Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Where does morality come from?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="createdtoworship" data-source="post: 74017145" data-attributes="member: 29008"><p>yes and thank you for the posts, I provided several peer reviews on the word macro evolution as being evolution above the level of species. That is the only purpose for quoting those peer reviews. To find a common definition for macro evolution, if you disagree with the definition you may want to do as I have, and find peer reviews that support your viewpoint, simply saying my definitions are in error is only an opinion, and that is not good enough. Some have the opinion that unicorns exist. But there is no evidence of it. I can see the tendency to attack my definitions, and that is fine. I just want you to see what I and other creationists here look at as evidence. Opinions are not evidence. But the fact that you are attacking my definitions reveals that you can't find evidence of macro evolution. Which actually further supports my premise. That there appears to be no evidence of macro evolution, and thus it should not be considered science, because it doesn't appear to be observed. None of those peer reviews I quoted offered evidence, but feel free to read them and find it. No one in over 12 years of debating this topic has provided evidence of macro evolution. Like I said before transitions should be as fluid as other species, and in fact the species and genus's should be fluid. If macro evolution was real there would be no lines between animals, animals would all be related to one another in some form, because they all had a darwinian common branch that they evolved from. But what we see are separate types of animals, and after thousands of years of evolution we still see the same types.</p><p></p><p>here is what I mean that animal types should be fluid according to darwins views:</p><p>( I will post in another post)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="createdtoworship, post: 74017145, member: 29008"] yes and thank you for the posts, I provided several peer reviews on the word macro evolution as being evolution above the level of species. That is the only purpose for quoting those peer reviews. To find a common definition for macro evolution, if you disagree with the definition you may want to do as I have, and find peer reviews that support your viewpoint, simply saying my definitions are in error is only an opinion, and that is not good enough. Some have the opinion that unicorns exist. But there is no evidence of it. I can see the tendency to attack my definitions, and that is fine. I just want you to see what I and other creationists here look at as evidence. Opinions are not evidence. But the fact that you are attacking my definitions reveals that you can't find evidence of macro evolution. Which actually further supports my premise. That there appears to be no evidence of macro evolution, and thus it should not be considered science, because it doesn't appear to be observed. None of those peer reviews I quoted offered evidence, but feel free to read them and find it. No one in over 12 years of debating this topic has provided evidence of macro evolution. Like I said before transitions should be as fluid as other species, and in fact the species and genus's should be fluid. If macro evolution was real there would be no lines between animals, animals would all be related to one another in some form, because they all had a darwinian common branch that they evolved from. But what we see are separate types of animals, and after thousands of years of evolution we still see the same types. here is what I mean that animal types should be fluid according to darwins views: ( I will post in another post) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Where does morality come from?
Top
Bottom