to stillajwxelder, NewChapter and jonathanH:
What you are all exhibiting is how offended people become when something SEEMS to challenge their beliefs, even when it is not intended.
I thought I made it quite clear that I was not attempting to refute evolution nor claim that it is false. I'm saying that people who vehemently defend it, or just believe it, believe it on faith. You believe what someone else has written about it or reports of what has been performed in laboratories or in the field. Not to mention there is a lot of opposing arguments to everything you have rebutted here.
I've worked for nuclear scientists all of my adult life and I know that they like to be right just as much as you do. None of you have offered any kind of proof. To say that science cannot be proved is utter nonsense. I consider observation to be proof, but that's me. But what is true is that just because something is proved to me does not prove it to anyone else. If I tell someone that something has been proved, and they believe it, they are believing it on faith, not evidence nor proof. That's my point.
Macro-evolution may be true, but stillajwxelder, what evidence are you talking about? Give me just one. The fact that anthropologists have found the skeletal bones of homo sapiens that are hundreds of thousands of years old? That does not provide evidence of evolution. It proves that there were species that are now extinct, nothing more. There are trillions of species on earth today. Yet scientists claim that more species have become extinct than exist.
In fact, I have not argued evidence, I've presented links to what scientists and archeologists say. I don't know that the first cities were built in Mesopotamia. All I know is that the people who study the history of civilization claim that that's where it all began. If I say I believe it, I'm believing it on faith. Belief in God is faith. Belief in evolution is faith.
NewChapter:
I'm very familiar with the Code of Hammurabi. I agree that it has remarkable similarities to the laws of the Israelites. It's my opinion that it was very likely an influence on the Mosaic laws and culture, but that's an opinion.
Again, it is amusing to me that people here interpreted my civilization links as intending to refute evolution. All I said is that in looking and expecting to find proof or at least strong circumstantial evidence, I have not found one proof of observed transition from one creature kind to another; only hypotheses. Of course that does not disprove the hypotheses. But what I am seeing proof of is that you people believe it with certainty--on faith. There are numerous high-ranking scientists who disagree with you. That's not me, that's them. I'm neither pro nor con on the issue, because I don't care if evolution is true. Can you comprehend that?
My reference to the sudden appearance of what we call "civilization" in a relatively short period of time was that it has an interesting relevance to the biblical account, just like the Hammurabi has an interesting relevance to the Israelites. Archeologists claim that civilization and the building of cities began in Mesopotamia, and so does Genesis. Interesting. As to evolution, Gould's punctuated equilibrium does disagree with Darwin's in that Darwin's theory promotes gradual evolution and the PE theory promotes sudden appearance of new species. Gould claimed he did not dispute Darwin's theory of evolution, but reason shows that there is a difference in their theories. If Gould's theory that it could occur even "from a single pair," then that has interesting implications for an original pair of what we call homo sapiens sapiens.
Can you tell me who anthropoligists claim are our immediate human ancestors, the ones who would have been the hunters/gatherers who became the city builders in Mesopotamia? I provided links that show that there are credible scientists who claim that dna has proved we are not descendents from Neanderthals. Again...it's NOT me saying it. I'm not a scientist nor anthropologist. Are any of you?
jonathanH:
You are simply parroting what pro-evolutionists and pseuo-scientists argue. I've read all that. You make claims and still do not provide substantial evidence of speciation or strong circumstantial evidence of biological transition. I'll say it again--all I've seen is evidence of species that are extinct.
With regard to math, the claim is that the great pyramids of Egypt are one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, not because of their size or the mystery of where all those huge blocks came from, but because of the mathematical perfection. It is said that the height of the great pyramid relative to the distance around the base is the same as the radius is to the circumference of a circle. It indicates they understood pi and advanced geometry to have designed it, not just built it. And what else is remarkable is that every single block had to be carved to a specific size essentially to perfection for a structure that size to be that mathematically perfect. Math of that caliber was not evident--according to the researchers--prior to the civilizations (city building) in Mesopotamia. That's what THEY say.
My point is that most people, like yourselves, believe evolition on faith, not proof nor even strong circumstantial evidence that you have observed. And I was exactly the same way until I decided to seek the evidence for myself. If indeed evolultion theory follows the Scientific Method, should we be able to predict what the next human species will be?
In any case, I don't want to offend your sensibilities any more, and your comprehension is lacking imo. So I'll leave you to your faith and the JWs to theirs. :-)))
~Binadub