Pope endorses evolution

[justaname]

Yes.

Look here this is related...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNREQTGcVbI&index=2&list=PLEC79013204BA5EF7

 

[KingJ]

We don't know exactly when the first humans with souls were created, and I honestly don't think that's a very important question. The arrival of the first members of H. sapiens you're referring to is about physical characteristics, not spiritual.

This is exactly where your belief needs some more thought from you. It makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. You are not applying your mind to this.

We are accountable for sin because of our intelligence / advanced cognitive brain functions. BABIES and MENTALLY HANDICAPPED ARE NOT accountable for sin...yet they have a spirit.

BRAINS = accountability!!!! The ability to gauge the level of pain caused from beating someone over hugging someone = accountable.

God never gave Kane the ten commandments because He KNEW that Kane KNEW what he had done wrong and grasped its significance / mortal sin.

 

[River Jordan]

Show me one transitional fossel where an animal transitions from one species to another.

I can do better than that. We have fossils series showing the complete evolutionary history of entire taxonomic classes (which includes lots of species-species transitions). You can read about one such case in this article: Evolution at Sea; Complete Fossil Record from the Ocean Upholds Darwin's Gradualism Theories.

"We've literally seen hundreds of speciation events," syas Arnold. "This allows us to check for patterns, to determine what exactly is going on. We can quickly tell whether something is a recurring phenomenon--a pattern--or whether it's just an anomally. This way, we cannot only look for the same things that have been observed in living organisms, but we can see just how often these things really happen in the environment over an enormous period of time."

Not only that, but we actually see new species evolve in real time. I posted some of the examples HERE.

As far as I'm concerned, most of the hominid skulls look like extinct apes. I know that many claim that the 3.5-million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis, better known as Lucy is one of man's earliest ancestors, but it looks like an ape to me. The hypotheses of primates evolving into humans has no definitive links in the fossel records. As far as I'm concerned, its all extreme speculation. Consider that the oldest gorilla fossils found date back about 10 million years, but gorilla's are still gorilla's. Its all conjecture, if something looked like a chimpanzee, they chalk it up as a human ancestor. I simply believe that everything was made after its kind, and there's no conclusive evidence which proves that any species evolved into something else. While science has genetically engineered bacteria, plants, and animals, they haven't changed a horse into a giraffe, its more of a lemon into lemonade than a lemon into an orange.

That's all fine, but you didn't answer the questions. Have you studied paleoanthropology, and where exactly is the gap in the human fossil record? And I have a new question for you...what is the anatomical difference between an "ape" and a "human"?

I'm no expert, I got some of my information here; http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html

Well, let's take a look. The article claims "9 scientific facts prove the 'Theory of Evolution' is false".

Right off the bat it exposes itself as ignorant of basic science when it states, "The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law." That's wrong because in science, theories don't become laws as they are better established. "Theory" is the highest status an explanatory framework can achieve. For example, we have things like the atomic theory of matter and the germ theory of disease, both of which are extremely well established and explain a wide variety of data. But neither will ever be promoted to a law. A scientific law is something that expresses a mathematical relationship or process, such as Boyle's Law.

"New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science." As you've now learned, that's false. We have lots of examples of the evolution of new species, both in the lab and in the wild.

The rest of the article is equally ignorant and to be honest with you, at times it's simply absurd. For example, it claims kids are taught "that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address." Now if you really think that's true, then I challenge you to provide a single science textbook that says that.[/url]

You should be angry at the authors of websites like this for promoting such ignorance and dishonesty.

I think you may want to consider how the scientists classify skulls...

Is this something you've studied?

We are accountable for sin because of our intelligence / advanced cognitive brain functions. BABIES and MENTALLY HANDICAPPED ARE NOT accountable for sin...yet they have a spirit.

BRAINS = accountability!!!! The ability to gauge the level of pain caused from beating someone over hugging someone = accountable.

