Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

no it's not it's taught like every other subject .
only in you twisted pov would it be forced.
religion has always been forced.
so my satement stands
show me proof .

Daws are you gonna deny in front of everyone reading this thread that macroevolution is both theory and a fact according to evolutionist ? Kids don't know any better and are influenced in believing this nonsense.

They don't know theory from fact the way most teachers teach the theory. You yourself said that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

what the fuck are you babbling about now?
I could give a flying fuck who's reading what or where.

where do you see me denying anything?
seems like your desperately pulling imaginary shit out of your ass.
evolution for all practical purposes is fact.


kids are forced in to buying you fairytale...you using the word nonsense is ironic.

Many children from broken homes seek out God they are not having God forced on them. They don't have parents as role models. Many children are taught in the home about God but they reach a certain age then they have the choice to continue in the faith or not.

All through grade school and High school, they have many of these theories forced on them if they want to graduate whether they believe it or not. Then the same process continues in college if they want a degree.

Do you have the ability to reason Daws ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

no it's not it's taught like every other subject .
only in you twisted pov would it be forced.
religion has always been forced.
so my satement stands
show me proof .

Daws are you gonna deny in front of everyone reading this thread that macroevolution is both theory and a fact according to evolutionist ? Kids don't know any better and are influenced in believing this nonsense.

They don't know theory from fact the way most teachers teach the theory. You yourself said that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

now you're just makin shit up :see post# 6207

Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated
Quote: Originally Posted by daws101
Quote: Originally Posted by UltimateReality
YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.

Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube
so what! people give that amount to cryogenic storage...does not mean that it will bring people back from the dead...then there's the millions for elections.
Hmm,no real response as usual.
right !since the clip is id and not science ,the only real response was a comment about how people shit loads of money on nonsense.
any one who has ever watched a sermon from a mega church feels the same.
that's the un indoctrinated of course

this post was not directed at you.

Look, you quoted us when we were talking about the evolutionist video. We were not talking about the gentlemen speaking of the universe.

You can't spin your way out of this.

not trying too.. you're just plain old wrong my comment was about the funding the guy's name you've conveniently forgotten gets it's not me who's trying to bullshit his way out of it ..and failing

You are,the conversation moved on and you don't get it. You have had all kinds of evidence for design presented to you and there is zero evidence for macroevolution and you still argue that we are the brainwashed ideologues. That we present pesuedoscience and it is clear who really supports pesuedoscience.

 

[UltimateReality]

The process of subjecting children to complex initiation rituals before they are able to critically assess the event is seen by Dawkins and other critics of religion as cruel.

evolution is never taught that way, the information is presented and the students decided for themselves, unlike religion where the the believe this or you're going to hell rule applies.

I have to disagree. Go watch Expelled. Darwinism is religiously taught and any one who objects is immediately silenced. Children are not taught to think about opposing viewpoints or question the evidence when it comes to their Darwinian indoctrination in the Nanny State Public schools. They are tricked with old lies even though new evidence abounds and immersed in assumptive language at every turn.

 

[UltimateReality]

We are talking about two different videos. The context of your statement seemed to be referring to the cell movie.

wrong!

you guys are so busy rationalizing that you can't keep your shit straight

You’re not paying attention. There were comments directed to two different videos. Both of those videos carry the same message wherein flailing attempts are made to discredit science with the same irrational, illogical and false conclusion: “the gods did it”.

These silly “canned” videos you and the other creationist post are not just similar in their false claims and manufactured conclusions, they are identical.

What is always missing with the creationist ministry claims is even a middling adherence to some very basic principles. Firstly, creationists are never able or willing to establish a solid theory for the idea of something outside of the "natural" realm, i.e., the "supernatural". Secondly, creationists are never able or willing to establish a theory that relies on established mechanisms and shows a correlation to those mechanisms.

The creationist religious claims are always lacking even the most basic of proofs.

You obviously didn't watch the second video either, which makes your comment look very foolish.

 

[UltimateReality]

evolution for all practical purposes is fact.


kids are forced in to buying you fairytale...you using the word nonsense is ironic.

You are in it so you can't see it. There isn't really even any proof for natural selection. I am awaiting your response on the detailed scientific experiments and data collection that elevated the Galapagos finch to Icon status.

