No it isn't....and science recognizes this fact by separating the two into micro and macro evolution. These are not my terminologies.
No, they are not, but you distort the meaning of the terms and do not use them in the way in which science defined them.
I think you need to re-read my posts. There is nothing in the way of back-peddling. I have said all along that adaptation is the only form of "evolution" that has been proven by science. The fact that they use adaptation to back up their claim for something way bigger to suggest that macro-evolution naturally follows is absurd. There is no real scientific proof for of any of it. There is no verifiable 'chain' of evolution.
You, and your fellow travelers, back pedal constantly. I can still remember when it was claimed that there was no evolution and that species=kind. That argument was lost on all fronts (just two of every beetle species would have sunk the Ark) and the idea that there exists some sort of ill defined "kind" that has all the attributes of all the species that resulted from it was brought to the fore ... BIG TIME BACKPEDAL!
There are no adaptations that take species out of their "kinds". No evidence exists for that scenario except in the imagination of science. Species always remain within their 'kinds'. In experiments on speciation, the Hawthorn flies remained flies...the stickleback fish remained fish......the species adapted but remained within the same basic kind of creature. Can you deny this? There is the real science.
See what I mean? The beat goes on. Now all flies are just "flies," and all fish are just "fish."
Row, row, row backward, difficultly upstream,
merrily, merrily, merrily creationism's just a dream.
But no one has brain washed you eh? All you guys seem to be able to do is
whenever your beliefs are challenged. Why are so many evolutionists such disagreeable people? What does it matter to you if others disagree with you? Unless of course it makes you feel threatened?
Nah, I think it has more to do with our inability to suffer fools gladly.
You don't like your theory being stripped down to reveal that it has no backbone. It is a wishbone held together by the power of suggestion and way too many very large egos.
You've got it wrong again, I'd love it if you could actually strip evolutionary theory down, rather than just play pigeon chess. But you can't, and you don't, so you do (play pigeon chess that is)
LOL....I will go on repeating it because as you can see from this thread, no one has been able to refute anything with actual facts....only with more theory.
That is just the sort of scientifically ignorant statement that makes us "disagreeable." You have no concept of what "fact" and "theory" mean in this context.
A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested.
Usually, theories (in the scientific sense) are large bodies of work that are a composite of the products of many contributors over time and are substantiated by vast bodies of converging evidence. They unify and synchronize the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example, biology has the Theory of Evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory, and cosmology has the Big Bang. The development of theories is a key element of the scientific method as they are used to make predictions about the world; if these predictions fail, the theory is revised. Theories are the main goal in science and no explanation can achieve a higher "rank" (contrary to the belief that "theories" become "laws" or "facts" over time).
"Theory" is a Jekyll-and-Hyde term that means different things depending on the context and who is using it. While in everyday speech anything that attempts to provide an explanation for a cause can be dubbed a "theory", a scientific theory has a much more specific meaning. Scientific theory is far more than just a casual conjecture or some Joe's guesswork. A theory in this context is a well-substantiated explanatory framework for a series of facts and observations that is testable and can be used to predict future observations.
(thanks, rationalwiki)
You know, this is really funny when you reverse all those remarks back to you.
God gave humans a mind and an intellect and a capacity for knowledge that many people use for good. Unfortunately, many scientists are responsible for the deplorable state of the planet because of misusing this knowledge to line their own pockets.
Even if that were true, it is just an ad hominem falsity.
But science also provides us with much beneficial knowledge, so that we who believe in a purposeful Creator, get to appreciate his creative genius at a deeper level. We do not reject real science...only the theoretical unproven kind that seeks to make God redundant. You don't seem to know the difference.
False, if you fail to study it and don't understand it, and make fun of those who do both, then you hardly appreciate it.
The "micro-vs-macro-evolution" argument is not something I invented. Science itself recognizes the difference.
No, you just misappropriated words and misused the argument.
I repeat....I am not a YEC. I can think for myself and I am not brainwashed any more than you are. I do not accept theory as fact and I see purposeful design everywhere. Purpose needs intelligence to direct a process. Natural selection has no intellect, yet science wants to pretend that it does. All these millions of 'fortunate accidents' that supposedly account for all the life forms that exist on this planet.....and you think creation is a fairy story.
You are not YEC, that's good. But you've already admitted that you don't respect those who think for themselves and now you claim that you do. I guess you can't make up your mind either.
