Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Beyond the variety WITHIN species of micro-evolution, no one has ever observed macro-evolution, anywhere ever, yet it is accepted by some most willingly.
Please define "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" and "species" as you are using it.
Be exact. Since you have been ignorant and wrong on multiple occasion, one can assume that you are not using the actual scientific definitions of these terms. Once that has been done so as to prevent your likely cowardly attempt to move the goalpost, evidence can be presented.
Beyond the variety WITHIN species of micro-evolution, no one has ever observed macro-evolution, anywhere ever, yet it is accepted by some most willingly.
That's what we're asking. If you disagree with evolution you have to provide some alternative that provides a better explanation.
THAT is why most creationists don't make any headway in scientific circles.. not because their ideas are rejected because they don't comply, it's because they don't actually provide any ideas to begin with!
There used to be one called Lamarckism but it was discarded because it didn't fit with what we observe.
If you can produce a scientifically tenable alternative to evolution that is superior (i.e. explains more than evolution does) then far from being rejected, you'll be given a Nobel prize. That's what science does with people who upset the apple cart you know.
Nope, everything must conform to what's observed and explain it, and a new theory must do it at least as well as evolution and either do it better or be simpler.
If you propose a new theory of gravity and it doesn't explain why the moon orbits the earth, yes of course it'll be mocked and rejected.
However if your theory explains why Newton's theory of gravity doesn't explain Mercury's orbit and your new theory DOES explain it, then well your name would be Einstein and everyone would change their views on gravity from Newton to you.
Beyond the variety WITHIN species of micro-evolution, no one has ever observed macro-evolution, anywhere ever, yet it is accepted by somemost christians most willingly.
There seems to be a lot of confusion among certain participants in this thread regarding species and speciation.
Earlier, I asked David Henson to define what makes species distinct.
Sadly, my post (and other asking equivalent questions) have been ignored. A pity, but not discouragingly so.
Undaunted, I will attempt to alleviate some of the confusion certain posters are exhibiting.
--- --- --- --- ---
Mr. Henson and 154:
You both appear to view "species" as a concrete term. For you, it seems that an animal either is or is not of a specific "kind" (a term neither you or Kent Hovind has ever defined, allowing you to twist it any number of ways and thereby rendering it useless for meaningful discussion). You have no allowance for variation or subtle differences. Because of this, you appear to hold the ridiculous notion that speciation involves one "kind" of animal giving birth to another "kind". An example of this is your comment about dogs always giving birth to dogs, not cats (I'm going to use cats instead of corn, because, well, let's just say I'm giving you the credit of assuming you were using hyperbole, and weren't actually serious about the corn thing).
The problem that arises here is that evolution does not say dogs give birth to cats. Dogs give birth to dogs, but every individual of a species is different.
Example: You don't look exactly the same as your parents, nor do they look exactly the same as their parents. You look even less like their parents than they do. Your children don't look exactly like you, and similarly resemble their grand-parents and great grand-parents even less than you do. But you all share common ancestors.
So each dog is different. Over time, these differences accumulate. They are small, but they are legion. And this accumulation is slow. It is measured in generations.
Allow me to create an analogy:
When you were 2 months (0.17 years) old, you were an infant.
When you were 24 months (2 years) old, you were a toddler.
When you were 120 months (10 years) old, you were a child.
When you were 168 years (14 years) old, you were an adolescent.
When you were 240 months (20 years) old, you were an adult.
When you reach 720 months (60 years) old, you will be an old man (or woman, if a sex change is what milks your Guernsey).
I presume you agree with the above. Now, consider this:
How many months old were you when you stopped being a toddler and became a child?
Changed from being an adolescent to an adult?
At what age (in months) will you become an old man (or woman) instead of an adult?
Think about the above questions for a few moments, then continue reading.
Done? Good.
Now, I have something to confess to you. The questions are dishonest.
I know perfectly well that you can't pin down a specific month between toddler and child. I was originally tempted to ask for days, but the numbers got too big. So, it was dishonest of me to ask a question that I knew to be nonsense.
The issue here isn't that you transitioned from infant to toddler, toddler to child, child to adolescent, and so-on.
It happened. You are, after all, and adult, aren't you?
But asking when is meaningless. You were just as much an adult yesterday as you were today, is that no so? You were just as much an adult last month as you are today, is that also not so?
In any 2 consecutive months, you are effectively unchanged. Human growth doesn't occur rapidly enough for substantial changes to occur in only 1 month. Sure, you might grow an inch one month, and get a few more chin hairs the next, and maybe your voice cracks the following month. But those changes don't change you from being an adolescent the first month to being an adolescent the middle month to being an adolescent the last month.
But eventually, with enough of those small changes building one-upon-the-other, you became an adult.
The problem with my questions, the reason they are dishonest, is simple:
THE WORDS USED TO DESCRIBE THE STAGES OF LIFE ARE CONCRETE, BUT THE LIFE STAGES THEY REPRESENT ARE ANYTHING BUT!
Reality is somewhat more fuzzy than language generally conveys. Languages like solid definitions. Why, if words were pliable they would become meaningless (read: "kinds"). For most things, this works just fine. A machine either works or is broken. A knife is either sharp or it is dull. An airplane is either in the air or on the ground.
But when it comes to figuring out which month of your life represents the change from toddler to child, you run into the problem with fuzziness head on. Any 2 consecutive months, you are the same. A toddler one month is a toddler the month after. A child one month was a child the month before. Yet at 2 years you are a toddler, and at 10 you are a child. Somewhere in-between, things get blurry.
What you are demanding, in your quest to discredit evolution, is the equivalent of my asking which month you became a child.
You are demanding a concrete instant for a gradual change.
Evolution doesn't work that way. And the only people who say is does are the ones who have been mislead by lying con-artists, and sorely mis-educated about the fact and theory of evolution.
Below is a video of exactly the thing I'm talking about. At what point (you can give the nearest second in the video) does the little girl change from infant to toddler?
There is no such instant, is there? Not as a discrete time point. But if you look at a large enough range...
This instant, David and 154, is what you are claiming evolution says happens. But it doesn't. It never has.
Evolution acts across a range. A long range. Imagine each day as a few generations, and you might start to get it.
Small changes, accumulating over long periods of time. What emerges at the end is never the same as what was there at the beginning.
And stop listening to Hovind. The man (along with Cameron/Comfort and Ken Ham) is a moron, a con-artist, and a deluded liar.
You have already been given links to websites and books explaining far more eloquently than I ever could what evolution actually says, and just what the evidence is that led scientists (notably Darwin) to conclude that species change over time.
Beyond the variety WITHIN species of micro-evolution, no one has ever observed macro-evolution, anywhere ever, yet it is accepted by some most willingly.
Nope, only those who's opinions are founded upon wishes and rainbows, those with dissenting opinions who bring evidence and support are revered. Like Newton, Einstein, etc.
This thread is about evolution, accepting evolution has nothing to do with forsaking any god.
And I write that entire post, and that's your only response? I make many points, ask many questions, and you ignore it all? Is that you you want to be treated, that you treat others that way?
Has anyone notice a complete and utter lack of answers from 154?
So many questions based on his own ignorance and lack of education; but no answers at all.
Beyond the variety WITHIN species of micro-evolution, no one has ever observed macro-evolution, anywhere ever, yet it is accepted by some most christians most willingly.
Just out of curiosity since I'm trying to reconcile the fact that you somehow think that mutations are always harmful and not beneficial do you accept things "micro-evolve" (Quoted because its a creationist term)? If so why did you try claiming that mutations can not "add in useful information?
That was quite a well thought and detailed answer.
That you dismiss on face value, do not ever consider it is quite insulting to X's efforts.
Mostly, however, your willful ignorance is quite sad. There is so much beauty to discover and understand in nature that it is a terrible waste to forsake the loom that weave it all together.
I am sure that, if you ever mention that post, it would be through some kind of tu quoque but, you know what? I don't care. I not going wasting my time with people that are not only demonstrably wrong, but also refuse to learn and can't even make an actual argument.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
opcorn:
