Isn't it true that the more a group tries to censor it's members, the more suspect it is?

[TruePathFinder]

Ah, the light is beginning to shine in

I am simply showing that 95% of Christians probably don't have those things, so you are saying your opinion means nothing

 

[Subduction Zone]

Amount of opposition equals truth ? Macro evolution has holes big enough in it to drive trucks through. There is significant opposition to the THEORY

I have asked for these supposed "holes" and you have not even been able to demonstrate one of them. And you do not seem to understand that macro-evolution has been directly observed. I am betting that you do not even understand the term. This is the sort of claim made by those with no understanding of the science at all.

And no, there is no significant opposition to the theory. Opposition by those who are in no position to judge is not significant. Opposition by supposed scientists that cannot support their claims is not significant. If there was significant opposition you could find it.

 

[TruePathFinder]

Because it is supported by mountains of scientific evidence. Because it has been tested and confirmed many times over. Because there is no real opposition to the theory at all.

And there is a fossil record

 

[shmogie]

Reliable to any unbiased observer. I do not think that you qualify as such. You have been getting rather angry at simple corrections. That indicates a huge bias.

Angry ? You are kidding. Now begins the accusations, expected. ad hominems to follow. Corrections ? Nonsense, you have corrected nothing How do you know how any unbiased observer will react to what is presented on anything.

The Church has millions of atheists in it who converted, based on the evidence, before conversion, were they biased ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And there is a fossil record

And that is just a small part of the scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution and the theory of evolution only.

I think that the problem here is a total lack of understanding of how science is done.

 

[Neb]

Because it is supported by mountains of scientific evidence. Because it has been tested and confirmed many times over. Because there is no real opposition to the theory at all.

What the molecule to man theory and Lucy, the 3.2 million-year-old chimpanzee? Have you observed and tested this before it became a theory?

 

[Father Heathen]

Admitting you don't know something, and knowing you know something aren't the same thing. Who are you to determine what someone knows ? Do you think knowledge comes about only as you decide ?

You're right, admitting that you don't know due to a lack of evidence is different from (and better than) making **** up so you can pretend that you do, which is what religions do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Angry ? You are kidding. Now begins the accusations, expected. ad hominems to follow. Corrections ? Nonsense, you have corrected nothing How do you know how any unbiased observer will react to what is presented on anything.

The Church has millions of atheists in it who converted, based on the evidence, before conversion, were they biased ?

Your posts indicate that you are angry. When you run into a claim that you can't refute you simply call it "BS:" instead of showing that it is wrong. You make disparaging claims about others that have supposedly seen your evidence. That all sounds like you are rather angry to me.

And of course I have corrected you. You should have asked questions if you did not understand.

Where are these supposed "millions of atheists"? I have seen a few and many of them were incompetent. For example Josh McDowell tried to "prove that Jesus did not exist" when he failed he made the illogical and unwarranted assumption that he was real and that Christianity was true. Does an inability to prove that Muhammad did not exist prove Islam? I would hope that you say no.

Perhaps we should go over the concept of evidence. I have seen that many do not understand the concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What the molecule to man theory and Lucy, the 3.2 million-year-old chimpanzee? Have you observed and tested this before it became a theory?

First off abiogenesis is a separate, but related field to evolution. If you want to discuss abiogenesis that would be moving the goalposts. I am willing to do so if you admit that evolution is proven since evolution does not rely upon abiogenesis. The first life could have multiple sources.

Second Lucy is only one very small piece of evidence in the mountains of evidence that demonstrate evolution to be correct. We knew that life was the product of evolution long before Lucy came along.

Perhaps we should go over some basics first. It will not take long.

 

[Neb]

First off abiogenesis is a separate, but related field to evolution. If you want to discuss abiogenesis that would be moving the goalposts. I am willing to do so if you admit that evolution is proven since evolution does not rely upon abiogenesis. The first life could have multiple sources.

Second Lucy is only one very small piece of evidence in the mountains of evidence that demonstrate evolution to be correct. We knew that life was the product of evolution long before Lucy came along.

Perhaps we should go over some basics first. It will not take long.

Let's see first how you got Lucy's 3.2 million of years. What kind of testing did they do?

 

[shmogie]

I have asked for these supposed "holes" and you have not even been able to demonstrate one of them. And you do not seem to understand that macro-evolution has been directly observed. I am betting that you do not even understand the term. This is the sort of claim made by those with no understanding of the science at all.

And no, there is no significant opposition to the theory. Opposition by those who are in no position to judge is not significant. Opposition by supposed scientists that cannot support their claims is not significant. If there was significant opposition you could find it.

When did you ask about them ? Macro evolution has been directly observed, are you sure ? I don't think so. Prove it.

