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

[Astrid]

Are you married? Do you celebrate Christmas and Easter? Awesome how you embrace your inner pagan.

We enjoy making a big deal about Christmas here,
but it really has nothing to do with religion.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

We enjoy making a big deal about Christmas here,
but it really has nothing to do with religion.

Christmas wasn't about religion at its inception, either. It was a method to win hearts & minds - asking pagans to give up one of their favourite celebrations wouldn't work. Far better to take it over and pretend it's a celebration of Jesus birth, even though he wasn't born at that time of year. Adding in additional pagan accoutrements (Christmas tree, mistletoe & holly etc) are great ways to allow the masses to continue their pagan practices while hoodwinking them into a belief that these are Christian celebrations.

 

[Astrid]

Christmas wasn't about religion at its inception, either. It was a method to win hearts & minds - asking pagans to give up one of their favourite celebrations wouldn't work. Far better to take it over and pretend it's a celebration of Jesus birth, even though he wasn't born at that time of year. Adding in additional pagan accoutrements (Christmas tree, mistletoe & holly etc) are great ways to allow the masses to continue their pagan practices while hoodwinking them into a belief that these are Christian celebrations.

Seasonal celebrations are what you make of them.

In HK its like this-

 

[AV1611VET]

We enjoy making a big deal about Christmas here,

Same here.

... but it really has nothing to do with religion.

It's all about Jesus.

And as we're fond of saying: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON.

 

[AV1611VET]

Christmas wasn't about religion at its inception, either. It was a method to win hearts & minds - asking pagans to give up one of their favourite celebrations wouldn't work. Far better to take it over and pretend it's a celebration of Jesus birth, even though he wasn't born at that time of year. Adding in additional pagan accoutrements (Christmas tree, mistletoe & holly etc) are great ways to allow the masses to continue their pagan practices while hoodwinking them into a belief that these are Christian celebrations.

As we're fond of saying: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON.

 

[AV1611VET]

In HK its like this- [* Jingle Bells *]

I didn't know it snowed in HK.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

As we're fond of saying: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON.

Jesus is not the reason for the season, but "Jesus is the excuse for hijacking a pagan celebration" isn't such an agreeable soundbite, is it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Jesus is not the reason for the season, but "Jesus is the excuse for hijacking a pagan celebration" isn't such an agreeable soundbite, is it?

Saturnalia was hijacked, was it?

Maybe they gave it up willingly?

Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Saturnalia was hijacked, was it?

Maybe they gave it up willingly?

Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

 

[Buzzard3]

No-one who understands evolution has it mean that.

Who understands evolution? No one, as far as I can tell.

Ask scientists to describe the evolutionary process that produced a eukaryote from a prokaryote, or an amphibian from a fish, or a reptile from an amphibian, or a bird from a reptile, or a whale from a land animal ... and they are clueless - they can't even describe the first step.
In fact, evolutionary scientists can't describe the evolutionary process that produced even one macro-evolutionary transition evident in the fossil record.

 

[Buzzard3]

Jesus is not the reason for the season, but "Jesus is the excuse for hijacking a pagan celebration"

Big deal. That doesn't make any difference to me or lessen the spiritual significance of the occassion.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Big deal. That doesn't make any difference to me or lessen the spiritual significance of the occassion.

I didn't say otherwise. My point was really more about honesty - I have no problem if one religion wants to take over another religion's celebrations, but I do have a problem if you deny that's what happened.

 

[Astrophile]

The Catholic Church teaches that atheism is the last great heresy of mankind. The "religion" of atheism is evolution.

Atheism and atheists existed before there was any theory of evolution. In the first speech of 'Tis Pity She's A harlot (published in 1633), by John Ford, the Friar speaks of 'wits that presumed on wit too much ... striving how to prove there was no God' and 'fill[ing] the world with devilish atheism'. In The Pilgrim's Progress (1678-85), Christian and Hopeful meet an atheist, who denies that there is any such place as Mount Zion. Both these works were published long before either Lamarck or Charles Darwin were born.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Who understands evolution? No one, as far as I can tell.

Ask scientists to describe the evolutionary process that produced a eukaryote from a prokaryote, or an amphibian from a fish, or a reptile from an amphibian, or a bird from a reptile, or a whale from a land animal ... and they are clueless - they can't even describe the first step.
In fact, evolutionary scientists can't describe the evolutionary process that produced even one macro-evolutionary transition evident in the fossil record.

