Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
PhilC

Hi

Recommended Posts

Firstly, I do not call myself an atheist, but had to choose that in the options when I logged on. I am a sceptic and do not define myself on my belief / lack of belief in any one area.

 

Secondly, I do not debate on these forums becasue I am trying to justify my position. My own position is strong but is held based on definitive caveats, so that anyone may question what would change my ideas and is then able, objectively, to see whether they are held for the correct reasons or not. My reasons for debating is to overthrow misconceptions about the theory of evolution that are found in many places. The theory of evolution may be incorrect and should be questioned, but this can only happen when the theory is completely understood. Valid criticism is extremely important, but deliberate misrepresentations are not (I am not saying this happens here, I am just presenting my case).

 

As an example (I don't want to argue the science of this here; I just want to point out the problems with these debates). Creationists often say that radiometric dating is invalid because we do not know how much of the daughter material was present to start with. Evolutionists have answers to this point. They have considered it, but it is a rare creationist that actually examines what the evolutionist answers are.

 

This is the problem. Creationists do not answer the evolutionists points. Maybe the evolutionist assumptions about the daughter materials are wrong; that is entirely possible. If creationists just say "no-one knows how much there was" this completely fails to address the point. There is no possible debate in this case.

 

Question the theory of evolution in the same way that everything else should be questioned. Do not single it out for harsher criticism than other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, I do not call myself an atheist, but had to choose that in the options when I logged on.  I am a sceptic and do not define myself on my belief / lack of belief in any one area.

 

Secondly, I do not debate on these forums becasue I am trying to justify my position.  My own position is strong but is held based on definitive caveats, so that anyone may question what would change my ideas and is then able, objectively, to see whether they are held for the correct reasons or not.  My reasons for debating is to overthrow misconceptions about the theory of evolution that are found in many places.  The theory of evolution may be incorrect and should be questioned, but this can only happen when the theory is completely understood.  Valid criticism is extremely important, but deliberate misrepresentations are not (I am not saying this happens here, I am just presenting my case).

 

As an example (I don't want to argue the science of this here; I just want to point out the problems with these debates).  Creationists often say that radiometric dating is invalid because we do not know how much of the daughter material was present to start with.  Evolutionists have answers to this point.  They have considered it, but it is a rare creationist that actually examines what the evolutionist answers are.

 

This is the problem.  Creationists do not answer the evolutionists points.  Maybe the evolutionist assumptions about the daughter materials are wrong; that is entirely possible.  If creationists just say "no-one knows how much there was" this completely fails to address the point.  There is no possible debate in this case.

 

Question the theory of evolution in the same way that everything else should be questioned.  Do not single it out for harsher criticism than other things.

56306[/snapback]

Hello, i'm only a few days old to the forum myself. B)

 

By skeptic do you mean science-skeptic? I myself consider myself a form of this, but i'm a Young Earth Creationist. Scientific skepticism is based on doubting anything that doesn't qualify under the scientific method, and that would include the theory of evolution since it's not observable. testable or measurable (it's outside of scientific method and a faith-point).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I mean I rely on evidence, so I support the theory of evolution which is based on observed evidence, falsifiable premises, and is testable and measurable.

 

This is the very problem I'm talking about, by saying that evolution is not "observable. testable or measurable" you are not considerinmg the argument from the evolutionists point of view, and so miss the point.

 

Evolutionists say it is "observable. testable and measurable" so if you just deny that, you never get to hear why the evolutionists say that it is. Until creationists start listening to the actual claims about how evolution is "observable. testable and measurable" (isn't cut-and-paste' a great thing?) no debate can start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I mean I rely on evidence, so I support the theory of evolution which is based on observed evidence, falsifiable premises, and is testable and measurable.

 

This is the very problem I'm talking about, by saying that evolution is not "observable. testable or measurable" you are not considerinmg the argument from the evolutionists point of view, and so miss the point.

 

Evolutionists say it is "observable. testable and measurable" so if you just deny that, you never get to hear why the evolutionists say that it is.  Until creationists start listening to the actual claims about how evolution is "observable. testable and measurable" (isn't cut-and-paste' a great thing?) no debate can start.

