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

Hi

Recommended Posts

I am going to lead you down a path that shows that macro-evolution is scientific.

So far you have presented no evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

I have only asked you whether we can propose a hypothesis of macro evolution.

I'm interested in debating science, not mere theories. Science is 'knowledge' from observation and experiment. The theory of evolution can not be observed, tested etc. If you think i'm wrong, show some evidence i am. So far you have presented no evidence for your theory.

 

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

More of your trickery. I don't believe in the term 'micro-evolution' (as i have repeated). What you are doing is getting me to accept a smaller form of evolution (which i don't even believe in) and then you will say because i accept that i must accept macro, since it is micro on a larger time scale.

 

I don't believe in any form of evolution, so don't continue to be dishonest and use terms like 'micro-evolution'. I said i believe in mere genetic variation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not trying to trap you.

 

The rules on this board are extremely clear, if I equivocate between micro and macro evolution, I am banned.

 

This is what I was proposing to do:

 

a) Get you to accept change within a "kind" was scientific.

b ) Highlight that because it is scientific we can call it a theory.

c) Point out the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

d) Attempt to get you to accept the possibility of a hypothesis only of macro evolution.

e) Show how we can use evidence to test that hypothesis.

 

There is no evidence in this thread. I admit that. In other threads I am detailing the evidence.

 

In this thread I want to show you why evolutionists claim it is scientific. You do not need to accept it, but if you understand why you will be talking to us on our level and will be able to disagree with us for the right reasons.

 

Just saying "it isn't science, so there" doesn't help.

 

BTW Natural selection has been empirically observed. In the the laboratory. Whether you believe it or not, it does happen, and I have started a thread to discuss it:

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...t=0entry56646

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

56479[/snapback]

No one here expects you to accept anything because it was forced upon you.

 

As far as expanding on the subject. If you take how evolutionists use ancestry as the rule. Draw it as a center and then connect it to all life forms. You could replace the word ancestry in the type of a flow chart and replace with RNA and DNA and it would still apply to all life forms. Which raises the question.

 

Are we related because of evolution, or that the basic template for all life is the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Ikester, I didn't notice that you'd replied to me.

 

I get what you are saying. Life on Earth looks like it is related because it is in the sense that it has all been made by the same creator.

 

In general that works, but the devil is in the detail, they say.

 

If all the Kinds were seperate and distinct creations, and not related in a familial way, so that dogs were created seperately to cats, and both distinct from cattle, for example, then we would expect to see distinct differences that showed that they are not related as well as things that show that they were made using a similar plan.

 

There is no reason why dogs and cats should be genetically closer to each other than dogs and cows if they were seperate creations. They should have the same general form of their DNA as they are all from the same basic bodyplan, but they would each be distinct and unique.

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