God never gave Kane the ten commandments because He KNEW that Kane KNEW what he had done wrong and grasped its significance / mortal sin.

Oh, I think I see the problem. We're accountable for our sins because we have souls given to us by God. IOW, if we had intelligence but no souls, I don't think we would be accountable before God.

 

[Dan57]

I can do better than that. We have fossils series showing the complete evolutionary history of entire taxonomic classes (which includes lots of species-species transitions). You can read about one such case in this article: Evolution at Sea; Complete Fossil Record from the Ocean Upholds Darwin's Gradualism Theories.

"We've literally seen hundreds of speciation events," syas Arnold. "This allows us to check for patterns, to determine what exactly is going on. We can quickly tell whether something is a recurring phenomenon--a pattern--or whether it's just an anomally. This way, we cannot only look for the same things that have been observed in living organisms, but we can see just how often these things really happen in the environment over an enormous period of time."

Not only that, but we actually see new species evolve in real time. I posted some of the examples HERE.

Thanks for the info, but I saw no evidence of one species evolving into another. Dawin's "finch beaks" and such are merely observations of genetic variations within the same species. While I accept changes via mutations and environmental adaptation, I have yet to see evidence of a complete DNA change where a creature evolves into another species. While the differences in DNA can be subtle, they still remain different. jmo

 

[River Jordan]

Thanks for the info, but I saw no evidence of one species evolving into another.

I'm sorry, but that response doesn't make any sense. Not only were you given an example of a complete fossil record for an entire taxonomic class (which included lots of speciation events), you were given directly observed examples of the evolution of new species. If your only response is "I didn't see anything", that's just reflexive denial and is pretty disappointing behavior to see in a Christian.

Dawin's "finch beaks" and such are merely observations of genetic variations within the same species.

No, you're wrong.

While I accept changes via mutations and environmental adaptation, I have yet to see evidence of a complete DNA change where a creature evolves into another species. While the differences in DNA can be subtle, they still remain different. jmo

Well, if your approach to this subject is to just automatically deny everything that contradicts your beliefs, then I can understand how you can declare "I have yet to see evidence". It also explains how you can reference such an ignorant and delusional website.

 

[KingJ]

Oh, I think I see the problem. We're accountable for our sins because we have souls given to us by God. IOW, if we had intelligence but no souls, I don't think we would be accountable before God.

Discussion with you really really is painful. Did you MISS me mentioning the mentally handicapped.....

Souls / spirit in your context = accountable

Souls, spirit, eternal life and heaven are gifts from a good God to an intelligent creation. But I see you HAVE to belive souls = accountable or else evolution falls on its face.

 

[Dan57]

I'm sorry, but that response doesn't make any sense. Not only were you given an example of a complete fossil record for an entire taxonomic class (which included lots of speciation events), you were given directly observed examples of the evolution of new species. If your only response is "I didn't see anything", that's just reflexive denial and is pretty disappointing behavior to see in a Christian.


No, you're wrong.


Well, if your approach to this subject is to just automatically deny everything that contradicts your beliefs, then I can understand how you can declare "I have yet to see evidence". It also explains how you can reference such an ignorant and delusional website.

To be honest, I didn't read all the info; "The organism that Arnold and Parker study is a single-celled, microscopic animal belonging to the Foraminiferida". Do you have any evidence beyond the changes in the minute compartments of a microscopic single cell? Sorry, but for me to accept this "theory of evolution" as scentific fact, I'm going to need a lot more evidence than that. But I don't want to waste your time either, I don't have time to read dozens of pages of observational test.

 

[River Jordan]

Souls / spirit in your context = accountable

Souls, spirit, eternal life and heaven are gifts from a good God to an intelligent creation. But I see you HAVE to belive souls = accountable or else evolution falls on its face.

This isn't that difficult really. We (humans) are accountable to God for our actions because we are conscious, intelligent beings that God have given a soul to. At this point you seem to be arguing with me just for the sake of arguing.