56320[/snapback]

Debate can start when evolution and creation are presented as theories (as i treat them, as do all creationists). Yet as you have proven you come here following the assumption evolution is already a proven fact. That is why you will find it hard to debate here.

 

Regarding the scientific method:

 

The scientific method (1810):

 

''the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses''

 

"Facts" declared about a distant past outside the realm of human experience are not really facts, but strongly advocated faith-points.

 

1. That life appeared on earth two or three billion years ago, or that the earth is billions of years is not a truly scientific statement. It was never directly observed to have happened by anyone or anything that can leave a conclusive historical record.

 

2. The idea that things 'evolve' i.e an ape to a man is not observable. The theory of evolution simply has never been observed.

 

The theory of evolution falls outside of the scientific method which is why evolution should be treated as a theory.

 

If we present both creation and evolution as theories, then a debate can happen. Both sides then present their so called evidence for their theory.

 

The problem though as i said, is that evolutionists come here thinking evolution is 100% fact and so won't be willing to debate on the grounds of treating these different views on origins as theories. Creationists however believe it is all theory and so are willing to debate, creationists offer to debate evolutionists but it is usually evolutionists who decline (Dawkins for example refuses to debate YEC's).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will gladly call the theory of evolution a theory.

 

Will you start listening to what evolutionists say rather than telling them what to say?

 

I have no problem with this:

 

'the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses'

 

The rest of your post is telling me your version of how things look from your viewpoint rather than asking questions to ascertain the actual position that evolutionists hold and why they hold it.

 

Dawkins for example refuses to debate YEC's

Of course. science is not determined by debates such as that. The details involved do not fit a debate structure. I'm currently researching the phylogeny of meckels cartilage,but would not wish to be put on a spot light to defend it via debate because dthe details are subtle and require detailed investigation.

 

Also, when a leading scientist was asked why he wouldn't debate a YEC'er he replied "That would look good on your CV but would not look good on mine".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scientific method only deals with ''the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses'', that means things we do now i.e observation and experiments. We can not go back in time since we have no time-machine. Nothing i told you was my 'version', if you think i'm wrong then you must think you have a time machine? All i said was that the scientific method can not produce an age for the earth (since we can't go back in time to observe) and that evolution i.e the idea of a single cell or an ape 'evolving' into a man can not be observed.

 

When accepted these simple facts (some have when i have debated them) the debate can be very interesting and both sides get something out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, you are telling me how you think science should work, rather than asking somebody how they think it works.

 

Obviously I disagree with you, and if you think rationally about this, 99% of scientists must too. This does not mean that the scientists are right and you are wrong, but it does mean that the discussion will not progress any further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scientific method only deals with ''the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses'', that means things we do now i.e observation and experiments. We can not go back in time since we have no time-machine. Nothing i told you was my 'version', if you think i'm wrong then you must think you have a time machine? All i said was that the scientific method can not produce an age for the earth (since we can't go back in time to observe) and that evolution i.e the idea of a single cell or an ape 'evolving' into a man can not be observed.

 

When accepted these simple facts (some have when i have debated them) the debate can be very interesting and both sides get something out of it.

56330[/snapback]

We have the next best thing to a time machine to study the earth, the record left in the rocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cassiterides, can we continue the discussion of the scientific method?

 

the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses'

Let us start with this the other way round, and look at the formulation of hypotheses first.

 

Let us now formulate the theory of evolution as a hypothesis.

 

ie let us make the hypothesis of evolution.

 

This hypothesis, in simple form, states that:

 

1. More children are born than can survive into adulthood.

2. Not all children are the same, ie there is variation in the offspring.

2. The ones that survive are generally the ones most fitted to their environment.

3. These survivors will have children more likely to survive.

 

Now this is all testable, and has been, as you are aware because Creationists, since Darwin, accept his theory up to a point.

 

We can, I think, safely call this a theory of evolution. Let us call it the theory of micro-evolution.