I can find it.........................I have it in a great number of books and notes I'll get back to you. So, if a nobel prize winner in science or medicine supports intelligent design, they are supposed scientists ? It has happened .So, dogmatic adherence to a theory determines who a scientist is ? One of my best friends holds multiple degrees in biology and microbiology, he is extensively published in his field, has made notable discoveries, and is a full professor of medicine at a major california university. He believes in intelligent design. I'll have to tell him he is only a supposed scientist, he'll laugh his head off, as I already have at your statement.

 

[Neb]

First off abiogenesis is a separate, but related field to evolution. If you want to discuss abiogenesis that would be moving the goalposts. I am willing to do so if you admit that evolution is proven since evolution does not rely upon abiogenesis. The first life could have multiple sources.

Second Lucy is only one very small piece of evidence in the mountains of evidence that demonstrate evolution to be correct. We knew that life was the product of evolution long before Lucy came along.

Perhaps we should go over some basics first. It will not take long.

To be fair, what kind of evolution are you talking about so we don't keep on moving the goalposts like the God of the Bible should NOT be confused with the "a god" and "various gods".

 

[shmogie]

First off abiogenesis is a separate, but related field to evolution. If you want to discuss abiogenesis that would be moving the goalposts. I am willing to do so if you admit that evolution is proven since evolution does not rely upon abiogenesis. The first life could have multiple sources.

Second Lucy is only one very small piece of evidence in the mountains of evidence that demonstrate evolution to be correct. We knew that life was the product of evolution long before Lucy came along.

Perhaps we should go over some basics first. It will not take long.

Abiogenesis is the heart of evolution. Evolutionists always run from it, because it is an impossible thing to defend. However, without that first bit of the spontaneous generation of life, evolution wouldn't exist. You can't start in the middle and say the beginning isn't art of the story, but they try.

 

[TruePathFinder]

I'm always amazed when I realize that some adherents to Christianity don't believe in evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When did you ask about them ? Macro evolution has been directly observed, are you sure ? I don't think so. Prove it.

I can find it.........................I have it in a great number of books and notes I'll get back to you. So, if a nobel prize winner in science or medicine supports intelligent design, they are supposed scientists ? It has happened .So, dogmatic adherence to a theory determines who a scientist is ? One of my best friends holds multiple degrees in biology and microbiology, he is extensively published in his field, has made notable discoveries, and is a full professor of medicine at a major california university. He believes in intelligent design. I'll have to tell him he is only a supposed scientist, he'll laugh his head off, as I already have at your statement.

No problem. First you need to know what macro-evolution is. It is merely evolution at or above the species level. Therefore observing the evolution of a new species is by definition marcoevolution. Creationists do not even understand the term. So of course a finch is still a "finch" but it becomes two different species of finch. Or an even more obvious example is this:

Discovering a ring species

I warned you that you did not understand the terms that you were using:

Macroevolution - Wikipedia

"Macroevolution is evolution on on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[1] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population.[2] Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales"

That is the definition as given by the scientist that originated the term.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abiogenesis is the heart of evolution. Evolutionists always run from it, because it is an impossible thing to defend. However, without that first bit of the spontaneous generation of life, evolution wouldn't exist. You can't start in the middle and say the beginning isn't art of the story, but they try.

Prove it. I know that you can't. And no, I am not running away from it. It is a different topic. I am willing to discuss it once you admit that evolution is a proven fact. Until you learn how to walk you can't run. I am merely not wasting my time on those that refuse to understand basic science.

Okay, how about we learn what science is, how it is done, and what evidence is.

 

[Neb]

I'm always amazed when I realize that some adherents to Christianity don't believe in evolution.

What kind of evolution you are talking about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What kind of evolution you are talking about?

Let's call it "Darwinian evolution" though it has moved beyond his beginning of the concept. His basic ideas were correct but much has been learned since his time.

 

[Neb]

No problem. First you need to know what macro-evolution is. It is merely evolution at or above the species level. Therefore observing the evolution of a new species is by definition marcoevolution. Creationists do not even understand the term. So of course a finch is still a "finch" but it becomes two different species of finch. Or an even more obvious example is this:

Discovering a ring species

I warned you that you did not understand the terms that you were using:

Macroevolution - Wikipedia

"Macroevolution is evolution on on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[1] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population.[2] Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales"

That is the definition as given by the scientist that originated the term.

The question AGAIN is: "Macro evolution has been directly observed, are you sure?"
How can one observed macroevolution, a large-scale (“macro”) biological change?

 

[Neb]

Let's call it "Darwinian evolution" though it has moved beyond his beginning of the concept. His basic ideas were correct but much has been learned since his time.

Darwinists argue that macroevolution is simply the accumulation of microevolutionary but the problem is, where are the intermediate links between these evolutions. Darwin could not find them. Why?