Macro: Where is the Evidence ?

[Ryal Kane]

Yet you have an atheist icon. Care to explain?

 

[mikeynov]

Yes, because there is no evidence like the OP evidenced.

I gave you over 100 examples of something you claim doesn't exist. Stop lying.

You evos have evaded the TWO quotes.

Boy, we just dodge those quote mines left and right.

You have evaded the lack of intermediates in fossil formations.

I gave you literally dozens of examples via links in this thread alone. Stop lying.

If there was NO macro in the 19th century as Darwin admitted - then what evidence was macro based on ?

Try reading Origin of the Species some time and find out?

Answer: Darwinism is atheist religion asserted to be science as an attempt to make it objective.

Good call. That's why most evolutionists are theists, and that a good percentage of the posters in this forum who accept evolution are Christian.

 

[gluadys]

Darwinism is atheist religion asserted to be science as an attempt to make it objective.

Ed Vidence

Thank you for a new entry in my collection of definitions of Darwinism.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Yes, because there is no evidence like the OP evidenced.

It is assumed driven by the horror of Genesis looming onward.

You evos have evaded the TWO quotes.

You have evaded the lack of intermediates in fossil formations.

If there was NO macro in the 19th century as Darwin admitted - then what evidence was macro based on ?

Answer: Darwinism is atheist religion asserted to be science as an attempt to make it objective.

Ed Vidence

You asked for evidence of macroevolution and were given many examples. You have dismissed all of it with simple hand-waving. What of the many examples of observed speciation published in major peer-reviewed journals? How do you manage to sweep it all away without serious examination?

The disguise you wore in your opening post was a good one -- it made you appear as someone asking an honest question. Instead your real agenda is now clear and it has nothing to do with gaining knowledge. This makes you a liar. You are a liar.

 

[Nymphalidae]

Yes, because there is no evidence like the OP evidenced.

It is assumed driven by the horror of Genesis looming onward.

You evos have evaded the TWO quotes.

You have evaded the lack of intermediates in fossil formations.

If there was NO macro in the 19th century as Darwin admitted - then what evidence was macro based on ?

Answer: Darwinism is atheist religion asserted to be science as an attempt to make it objective.

Ed Vidence

No, scientists don't differentiate between micro and macro evolution because they are one and the same. Macro evolution is simply micro evolution over a long period of time. Every single animal that has ever lived to reproduce is a transitional form. And science has progressed since the 19th century. Do you think that you can come here with one quote and dismiss the work that thousands of people have done over the past 150 years?

 

[Ozymandius]

Yeah I thought it might be WILLOWTREE/adam zenith/Ray Martinez.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Yet you have an atheist icon. Care to explain?

That's easy -- he's a poser. And not a very good one. Turns out he need a LIAR icon.

 

[Edx]

Yet you have an atheist icon. Care to explain?

Oh yea! LOL. So unobservant. Damn when someone does a Creationist impression around here and no one looks for the obvious giveaway atheist symbol.

(it isnt me btw)

Ed

 

[Elduran]

If there was NO macro in the 19th century as Darwin admitted - then what evidence was macro based on ?

Who cares? The MODERN theory is based on MODERN evidence.

Answer: Darwinism is atheist religion asserted to be science as an attempt to make it objective.

Ed Vidence

Atheism isn't a religion. Evolution isn't a religion.

Incidentally, you are not an atheist, why are you lying to everyone?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Yes, because there is no evidence like the OP evidenced.

Wow. I’ve seen lot of ignorant anti-evolutionists during my stint here but you are certainly one of the most dishonest and antagonistic. How can you, at this point in this thread, make such a moronic statement? You are the poster child for the reason I wrote this satirical thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t1847496-do-you-have-what-it-takes-to-be-a-yec.html

How can you just ignore all the evidence that people have provided you? What are you trying to accomplish here?

You evos have evaded the TWO quotes.

Us “evos” have done no such thing and I don’t understand how you can think you can sit there and lie about it when the evidence is in this very thread. Dimwits like you used to at least start a new thread before they start lying about what us “evos” did or didn’t say.

You have evaded the lack of intermediates in fossil formations.

Are you really this obtuse? Really?!? Have you even read the responses to your rubbish? You are just making yourself look silly at this point.

If there was NO macro in the 19th century as Darwin admitted - then what evidence was macro based on?

You have already been shown that there was evidence back then and that there is much more now. Why isn’t any of this getting through? Do you have some kind of net-nanny software for creationists that blocks out evidence for evolution?

Answer: Darwinism is atheist religion asserted to be science as an attempt to make it objective.

