Is evolution real?

[JIMINZ]

How do you know that? You don't know me from Adam. You don't know anything about me apart from the meager bits of information I've given you on this thread.

Have you not come to some conclusion about me in the same way, remember your "Senor Don Quixote" remark, what exactly were you projecting with that remark, that I was open minded to you beliefs?

Or that I was living in a fantasy according to your understanding.

 

[Victor in Christ]

Did we transform into what we are today? Or were we created as such without having to transform.

All creatures including man don't evolve to become new species, they change to their surroundings and their enviroment. Man likes to wonder upon these things for his own intellect, but he always misses the point. He's trying to be overly-wise in trying to seek human intelligence influenced by Satan. Why, why, do we even embark on such worldly wisdom, when their a wisdom in Christ which sets us free.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Have you not come to some conclusion about me in the same way, remember your "Senor Don Quixote" remark, what exactly were you projecting with that remark, that I was open minded to you beliefs?

Not exactly. You arguing over very simple semantic differences, differences that can easily be explained without the need to dip into perceived arrogant thinking about scientists and those who have an understanding about scientific literature, was something that I've seen several times on this forum and it is always, 100% of the time, someone making a mountain out of a molehill. Or Don Quixote charging at windmills, thinking they're giants.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sure they do they are both speculating on how the crime was carried out, but at the point the both make their closing arguments they remain in the realm of Speculation Assumption, Hypothesis.

Even the jury does not 100% accept what either side has proposed, there are modifications depending on the 12 people deliberating, the outcome is not guaranteed by either sides Theory.

I would say, rather, that the lawyers arguing a "theory of the case" are putting forth an explanation of the evidence. Speculation is frowned upon.

"Legal theories" are stronger than "colloquial theories", but not as rigorous as scientific theories. This being the science portion of CF, we discuss the rigorous scientific theories here.

 

[JIMINZ]

I would say, rather, that the lawyers arguing a "theory of the case" are putting forth an explanation of the evidence. Speculation is frowned upon.

"Legal theories" are stronger than "colloquial theories", but not as rigorous as scientific theories. This being the science portion of CF, we discuss the rigorous scientific theories here.

I do believe we have a marked difference of opinion then don't we?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I do believe we have a marked difference of opinion then don't we?

Not in the slightest.
Again, all this is you trying to argue semantics, an argument that invariably leads nowhere and just obfuscates the issue for no real reason.

 

[JIMINZ]

Not in the slightest.
Again, all this is you trying to argue semantics, an argument that invariably leads nowhere and just obfuscates the issue for no real reason.

Please excuse me, I inadvertently had your post included in the one I was posting to Hans Blaster. post #135

Therefore my comments were not directed at you, sorry.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Please excuse me, I inadvertently had your post included in the one I was posting to Hans Blaster. post #135

Therefore my comments were not directed at you, sorry.

Ah! Okay, fair enough.
But still, my point does still stand: any argument about the scientific use of the word theory and the more colloquial use of the word theory is really just an argument about semantics that really just leads nowhere.

 

[JIMINZ]

Ah! Okay, fair enough.
But still, my point does still stand: any argument about the scientific use of the word theory and the more colloquial use of the word theory is really just an argument about semantics that really just leads nowhere.

You are totally allowed to have that understanding.

 

[-57]

So why is it that you think micro-evolution exists but macro-evolution doesn't? Why can't loads of small changes end up leading to big changes?

And it's funny that we have creationists complaining about scientists making up words and terms when they do the exact same thing over and over and over and over and over and over...

you asked...."Why can't loads of small changes end up leading to big changes?"....how is that possible via neo-darwism models?

I can understand changes where already existing DNA is mixed up..like dog breeding....or the loss of information but you can't even begin to explain how a species represented by a particular genera has the ability to mutate and develop a trend or morph a trend to the point the animal is now considered a new species representing a new genera.

Care to explain how your fradulent science is supposed to achieve this?

 

[Speedwell]

Strange the way Scientists can and are allowed to change the meaning of words to fit their very own beliefs, and you readily accept it as truth, fact.