 

Let us now take this one step further:

 

Let us hypothesise that this theory actually explains the way all organisms developed over time, so that the theory of micro-evolution gives an explanation for life on Earth.

 

Let us call this the hypothesis of macro-evolution.

 

Do you agree so far? It is not worth going any further if the initial steps are problematical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cassiterides, can we continue the discussion of the scientific method?

Let us start with this the other way round, and look at the formulation of hypotheses first.

 

Let us now formulate the theory of evolution as a hypothesis.

 

ie let us make the hypothesis of evolution.

 

This hypothesis, in simple form, states that:

 

1. More children are born than can survive into adulthood.

2. Not all children are the same, ie there is variation in the offspring.

2. The ones that survive are generally the ones most fitted to their environment.

3. These survivors will have children more likely to survive.

 

Now this is all testable, and has been, as you are aware because Creationists, since Darwin, accept his theory up to a point.

 

We can, I think, safely call this a theory of evolution.  Let us call it the theory of micro-evolution.

 

Let us now take this one step further:

 

Let us hypothesise that this theory actually explains the way all organisms developed over time, so that the theory of micro-evolution gives an explanation for life on Earth.

 

Let us call this the hypothesis of macro-evolution.

 

Do you agree so far?  It is not worth going any further if the initial steps are problematical.

56415[/snapback]

Firstly as i have encountered with several evolutionists you are diliberately altering the definition of the theory of evolution. You try to diliberatley simplify/alter it to make it seem as if it has been observed, basically a form of dishonesty. Why not quote a dictionary?

 

Some dictionary definitions of evolution:

 

''The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection''

 

- The American Heritage Science Dictionary, 2005

 

''1.A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.

2.

a. The process of developing.

b. Gradual development.

3. Biology

a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.''

 

- The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 2000

 

If you want to continue i suggest you start honest enough with the definition of evolution, then you can make a hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly as i have encountered with several evolutionists you are diliberately altering the definition of the theory of evolution. You try to diliberatley simplify/alter it to make it seem as if it has been observed, basically a form of dishonesty. Why not quote a dictionary?

 

Some dictionary definitions of evolution:

 

''The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection''

 

- The American Heritage Science Dictionary, 2005

 

''1.A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.

2.

a. The process of developing.

b. Gradual development.

3. Biology

a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.''

 

- The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 2000

 

If you want to continue i suggest you start honest enough with the definition of evolution, then you can make a hypothesis.

56417[/snapback]

The definition that underlies the hypothesis offered was one that It is covered in the definitions you offer here. Just because you apparently lack the necessary knowledge of science to be able to perceive this, and it does not exactly match your understanding of the definitions you offer from a dictionary does not make it false, or the person offering it dishonest. On the other hand direct evidence of evolution has been observed in several ways. This is not dishonest of me to say this. I actually hold that as truth and am not lying about this. Even if you wish to dismiss this as only my own opinion it is not dishonesty.

 

However, what you claimed about Oscar Kiss Maerth's book on human cannibalism may be dishonest. You said, "The book went on to sell over 1 million copies, and at some time actually had support amongst evolutionary biologists."

 

Then you said that the Aquatic Ape Theory: was "considerably supported by mainstream evolutionists."

 

When asked to substantiate these claims with any backing citations as evidence, you did not do so. It appears to me that you just made these comments up in an effort to malign supporters of evolution. You later said "Darwin was a school dropout because of alcohol, who had no science degree." I don't think you can substantiate this either, and that you quite possibly know that you misstated this simply to malign Darwin.

 

Worst of all you claimed,"William Smith was not a qualified geologist, he was a surveyor. Charles Lyell also had no degree in geology or science, but was a lawyer, James Hutton was a doctor etc. All of the first geologists who rejected the YEC view for uniformatarianism, evolution or old earth were all so called charlatans or tricksters (men who had no degree or qualification but professed wisdom in their field)." This is not an honest appraisal of these men. It is just an Ad hom attack.

