Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?

David Menton? No thanks. He's a known liar and a fraud. He's got no credibility.Rather refer to the work the numerous scientists who worked on all those Australopithecus fossils (including Lucy) themselves and published their research in peer-reviewed articles.

Then I think that is not the example you should have used to prove that we have observed macro evolution. You chose that example.I know that creatures change. No one much argues that changes can occur in species.I mean it is not fair to point to changes in dogs, for example, and argue that we observe evolution therefore apes gradually gave birth to humans.

We all have been shown a couple of days ago that Hugh Ross told more than one untruth in a video posted here. Why would you refer to him? He tends to tell untruths.

I don't know about you but I do not quickly succumb to accusative gossip. And even if a man makes a mistake or gets caught in a lie or what accusers slanderously exploit as a lie, in their character assasination, doesn't mean that there are NO things the person said which should be considered.A certain scientist name Hoyle believed there was a lot of oil on one of the planets. It may have been Venus, but I cannot remember. The joke was about "Holye Oil" because of the skepticism of his theory.Doesn't mean he could not have said some other things which are worth considering. This benefit of a doubt I allow evolutionists too. They may have said some things which I would well listen to.So you write off Hugh Ross but others have pointed out very similar concepts on anthropic constants and fine tuning. And some atheists not able to deal with it look for an escape hatch in the multiple universes concept - "Well there are millions of universes and we just happened to be in the lucky one."Romans spoke truth saying - "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools ..." Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Pressie,So you have slandered two Phds. so far in my count - Menton and Ross.
You may be looking for what dirt you can dig up on Gary Habermas too ?
Let me guess, whoever I mention you will dismiss as lying frauds ?I don't regard this kind of character assassination as much more than cheerleading propoganda. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

To whoever made the comment about "Whatever floats your boat." Don't have time now to find the source. But it is not whatever floats my boat. It is some of us have heard the good news that your big ship, though not at all "unsinkable" - but there is a way OUT of the impending tragedy.You're on the Titanic and you don't know it. You're too convinced that its unsinkable to realize the danger. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Pointing out untruths is not slander. It's pointing out the untruths they tell.

Speciation is macro-evolution. Humans are apes.

I chose that example. It's an example of speciation called a ring species.For the third time, i'll explain that i used it to to show to you that complex species don't morph into other species in a single leap - they do it gradually over time - or in this case over distance.The birds are still birds and they are still gulls. They can't be anything else. If they were something else it would prove the theory of evolution false.Speciation creates new SPECIES. A new species of bird is still a bird. A new species of finch is still a finch. A new species of gull is still a gull.You don't understand the ToE at a very basic level so you are making some very basic mistakes. You either need to go away and study it properly so that you can at least stop making simple mistakes or shut up about it. No one - or I should say, no biologist or anyone that knows the basics of evolution - says that apes gave birth to humans. That's idiotic. What's wrong with you people? Can't you read or think?

I don't think jaywill knows what the word 'species' means. From his posts I gathered that he thinks it is equivalent to the word 'kind' so realily spread around in creationist websites. It isn't.However, they don't ever attempt to define what they mean with word 'kind'. It can mean anything and everything which they think can more-or-less suit the 'argument' they're trying to make.In the end, it defeats their purpose, because they claim that the word 'kind' means something with definite boundaries. Not changeable. Boundaries they refuse to define. Thery just claim they are there.In reality we don't find that at all. The boundaries between species are very fuzzy...just like the theory of evolution predicted.

Actually, you are the person slandering all the other scientific PhD’s by referring to two Ph.D’s telling untruths about the others. And the PhD's you mentioned commented outside their fields of expertise. You are the one telling all those other PhD’s that they all are wrong.If you look at the number of doctoral scientists in the US which was 752 000 in 2008, you will realize that mentioning untruths by two scientists, without even reading and investigating at least the Doctoral theses of those other scientists, who published inside their areas of expertise, you are misleading people.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Says someone who refers to a small number of people character assisinating hundreds of thousands of scientists from all over the world...claiming that they all tell constant untruths about everything....

Nice side dishes, but back to the main course: So, jaywill, got anything?

If you have any evidence that is true then please present it.A YouTube link is simply stupid, particularly if from the Answers in Genesis crowd.

A false dichotomy. Maybe it is all just myth. If the Romans and Jews actually had heard of this guy at the time of his supposed death and resurrection, don't you think there might be some actual historical evidence. There is no contemporary, extra-biblical evidence for the existence of a Jesus. Since these "teachings" weren't developed for decades it would have been hard to wekaen them before they were developed.