Hebrews 10:13
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Then Darwinism----Debunked

Then Neo-Darwinism--- Debunked

This is the simple fact that you refuse to accept. Your type of speciation exists only in the figment of your imagination. Noone in the history of the world has ever observed it, neither will anyone will.

Even deduction from inference betrays you for as you have admitted, there is not one living transitional form that you can point to. There are no half cats-half dogs, half humans-half apes. You guys even have to invent another conjecture (punctuated evolution) to explain away the gaping hole in your theory. Unfortunately, punctuated evolution is just as a part of the figment of your imagination as the General Theory of Evolution itself.

What your theory essentially requires is an increase of genetic information. Keep wishing. It has never happened, neither will it ever happen.

Yes. Just like chinese people are related genetically to the blacks. This is quite different then saying that the bee is related to the frog.

While you are reffering to is speciation not common descent.

Now answer the question.

Whether something falls into a hierarchy or not does nothing to prove evolution.

Even if it did, you would still be begging the question. Because you have yet to prove that they actually descended from each other. Pointing out similarities in design is hardly a case for common descent (But an excellent case for ID mind you). You have to prove that they actually descended from each other.

For you to prove common descent you have to verifiably prove that a certain taxonomical order descended from another. This you cannot do. What is verifiable (even by taking your testimony) is that there is similar design. But yet you refuse to accept common design. Is there something missing here.

I think you have a better chance in proving the existence of Santa Clause.

I am sorry to break it to you, but John Calvin is not the Holy Spirit.

It's quite simple. Take them to Romans 3:23. You should put away the Westminster away for two seconds and try it some time.

Be so kind to help me understand your position.

How is it that you ebrace the pivotal point of ID (common design) to disprove ID and claim it to be common descent?

Then you have just admitted that the whole theory of evolution is a sham. Sorry Gerard, but you do not set your own standards for proof. You can't state that we are a product of evolution and then refuse to provide direct evidence that attests to it. You have a better chance in proving the existence of Santa Clause by pointing to a red coat.

You state that the most powerful case for evolution is common descent but instead of providing proof for descent you provide proof for design.

Go figure.

It would be like me pointing to evolution to prove my case for ID.

"There are transitional sequences with enough taxonomical finesse to establish relatedness between the individual specimen."

Ha! What a ridiculous statement. Who sets the standard? Your monkey grandad? What an excellent example of speculation in the purest sense.

"There is however nothing observable that indicates special creation for every single species."

OK. That explains your hard head. lol

I did yesterday. It's quite simple. Take them to Romans 3:23. You should put away the Westminster away for two seconds and try it some time.

I agree that in the NT, tithing does not have emphasis as in the OT economy, but the principle is just the same. The NT teaches sacrificial giving. I do not see how those that will not give 10% would ever measure up to giving sacrificially.

I would hope that all would give more than 10% but since the Bible places a strong emphasis on it, I think it is safe to use it as prescriptive. Tithe is 10% no matter how you look at it. And if God felt robbed when he did not receive it in the OT, I think he will feel just the same if he did not receive it in the NT.

I trough not.
_______________________________________

Honestly, I never thought you would go so far as outright lying, but I guess you anything goes when it comes to defending Calvinism.

I asked you: Is there any other instance in the Bible (or anywhere in the world for that matter) where death means "total inability" other than in Calvinist theology?

To which you gave me a quote from Jesus. Since I did not even see the word death in the quote, I asked you where exactly does Jesus express such a definition. You answered with "He does not have to because Paul mentions it."

When I asked you where. You tell me that you already answered me.

Now as I predicted you are resorting to equivocation. I told you I was goint to educate you about yourself.

I am not sure what you mean by sequences, but if you mean small mutations, then newsflash... Sequences is not anymore proof for evolution then reindeers or a red suit is proof for Santa clause. What you really should say (if you were honest) is: "Yamil, you are right, there are NO transitional species existent. The only thing I can point you to is minor sequences."

The devastating truth is that you cannot point to one transitional species in this earth. And if we have evolved and still evolving, one would think that there would be at least one transitional species in each taxonomical order. Since there is none, it is a sad case for evolution. This is the primary reason why the majority of people can't swallow such absurdity: after all the elevated scientific mumbo jumbo, and after the smoke have settled; the proof is simply not in the pudding.

I guess thats your way of saying that you can't answer the question so you rather skip out on me. That's about how long it took you last time.

And now MY back is up against a wall because YOU cannot answer a simple question?