are alleging is true, and this was all somehow clevery and miraculously contrived by man when the Bible was arranged into chapters and verses, then tell me more about who this man is. He must have been some incredible genius - he would make Albert Einstein look like a moron! LOL

There's nothing clever and miraculous about it, it's a coincidence. If someone sets out determined to find a numerical pattern in the frequency with which a dog licks its own ass he will eventually find one and he will in all likelihood declare it to be a miracle of whatever religion he happens to follow. The fact that the bible was not compiled in this form until 1550 and that its format depends on the version you're reading and the language you're reading it in proves it to be a coincidence. A german person 600 years ago would not find any of the supposed patterns you're talking about

Zombrex

man of faith wrote: »

This numerical phenomenon is one of many. Google Bible Numerics!

If what you are alleging is true, and this was all somehow clevery and miraculously contrived by man when the Bible was arranged into chapters and verses, then tell me more about who this man is. He must have been some incredible genius - he would make Albert Einstein look like a moron! LOL

That isn't what they are saying. They are saying that if you take any book that is large enough you can find patterns all over the place because humans will find patterns in anything.

When all the talk about the Bible Code and that sort of stuff become popular in the early 90s people took the algorithms and applied them to thinks like the complete works of Shakespeare, the Times achieves, and found patterns all over the place there as a well.

Now it could be that there is some force putting patterns into all large books, but a more likely explanation is that these are just random patterns that you can find all over the place, that are given meaning by us because we have brains that easily associate patterns.

If God was actually going to put a hidden pattern into the Bible do you not think he would do so in the original documents, not documents created hundreds of years later.

man of faith

Ok, then if its all just coincidence, ask a statistician to calculate all the known numerical phenomena of The Bible against known mathematical laws of probability.

They actually did this concerning the probability of Jesus fullfilling all the pre prophesied story board of his life in the old testament. Seeing as Jesus fullfilled all the prophecies, even down to the betrayal for thirty pieces of silver, the number they came up with after the calculation was some astronomically low number for it to be a coincedence. Have a read if your interested:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/radio034.htm

and

http://www.bprc.org/topics/fulfill.html

Zombrex

monosharp wrote: »

So JC/Wolfsbane howabout giving us a definition of a 'kind' ?

Give us a biological definition of a 'fly'.

that would certainly be a first step, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

man of faith

If you are taking an atheistic stand because you are choosing to believe what you want to believe, rather than believing what is because you are too afraid to be confronted with truth, then maybe you should just keep your head buried in the sand. After all, ignorance is bliss as they say.

Morbert

man of faith wrote: »

Ok, then if its all just coincidence, ask a statistician to calculate all the known numerical phenomena of The Bible against known mathematical laws of probability.

They actually did this concerning the probability of Jesus fullfilling all the pre prophesied story board of his life in the old testament. Seeing as Jesus fullfilled all the prophecies, even down to the betrayal for thirty pieces of silver, the number they came up with after the calculation was some astronomically low number for it to be a coincedence. Have a read if your interested:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/radio034.htm

and

http://www.bprc.org/topics/fulfill.html

This retrofitting isn't hard. The true test is using such statistical methods to rigorously predict future events.

If you are taking an atheistic stand because you are choosing to believe what you want to believe, rather than believing what is because you are too afraid to be confronted with truth, then maybe you should just keep your head buried in the sand. After all, ignorance is bliss as they say.

Then what is the meaning behind the phrase "The Good News"?

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

Ok, then if its all just coincidence, ask a statistician to calculate all the known numerical phenomena of The Bible against known mathematical laws of probability.

They actually did this concerning the probability of Jesus fullfilling all the pre prophesied story board of his life in the old testament. Seeing as Jesus fullfilled all the prophecies, even down to the betrayal for thirty pieces of silver, the number they came up with after the calculation was some astronomically low number for it to be a coincedence. Have a read if your interested:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/radio034.htm

and

http://www.bprc.org/topics/fulfill.html

You've just made one of the most common errors that believers make when talking to non-believers, you have tried to use the bible to prove the bible. You have stated "Seeing as Jesus fullfilled all the prophecies" as if that is an accepted fact, but all we know for sure is that someone wrote down in the bible that a man called Jesus fulfilled these prophecies. I don't even know that Jesus existed, much less that he actually fulfilled the prophecies as described. If I accepted the narrative of the bible as proof, I'd already be a believer.

Also the prophecies were known in the time of Jesus. If you read a prophecy and then set about carrying it out, that's not miraculous

Turtwig

man of faith wrote: »

If you are taking an atheistic stand because you are choosing to believe what you want to believe, rather than believing what is because you are too afraid to be confronted with truth, then maybe you should just keep your head buried in the sand. After all, ignorance is bliss as they say.