It is so amazing to me intelligent people grab onto this most moronic ideal, that the Galapagos finches represent natural selection, with dear life and hold tight. There is no statistically relevant scientific data to support their assumptions no more than there is comparing the length of noses across the human population of America over the last 20 years and trying to correlated it with some natural event. You would be laughed out of job if you even proposed such a thing. The finch beak length variation is a Darwin answer looking for a Darwin question. It is the tale wagging the dog in the worst way!!!

The question is not whether there is change. The question is, "does descent with modification account for the origin of new species?" Going one step further, does it account for every species? Like change over time, descent with modification within a species is not controversial. But Darwinian evolution claims that descent with modification explains the origin and diversification of all living things. There is ZERO EVIDENCE to support this so Daws, you have been duped. You believe in a lie that has absolutely no scientific experimentation to back it up. In fact, genetic studies are not only not backing it up, they continue to poke holes in it daily!!!!

With that said, I just want to say, What's up Finches? Where my Finches at? Darwinian Feyotches.

 

[UltimateReality]

no it's not it's taught like every other subject .
only in you twisted pov would it be forced.
religion has always been forced.
so my satement stands
show me proof .

Daws are you gonna deny in front of everyone reading this thread that macroevolution is both theory and a fact according to evolutionist ? Kids don't know any better and are influenced in believing this nonsense.

They don't know theory from fact the way most teachers teach the theory. You yourself said that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

now you're just makin shit up :see post# 6207

Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated
Quote: Originally Posted by daws101
Quote: Originally Posted by UltimateReality
YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.

Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube
so what! people give that amount to cryogenic storage...does not mean that it will bring people back from the dead...then there's the millions for elections.
Hmm,no real response as usual.
right !since the clip is id and not science ,the only real response was a comment about how people shit loads of money on nonsense.
any one who has ever watched a sermon from a mega church feels the same.
that's the un indoctrinated of course

this post was not directed at you.

Look, you quoted us when we were talking about the evolutionist video. We were not talking about the gentlemen speaking of the universe.

You can't spin your way out of this.

not trying too.. you're just plain old wrong my comment was about the funding the guy's name you've conveniently forgotten gets it's not me who's trying to bullshit his way out of it ..and failing

To quote someone on this forum, you are getting your rear handed to you by YWC.

 

[Hollie]

wrong!

you guys are so busy rationalizing that you can't keep your shit straight

You’re not paying attention. There were comments directed to two different videos. Both of those videos carry the same message wherein flailing attempts are made to discredit science with the same irrational, illogical and false conclusion: “the gods did it”.

These silly “canned” videos you and the other creationist post are not just similar in their false claims and manufactured conclusions, they are identical.

What is always missing with the creationist ministry claims is even a middling adherence to some very basic principles. Firstly, creationists are never able or willing to establish a solid theory for the idea of something outside of the "natural" realm, i.e., the "supernatural". Secondly, creationists are never able or willing to establish a theory that relies on established mechanisms and shows a correlation to those mechanisms.

The creationist religious claims are always lacking even the most basic of proofs.

You obviously didn't watch the second video either, which makes your comment look very foolish.

False! As with all these silly videos promoting religion, the underlying assumption is "the gods didi it". Attempting to force even inconsequential amounts of data to fit a preconceived view is dishonest. Religious claims to supernaturalism is not science.

 

[Hollie]

evolution for all practical purposes is fact.


kids are forced in to buying you fairytale...you using the word nonsense is ironic.

You are in it so you can't see it. There isn't really even any proof for natural selection. I am awaiting your response on the detailed scientific experiments and data collection that elevated the Galapagos finch to Icon status.

It is so amazing to me intelligent people grab onto this most moronic ideal, that the Galapagos finches represent natural selection, with dear life and hold tight. There is no statistically relevant scientific data to support their assumptions no more than there is comparing the length of noses across the human population of America over the last 20 years and trying to correlated it with some natural event. You would be laughed out of job if you even proposed such a thing. The finch beak length variation is a Darwin answer looking for a Darwin question. It is the tale wagging the dog in the worst way!!!

