Pastor Dave

My attempt at humor may not have come across on that one. If you look I also used likely and both likely and probably were italicized. I was speaking of evolution so I was using evolutionary vocabulary. By looking at what has been generally accepted by evolutionists and dog breeders for decades. If this is true it doesn't really change my basic premise. I may need to pick a "new favorite" but the concept remains.

Yes I see speculation in some things theists say. I also see some facts in evolution theory. I guess my big gripe is in the way the speculation is what seems to tie the facts together but is presented in a way that the less discerning might see the conjecture as if it were fact.

Thanks. I'll have to get back to you later on the rest of your post. I'm on my phone now and dislike typing on it.

The way evolutionists deal with the lack of evidence is with speculation and conjecture. At least that is how I see it.

Yes, remove that purpose and you would get different results. It is likely we would have none of those breeds. Without intelligent intervention they would probably still be wolves.

Dogs, my favorite example of the difference between macro and micro evolution. Modern breeds of dog are said to be descended from wolves. Their breeding has been controlled by an intelligent force ( man ) to create everything from St Bernards, Great Pyrenees, and Bull Mastifs all the way down to the Chihuahua, Yorkie, and teacup Poodle. Even after all of our efforts they still remain just as much a canine as the wolf.

So what other questions can we see from looking at those articles? There still is the question of the proto carnivore. Is their a proto herbivore? Do they have different beginnings. Or was there a proto mammal? Why is it that we can find so many fossils of species that we see as distinct from other species but have yet to find anything in between species. (as a side note; I think in maybe another 50yrs or so, we may be able to answer more of these questions through genetics. Perhaps will we be able to reverse engineer the genes to see if the origins of all life on Earth came from a single source of chance combining of random amino acids to form strands of RNA that randomly combined with other random strands of RNA to eventually (over eons) to form the first strands of DNA that randomly combined to form (over eons) all life on Earth while floating in the ocean. Or, if there are multiple trees of life and that each kind (species) of animal has a distinct prototype that allows for adaptation and change and that each of those was created by an intelligent force that guided the beginnings of life on Earth. Until then the questions remain open. At least for me)

Ok I can go with that. Good point. Our language itself influences where that distinction can be made.

The statement I made was in reference to the wiki article. Perhaps you should suggest a change to the wiki article. I was speaking of the specific intermediate stage between the proto carnivore and the proto feline. Every book and article that I have ever read on evolution theory is filled with terms like, may have, could have, probably, leads us to believe, likely, and other such gibberish. Why is it that evolution theory is not held to the same strict standards of observable, testable, predictable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence as other areas of science?

Hmmmm, let's see if these articles can help us. Cats and dogs had a common ancestor, and here it is New fossils of Dormaalocyon latouri, a 55 million-year-old species believed to be closely linked to the origin of carnivoraformes – carnivorous mammals such as cats, dogs, bears, and weasels – were recently uncovered by scientists Wow, that sure makes the job of saving life on Earth from an extinction level event a lot easier. Just save the proto carnivore and then genetically engineer cats, dogs, bears, and weasels from there. Did cats evolve from bigger felines or was it the other way around? The oldest known cat is the extinct Proailurus, which was only a little bit larger than a domestic cat. It is presumed that Proailurus is an ancestor to Pseudaelurus [4] who is considered the last common ancestor to all cats, including the existing cats and the extinct branches such as the saber toothed tigers. Modern cats, both large and small, all evolve from a rather big cat, Pseudaelurus, which was up to 5 feet long and 50 pounds, and existed 8 to 20 million years ago. However, many believe an earlier, smaller animal, Proailurus (first cat), weighing in at about 20 pounds, is the first true cat, And this one. Proailurus Proailurus (meaning "before the cat") is an extinct carnivoran felid that lived in Europe and Asia approximately 25 million years ago in the Late Oligocene and Miocene. .... One recent phylogeny places it as a basal member of the Feliformia, the suborder that includes mongooses, civets, hyenas, and cats; but other studies suggest that it instead was a felid (a true cat). .... Proailurus was a likely ancestor of Pseudaelurus, which lived 20-10 million years ago, and probably gave rise to the major felid lines, including the extinct machairodontines and the extant felines and pantherines, although the phylogeny of the cats is still not precisely known. Words like one recent phylogy followed by other studies suggest indicate to me a level of uncertainty. Words like a likely ancestor and probably also tell me that the author is trying to lead us to an unsupported conclusion. The truth of the matter is that the phylogeny of the cats is still not precisely known.

Ahhh, we're making progress. Let's stay with cats though. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, we have this species, that isn't a feline per se, and a group of them slowly mutated into cats. At what point do they stop being the "proto species" and become feline? What was that proto species? If this is what happened where is the evidence of that intermediate stage?