You're failing to understand atheism,

Atheism isn't a belief stance; it's a lack of regarding theistic belief. (I don't call you a-Santa Claus, or a Agiants, or AFianna Fail) Evolution is something for which there is so much evidence that I'd need an earth like planet to fit it all on. Might I remind you though that most theists have no problem accepting evolution - after all, the bible is a source of spiritual and moral guides, not a scientific one.

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

If you are taking an atheistic stand because you are choosing to believe what you want to believe, rather than believing what is because you are too afraid to be confronted with truth, then maybe you should just keep your head buried in the sand. After all, ignorance is bliss as they say.

I'm not afraid of anything here mate. My stance is that instead of having eternal bliss I will rot in the ground when I die and by taking this stance I am risking eternal torture in hell (as you're risking it in muslim hell but let's forget that for the moment). If anything this stance is the one I should be afraid of, I don't see what's so "scary" about accepting that there's an omnipotent being who loves me watching out for me, I just don't think it's at all likely.

man of faith

Simple, John 3:16 - google it.

My prayer is that all you atheists will come to realise the love that God does have for all of you. I don't want to antagonise any of you. You are all very valuable to God, whether you believe in His existence or not.

Hell is a real place and God desperately doesn't want you to go there. He didn't create it for you, He created you to spend eternity with Him because He so desperately loves all of you.

I know that you will all ridicule me, but I don't care. Your salvation is at stake and that's far more important than my pride. Write me off, I don't care. Hopefully by our conversations, something I say may penetrate your brick walls of so called reason.

Zombrex

man of faith wrote: »

Ok, then if its all just coincidence, ask a statistician to calculate all the known numerical phenomena of The Bible against known mathematical laws of probability.

They actually did this concerning the probability of Jesus fullfilling all the pre prophesied story board of his life in the old testament. Seeing as Jesus fullfilled all the prophecies, even down to the betrayal for thirty pieces of silver, the number they came up with after the calculation was some astronomically low number for it to be a coincedence. Have a read if your interested:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/radio034.htm

and

http://www.bprc.org/topics/fulfill.html

Ok, you sort of jumped to a new topic there.

As for Jesus fulfilling prophecies, it is sort of easy to fulfil prophecies once you know what ones you have to fulfil, isn't it.

Interestingly if you talk to Jews they will tell you that Jesus "fulfilled" some of the prophecies wrong, which to me would seem odd. Of course a Christian may say that it is in fact the Jews who are wrong.

Turtwig

man of faith wrote: »

I know that you will all ridicule me, but I don't care. Your salvation is at stake and that's far more important than my pride. Write me off, I don't care. Hopefully by our conversations, something I say may penetrate your brick walls of so called reason.

Stop being negative:p

No one is ridiculing you, I understand your desire to get me to believe in God and I appreciate it that you care so much about me. However, you are not going to convince me by repeating stuff I already don't belief, you're gonna have to offer something new for me to reconsider. Or at the very least rephrase from a seemingly different angle until I understand.

Btw, welcome to the forum, hopefully we'll start to penetrate your brick wall a little too:P. Cordial and logical debates are accepted at anytime,

Malt:D

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

Simple, John 3:16 - google it.

Yes a book tells me that if I believe this book I will be saved. Fantastic! The Qu'ran tells me the same thing.

man of faith wrote: »

My prayer is that all you atheists will come to realise the love that God does have for all of you. I don't want to antagonise any of you. You are all very valuable to God, whether you believe in His existence or not.

Hell is a real place and God desperately doesn't want you to go there. He didn't create it for you, He created you to spend eternity with Him because He so desperately loves all of you.

I know that you will all ridicule me, but I don't care. Your salvation is at stake and that's far more important than my pride. Write me off, I don't care. Hopefully by our conversations, something I say may penetrate your brick walls of so called reason.

That's it, when you can't argue any more threaten us with hell. If god truly didn't want me to go to hell he would provide proof that he exists. Believing in something despite a lack of evidence is not a virtue and believing in something despite a lack of evidence because it threatens you with eternal torture if you don't is even less of a virtue. Your salvation is just as much at stake as ours if it turns out the muslims are right so before you come preaching to us you should check out the claims of every religion in the world and make sure that their threats of torture for non-belief are all baseless

robindch

man of faith wrote: »

I don't want to antagonise any of you.

Don't worry -- us atheists and agnostics don't get upset by debate

man of faith wrote: »

I know that you will all ridicule me, but I don't care. Your salvation is at stake and that's far more important than my pride. Write me off, I don't care. Hopefully by our conversations, something I say may penetrate your brick walls of so called reason.

Instead of trying to top yourself in an operatic manner, why not ask a few questions, throw out a few ideas, and see how we get along?

man of faith

Off-topic anti-Muslim rant edited out by moderator.