To be honest, I didn't read all the info; "The organism that Arnold and Parker study is a single-celled, microscopic animal belonging to the Foraminiferida". Do you have any evidence beyond the changes in the minute compartments of a microscopic single cell? Sorry, but for me to accept this "theory of evolution" as scentific fact, I'm going to need a lot more evidence than that. But I don't want to waste your time either, I don't have time to read dozens of pages of observational test.

Well, that's probably the issue here. You asked for information and didn't bother to read it when it was provided. It looks to me like your approach to this subject is "If something agrees with my beliefs, then it's good and true, and if something doesn't agree with my beliefs then it's automatically wrong and I don't even need to look at it".

That explains your behavior in this thread and your citation of a comically ignorant website.

If you really are interested in this subject, then you should take the time to study it first, and then form your conclusions about it, rather than forming conclusions without studying.

 

[justaname]

First off I don't need to be a chemist to make lemonade, neither do I need to have to be studied to understand the process of skull classification. Again measurement and dating results in the classification. As the video I posted reports certain fossils make it into the "classification" simply because the teeth are similar. This is not an exact mathematical equation that constitutes classification, it is the best guess given in any situation subject to change when further data is presented.

I did read the whole article, " Evolution at Sea; Complete Fossil Record from the Ocean Upholds Darwin's Gradualism Theories." and I remain unimpressed...

This is an interesting quote,

"It's all here--a virtually complete evolutionary record," says Arnold. "There are other good examples, but this is by far the best. We're seeing the whole picture of how this group of organisms has changed throughout most of its existence on Earth."

Not sure exactly what is missing without the actual fossils to look at so we could assume the critical transitional specimens. I appreciate the enthusiasm yet I remain a skeptic. Here all we have is a single cell organism remaining a single cell organism. (Yawn)

​Where is the invertebrate becoming a vertebrate? Where is the land mammal becoming a sea mammal? Show me the evidence...I want to see the fossils not just some article written or some artist rendering or some graph or diagram.

How about the idea of the process of evolution and its implausibility? First off every mutation must be accidental because we know plants and animals do not evolve due to outside effects, volition or adaptation. This has been proven scientifically. So then for a land mammal to become a sea mammal almost innumerable accidental mutations must occur within the same species along the same formational path which the probabilities of that happening is unbelievable! As an example, the land animal must grow things like blow holes, fins, eye protection...all accidentally!

 

[River Jordan]

First off I don't need to be a chemist to make lemonade, neither do I need to have to be studied to understand the process of skull classification.

Would you agree that before you attempt to critique any field of science, you should at least study it first?

Again measurement and dating results in the classification. As the video I posted reports certain fossils make it into the "classification" simply because the teeth are similar. This is not an exact mathematical equation that constitutes classification, it is the best guess given in any situation subject to change when further data is presented.

Maybe that's the problem here. You're getting your understanding of science from YouTube videos.

I did read the whole article, " Evolution at Sea; Complete Fossil Record from the Ocean Upholds Darwin's Gradualism Theories." and I remain unimpressed...

This is an interesting quote,

"It's all here--a virtually complete evolutionary record," says Arnold. "There are other good examples, but this is by far the best. We're seeing the whole picture of how this group of organisms has changed throughout most of its existence on Earth."

Not sure exactly what is missing without the actual fossils to look at so we could assume the critical transitional specimens. I appreciate the enthusiasm yet I remain a skeptic. Here all we have is a single cell organism remaining a single cell organism. (Yawn)

See, here's the deal....I don't post stuff like that to impress anyone or change their mind. I know going in that you creationists are extremely wedded to your beliefs and no amount of scientific information is likely to change that. So I fully expect these sorts of reactions. That's just the nature of denialism.

But what I do expect is that Christians will no longer go around saying "No new species have evolved" under the banner of Christianity. You don't have to become an "evolutionist" or anything, but please stop making ignorant statements about science and tying them to Christianity. We're supposed to be truthful in all we do, and if new species have been observed to evolve, then that's the truth of God's creation and we should never, ever deny it.