If a Scientist says it, it must be true.

"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public,"......... Hummmm interesting.

That you are just finding out that scientific usage of the word "theory" is different from colloquial usage doesn't mean scientists have changed it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

you asked...."Why can't loads of small changes end up leading to big changes?"....how is that possible via neo-darwism models?

I can understand changes where already existing DNA is mixed up..like dog breeding....or the loss of information but you can't even begin to explain how a species represented by a particular genera has the ability to mutate and develop a trend or morph a trend to the point the animal is now considered a new species representing a new genera.

Care to explain how your fradulent science is supposed to achieve this?

Answering a question with another question is very disingenuous, along with the fact that you've clearly come into this thread with a preset mindset, especially with you calling the theory of evolution 'fraudulent' science.
Try again.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are totally allowed to have that understanding.

It's definitely an understanding akin to the truth. Arguing semantics is a non-argument. A non-sequitur, if you will.

 

[-57]

In general, creationist models of flood geology follow similar themes; namely massive cataclysmic events designed to explain contemporary geological features.

From what I've seen, they all invariably run into physics problems (e.g. excess energy release) that cannot be explained without miracles.

On a similar note, ICR's RATE project ran into the exact same issue trying to explain radiation release.

The OE'er geologist have a problem explaining the rock strata and the clear lines of demarcation. If the strata actually took millions upon millions of years to deposit prior to it hardining bioturbation would have destroyed all of the lines of demarcation.
The strata would have been mixed by critters much like this short video shows.

The flood model is a much, much better explanation...rapid deposit of the strata via a flood. OE'rs lose another.

 

[-57]

Answering a question with another question is very disingenuous, along with the fact that you've clearly come into this thread with a preset mindset, especially with you calling the theory of evolution 'fraudulent' science.
Try again.

The question was asked..."Why can't loads of small changes end up leading to big changes?" That was the question asked. .

My reply was.......how is that possible via neo-darwism models?

Then I went on to explain ...

I can understand changes where already existing DNA is mixed up..like dog breeding....or the loss of information but you can't even begin to explain how a species represented by a particular genera has the ability to mutate and develop a trend or morph a trend to the point the animal is now considered a new species representing a new genera.

Care to explain how your fradulent science is supposed to achieve this?

I'll accept your dodge ball response as you can't explain how mutation add up in an animals progeny.

 

[JIMINZ]

That you are just finding out that scientific usage of the word "theory" is different from colloquial usage doesn't mean scientists have changed it.

That you just finding out I voiced my opinion on the word, doesn't mean I just came to that opinion as you are supposing.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The question was asked..."Why can't loads of small changes end up leading to big changes?" That was the question asked. .

My reply was.......how is that possible via neo-darwism models?

Then I went on to explain ...

I can understand changes where already existing DNA is mixed up..like dog breeding....or the loss of information but you can't even begin to explain how a species represented by a particular genera has the ability to mutate and develop a trend or morph a trend to the point the animal is now considered a new species representing a new genera.

Care to explain how your fradulent science is supposed to achieve this?

I'll accept your dodge ball response as you can't explain how mutation add up in an animals progeny.

No, you're the one who dodged my question by asking another question, a question which you could easily find out if you actually went and learned about the theory of evolution.
I am asking you why, in your view of evolution, why the small changes from micro-evolution can't add up to a large change or changes in macro-evolution?

 

[-57]

Which, 99.9% of the time, creationists are not.

Good thing you didn't post that on Face Book as they would have removed it for posting fake news.

 

[-57]

No, you're the one who dodged my question by asking another question, a question which you could easily find out if you actually went and learned about the theory of evolution.
I am asking you why, in your view of evolution, why the small changes from micro-evolution can't add up to a large change or changes in macro-evolution?

To few mutations and to many places for them to occur.

So, how do all of your mutations add up...can you explain?

 

[JIMINZ]

It's definitely an understanding akin to the truth. Arguing semantics is a non-argument. A non-sequitur, if you will.

I really don't think you can claim correctness here.