.... God is not threatening hell to anyone. This is where hardline atheists get it completely wrong. The whole central message of the Bible is how He sent His Son Jesus to rescue all of mankind that is heading to hell. If sending His Son to die a gruesome death is not proof enough that God does not wish for any human being to go to hell, then I don't know what is. This is the most extreme sacrifice and is a perfect expression of His love for us. People go there because of the fall where Adam chose to obey Satan. Satan gained dominion over the soul of man by deceiving them and because we are of Adam's seed, the curse carries onto us when we are born into this earth. God gave you a free will. You can reject His Son if you so choose, but just remember that God will do everything in His power to convince you of this truth right up until the day you die. If God were to overide your will and just let you into heaven without allowing you to exercise free will, then He would be violating the very right He gave you when He created you. This would make him a liar - a complete contradiction to the truth that He represents.

You are under no obligation to accept anything the Bible says. This I suppose would be all complete nonsense to you if you don't believe it.
As I said before, I don't care if you laugh at all of this as complete rubbish. As long as you do read it, then as far as I am concerned, my mission here is a success. My conscience is clear, and your blood is not on my hands, as I am satisfied that I have told you the truth. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant.

Turtwig

man of faith wrote: »

Off-topic anti-Muslim rant edited out by moderator.

.... God is not threatening hell to anyone. This is where hardline atheists get it completely wrong. The whole central message of the Bible is how He sent His Son Jesus to rescue all of mankind that is heading to hell. If sending His Son to die a gruesome death is not proof enough that God does not wish for any human being to go to hell, then I don't know what is. This is the most extreme sacrifice and is a perfect expression of His love for us. People go there because of the fall where Adam chose to obey Satan. Satan gained dominion over the soul of man by deceiving them and because we are of Adam's seed, the curse carries onto us when we are born into this earth. God gave you a free will. You can reject His Son if you so choose, but just remember that God will do everything in His power to convince you of this truth right up until the day you die. If God were to overide your will and just let you into heaven without allowing you to exercise free will, then He would be violating the very right He gave you when He created you. This would make him a liar - a complete contradiction to the truth that He represents.

You are under no obligation to accept anything the Bible says. This I suppose would be all complete nonsense to you if you don't believe it.
As I said before, I don't care if you laugh at all of this as complete rubbish. As long as you do read it, then as far as I am concerned, my mission here is a success. My conscience is clear, and your blood is not on my hands, as I am satisfied that I have told you the truth. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant.

Firstly, I do not believe a God created me the way you claimed. Secondly, you may be convinced by God's offerings but I remain ardently skeptical because there have been numerous claims made throughout humanity of similar stories. Maybe there are all converging on the one truth, or maybe there are all entirely wrong derivatives of one another. Fact is, I do not know, and spouting that Jesus is God's act of saving us isn't going to convince me. I do not for one second deny that Jesus was remarkable philosopher/teacher but I do not know whether he was a deity or not and frankly I don't believe that He was.

I am not laughing at you, but I do find your negativity disturbing. We respect your beliefs and all that, but I struggle to see how you are denying evolution here???

man of faith

To a muslim its not anti muslim, its something they are proud of. Why don't you ask one.

I speak nothing other than the truth.

I suppose that I am glad that you do interpret that as anti muslim. The shocking reality is that it is the truth. I am not against them, I want them to realise that God loves them and sent His Son to die for them, even though they would love to see me executed.

Turtwig

man of faith wrote: »

To a muslim its not anti muslim, its something they are proud of. Why don't you ask one.

I speak nothing other than the truth.

I suppose that I am glad that you do interpret that as anti muslim. The shocking reality is that it is the truth. I am not against them, I want them to realise that God loves them and sent His Son to die for them, even though they would love to see me executed.

Ok I thought I'd deleted that:o
*Apologies Mods*

Pop over to the Islam forum and ask them, I have no doubt they'll be a little ticked off that you think so poorly of them, your faith and their faith are analogous to blood relatives.

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

God is not threatening hell to anyone. This is where hardline atheists get it completely wrong. The whole central message of the Bible is how He sent His Son Jesus to rescue all of mankind that is heading to hell. If sending His Son to die a gruesome death is not proof enough that God does not wish for any human being to go to hell, then I don't know what is.

Providing some kind of hard evidence that this event actually happened would be a start. As would explaining all those other people who sacrificed for their particular religion. Jesus does not have a monopoly on suffering for his belief.

man of faith wrote: »

People go there because of the fall where Adam chose to obey Satan. Satan gained dominion over the soul of man by deceiving them and because we are of Adam's seed, the curse carries onto us when we are born into this earth. God gave you a free will. You can reject His Son if you so choose, but just remember that God will do everything in His power to convince you of this truth right up until the day you die.

Except of course provide proof that the stories in the bible are true and the stories in every other holy book are false. That's not in his power no?

man of faith wrote: »

If God were to overide your will and just let you into heaven without allowing you to exercise free will, then He would be violating the very right He gave you when He created you. This would make him a liar - a complete contradiction to the truth that He represents.

Believing something is not a free will choice. I cannot force myself to believe something that I do not find convincing, the best I can do is behave as if I do and lie to myself. If somebody came out and told me that saving my soul was contingent on believing that the earth is flat I would go to hell and there is absolutely nothing I could do about it because I know the earth is not flat and the threat of eternal torture does not erase that knowledge from my mind. And it's the same with evolution. Some people tell you that you must reject evolution to save your soul but this threat does not change the fact that evolution has been conclusively proven. It just leads to a lot of people who will define black as white as long as it gives them the tiniest shred of justification they need to allow themselves to doubt evolution.

man of faith wrote: »

You are under no obligation to accept anything the Bible says.

I am under no obligation to accept what the bible says in the same way as a Guantanemo Bay detainee is under no obligation to give his torturers the information they want. Absolutely he can keep his mouth shut as long as he wants, he has the free will to make that choice, but the torture will continue until he tells them what they want to know. "Believe in Jesus or burn for eternity" is not a choice any more than "tell us what we want to know or we'll continue torturing you". Both are threats that a benevolent loving being would not make. If torturing someone for the crime of not being able to bring themselves to find something convincing is the christian definition of perfect morality I'll stick with my imperfect definition thank you very much

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yeah you've missed it. A "kind" is something like a dog or a fly or or horse. You can get different species of dog but apparently there's a barrier that prevents what we call a dog changing to something that would not be called a dog anymore. We've tried to explain that there are not two "kinds" of DNA and that the DNA that makes something a "dog" is variable in exactly the same way as the DNA that differentiates different species of dog but all we're getting in response is an assertion that there is a barrier of some kind to prevent this happening, presumably a part of the DNA strand which is fixed and not subject to genetic mutation. We haven't been told which part of the DNA strand this is, which characteristics are defined by this part of the strand that makes a "dog" a "dog" or anything else about the nature of this supposed barrier, just that it's there and that it prevents macro-evolution somehow.

Also, apparently the burden of proof is on us to prove that this barrier is not there even though it's so vaguely defined that we can't even know what it's supposed to be much less prove that it doesn't exist. The complete lack of evidence for any such barrier is completely irrelevant, someone has claimed it's there so it seems it's up to us to prove it's not

It's up to you to show either the fly evolving into a non-fly over many generations by observation or an unbroken fossil sequence. All you provide are fossils from different places and a story that says they are a family tree. No proof - just assertions.

But this article should help clarify my crude efforts at articulating the scientific case for limited variation:
Variation, information and the created kind
by Dr Carl Wieland
http://creation.com/variation-information-and-the-created-kind

man of faith

Yes they believe that the Covenant God made with Abraham was to carry on through his son Ishmael, of whom they are descendants of. The Christians and Jews recognise Isaac as the son for the Covenant of promise to be instituted. This Covenant outlined the land of Israel as the covenant land, which is why we now have Iran wanting to nuke the Jews and the Palestinians fighting the Jews. Islam will never recognise the Jewish state of Israel. They gave Borack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in trying to make the Palestinians and the Jews co-exist in the land of Israel, but the reality is that there will never be peace as long as Israel exists. Palestinians are taught from day one to never recognise the Jewish State of Israel. The Iranian's (extreme Islamics) have vowed to nuke Israel off the map, and are currently having to fess up about a 2nd hidden nuclear plant. Thank God that they are now facing sanctions. Finally, the free world is standing up and doing all that is within their power to diffuse world war 3.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

It's up to you to show either the fly evolving into a non-fly over many generations by observation or an unbroken fossil sequence. All you provide are fossils from different places and a story that says they are a family tree. No proof - just assertions.

As I already said, fossils are an unnecessary bonus, not the basis for the theory of evolution. They are extremely rare and a lack of a fossil from a particular stage means nothing other than a fossil was not created. The best proof of common descent is built right into our DNA. You are asking for a proof based on a misunderstanding of evolution.

And anyway, until you give a definition of "fly" and "non-fly" it's very difficult to give you what you're looking for. Do you want a fossil from every single generation from the very first life right up to the present day?

And if that could be provided, would that be enough for you or would you still say that god created each of these life forms as they were?

wolfsbane wrote: »

But this article should help clarify my crude efforts at articulating the scientific case for limited variation:
Variation, information and the created kind
by Dr Carl Wieland
http://creation.com/variation-information-and-the-created-kind

In all honesty wolfsbane I'm not going to read that. I want you to explain it to me as you understand it so I can point out where you have misunderstood the evolutionary process. There is no scientific case for limited variation, none whatsoever.