Of course you'd imply the theory of evolution is wrong if you claim that.[God created the world in six days]
So then if you teach my kids in a lawfully required science class that evolution is how we got here, you imply that Genesis is a story, metaphorical, and/ or invalid. I do not yank your kids in my church and force Genesis on them.
Church is a choice, public education is not. Furthermore you don't have to give to my church, but my tax dollars go to the NSF, and the public school system.
The theory of evolution doesn't say anything about whether a God exists or not. You're the one assuming the only possible God is one that created the universe in six days.
Are you telling me that evolutionists are not researching abiogenesis? And if there was ever success, evos would lead the parade on it's propagation to the entire human race. How can you say it doesn't say anything about whether God exists?
Are you aware the 1) there are many scientists who believe in God (Francis Collins, for example), and 2) that over a billion people belong to a religion (namely, western Catholicism) that officially accepts evolution?
Quite aware. However, numbers do not determine truth or validity. Theistic evolution has been extensively discussed on this site.
Belief in God--theists believe in the non-personal God--they believe in the clockmaker who wound it up and took a vacation. Very convenient. Pantheists believe in God--He is everything and everything is God. Satan believes in God the Bible says.
Yes, the website agrees with the theory of evolution and presents its evidentially supported postulates as fact. What's your point?
Hypothesis is not fact. Theory is not fact. Alleomorphic change is fact. Recombination, deletions, insertions, mutations, alleles, empirical speciation are all facts.
Macro evolution-man from ape is hypothesis, non-empirical, and therefore non-fact.
"What is most interesting about this species of salamander, is that the two southern most subspecies, eschscholtzi and klauberi, meet in several locations. Near Mount Palomar, these two subspecies meet in a very narrow zone and hybridize infrequently. (Brown, 1974) To the south near Cuyamaca State Park, klauberi and eschscholtzi meet and apparently fail to interbreed under natural conditions even though they are narrowly sympatric. In fact, by analyzing electrophoretic separations of selected enzymes and studying DNA patterns, the two subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi are different species by every definition."
Sympatric means "same area."
I know what sympatric means. I'm not sure what your point is--perhaps you think I believe in species fixity.
Here's a quote:
"Ensatina eschscholtzii is typically treated as a "ring" species, consisting of 7 subspecies: E. e. croceater, E. e. eschscholtzii, E. e. klauberi, E. e. oregonensis, E. e. picta, E. e. platensis, and E. e. xanthoptica...."Source
Yes this would qualify as a baramin that has speciated, depending on your definition of species. This is not anything close to macro evolution.