​Where is the invertebrate becoming a vertebrate? Where is the land mammal becoming a sea mammal? Show me the evidence...I want to see the fossils not just some article written or some artist rendering or some graph or diagram.

How about the idea of the process of evolution and its implausibility? First off every mutation must be accidental because we know plants and animals do not evolve due to outside effects, volition or adaptation. This has been proven scientifically. So then for a land mammal to become a sea mammal almost innumerable accidental mutations must occur within the same species along the same formational path which the probabilities of that happening is unbelievable! As an example, the land animal must grow things like blow holes, fins, eye protection...all accidentally!

Are you truly interested in those things and learning about them? Or are you just expressing your opinions and aren't really interested in finding out if they're valid?

 

[justaname]

Would you agree that before you attempt to critique any field of science, you should at least study it first?


Maybe that's the problem here. You're getting your understanding of science from YouTube videos.



See, here's the deal....I don't post stuff like that to impress anyone or change their mind. I know going in that you creationists are extremely wedded to your beliefs and no amount of scientific information is likely to change that. So I fully expect these sorts of reactions. That's just the nature of denialism.

But what I do expect is that Christians will no longer go around saying "No new species have evolved" under the banner of Christianity. You don't have to become an "evolutionist" or anything, but please stop making ignorant statements about science and tying them to Christianity. We're supposed to be truthful in all we do, and if new species have been observed to evolve, then that's the truth of God's creation and we should never, ever deny it.


Are you truly interested in those things and learning about them? Or are you just expressing your opinions and aren't really interested in finding out if they're valid?

Perhaps my study runs deeper than You Tube videos... h34r: The point is, my studies are actually irrelevant as we are having informal discussions here. Also my statement on the classification of species (or skulls) remains truthful. If I have a valid understanding of a topic, I should be able to present my critique in an informal setting. If my assessment is invalid then I stand to be corrected and humbly accept proper correction.

I appreciate truth...If there is reliable evidence in any regard it should be considered. I am a life long learner...

 

[heretoeternity]

Genesis tells me God created the first human being from the earth and breathed life into him..that is good enough for me. I accept that on
FAITH, like the rest of the Bible, one accepts it on faith..
The scientific proponents out there can believe they evolved from monkeys if they want. A round of bananas for y'all lol!

 

[River Jordan]

Perhaps my study runs deeper than You Tube videos... h34r: The point is, my studies are actually irrelevant as we are having informal discussions here.

How much you've studied a field of science is most certainly relevant to your ability to discuss it and offer criticisms of it. I have a hard time believing anyone would argue otherwise.

Also my statement on the classification of species (or skulls) remains truthful.

Only in the same sense that "Physics is a bunch of scientists doing math" is a truthful statement. In both cases the statements, either deliberately or out of ignorance, don't accurately represent the work and study that goes into the science.

If I have a valid understanding of a topic, I should be able to present my critique in an informal setting. If my assessment is invalid then I stand to be corrected and humbly accept proper correction.

I appreciate truth...If there is reliable evidence in any regard it should be considered. I am a life long learner...

So if this is the case and you really "want to see fossils" like you describe, then I suggest visiting a good museum and talking to an expert there about them. Or go to a university that has a paleontology department and schedule an appointment with a paleontologist. They might even show you their fossil collection.

Forgive me if I seem a little jaded, but I've seen creationists say things like "I really want to learn" before, only to see them wave away everything that seems to support evolution, especially if it comes from a scientific source. I've learned that a lot of creationists just don't trust scientists and don't recognize them as authorities in their fields, while at the same time holding up outrageously goofy websites (like the one Dan57 linked to) as examples of "truth". On one hand it's interesting to watch, but from a broader perspective it gives the rest of the world the impression that Christians are backwards science-hating dullards. That drives me crazy because it's unnecessary.

