For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I sure do: myopia.

Or just following the evidence. If you can come up with a test to actually come up with a way to test for God, scientists across the world would be all ears.

And no, that comic of "Then a miracle happens" does not count for anything.

 

[Job 33:6]

Are you referring to "Darwin's Doubt" by Stephen Meyer?

Oh yes, thank you for the correction. Those ID advocates all run together from time to time.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you can come up with a test to actually come up with a way to test for God, scientists across the world would be all ears.

I'm sure they would.

Three well-known tests in history were tried, and all three failed:

1. Turn stones to bread.
2. Jump off of a high pinnacle.
3. Worship the tester.

Here's a fourth "honorable mention" test that failed also:

Matthew 27:42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm sure they would.

Three well-known tests in history were tried, and all three failed:

1. Turn stones to bread.
2. Jump off of a high pinnacle.
3. Worship the tester.

Here's a fourth "honorable mention" test that failed also:

Matthew 27:42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.

I don't think you know what a scientific test is.

Although, your personal definitions of science, scientific and scientist are spurious at best and just horribly wrong at worst.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think you know what a scientific test is.

And I don't think you know the difference between "pseudoscience" and "no science."

Not to mention what "invisible" means.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And I don't think you know the difference between "pseudoscience" and "no science."

Not to mention what "invisible" means.

Pseudoscience is stuff like creationism and... I'm blanking on the singular name for it, but using stuff like bleeding to cure illnesses.
No science is crystals for mental problems.

Invisible is not seen.

But God is a supernatural, in that He exists outside of nature.

 

[Shemjaza]

I have two:

1. The tares are outgrowing the wheat.
2. The last days are marked by a departure by those giving heed to seducing spirits.

"For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." (Matt 24:24)

It's simple consistent evidence.

The kind that lets Buzzard3 accept the age of the Earth and for AV1611VET to accept the shape and make up of the Solar system.

There are aspects of the Bible that are taken as inviolable and literal and aspects that are mysterious or poetic.

But there isn't an absolute method that you can describe how you choose to for this.

Even the most serious Flat Earther typically don't think the Beast of Revelation is going to be a literal multiheaded animal mix wandering out of the sea.

I'm not a YEC and I don't know what to think about Noah's flood.

Yet, you scoff at science based on a Biblical interpretation just as they do to your OEC preference.

Thank you.

My point was that your standards of evidence are radically inconsistent.

 

[Buzzard3]

diversity and disparity is a weird stance to try and take. Diversity means the quality of things being diverse and different, we see that in all points throughout the fossil record. Disparity means the state of something being unequal. What does that have to do with the theory of evolution?

"Species diversity is defined as being the number of species present in an ecosystem. Disparity, on the other hand, is how morphologically different they are from each other. For example, an ecosystem with one species of grass, one rabbit, and a hawk would have very low diversity, but very high disparity.

In contrast, some ecosystems have a huge amount of diversity, but when you compare the species together, you might find that all the primary producers are very similar types of grass or tree, and all the primary consumers are either deer or very similar to deer. Then, some of the top predators might be eagles and hawks, which are somewhat similar to one another. In this case, the species disparity is lower but the diversity is higher." ("What is species disparity?", socratic.org)

Species diversity vs. morphological disparity in the light of evolutionary developmental biology - PubMed

 

[Buzzard3]

Pseudoscience is stuff like creationism and...

Pseudoscience is stuff like Darwinists concocting a hypothesis about how this or that evolved without putting their hypothesis to the test. That happened a lot in evolution "science" ... why bother with the scientific method when you can invent fairy tales and pass them off as science?

"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." (Dr. Colin Patterson)

"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
(Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time")

 

[Buzzard3]

My point was that your standards of evidence are radically inconsistent.

Thank you.

 

[Buzzard3]

I don't think you know what a scientific test is.

Please tell me how the lense of the eye might have evolved, and then tell me how you test your hypothesis.

 

[Buzzard3]

Those ID advocates all run together from time to time.

True ... for example, I refuse to play golf with anyone who is not an ID advocate.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Pseudoscience is stuff like Darwinists concocting a hypothesis about how this or that evolved without putting their hypothesis to the test. That happened a lot in evolution "science" ... why bother with the scientific method when you can invent fairy tales and pass them off as science?

"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." (Dr. Colin Patterson)

"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
(Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time")

Who are these people?

FYI, a pseudoscience is something that is not science, but takes on a veneer to look so. "Intelligent Design" and "Creation Science" are pseudosciences as they falsely pretend to be scientific. (I first found this board by following a link to about the pseudoscience called "Electric Universe".) Hypotheses about the specific evolutionary path of any particular species is not pseudoscience.

 

[Buzzard3]

Are you referring to "Darwin's Doubt" by Stepen Meyer?

Oh yes, thank you for the correction.

I have that book but I can't find any reference to Tiktaalik.
But why should there be? One lucky find is hardly statistically significant.

Btw, I'm not sure that Meyer denies that evolution has occured.

 

[Buzzard3]

Hypotheses about the specific evolutionary path of any particular species is not pseudoscience

An hypothesis that can't be tested is worthless as science, so is it no fair to call it pseudoscience?

 

[Buzzard3]

Spoken like a true Darwinist missionary, whose only reason for being on this Christian site is to spread the gospel of evolution.

Being unable to handle facts,
now you are just being silly.

Being unable to handle facts,
now you are just being in denial.

 

[Buzzard3]

If you can come up with a test to actually come up with a way to test for God, scientists across the world would be all ears.

Try the scientific impossibility of abiogenesis

 

[Job 33:6]

I have that book but I can't find any reference to Tiktaalik.
But why should there be? One lucky find is hardly statistically significant.

Btw, I'm not sure that Meyer denies that evolution has occured.

I was wondering if he made arguments against fossils beyond the ediacaran-cambrian beginning of life time-frames.

It sounds like he denies evolution to me, given what appears to be a belief that Cambrian species don't have precursors.

 

[Astrid]

Being unable to handle facts,
now you are just being in denial.

I will give ya, this ya sure aint into
being original

 

[Astrid]

Try the scientific impossibility of abiogenesis

That would do. Prove it and ya got a Nobel.