 

I have to wonder if you know the old saying about how people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones? I also have to wonder if you feel that dishonesty used against something you oppose is justifiable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to continue i suggest you start honest enough with the definition of evolution, then you can make a hypothesis.

56417[/snapback]

This is just insulting to me. I am honest and have been all along.

 

Your definition comes from scientific dictionary. Mine comes from The Origin of Species.

 

You now decide which is the more accurate definition of Darwinism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What definitions are you following? The dictionaries or your own? If the latter i have no interest in debating in this section.

 

I gave you two definitions from two dictionaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What definitions are you following? The dictionaries or your own? If the latter i have no interest in debating in this section.

 

I gave you two definitions from two dictionaries.

56425[/snapback]

Do you ever read what I put?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you ever read what I put?

56426[/snapback]

Your definition of what you call evolution can not be found in Darwin's Origin of Species. Typing in on the net what you claim produces no results, you also failed to provide the page number or edition of Darwin's work you pulled your definition from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just insulting to me.  I am honest and have been all along. 

 

Your definition comes from  scientific dictionary.  Mine comes from The Origin of Species.

 

You now decide which is the more accurate definition of Darwinism.

56420[/snapback]

If evolution is a scientific theory, then it is not scientific to take the theory personal.

If evolution is a religion, then it is religious to take it personally.

 

Non belief = not personal.

A belief = personal.

 

Example: Are there such things as personal theories? Is the theory of electricity a personal theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's face it. No 2 books or websites will have the same definition of evolution unless they copied it from one another. So the point is mute because even evolutionists cannot agree. Being that truth is relative and there are no absolutes actually explains why. Evolution is what the individual wants it to be. So it can be defined anyway anybody wants to define it.

 

Ironic though that creation stays the same yet gives a constantly changing idea a fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If evolution is a scientific theory, then it is not scientific to take the theory personal.

If evolution is a religion, then it is religious to take it personally.

 

Non belief = not personal.

A belief = personal.

 

Example: Are there such things as personal theories? Is the theory of electricity a personal theory?

Have I ever expected creationists to defend what other creationists have said? Have I ever asked a creationist to comment on what something Kent H*vind has said?

 

No, because it is unfair to expect someone to defend someone else's words.

 

I am not here to comment on what every evolutionist has said, or comment on what dicyionary editors have included in their dictionaries To attempt that would be futile.

 

I am trying to present the theory of evolution as I understand it and find out at what point creationists and evolutionists part company.

 

It is repeated in many places that creationists accept micro-evolution. What is the mechanism that creationists say causes micro-evolution? For the sake of the debate I started here, I will go along with that. If you read the OP you will see that this is only one point in the argument I am buiding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have I ever expected creationists to defend what other creationists have said?  Have I ever asked a creationist to comment on what something Kent H*vind has said?

I don't know you and we get all kinds here claiming all kinds of things.

 

No, because it is unfair to expect someone to defend someone else's words.

It's done all the time to both sides.

 

I am not here to comment on what every evolutionist has said, or comment on what dictionary editors have included in their dictionaries  To attempt that would be futile.

Ignoring a problem does not make it go away.

 

I am trying to present the theory of evolution as I understand it and find out at what point creationists and evolutionists part company.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...indpost&p=56440

 

It is repeated in many places that creationists accept micro-evolution.  What is the mechanism that creationists say causes micro-evolution?  For the sake of the debate I started here, I will go along with that.  If you read the OP you will see that this is only one point in the argument I am buiding.

56474[/snapback]

The mechanism is how the template for all life was created to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mechanism is how the template for all life was created to work.

Could you expand on this, please?

 

I am in danger of being accused of equivocation here, because I am talking about micro-evlution which is not allowed for evolutionists under the board rules, but as you are a moderator, I hope you will allow me because like in the other thread you linked to where I am trying to find common ground.

 

For the sake of this argument, I will accept creation, the global flood etc.

 

After the flood, the animals micro-evolved. What was that process?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will gladly call the theory of evolution a theory.