I’m starting to wish I had a dollar for every time a religious person ironically makes religion look bad by using the term religion as an insult.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why isn’t any of this getting through? Do you have some kind of net-nanny software for creationists that blocks out evidence for evolution?

Hehe, we could name the software "Morton's Demon for XP".

ABE: Read about Morton's Demon here: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html

 

[Lord Emsworth]

7/10 for hilarity.

 

[Ed Vidence]

Macroevolution is, by definition, the formation of new biologically distinct taxa. Speciation is an example of macroevolution by definition, as it involves the formation of new species.

Okay - the definition is not in dispute, what is in dispute is if the speciation/macroevolution happens.

In fact, Darwin's theory attempted to explain the origin of species from pre-existing lineages

Agreed, but I would place emphasis upon "attempted to explain."

at which point you established a pattern of divergence which matches, past and present, the groups within groups long-recognized within the field of biology, and first systematized by Linnaeus.

Now you have strayed from the precise issue at hand - the subject of my topic.

But to address what you said, in plain english: any observed similarity/commonality is being asserted "scientific evidence" of the assumption (speciation). What you are evading is the fact that species appear in the geological fossil formation record, change slightly (microevolution) then disappear.

There is no physical evidence in the fossil strata supporting the giant assumption of speciation which you are making and trying to downplay, and attempting to conceal within the undisputed facts of microevolution.

Unfortunately for you, we've seen macroevolution in the form of speciation, fulfilling Darwin's prediction of how new species come to be.

The Milton quote plainly says what is established fact: speciation is not observable nor can it be made the object of experiment.

The Darwin quote admitted the geological fossil record did not show macroevolution/intermediacy in his day.

Darwinists have evaded this fact, and wholly evaded what macroevolution was scientifically based upon in the 19th century. I offer the obvious: philosophy and theory that had no physical evidence.

http://www.christianforums.com/t155...speciation

[size=-1]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation[/size]

[size=-1]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation

[/size]

The format made me disable your links because of my newbie status, but I do not debate links in proxy. I could easily do the same and mindlessly post links.
I debate real people - not links.

If you can't make the argument yourself then I will not let you defer to a link without any substance from your own keyboard.

Ed Vidence

 

[mikeynov]

Okay - the definition is not in dispute, what is in dispute is if the speciation/macroevolution happens.

There is no dispute. If you disagree, you're wrong.

See how easy that is?

But to address what you said, in plain english: any observed similarity/commonality is being asserted "scientific evidence" of the assumption (speciation). What you are evading is the fact that species appear in the geological fossil formation record, change slightly (microevolution) then disappear.

Not really. We have plenty of transitionals that you still won't even acknowledge. Read the links I provided.

There is no physical evidence in the fossil strata supporting the giant assumption of speciation which you are making and trying to downplay, and attempting to conceal within the undisputed facts of microevolution.

Speciation isn't an assumption, it's an observed fact. What we do see in the fossil record does support evolution, and flies in the face of special creation, which predicts 0 transitionals. Further, YEC predicts a young earth, which has been falsified for over two centuries. In case you didn't get the memo.

The Milton quote plainly says what is established fact: speciation is not observable nor can it be made the object of experiment.

That somebody says something doesn't make it true. I'm guessing even you understand that.

The Darwin quote admitted the geological fossil record did not show macroevolution/intermediacy in his day.

Have you actually read Origin of the Species? Yes or no.

Darwinists have evaded this fact, and wholly evaded what macroevolution was scientifically based upon in the 19th century. I offer the obvious: philosophy and theory that had no physical evidence.

An abundance of evidence has been offered to you in this very thread. Here's a recap:

* Objective, nested hierarchy of life with an internally consistent chronology (groups within groups that appear in the right times past and present)
* Independent means of building objective phylogenies, including ERV's, morphological and genetic characters. See Jet Black's posts in the quiet thread - I'd love to see you give even a half-hearted attempt at rebutting them.
* Plenty of transitionals between major animal groups you deny exist
* Observed speciation

The format made me disable your links because of my newbie status, but I do not debate links in proxy. I could easily do the same and mindlessly post links.

Nice copout. Try copy/pasting them into your browser - they're peer reviewed references which demonstrate speciation, something you still deny exists.

I debate real people - not links.

Translation: I refuse to look at evidence offered to me.

If you can't make the argument yourself then I will not let you defer to a link without any substance from your own keyboard.

Ed Vidence

You're wasting everybody's time by posting. You've demonstrated enough dishonesty to make your YEC authorities proud.

