How much longer?

[mickiio]

Isn't that exactly what creationism proposes?

Because Evolutionists do not/will not see or separate microevolution with macroevolution. That would be like not separating an apple from a banana.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We were kidding around trying to show how silly some of you evolutionist are...duh. However they ARE using pigs for transplants. Just sayin ;


The "evolution' you quote I have no problem with, nor would any other Creationist. It is a true science, verifiable, testable and believable. I take issues when you take that GOOD science and "extrapolate" it over "millions and millions of years" and say that time takes care of the problems we have.

Guess what? So is what you would call "macro-evolution".

What is amazing is the hypocrisy of creationists. They demand extraordinary evidence from others and yet have no scientific evidence that supports their beliefs at all.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

A claim unsupported by scientific evidence.

Fossil record, embryology, DNA, comparative anatomy, etc.
There isn't any other way to say this....you're wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A claim unsupported by scientific evidence.

Wrong. But then you do not know what scientific evidence is.

Here is lesson 1 for you. Scientific evidence is usually based upon empirical evidence. That is things that can be observed or measured. We can observe fossils in specific strata. Fossils are empirical evidence.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Because Evolutionists do not/will not see or separate microevolution with macroevolution.

Macroevolution is the result of microevolution over millions and millions of years. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. It is also supported by mountains of verifiable scientific evidence.

To suggest microevolution occurs but not macroevolution is like saying it is possible for me to walk to the end of my driveway but it is impossible for me to walk a mile to the store.

 

[justlookinla]

There seem to be two types of evolution for you.

There's various types of evolution for everyone. Some are theistic evolutionists, some are Darwinist evolutionists, others are micro evolutionists.

There is the evolution that you will admit exists, the ToE as used by medical researchers and as observed in speciation.

Yes, that's the only view of evolution supported by the scientific method for the HOW, the process.

And the ToE that you do not want to admit is real.

The HOW, the process of Darwinist evolution is real only in your faith-based worldview that you're the product of only a series of random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

Sorry, but it is all the same "evolution".

No, one is based on the scientific method, the other isn't.

Once again, don't blame others for your own inability, or refusal, to understand.

Understand that Darwinism's how/process of the production of all life we observe today is a faith-based view and isn't based on evidence supported by the scientific method.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because Evolutionists do not/will not see or separate microevolution with macroevolution. That would be like not separating an apple from a banana.

So what is the separation? Microevolution is the production of a single mutation that then passes through natural selection. Macroevolution is the accumulation of these microevolutionary events.

 

[mickiio]

There seem to be two types of evolution for you. There is the evolution that you will admit exists, the ToE as used by medical researchers and as observed in speciation. And the ToE that you do not want to admit is real. Sorry, but it is all the same "evolution".

Once again, don't blame others for your own inability, or refusal, to understand.

One type doesn't break any laws of science and one does. Yes, they are different.

Fossil record, embryology, DNA, comparative anatomy, etc.
There isn't any other way to say this....you're wrong.

We have those. We just have a different interpretation of them then you do.

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong. But then you do not know what scientific evidence is.

It's evidence supported by the scientific method. Really, you should actually take the time to study the graphic I'm giving. It's to help you understand the basic process of the scientific method.

Here is lesson 1 for you. Scientific evidence is usually based upon empirical evidence. That is things that can be observed or measured. We can observe fossils in specific strata. Fossils are empirical evidence.

Fossils do not offer evidence for the HOW, the process, does it?

 

[Loudmouth]

One type doesn't break any laws of science and one does. Yes, they are different.

Why does one mutation passing through natural selection not break any laws, but two in succession does?

We have those. We just have a different interpretation of them then you do.

Yes, you have the wrong interpretation, the interpretation that doesn't explain the data.

 

[mickiio]

So what is the separation? Microevolution is the production of a single mutation that then passes through natural selection. Macroevolution is the accumulation of these microevolutionary events.