56324[/snapback]

It’s not even a theory, it’s more of a model. But, you can call it whatever you believe it to be

 

 

Will you start listening to what evolutionists say rather than telling them what to say?

56324[/snapback]

I’ve been listening for over forty years, and I use to even argue from that point of view.

 

'the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses'

56324[/snapback]

Ah, but that the whole thing isn’t it; evolution hasn’t been observed via empirical observation and experimentation, adaptation within a species (or kind) has.

 

Also, when a leading scientist was asked why he wouldn't debate a YEC'er he replied "That would look good on your CV but would not look good on mine".

56324[/snapback]

This is the Dawkins/Eugenie Scott approach. Don’t debate (mainly because evolutionists loose the debates), and come up with a convenient excuse not to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not even a theory, it’s more of a model. But, you can call it whatever you believe it to be

 

Okay, a model but we will get to that in a bit...

 

I’ve been listening for over forty years, and I use to even argue from that point of view.

You may have been listening for 40 years, but still each individual should be treated as such. I only have 10 years under my belt and I have heard all the points on this forum before but still when I read a response I deal with it like it is the first time because for that person it might be.

 

Ah, but that the whole thing isn’t it; evolution hasn’t been observed via empirical observation and experimentation, adaptation within a species (or kind) has.

I have asked what the mechanism for this adaption within a Kind is from a creationist point of view. Obviously, I would say Natural selection is the mechanism, but do creationists agree with that or is there another mechanism?

 

My point in this thread is to reach a point where evolutionist and creationist can say "the evidence for the mechanism X is scientifically sound, but creationists do not think that there is any evidence for macro-evolution"

 

The fact that the mechanism for micro-evolution has to be agreed between the two parties is because the next stage of my argument builds on that, if I may quote where this started:

 

Now this is all testable, and has been, as you are aware because Creationists, since Darwin, accept his theory up to a point.

 

We can, I think, safely call this a theory of evolution. Let us call it the theory of micro-evolution.

 

Let us now take this one step further:

 

Let us hypothesise that this theory actually explains the way all organisms developed over time, so that the theory of micro-evolution gives an explanation for life on Earth.

 

Let us call this the hypothesis of macro-evolution.

 

Do you agree so far? It is not worth going any further if the initial steps are problematical.

I am, from an evolutionist point of view downgrading the theory of evolution to the theory of micro-evolution to try and accomodate the creationist position. If you wish to call it a model of micro-evolution, I will go along with that, but as both sides agree that micro-evolution is a scientific fact then calling it the theory of micro-evolution is not going too far.

 

I do then set up a hypothesis of macro evolution, but I do not think that creationists would have a problem with a hypothesis like this as it does not claim to be a theory, and has no supporting evidence.

 

My next job will be to start presenting the evidence, but I need to know that you are open to the possibility that it might occur and so agreeing to a hypothesis would mean you agree it is a question that can be asked and that it is answerable, even if the answer is ultimately "No".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses'

Let us start with this the other way round, and look at the formulation of hypotheses first.

 

Let us now formulate the theory of evolution as a hypothesis.

 

ie let us make the hypothesis of evolution.

 

This hypothesis, in simple form, states that:

 

My position is that Animal kinds after leaving the ark were designated specific areas to populate the earth, the variation in the kind is therefore explained through intelligent design not 'natural selection'. Although as noted above some creationists believe in a creationist verson of natural selection not all do.

We can, I think, safely call this a theory of evolution. Let us call it the theory of micro-evolution.

 

Let us now take this one step further:

 

Let us hypothesise that this theory actually explains the way all organisms developed over time, so that the theory of micro-evolution gives an explanation for life on Earth.

 

Let us call this the hypothesis of macro-evolution.

 

Do you agree so far? It is not worth going any further if the initial steps are problematical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can, I think, safely call this a theory of evolution.

How? Variation within the same kind is not evolution. Furthermore i don't believe the variation was caused by a naturalistic or random mechanism.

 

What you are attempting to do is catch out creationists:

 

1. Get them to admit they believe in what you call ''micro-evolution''.

2. And because of that, then say you have to believe in macro, because micro is simply macro only on a smaller level of time.