Would you care to elaborate? I mean at some point there had to be a recognizable feline that came from something that was not feline in order for evolution theory to work. Was it a single pair or were there dozens or hundreds or thousands that all came to be, during the same generation in the same area of the world?

Yeah, there had to be a first pair of cats too. They may have started out as kittens though. No need for them to be a "special creation " . Unless you want to say that all of a sudden a different, unrelated, species experienced some kind of mass mutation and produced thousands of felines by random chance all at the same time instead of reproducing their own kind. That takes a special kind of faith now doesn't it.

Hmm, it seems that maybe I fall somewhere in the middle on this one. For me, Adam (first man) and Eve (first women) had to have existed. Without an Adam and an Eve mankind could not have existed. Ok, let me see if I can cover this with the short version. Adam & Eve lived in "the Garden". They ate the fruit off of the trees and there was always something in season to eat. There were no predators. They communed with YHVH in the cool of the evening. A subordinate of YHVH conned them into seeking the knowledge of the Angels. YHVH says nope ..... not in my Garden. You want that knowledge let them ( the rebellious Angels) teach you to make it on your own. Adam and Eve no longer communed with YHVH in the cool of the evening. The bad Angels taught men to make fire, and wooden spears with pointy rock tips and then they taught them to mine metals and fashion them into all sorts of shapes. ( do you see where I'm aiming?) Think Greek Roman Norse Gods. Since Adam and Eve got the boot YHVH has only had direct communication with a few select individuals. You know, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses....... Without a literal Adam (first man) and a literal Eve (first woman) there is no "human race". We've talked before so I'm sure you already understand that I see the story more metaphorically than literally. Never the less without a first man and a first woman coming into existence at the same time there could not be a human race. IMO

As do I. Let's first be clear about which God we're talking about. Are we talking about YHVH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Are we talking about Allah the God of Muhammad? Are we talking about the Greco Roman God's? Or are we talking about any of the Gods through history?

I have to ask, what sect of Christianity claims to have "existed from the beginning "? Certainly none that I have ever been affiliated with.

Abraham was from Ur in Sumer. There are many tales written on tablets from Sumer that parallel pre Abraham stories in the Bible. Pre Noah, all archeological evidence would logically have been destroyed.

Wishing you and yours a joyous Pesach, a happy and kosher holiday too.

I believe this stems from what is known as Replacement Theology. A doctrine that was introduced to Christianity after the Counsel of Nicaea. Replacement Theology states that the Jews have been replaced by Christians as "God's people". Most Christians don't even know that prior to the Counsel of Nicaea the majority of Christian leaders were Jewish. The majority of Jewish leaders knew of Constantine's hatred of the Jews and refused to attend. There are groups of Christians that no longer subscribe (or never have) to Replacement Theology. I am one of those who were taught R.T. but no longer believe it to be true. My reasoning has to do with Genesis 17:19 (CJB) 19 God answered, “No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you are to call him Yitz’chak [laughter]. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. To me everlasting means everlasting. That means since God doesn't change, everlasting hasn't changed. In my experience when confronted with this proponents of R.T. will say that Christians have been adopted as God's people replacing the Jews. Yet, we are told told to view God as a father figure. The good father. So I always ask, would a good father abandon his natural children just because he adopted new children? I say no!

I for one appreciate when you discuss Jewish points of view and when you show us that the KJV may not hve given us the best possible translation of certain Hebrew words. BTW I am not a Catholic either. LOL

I thought we were talking about normal folks here. If we're talking about the mentally unstable then, at least for me, all bets are off. I'll have to stop now and just say that I choose to believe that you have chosen to believe that you have no choice in what you believe. I however, choose to exercise my free will to choose which unprovable claims I will or will not believe.

Ok Done. I now believe John Hanson was the very first president. The first president. So now I ask you..... if belief is not a choice then how can people, given the same information or lack thereof, believe differently?

VonNoble and Brother Kamen, It sounds like your mothers were saints compared to my mom. My mother would likely have waited for them to get close enough to reach and stuck them with her switchblade that she always carried in her purse.

Ahhh, but your experiment gives no choice (at least on the first two) because these are not things where we have a real choice to make. Belief is something we choose to do without physical evidence. We have evidence that George Washington was the first U.S. president. We have evidence that there are windmills in the Netherlands, and there may be evidence that your great-grandfather was born in a schoolhouse ( I have not seen that evidence so I choose not to make a choice on that one at this time). Well, kind of. It really boils down to who or what you choose to believe. We all believe many, many things that we can not prove for ourselves. We take peoples word that these things are true, but if we can't even prove them to one another then it is still just belief. Whether you believe the minister, the cosmologist, the history books, or the politician you have still made a choice on who and what you believe

yes