Natural Selection is testable , provable, verifiable. Macroevolution breaks down at crossing kinds.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's various types of evolution for everyone. Some are theistic evolutionists, some are Darwinist evolutionists, others are micro evolutionists.

What is being talked about is obvious from context. There is no scientific theory of "theistic evolution". When talking about scientific theories there is only one.

Yes, that's the only view of evolution supported by the scientific method for the HOW, the process.

Wrong. I have started a series of lessons for you. Perhaps you will let yourself understand. Since you do not know what scientific evidence is I decided that even if you do not participate I will help you.

The HOW, the process of Darwinist evolution is real only in your faith-based worldview that you're the product of only a series of random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

Please, watch the false accusations. I will start reporting for goading if you continue to do so. Science is not "faith based"

No, one is based on the scientific method, the other isn't.

Wrong again. Keep reading my lessons for you. They both use the same scientific method.

Understand that Darwinism's how/process of the production of all life we observe today is a faith-based view and isn't based on evidence supported by the scientific method.

And again, you are goading. You're inability to understand does not mean the a belief is faith based.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Natural Selection is testable , provable, verifiable. Macroevolution breaks down at crossing kinds.

Macro evolution does not "cross kinds". If you claim that you do not understand how evolution works.

 

[Loudmouth]

Natural Selection is testable , provable, verifiable. Macroevolution breaks down at crossing kinds.

That is something you made up. It is not a scientific law.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Fossils do not offer evidence for the HOW, the process, does it?

Are you suggesting science doesn't know how evolution works? It's called natural selection and it's not random. New traits are determined to be positive or negative based on the environment the species lives in. If their environment changes, natural selection chooses which traits are beneficial for survival in the new environment and which do not. Species with desirable traits pass them on to their offspring, those without the desirable traits die. It's a pretty simple concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again:

Here is lesson 1 for you. Scientific evidence is usually based upon empirical evidence. That is things that can be observed or measured. We can observe fossils in specific strata. Fossils are empirical evidence.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Natural Selection is testable , provable, verifiable. Macroevolution breaks down at crossing kinds.

You're good at making things up out of thin air.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is something you made up. It is not a scientific law.

As we know, creationists cannot define "kind". Their definitions always break down. I have a working definition. I make "kind" synonymous to "clade". With that definition there is no "change of kind" in evolution. And the definition works.

 

[Loudmouth]

As we know, creationists cannot define "kind". Their definitions always break down. I have a working definition. I make "kind" synonymous to "clade". With that definition there is no "change of kind" in evolution. And the definition works.

Quite right. I have yet to find a creationist who can define what a kind is in an objective and consistent manner.

 

[justlookinla]

What is being talked about is obvious from context. There is no scientific theory of "theistic evolution". When talking about scientific theories there is only one.

There is only one view of evolution supported by the scientific method, microevolution. Neither Darwinism or theistic evolution is supported by the scientific method, both are faith-based views.

Wrong. I have started a series of lessons for you. Perhaps you will let yourself understand. Since you do not know what scientific evidence is I decided that even if you do not participate I will help you.

When you can understand the simple graphic I gave you, we can take just one example of the evidence you claim you have, apply the scientific method to it and see if it passes.

Please, watch the false accusations. I will start reporting for goading if you continue to do so. Science is not "faith based"

I agree, science isn't faith-based, the pseudo-science of Darwinism is.

Wrong again. Keep reading my lessons for you. They both use the same scientific method.

You mean the scientific method as presented in the graphic I helped you with?

And again, you are goading. You're inability to understand does not mean the a belief is faith based.

"Understand that Darwinism's how/process of the production of all life we observe today is a faith-based view and isn't based on evidence supported by the scientific method" isn't goading in any shape or form. That's a true and accurate statement. If you disagree with my statement, simply point out the why of your disagreement. The HOW/process of the production of all life we observe today is not based on evidence which is supported by the scientific method. Simple as that.