Genesis tells me God created the first human being from the earth and breathed life into him..that is good enough for me. I accept that on
FAITH, like the rest of the Bible, one accepts it on faith..

And that's basically what science says as well...all life on earth came from the earth, just as Genesis says.

 

[Dan57]

Well, that's probably the issue here. You asked for information and didn't bother to read it when it was provided. It looks to me like your approach to this subject is "If something agrees with my beliefs, then it's good and true, and if something doesn't agree with my beliefs then it's automatically wrong and I don't even need to look at it".

That explains your behavior in this thread and your citation of a comically ignorant website.

If you really are interested in this subject, then you should take the time to study it first, and then form your conclusions about it, rather than forming conclusions without studying.

I did skim over the link you provided, but just didn't read every word because what I did read of the study didn't convince me that evolution was a fact, just an ongoing theory. I disagreed because I don't view the foraminifera examples of origination as showing macroevolution? The findings show no new kinds of animals emerging by natural selection? Minor changes in shell shape does not equate to a new species, they're still forams. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/foraminifera_pe068391.html

 

[River Jordan]

I did skim over the link you provided, but just didn't read every word because what I did read of the study didn't convince me that evolution was a fact, just an ongoing theory.

It's both actually. Evolution is a fact because we see it happen all the time, and it's also a theory (the framework that explains how evolution happens).

I disagreed because I don't view the foraminifera examples of origination as showing macroevolution? The findings show no new kinds of animals emerging by natural selection? Minor changes in shell shape does not equate to a new species, they're still forams.

Well you have a couple of problems there. First you haven't defined what a "kind" is, and second (as I explained more than once) foraminifera is a taxonomic class, which is way above species. Do you remember the classification system? It goes kingdom, phylum, class, order, genus, species. So all the evolution shown in the fossil record of the foraminifera includes new species, new genera, and new orders. So if that's not macroevolution, then humans and chimps evolving from a common ancestor is just microevolution. Is that really what you want?

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/foraminifera_pe068391.html

Same thing. If you think evolution within a taxonomic class is nothing special, then you also must be comfortable with evolutionary common ancestry within all mammals, humans included. After all, mammals are a class too!

 

[KingJ]

This isn't that difficult really. We (humans) are accountable to God for our actions because we are conscious, intelligent beings that God have given a soul to. At this point you seem to be arguing with me just for the sake of arguing.

So, Adams father, though highly intelligent and with well ''evolved'' cognitive brain functions was not accountable....do you understand the difference between a human and a dolphin? Do you know that evolutionists will laugh in your face with your suggestion? Have you bounced it off them?

Where all the other humans like Adam's mother and father? Do you not believe in Adam and Eve? Was Adam's highly intelligent father unable to offer him counsel...simply because he had no soul? Did Adam ask God to help his father / bring his father to heaven? What was Adam's thoughts when he saw the many intelligent humans with no souls. Did he give them a name?

You seem incapable of logical coherent thought. Think about this more and it is only a matter of time before evolution slides off your back or you drop Christianity for it.

At this point you seem to be arguing with me just for the sake of arguing.

Until you start 1. respecting scripture and 2. using logical lateral thought ...I don't think we will ever get on.

 

[River Jordan]

Sheesh KingJ...think for a second. When scripture says God breathed a soul into Adam, does it say "And God stopped there, never giving a soul to anyone else"? The fact is, we don't know exactly how it was all done. For example, we know Cain somehow found a wife, which means there were other people with souls running around. But scripture doesn't say where she came from....

.....because it's not that important and isn't the point of the story.

And that's the fundamental difference between us. You want Genesis to be a "who, what, when, and where" police report, whereas I read it as a spiritual account of mankind's relationship with God. You see the story as a way to convey the technical details of creation and I see it as a way to convey spiritual truths.

