Macroevolution:

[tevans9129]

When one cannot defend their views with logic, reasoning, verifiable evidence and cannot answer questions, as they are asked, that challenges those views, the only recourse they have is to denigrate, ridicule, and/or make jokes about those that disagree with them. Moreover, the sad part is, they seem to think they are demonstrating their superior intelligence. Well, perhaps they are demonstrating their intelligence, I suppose.

 

[lesliedellow]

Not in the least, the point is that the most complex computer in existence cannot accomplish the simplest of tasks without first being programed. Where did that programming come from for complex life? Is it your belief that with enough billions of years, programming will evolve from nothing to an information system?

Are we back to the admittedly unsolved problem of abiogenesis, instead of evolution? Evolution starts with an already functioning single cell organism.

 

[Jimmy D]

When one cannot defend their views with logic, reasoning, verifiable evidence and cannot answer questions, as they are asked, that challenges those views, the only recourse they have is to denigrate, ridicule, and/or make jokes about those that disagree with them. Moreover, the sad part is, they seem to think they are demonstrating their superior intelligence. Well, perhaps they are demonstrating their intelligence, I suppose.

Come on Tevans, creationists aren't all that bad.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes.

That doesn't surprise me one bit.

 

[AV1611VET]

In a manner of speaking, yes.

In a manner of speaking, that doesn't surprise me one bit.

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought Moses was supposed to have been the author of the Pentateuch.

That doesn't surprise me one bit.

 

[lesliedellow]

That doesn't surprise me one bit.

You mean you are a supporter of the JDPE hypothesis?

 

[tevans9129]

Evolutionist say…

“All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds”

But they also say, when questioned about that assertion…

“In fact, where the first life came from is entirely irrelevant to evolution as a theory.”

Irrelevant?…IF, all life evolved from a single cell how is that not relevant to evolution?

Is continuity not required to go from a single cell to complex life forms?

Or, does evolution teach that to just jump in and start where it is convenient?


Also, when asked for evidence proving evolution the response oft times is "the millions of fossils."

However, we are also told…

“We have no evidence of such a thing ever happening. I take it that you are aware that fossilization is not only a fairly rare occurence but that they are also difficult to find (being hidden nder the ground in rock and all)?”

Does anyone see any inconsistencies there? Probably not for some.

 

[xianghua]

Not in the least, the point is that the most complex computer in existence cannot accomplish the simplest of tasks without first being programed. Where did that programming come from for complex life? Is it your belief that with enough billions of years, programming will evolve from nothing to an information system?

we can also ask in this case: can a computer that is able to reproduce evolve by a natural process?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Kind = genus.

And we see evolution beyond the genus level with horses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionist say…

“All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds”

But they also say, when questioned about that assertion…

“In fact, where the first life came from is entirely irrelevant to evolution as a theory.”

Irrelevant?…IF, all life evolved from a single cell how is that not relevant to evolution?

There could have been two different original first life forms. We still know that life is the product of evolution after that. There could have been three different original life forms. We still know that life is the product of evolution after that. There could have been four . . .

Do you get the picture?

Is continuity not required to go from a single cell to complex life forms?

That is not what was meant or implied.

Or, does evolution teach that to just jump in and start where it is convenient?

Nope, not that either.

Also, when asked for evidence proving evolution the response oft times is "the millions of fossils."

No, remember when you complained about honesty? You are not being honest right now. It appears that you not only need to learn what the theory of evolution says. You also need to learn what is and what is not evidence.

However, we are also told…

“We have no evidence of such a thing ever happening. I take it that you are aware that fossilization is not only a fairly rare occurence but that they are also difficult to find (being hidden nder the ground in rock and all)?”

Does anyone see any inconsistencies there? Probably not for some.

When you quote out of context, a way of creating a falsehood, it may seem that way. Once again you are not being honest. But of course dishonest arguments are standard from creationists. I thought that you demanded honesty from others? You need to demand honesty from yourself. Even if it hurts.

 

[AirPo]

When one cannot defend their views with logic, reasoning, verifiable evidence and cannot answer questions, as they are asked, that challenges those views, the only recourse they have is to denigrate, ridicule, and/or make jokes about those that disagree with them. Moreover, the sad part is, they seem to think they are demonstrating their superior intelligence. Well, perhaps they are demonstrating their intelligence, I suppose.

Not true at all. Creationists could just admit they cannot defend their views with logic, reasoning, verifiable evidence and cannot answer questions, as they are asked, that challenges those views.

 

[lesliedellow]

“In fact, where the first life came from is entirely irrelevant to evolution as a theory.”

Irrelevant?…IF, all life evolved from a single cell how is that not relevant to evolution?

Because the Theory of Evolution is a theory about how life evolved, not a theory about how it originated, and it is simply juvenile for creationists to keep complaining that it doesn't do more than it claims to do.

 

[AV1611VET]

And we see evolution beyond the genus level with horses.

Only on paper.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only on paper.

Nope. Why do you have such a huge problem being honest with even yourself? You demanded evolution above the genus level and I gave you an example.

 

[driewerf]

actually any fossil cant be evidence for evolution. because we can arrange many objects (like cars) in hierarchy. but it doesnt prove any evolution. even if cars were able to reproduce it will not be evidence for evolution:

evolution of ferrari‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

A single fossil can indeed not be evidence for evolution. What is evidence for evolution is the pattern we see in the fossil record. The fact that we will never see a zebra fossil in the same layer of a dinosaur fossil. Even if both could have lived in the same area; they didn't live in the same period. More over, we see "stranger" aniamsl in older layers, and the more recent the sedimentary layer, the more familiar the fossilized animal looks.

 

[AV1611VET]

You demanded evolution above the genus level and I gave you an example.

I did?

 

[pitabread]

“In fact, where the first life came from is entirely irrelevant to evolution as a theory.”

Irrelevant?…IF, all life evolved from a single cell how is that not relevant to evolution?

Is continuity not required to go from a single cell to complex life forms?

Or, does evolution teach that to just jump in and start where it is convenient?

Personally I think that as scientists continue to uncover how life first originated, that could eventually be combined with biological evolution to form a more comprehensive 'theory of life'. But we're not there yet.

But consider this analogy: can you learn to drive a car without learning how to repair one? Yes you can. Can you learn to repair a car without learning how to build one from scratch? Yes you can. Can you learn how to build a car from scratch without studying the entire history of the automobile all the way back to the Ford Model T? Yes, you can.

In other words, it's possible to learn about a subset of knowledge about something without that knowledge being predicated on understanding everything about that something.

We know life on Earth exists; we know that different life on Earth has existed in the past. We can study how life has changed over time, why life today is different than it was in the past and so on. None of that is explicitly dependent on an understanding of where that life first originated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did?

Didn't you make that demand? You did break the Ninth Commandment again when you denied it.

 

[bhsmte]

Personally I think that as scientists continue to uncover how life first originated, that could eventually be combined with biological evolution to form a more comprehensive 'theory of life'. But we're not there yet.

But consider this analogy: can you learn to drive a car without learning how to repair one? Yes you can. Can you learn to repair a car without learning how to build one from scratch? Yes you can. Can you learn how to build a car from scratch without studying the entire history of the automobile all the way back to the Ford Model T? Yes, you can.

In other words, it's possible to learn about a subset of knowledge about something without that knowledge being predicated on understanding everything about that something.

We know life on Earth exists; we know that different life on Earth has existed in the past. We can certainly study how life has changed over time, why life today is different than it was in the past and so on. None of that is explicitly dependent on an understanding of where that life first originated.

All of that ruins the strawman argument. And some, really really need that strawman.