So where is your groundbreaking research that would shatter the world of biology then, since you claim to know oh so much more than all the biologists in the world combined?

 

[Buzzard3]

So where is your groundbreaking research that would shatter the world of biology then, since you claim to know oh so much more than all the biologists in the world combined?

When did I "claim to know oh so much more than all the biologists in the world combined"?

It's a fact that no evolutionary scientist can describe how any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record proceeded - they can't even describe how any of those transitions to got to first base.
I know that because I've asked them (on other sites) to provide any such description ... and they came up with ZILCH.


Scientists know a lot about micro-evolution, but when it comes to macro-evolution, they're clueless.
If they're completely clueless about how macro-evolution proceeds, they can't claim to know how evolution works, can they? That's a pretty simple and reasonable logical conclusion.

 

[Buzzard3]

Atheism and atheists existed before there was any theory of evolution. In the first speech of 'Tis Pity She's A harlot (published in 1633), by John Ford, the Friar speaks of 'wits that presumed on wit too much ... striving how to prove there was no God' and 'fill[ing] the world with devilish atheism'. In The Pilgrim's Progress (1678-85), Christian and Hopeful meet an atheist, who denies that there is any such place as Mount Zion. Both these works were published long before either Lamarck or Charles Darwin were born.

"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
William Provine

 

[Bungle_Bear]

When did I "claim to know oh so much more than all the biologists in the world combined"?

It's a fact that no evolutionary scientist can describe how any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record proceeded - they can't even describe how any of those transitions to got to first base.
I know that because I've asked them (on other sites) to provide any such description ... and they came up with ZILCH.


Scientists know a lot about micro-evolution, but when it comes to macro-evolution, they're clueless.
If they're completely clueless about how macro-evolution proceeds, they can't claim to know how evolution works, can they? That's a pretty simple and reasonable logical conclusion.

Hogwash. If they can explain "micro-evolution" they have explained "macro-evolution". Creationists seem to think there is some magical difference between these things, hence they invented the terms. But there is only evolution. Lots of small changes over a period of time will look like a big change. It's amazing how creationists struggle with such a simple concept.

 

[Shemjaza]

When did I "claim to know oh so much more than all the biologists in the world combined"?

It's a fact that no evolutionary scientist can describe how any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record proceeded - they can't even describe how any of those transitions to got to first base.
I know that because I've asked them (on other sites) to provide any such description ... and they came up with ZILCH.


Scientists know a lot about micro-evolution, but when it comes to macro-evolution, they're clueless.
If they're completely clueless about how macro-evolution proceeds, they can't claim to know how evolution works, can they? That's a pretty simple and reasonable logical conclusion.

It's speciation followed by further change... it's trivial to understand.

A lion is a kind of cat, but is too distantly related to successfully mate with a cheetah... but a jaguar is more similar and is able to mate with a lion but not very successfully.


The existence of ring species demonstrates how easy macro evolution is.

A can mate with B can mate with C can mate with D who can't mate with A.... it's just a couple of extinctions from A and D being unambiguously separate species.


If Creationists accept that variation can build up in micro-evolution then they need to present a barrier to that build up leading to macro evolution on a longer time scale.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

When did I "claim to know oh so much more than all the biologists in the world combined"?

It's a fact that no evolutionary scientist can describe how any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record proceeded - they can't even describe how any of those transitions to got to first base.
I know that because I've asked them (on other sites) to provide any such description ... and they came up with ZILCH.


Scientists know a lot about micro-evolution, but when it comes to macro-evolution, they're clueless.
If they're completely clueless about how macro-evolution proceeds, they can't claim to know how evolution works, can they? That's a pretty simple and reasonable logical conclusion.

See, I only asked because your arrogant words regarding this topic, such as the claim that scientists don't know about macro-evolution, leads me to believe that you might know more than the world's scientists and biologists.

Although apparently, all it is is just hot bluster from you since all you've done is make claims and not given a single shred of evidenc.

 

[Job 33:6]

Scientists know a lot about micro-evolution, but when it comes to macro-evolution, they're clueless.
If they're completely clueless about how macro-evolution proceeds, they can't claim to know how evolution works, can they? That's a pretty simple and reasonable logical conclusion.

The obvious logical issue with this post being that macro evolution is simply a collection or summation of micro evolution steps. Indeed, knowing how microevolution works is equivalent to knowing how macro evolution works, just as knowing how to take one step down the street is equivalent to knowing how to take 5 steps, because of course 5 steps is just a complication of multiple single steps.