Given that, we're never going to agree, but you just won't accept that. For whatever reason, you just don't seem to be able to tolerate someone having different views than you. Honestly, you come across as extremely angry and controlling. So I really don't have much interest in continuing yet another "discussion" with you where you stomp your feet, yell, and insult me. I don't mind explaining things to people who want to understand, but I'm not spending my time explaining something to someone who absolutely refuses to even try to understand and is just "I'm going to argue with you no matter what you say".

 

[justaname]

How much you've studied a field of science is most certainly relevant to your ability to discuss it and offer criticisms of it. I have a hard time believing anyone would argue otherwise.

I would agree with this if we were in a formal debate. As it is this is a Christian forum where people give their opinions continually. I suggest if you need to discuss these matters with only "qualified" people, you should seek out a scientific forum.

Only in the same sense that "Physics is a bunch of scientists doing math" is a truthful statement. In both cases the statements, either deliberately or out of ignorance, don't accurately represent the work and study that goes into the science.

Farmers plant seedlings and seeds to grow stuff, painters paint things, mechanics work on stuff...My description on the classification process is accurate and more descriptive than you represent. If you are not satisfied with my description please elaborate on it instead of complaining.

So if this is the case and you really "want to see fossils" like you describe, then I suggest visiting a good museum and talking to an expert there about them. Or go to a university that has a paleontology department and schedule an appointment with a paleontologist. They might even show you their fossil collection.

Forgive me if I seem a little jaded, but I've seen creationists say things like "I really want to learn" before, only to see them wave away everything that seems to support evolution, especially if it comes from a scientific source. I've learned that a lot of creationists just don't trust scientists and don't recognize them as authorities in their fields, while at the same time holding up outrageously goofy websites (like the one Dan57 linked to) as examples of "truth". On one hand it's interesting to watch, but from a broader perspective it gives the rest of the world the impression that Christians are backwards science-hating dullards. That drives me crazy because it's unnecessary.


And that's basically what science says as well...all life on earth came from the earth, just as Genesis says.

I have no issues visiting the museums; I already have. Thoroughly enjoyed myself every time. The issue I have with the museums is they have partial skeletons with artist renderings and misleading diagrams next to them. They have dinosaurs with feathers on them when there is no scientific data in the fossil record showing feathers, unless you include that hoax of the dino-bird from China. Granted this is not in every case, yet again my questions go to the critical transitional species. Where are all the transitional invertebrates? This should be the shining jewel of evolution. We have tons of fossils, where are all these ones? With all the spines running and swimming around we should have at least something that shows that all important transition, or maybe it does not exist.

Sheesh KingJ...think for a second. When scripture says God breathed a soul into Adam, does it say "And God stopped there, never giving a soul to anyone else"? The fact is, we don't know exactly how it was all done. For example, we know Cain somehow found a wife, which means there were other people with souls running around. But scripture doesn't say where she came from....

.....because it's not that important and isn't the point of the story.

And that's the fundamental difference between us. You want Genesis to be a "who, what, when, and where" police report, whereas I read it as a spiritual account of mankind's relationship with God. You see the story as a way to convey the technical details of creation and I see it as a way to convey spiritual truths.

Given that, we're never going to agree, but you just won't accept that. For whatever reason, you just don't seem to be able to tolerate someone having different views than you. Honestly, you come across as extremely angry and controlling. So I really don't have much interest in continuing yet another "discussion" with you where you stomp your feet, yell, and insult me. I don't mind explaining things to people who want to understand, but I'm not spending my time explaining something to someone who absolutely refuses to even try to understand and is just "I'm going to argue with you no matter what you say".

I appreciate your statement, "I see it as a way to convey spiritual truths."

 

[KingJ]

1. Sheesh KingJ...think for a second. When scripture says God breathed a soul into Adam, does it say "And God stopped there, never giving a soul to anyone else"? The fact is, we don't know exactly how it was all done. For example, we know Cain somehow found a wife, which means there were other people with souls running around. But scripture doesn't say where she came from....

.....because it's not that important and isn't the point of the story.

