Evolution

[dazed]

Then let me educate you. Energy can be felt. Macro evolution is something that can't be seen, felt, or tested. You cannot test or observe something that apparently takes millions or billions of years. That's called blind faith. There's nothing scientific about it whatsoever.

It's called logic.

We know that tigers, lions, cats ... descended from a common ancestor. If we regress this further, this mean the cat's common ancestor will have siblings that will give rise to other species. That means there will be an ancestor to these siblings as well. Rinse, spit and repeat enough we will get to a common ancestor of all species.

 

[LoveNeverDies]

It's called logic.

We know that tigers, lions, cats ... descended from a common ancestor. If we regress this further, this mean the cat's common ancestor will have siblings that will give rise to other species. That means there will be an ancestor to these siblings as well. Rinse, spit and repeat enough we will get to a common ancestor of all species.

What you're describing is micro evolution. That's what evolutionists always mix up to confuse people. There are different varieties of dogs, yet they are all dogs nonetheless. Each animal produces after its own kind. For example, what did a dog originate from? What species was a dog 50 million years ago? Was it a sea creature, a dinosaur, or a werewolf? What was it? Don't confuse micro with macro.

 

[awitch]

What you're describing is micro evolution. That's what evolutionists always mix up to confuse people.

Right, the hundreds of thousands of scientists who dedicate their life to the study of evolution are all mixed up.

There are different varieties of dogs, yet they are all dogs nonetheless.

ViaCrucis answered this for you already.

Each animal produces after its own kind.

"Kind" is not a scientific word. It's used in the Bible and used by creationists.

Don't confuse micro with macro.

As has been explained, many times: there is no differentiation of the two. Microevolution+time=macroevolution

 

[Bravo Year]

There have been posts and links that prove he's wrong, I posted a video that proves he's wrong. Proof, proof, proof, proof, proof. He's not worth your time.

 

[Rationalt]

Seems the discussion turned in to ganging up against opponents and personal attacks .

Theory Evolution (Of species from common ancestor(s)) cannot be explained strictly by Scientific method in the absence of Measurable evidence.

From wikipedia :
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Theory of evolution in biology is akin to "String theory " in physics with regards to absence of Testable data .

It is apparent that none of the people in this thread have any scientific credentials to argue forcefully in favor or against "the Theory " .

 

[LoAmmi]

You heard it here first - the study of energy is not real science; forensics is not real science (you never answered LoAmmi's question, by the way); archaeology and paleontology is not real science; gravity is not real science... what am I forgetting?

I don't think you're going to see an answer to my question. It would break down the idea that you have to observe everything in order to make reasonable conclusions.

 

[LoveNeverDies]

There have been posts and links that prove he's wrong, I posted a video that proves he's wrong. Proof, proof, proof, proof, proof. He's not worth your time.

You're confusing proof with assumption. You haven't provided any proof whatsoever, just assumption.

 

[LoveNeverDies]

Right, the hundreds of thousands of scientists who dedicate their life to the study of evolution are all mixed up.



ViaCrucis answered this for you already.



"Kind" is not a scientific word. It's used in the Bible and used by creationists.



As has been explained, many times: there is no differentiation of the two. Microevolution+time=macroevolution

Yes there is a difference. Macro evolution has never been proven or observed. Nor is it scientific.

 

[Bravo Year]

Seems the discussion turned in to ganging up against opponents and personal attacks .

Theory Evolution (Of species from common ancestor(s)) cannot be explained strictly by Scientific method in the absence of Measurable evidence.

From wikipedia :
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Theory of evolution in biology is akin to "String theory " in physics with regards to absence of Testable data .

It is apparent that none of the people in this thread have any scientific credentials to argue forcefully in favor or against "the Theory " .

So what are the people who are as credentialed as you saying? And are you saying we can't know what religions people held in the ancient world? Or what practices they had? Or what they ate, or did? Or from where they migrated, what they built, who they fought, etc? We weren't there to see it. Might we just have to rely on evidence left by the actions?

Also, as I mentioned earlier, I have no problem with people disagreeing. The problem comes in when someone starts making claims that scientists are all in on a massive conspiracy, that it's all lies, a hoax, that there is no evidence whatsoever, and that people who believe it are stupid. That's where the personal attacks started.

 

[morningstar2651]

I won't accept it because I don't believe it is evidence. I studied this before I became a Christian. I was passionate for truth. I wasn't prepared to give my life to God if I thought that we had all evolved. I have being 100% open minded and researched the "evidence" but it was more speculation and assumption than evidence.

Directly from the horse's mouth: He will not accept evidence.

This conversation is over.

 

[Zoness]

Thread over!

 

[SithDoughnut]

Yes there is a difference. Macro evolution has never been proven or observed. Nor is it scientific.

Your imaginary-fish-gives-birth-to-a-dog macro-evolution does not exist. Actual macro-evolution, which you think is micro-evolution but didn't think through the idea of adding time to the equation, does exist.

You're arguing against something that no one thinks is true, and in doing so you're ignoring everyone when you're told what macro-evolution actually is. If you take a lego brick, and add lots of other lego bricks over time, the end result is going to look wildly different to your starting brick. Same for evolution. Macro-evolution is micro-evolution, but after a longer period of time. Same thing, and the idea that the two are separate is based in ignorance. If micro-evolution exists then macro-evolution exists. You have both, or you have neither. There are no other options.

 

[LoAmmi]

Your imaginary-fish-gives-birth-to-a-dog macro-evolution does not exist.

Ironically, were this to take place it would disprove evolution.

 

[Kurama]

I believe in evolution. I do not feel any less Christian by accepting that the world is billions of years old, and that we evolved from apes, the evidence supporting that is overwhelming (however I believe that science cannot disprove God, which is why most evolutionists, even Richard Dawkins, consider themselves agnostic). I do not compromise Christ's love by believing in theistic evolution.

I myself see the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve, to be Hebrew poetry than anything else. Unlike the Quran for instance, the Bible is not word for word correct, it contains hidden meanings and parables. I find it silly that we would accept Adam and Eve literally, but then not take into account that the Old Testament also condones the hanging of homosexuals, adulterers etc.