I asked you a question, twice, and you deflected, twice. What rules of science make it so relativity proves the universe had a beginning?what rules prove macro evolution? I have never heard of any. Natural selection, speciation etc all involves micro evolution.
only you can ask questions? You made an observation. And I asked for evidence, then you deflected and asked me for evidence. So what rule states that only you get to ask for evidence. I repeat, what laws prove macro evolution? I have shown sufficient evidence via peer review that macro evolution is not micro evolution. I have no problem answering your questions, they are not hard at all. But I don't like it when I ask a question and then you accuse me of deflecting, when your post was the one deflecting/I asked you a question, twice, and you deflected, twice. What rules of science make it so relativity proves the universe had a beginning?
Micro evolution is evolution, but we’ve been over this already. Just answer my above question.
ok, now prove that crocoducks are a transition between two different types of animals. I only ask for this because evolution literally declares that we change from one type into another type, so logically there would be an intermediate stage. So if this is in fact an intermediate stage, it must have solid evidence it is related to two different animals. And you can't do that. Well at least I haven't in fifteen years seen it done. But you can try.What, no Crocoducks?!
so you admit that macro evolution is not observable.
If this is the case then it absolutely cannot be science because the scientific method requires observation of a hypothesis for testing purposes.
You’re the one claiming you can prove God’s existence. Did you not expect to be questioned? Just answer the questions. If you answer the questions, we can look at whatever scientific rules you’re saying prove the universe had a beginning and the laws by which evolution operates and then we can assess how consistent you’re being with what you’re willing to accept from science.only you can ask questions? You made an observation. And I asked for evidence, then you deflected and asked me for evidence. So what rule states that only you get to ask for evidence. I repeat, what laws prove macro evolution? I have shown sufficient evidence via peer review that macro evolution is not micro evolution. I have no problem answering your questions, they are not hard at all. But I don't like it when I ask a question and then you accuse me of deflecting, when your post was the one deflecting/
Yep. It's not observable, and not provable.
Back when the creationist definition of macroevolution included simple speciation, it was observable, but since you've changed the definition, it's not observable any more.
Sir that is exactly how the scientific method works.Nope. That's not how the scientific method works. You don't get to change it to your way.
so the gist of the article is this: "we don't have evidence of macro evolution" but don't forget there is "micro evolution" and that we have evidence for. And by the way macro evolution does not need observation as evolution has lots of other evidence (of micro evolution). So if you cannot see the flaws in logic here, I can't help you. Basically macro evolution (the ability for apes to evolve into humans for example) is unobserved. So you can resort to macro evolution for all of your proofs, but you would not get any disagreement from us on that. As all that is fine because animals do adapt and change, but they don't apparently adapt and change into other animals, as this is unobserved. So the article does not really add any new information and is easily dismissed as arbitrary.CB901: No Macroevolution
Claim CB901:
No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6.
Response:
References:
- We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.
- The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).
- As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.
- Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large changeand because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).
- There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.
- Shapiro M. D., M. E. Marks, C. L. Peichel, B. K. Blackman, K. S. Nereng, B. Jónsson, D. Schluter and D. M. Kingsley, 2004. Genetic and developmental basis of evolutionary pelvic reduction in threespine sticklebacks. Nature 428: 717-723. See also: Shubin, N. H. and R. D. Dahn, 2004. Evolutionary biology: Lost and found. Nature 428: 703.
- Theobald, Douglas, 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
like I said I can and will answer all questions, but not until you answer mine. Sorry sir you cannot bully your way out of answering this. If you wish to end the debate here, I get it. But you will answer the question before proceeding. Then I will prove to you God's existence yet again if that is what you want as it is very easy to do.You’re the one claiming you can prove God’s existence. Did you not expect to be questioned? Just answer the questions. If you answer the questions, we can look at whatever scientific rules you’re saying prove the universe had a beginning and the laws by which evolution operates and then we can assess how consistent you’re being with what you’re willing to accept from science.
I’m not bullying you, I’m just holding you accountable for the claims you make. This will go much more smoothly if you suppress that victim complex and just answer the questions.like I said I can and will answer all questions, but not until you answer mine. Sorry sir you cannot bully your way out of answering this. If you wish to end the debate here, I get it. But you will answer the question before proceeding. Then I will prove to you God's existence yet again if that is what you want as it is very easy to do.
I’m not bullying you, I’m just holding you accountable for the claims you make. This will go much more smoothly if you suppress that victim complex and just answer the questions.
Evolution is driven by the law of natural selection. Evidence for common descent by evolution is seen in the genetic record, the fossil record, biogeography, and Homology. Now, whether you accept these lines of evidence or not, my point is that this is the scientific consensus.
I didn't say what you just said. I said general relativity ties time to mass. Because time needs something to accelerate. If there is no mass, then time has nothing to accelerate. Because God does not have mass, as per the definition of omnipresent (being everywhere at once, which would be impossible if you had mass). So according to general relativity God would be outside of time, and would not have a beginning or any time related event. Does this answer the question you pose? So the rule of science I attest to is general relativity which is tied to the law of gravity. See this article: What Is a Law in Science?What “rules of science” are you referring to when you say general relativity proves there must have been a beginning to the universe, and that proves God?
I wasn’t clear on what you meant by “rules of science” so I used the word “rules” in a similarly ambiguous fashion, in this case meaning natural selection and the general practice of following evidence where it leads. I’m not trying to convince you of evolution right now, I’m trying to show you how inconsistent you are when it comes to accepting the consensus of scientists. But it’s become apparent that what you’re doing has little to do with evidence or the scientific consensus and more to do with your own ideas about God, omnipresence, and relativity, so this approach isn’t going to land with you.you specifically said rules of science prove macro evolution. Natural selection proves micro evolution, speciation and common decent are not the same as universal common decent that macro evolution entails. Unless you don't believe the animals evolve into different animals, then this would not be the case. So I don't see a complete answer to the question.
This is what you said:I didn't say what you just said. I said general relativity ties time to mass. Because time needs something to accelerate. If there is no mass, then time has nothing to accelerate. Because God does not have mass, as per the definition of omnipresent (being everywhere at once, which would be impossible if you had mass). So according to general relativity God would be outside of time, and would not have a beginning or any time related event. Does this answer the question you pose? So the rule of science I attest to is general relativity which is tied to the law of gravity. See this article: What Is a Law in Science?
So I’m still not clear on what you think you’ve established about the universe with your above explanation.But I don't need them technically speaking because the fact that the universe has mass, proves it had a beginning due to general relativity. So there is that too.
I understand asking a question to answer a question. So I will answer your questions fully when you answer mine fully.
No, not at all.so the gist of the article is this: "we don't have evidence of macro evolution" but don't forget there is "micro evolution" and that we have evidence for.
You mean you can't help yourself. We tried to introduce you to science, but you want nothing to do with it. We did our best.So if you cannot see the flaws in logic here, I can't help you.
Anything can be easily dismissed, just so long as you ignore what it says. Basically, gradyll, we don't really need you to admit that you're wrong. Your reply, saying that you've won while demonstrating you didn't understand the article at all, will do just fine.So you can resort to macro evolution for all of your proofs, but you would not get any disagreement from us on that. As all that is fine because animals do adapt and change, but they don't apparently adapt and change into other animals, as this is unobserved. So the article does not really add any new information and is easily dismissed as arbitrary.
I'd rather be open-minded than hard-headed.you think you are hard headed, God has made me harder headed to deal with you. LOL ( I am hard headed, but it is my gift from God, so if you don't like it, complain to Him, but don't fight God, cause you'll lose every time)
No, the problem is not that there are randomly assorted gaps which is what would be expected if there was just a lack of fossils, it is that they are systematically at the places where the biggest morphological changes would be taking place, such as genera and phyla.
That is how they explain it, but nevertheless it confirms that those systematic gaps exist and they are attempting to hold to the paradigm by coming up with basically an ad hoc explanation.
That was true with the epicycle theory too, until Galileo confirmed the fringe dissenter Copernicus.
No, it is based on knowledge not ignorance
Well you need to tell Dr. Goldsmith, because that is what he wrote.
I could be wrong, but I feel like not long ago at all, most creationists denied both biology and astronomy. That was the 'old guard' - Duane Gish, Kent Hovind, and other assorted blithering morons. I have a hard time wrapping my head around this class of creationists who accept the Big Bang, but still deny evolution.
It's been awhile, but basically the whole reply you gave to the OP was unsatisfactory. You basically said "how to you know the universe was made?" Because I said, if you see something made, you know it had a maker. Then I said, most scientists believe that it was created and finite. But that technically is a bandwagon fallacy. So I reposted that because the universe has mass, according to a scientific law of general relativity it had a beginning. Because time is related to mass. If there is no mass (as in God's case), there is no beginning. So I guess I simply wanted a satisfactory reply to that.Since I would really like a simply yes/no answer to my one question, for curiosity-sake, please reiterate any questions you feel I have not already addressed.
I could be wrong, but I feel like not long ago at all, most creationists denied both biology and astronomy. That was the 'old guard' - Duane Gish, Kent Hovind, and other assorted blithering morons. I have a hard time wrapping my head around this class of creationists who accept the Big Bang, but still deny evolution.
I blame William Lane Craig. By resurrecting Kalam, he showed that you can misconstrue Big Bang cosmology to apologetic ends.
What does it feel like to have to pick and choose which cornerstone scientific theories you're going to accept? I'm glad I don't know.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?