And that's the fundamental difference between us. You want Genesis to be a "who, what, when, and where" police report, whereas I read it as a spiritual account of mankind's relationship with God. You see the story as a way to convey the technical details of creation and I see it as a way to convey spiritual truths.

Given that, we're never going to agree, but you just won't accept that. For whatever reason, you just don't seem to be able to tolerate someone having different views than you. Honestly, you come across as extremely angry and controlling. So I really don't have much interest in continuing yet another "discussion" with you where you stomp your feet, yell, and insult me. I don't mind explaining things to people who want to understand, but I'm not spending my time explaining something to someone who absolutely refuses to even try to understand and is just "I'm going to argue with you no matter what you say".

It is great to see you using logic and formulating a belief around scripture. But you are doing it on only one scripture and then getting its translation wrong...

God did not breathe a soul / spirit (with your use of the word) into man. Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and then man became a living being.

Some translations say 'living soul'. Living soul / living being = evolved monkeys with intelligence . All my questions to you remain.....care to try again?

Oh and one more...Orginal sin? Was Cain's wifes father responsible for his own original sin? Did Jesus and the NT prophets forget to mention him?

Now logic for me on Cain's wife is simple. Adam and Eve lived for long and had many children. In-breeding in those days was fine as genes were strong. Only under Moses was it out lawed. The fact that a law was made against it tells us it took place.

 

[River Jordan]

I would agree with this if we were in a formal debate. As it is this is a Christian forum where people give their opinions continually. I suggest if you need to discuss these matters with only "qualified" people, you should seek out a scientific forum.

Would you also agree that not all opinions are equally valid?

Farmers plant seedlings and seeds to grow stuff, painters paint things, mechanics work on stuff...My description on the classification process is accurate and more descriptive than you represent. If you are not satisfied with my description please elaborate on it instead of complaining.

Do you know what derived characteristics are?

The issue I have with the museums is they have partial skeletons with artist renderings and misleading diagrams next to them. They have dinosaurs with feathers on them when there is no scientific data in the fossil record showing feathers, unless you include that hoax of the dino-bird from China.

And maybe here we've identified one of the problems. There's lots of dinosaur specimens with feathers. There are so many now it's being discussed that within certain groups of dinos, maybe they all had feathers.

So clearly we see the problem. You thought the museums were deliberately lying, but it turns out they aren't and you just don't really know the subject matter. IOW, the problem isn't with the science, but with your understanding of it. That's why our first point is important...people who don't really know much about a subject probably shouldn't go around speaking authoritatively about it.

Granted this is not in every case, yet again my questions go to the critical transitional species. Where are all the transitional invertebrates? This should be the shining jewel of evolution. We have tons of fossils, where are all these ones? With all the spines running and swimming around we should have at least something that shows that all important transition, or maybe it does not exist.

First, I did post a link to a description of the fossil record of an entire class of invertebrates. That record documents the evolution of new orders, genera, and species of invertebrates. As far as a specimen of a early vertebrate ancestor, the most famous specimen is Pikaia gracilens. As we'd expect with any transitional, scientists are still debating exactly how it should be classified.

I appreciate your statement, "I see it as a way to convey spiritual truths."

Thanks!

God did not breathe a soul / spirit (with your use of the word) into man. Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and then man became a living being.

Some translations say 'living soul'. Living soul / living being = evolved monkeys with intelligence . All my questions to you remain.....care to try again?

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. "Living soul" is exactly what I've been saying all along.

Oh and one more...Orginal sin? Was Cain's wifes father responsible for his own original sin? Did Jesus and the NT prophets forget to mention him?

We don't know. Is it that important to you that scripture tell you every detail about every person who lived at the time?

Now logic for me on Cain's wife is simple. Adam and Eve lived for long and had many children. In-breeding in those days was fine as genes were strong. Only under Moses was it out lawed. The fact that a law was made against it tells us it took place.

That's fine, but none of that is in scripture. All we know is that Cain found a wife. We are not told where she came from at all.