 

Creationists can't be caught out, since we believe in fixed kinds. Therefore we don't believe like evolutionists that man evolved from apes, fish or rocks.

 

Conclusion: we have no common ground. Instead of trying to find things we agree with, why not present some evidence for your theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been quoted out of context! Now I know I'm a real evolutionist! :D

 

We can, I think, safely call this a theory of evolution.

How? Variation within the same kind is not evolution. Furthermore i don't believe the variation was caused by a naturalistic or random mechanism.

And the quote in full:

 

We can, I think, safely call this a theory of evolution. Let us call it the theory of micro-evolution.

Notice the difference? I am not going to equivocate, and I am not going to set up a trap. I am going to lead you down a path that shows that macro-evolution is scientific.

 

How did you feel after reading that last sentence? Angry? Ready to shout at me that evolution is not scienific? I'm guessing you did, but I might be wrong.

 

If you did, ask yourself if you are approaching this with an open mind?

 

Let me back up a bit. I have been accused on this thread and others here that I am laying traps. Why? Because I am dropping the theories and looking at the evidence. This has never been done before, I've also been told on this forum.

 

Ten years ago I was getting incredibly frustrated when arguing with creationists because every time I tried to discuss the evidence, I was told it was impossible because I see the evidence through the goggles of evolution.

 

No matter how many times I tried, this always happened. That is when my tactics changed, I did on other forums what I am doing here. I bent over backwards to drop my theory and look at the empirical evidence, On all other forums but this one, that failed.

 

In every other place, creationists still refused to look at the evidence because they claimed the evidence was tarnished by the theory.

 

This led me to conclude that creationists aren't really interested in examining the evidence unless there is a theory to go along with it. It was the creationists that were talking about the competing theories.

 

Obviously, this is just personal opinion. What would be interested in seeing objectivelyto look at what evolutionists and creationists have put on forums. My anecdotal evidence (my memory and we know that we remember and write down much more the parts of our memory that support our views) that I have seen many evolutionists say "You aren't looking at the evidence" and I know that creationists are always saying "There is no evidence"

 

One side predominantly asking the other to look at evidence, and the other side predominantly refusing to even admit that any evidence exists.

 

Now how is this relevant:

 

What you are attempting to do is catch out creationists:

 

1. Get them to admit they believe in what you call ''micro-evolution''.

2. And because of that, then say you have to believe in macro, because micro is simply macro only on a smaller level of time.

 

Creationists can't be caught out, since we believe in fixed kinds. Therefore we don't believe like evolutionists that man evolved from apes, fish or rocks.

 

Conclusion: we have no common ground. Instead of trying to find things we agree with, why not present some evidence for your theory?

Where have I attempted to do this? Show me on any thread in this forum where I have done this.

 

You have decided what you believe, and have stated what you don't believe.

 

I have only asked you whether we can propose a hypothesis of macro evolution. I have not said that there is one, I have not demanded you believe in anything, I am not even saying there is a theory of macro-evolution. In fact, I have included God inside my argument to try and move as far as possible into your way of thinking.

 

This is wearing me down, and I should have this ready in cut and paste, but I am not laying a trap. I am taking this in small steps so that you can see any possible trap well before it is sprung.

 

Conclusion: we have no common ground. Instead of trying to find things we agree with, why not present some evidence for your theory?

I hadn't read your post properly. I really hadn't seen this line!!!

 

What I wrote earlier in this post: 'I have seen many evolutionists say "You aren't looking at the evidence" and I know that creationists are always saying "There is no evidence" '

 

In those posts is direct evidence. I think it is for evolution, creationists will say the evidence is for creationism. That is less important than the fact that there is empirical evidence.

 

Now,

 

Back again to the point:

 

You agree with variation within a species, the theory of micro-evolution.

 

I would like to propose that we accept that we can have a hypothesis of macro-evolution.

 

If you close your mind to the possibility of a hypothesis of macro-evolution then how should I view your criticisms of the theory of evolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms