I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Ã¢â‚¬Å“thinkÃ¢â‚¬Â any Ã¢â‚¬Ëœspecies evolves into another speciesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. As I said; there is no empirical evidence to tie these assumptions together, therefore, until I see any empirical Ã¢â‚¬Å“realÃ¢â‚¬Â evidence to support said Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â, it (evolution) remains a hypothesis/model discussed in the abstract. And, when defended by evolutionists dogmatically, zealously and feverously as a fact or facts, is nothing more than another religion.
I dont suppose you have tried googling for evidence yet have you? I'm having trouble sorting through all the sites, Im assuming your wanting actual pictures and not references?
And for the record
/rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
I suppose you could lump evolution with the first one but you would have to only take the first line.
Third Ã¢â‚¬â€œ you photograph analogy is weak at best (therefore a non sequitur) because you can absolutely prove Ã¢â‚¬Å“empiricallyÃ¢â‚¬Â the identity of each and every person. But the evidence submitted for macroevolution is presupposed and assumed.
How could you prove empirically the identity? If someone found those photos would it be simple belief to connect the people?
One type of Ã¢â‚¬ËœEmpiricalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ evidence would be Ã¢â‚¬Å“gradual transitional fossils showing a lizard type animal Ã¢â‚¬ËœevolvingÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ into a bird type animalÃ¢â‚¬Â. This does not imply a Ã¢â‚¬Å“lizard type animalÃ¢â‚¬Â, then all of a sudden an animal with presupposed mixed features, then all of a sudden (again) a bird type animal. That would be macroevolution of the gaps, and these gaps are too wide for even the bondo of imagination to fill
Ok so how big a gap is too big? I very much doubt we can find a line of fossils showing even every 100 generations due to the probability of fossilizing being so low.
Further, you can indeed submit Ã¢â‚¬Ëœexperiments on evolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, but absolutely none have provided Ã¢â‚¬ËœempiricalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ evidence to support Ã¢â‚¬ËœmacroÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ thus far. So, if you wish to provide them, you can, but will oyu be willing to admit the fallaciousness built into them as they are pointed out?
Yes i realized after i posted that the experiments i was thinking about only really proved microevolution which we both agree on. The problem with macro is indeed time and so i suppose your right in saying that( at least right now) there is no EMPIRICAL evidence. That isnt to say there is no evidence altogether but in terms of experiments there hasn't been enough time and there probably wont be for a long time.
Further, when you attempt to separate the historical Jesus from the spiritual Jesus, based simply on your Ã¢â‚¬Å“beliefsÃ¢â‚¬Â and totally ignore the mounds of historical evidences, your analogy does not follow (non-sequitur).
What "beliefs" of mine are you referring to? Also i was wondering, aside from the biblical documents, is there other evidence for supernatural Jesus.
You assume that the eye witness cannot Ã¢â‚¬ËœsimplyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ describe what they saw. ALL of which, even when viewed today, would be considered miracles.
Actually i assume the eye witness did describe simply what they saw. And what makes you think that they would be considered miracles today? When my cousin bunches up paper in his hand and makes it disappear i dont believe it is a miracle, i believe he knows a clever magic trick.By the way do you apply the empirical standard to your evidence for Jesus?
When Jesus fed thousands from a few loaves and a few fish, by simply pulling them out of a basket: I would be interested in your current empirical scientific explanation.
When Jesus turned water into wine, without even touching it (i.e. by simply speaking it): I would be interested in your current empirical scientific explanation.
When Jesus raised Lazarus from death, by simply speaking it: I would be interested in your current empirical scientific explanation.
I could go on and on, but I think, when viewed honestly, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll be able to see the fallacies in your argumentation and analogies.
Interesting that you mentioned the Lazarus one, i had recently had an idea on how that happened involving natural tricks. For the others i could only make speculation, i dont know enough about the conditions. Did you watch that Sherlock Holmes movie that came out a while back? I found it great because of the supernatural elements that were explained at the end. A man managed to come back to life, set someone on fire without touching him etc. All done with clever tricks that appeared supernatural.
And finally, what you think is Ã¢â‚¬Å“reasonable to be skepticalÃ¢â‚¬Â about, when you obviously pour so much assumption into your analogy, can easily be exposed for the fallacies youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve built into said opinion. The Ã¢â‚¬Å“critical thinkerÃ¢â‚¬Â looks from all angles, considers all the Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidencesÃ¢â‚¬Â, separates the dross of presupposed opinion, and considers then, only the facts, to arrive at truth.
What analogy are you referring to? I was explaining my position without comparing it to something else.
By the way as a starter site try wikipedia. Wikipedia