 

[Ed Vidence]

Here are 29 evidences of macro, including observed speciation. The examples have all been published in major peer-reviewed science journals.

You are evading the specifics of the OP.

1) Darwin admitted the geological record showed no evidence of his theory.

2) Milton (atheist) confirms this is still a fact today.

With this being fact, what on Earth was his theory based on besides the need for Genesis to be wrong ?

And here is the oft-posted picture of hominid skulls:

As I said before the format made me delete your image because of my newbie status.

And yes, this is the "oft-posted picture" of hominid skulls:

Explanation:

Visual rhetoric.

This Jim Foley invent relies on this fact: any number of given people will somehow conclude/guess that some are human and some are ape. Then the Foleyite will interject the rhetoric/misuse of logic: this difference of opinion proves transitional !

This is called lawyer rhetoric and the travesty is that it is being utilized in science and not in a courtroom.

The image is astronomically subjective and corruptible to be as anyone needs it to be.

How it even remotely supports macroevolution requires massive trust as the "evidence" has no clear objective value apart from the pre-existing narrative framework of the Naturalist worldview and methodologies which say human evolution HAS to be true.

The Bible in Romans 1:23 acknowledges the existence of "corruptible dead anthropons" in the context of God's wrath explaining what persons suffering the wrath MUST believe in when they reject God AS the Creator.

Because of WHEN Romans was written and WHAT is says (paragraph above) these facts far out weigh any other "facts" and become an objective refutation of hominid evolution claims for the reasons just explained.

(A) is a modern chimp. (N) is a modern human. Everything else in between is a human ancestor or cousin. (B) is an australopithecus at 2.6 million years old, (I) is homo heidelbergensis at about 200,000 years old, and (M) is homo sapiens at about 30,000 years old. See link above for other species and dates.

I know your claims, but there isn't any evidence to document this ape morphing into men philosophy.

Ed Vidence

 

[Ed Vidence]

You're wasting everybody's time by posting. You've demonstrated enough dishonesty to make your YEC authorities proud.

You are frustrated.

Please do not quit the debate just because I refuse to let you evade evidence.

Where did you get the idea I was a YEC ?

Please paste the evidence.

I am not a YEC.

The Earth is of immense age.

Science and the Bible both agree on this issue.

The Bible says God spoke the Universe into existence out of nothing eons and eons ago.

Ed Vidence

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I do not debate links in proxy. I could easily do the same and mindlessly post links. I debate real people - not links. If you can't make the argument yourself then I will not let you defer to a link without any substance from your own keyboard.

Now that’s hilarious. I needed a good laugh. I’ve seen creationists ignore evidence before but I’ve never seen one outright refuse to look at evidence publicly. So what you want is for the others that can actually substantiate their arguments to not do so why? So their position can be as unsupported as yours? This is honestly one of the most irrational requests I’ve seen in awhile. “If you’re gonna debate me I’ll have none of that evidence linking you hear me?!?”

 

[Army of Juan]

With this being fact, what on Earth was his theory based on besides the need for Genesis to be wrong ?

What's this "need for Genesis to be wrong"? I wasn't aware of such a thing and from what I understand the people that falsified a literal Genesis had the preassumption that Genesis was true to begin with. I don't think they had a "need" to prove Genesis wrong.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

but there isn't any evidence to document this ape morphing into men philosophy

then explain the 2nd centrosome and the internal teleomeres(including the backwards ones) which demonstrate that the human 2 chromosome is a fused 2p + 2q from the great apes

this is evidence.

 

[mikeynov]

You are frustrated.

Please do not quit the debate just because I refuse to let you evade evidence.

Where did you get the idea I was a YEC ?

Please paste the evidence.

I am not a YEC.

The Earth is of immense age.

Science and the Bible both agree on this issue.

The Bible says God spoke the Universe into existence out of nothing eons and eons ago.

Ed Vidence

Here's your "evidence"

* Darwin said something which indicated a lack of evidence in the 19th century (note that he was honest enough to devote an entire section of his book to criticisms of his theory)
* Some atheist seems to have said something similar (though knowing creationist quotemining, I'd be curious to see the full quote in context)

That's not evidence. That's "two people said something." And one of them said it 150 years ago.

Again, you've been presented evidence, but you bury your hand in the sand like an ostrich. The reason I guessed that you were a YEC is because of the frequency of this sort of evasive nonsense in that group.

But okay, you're a dishonest OEC. More power to you.

P.S. Right click, choose "copy," then go to the area at the top in your web browser where you type in web pages, right click, and hit paste. Do that for the links provided for you.