The question is not whether there is change. The question is, "does descent with modification account for the origin of new species?" Going one step further, does it account for every species? Like change over time, descent with modification within a species is not controversial. But Darwinian evolution claims that descent with modification explains the origin and diversification of all living things. There is ZERO EVIDENCE to support this so Daws, you have been duped. You believe in a lie that has absolutely no scientific experimentation to back it up. In fact, genetic studies are not only not backing it up, they continue to poke holes in it daily!!!!

With that said, I just want to say, What's up Finches? Where my Finches at? Darwinian Feyotches.

It really is only the creationist ministeries which refuse to accept the fact of natural selection.

In addition, Darwin's theory does not seek to explain the origins of life. It truly is remarkable to witness the lies and deceit used by the religious zealots to denigrate science and knowledge.

 

[nitroz]

 

[cooky]

Speaking of indoctrinated!!! There is very little science involved in the TOE. I'm not talking about the genetics level stuff but Darwin's stupid theory that is totally baseless in science. There are no tested hypothesis. There is no agreed upon definition of fitness. There is no evidence for gradual change in the fossil record (hundreds of thousands of fossils and counting, a few so so examples at best of transitional fossils). Yet, the quacks call it science and you, Daws, fall for it. Not only that, but you fall for passages like you posted above, basically saying nothing but that some people question the science but we know the TOE is true because it is. Are you really falling for this stuff? The biggest joke is that one of their ICON's is the finch beak story. No proof whatsoever for that story or the conjecture about Giraffe necks but it they call it an Icon??? This makes me like at the mass ignorance that would fall for such fairy tales passed off as science.

To claim that there is very little science involved in the TOE is so far from the truth. You are either ignoring or ignorant of the tomes of multi-disciplinary empirical data that support the TOE. Despite what you may think the fossil record provides powerful evidence of 'macro-evolution'. For example, the discovery of tiktaalik- a genus that had long been predicted to exist by the TOE- is powerful evidence that humans and fish share a common ancestor. Additionally, the breadth of fossils in the homo and austrolapithicines is for all intents an purposes incontrovertible proof that humans descended from a common ancestor shared with the great apes. Take a look at this chart showing the fossils of the Homo genus

Template:Homo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm curious as to how someone who believes in creation would explain the numerous species we have identified in the Homo genus from their fossilized remains. There isn't any scientific data that contradicts the TOE- it is universally supported by a massive multi-disciplinary dataset. Its disappointing that many people still believe that the TOE is a massive fraud perpetrated for nefarious reasons as nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You’re not paying attention. There were comments directed to two different videos. Both of those videos carry the same message wherein flailing attempts are made to discredit science with the same irrational, illogical and false conclusion: “the gods did it”.

These silly “canned” videos you and the other creationist post are not just similar in their false claims and manufactured conclusions, they are identical.

What is always missing with the creationist ministry claims is even a middling adherence to some very basic principles. Firstly, creationists are never able or willing to establish a solid theory for the idea of something outside of the "natural" realm, i.e., the "supernatural". Secondly, creationists are never able or willing to establish a theory that relies on established mechanisms and shows a correlation to those mechanisms.

The creationist religious claims are always lacking even the most basic of proofs.

You obviously didn't watch the second video either, which makes your comment look very foolish.

False! As with all these silly videos promoting religion, the underlying assumption is "the gods didi it". Attempting to force even inconsequential amounts of data to fit a preconceived view is dishonest. Religious claims to supernaturalism is not science.

The video with the evolutionist concerning moleular machines was amazed by what the molecular machines do. If you can't see that evidence as evidence of design you are in denial.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You’re not paying attention. There were comments directed to two different videos. Both of those videos carry the same message wherein flailing attempts are made to discredit science with the same irrational, illogical and false conclusion: “the gods did it”.

These silly “canned” videos you and the other creationist post are not just similar in their false claims and manufactured conclusions, they are identical.

What is always missing with the creationist ministry claims is even a middling adherence to some very basic principles. Firstly, creationists are never able or willing to establish a solid theory for the idea of something outside of the "natural" realm, i.e., the "supernatural". Secondly, creationists are never able or willing to establish a theory that relies on established mechanisms and shows a correlation to those mechanisms.

The creationist religious claims are always lacking even the most basic of proofs.

You obviously didn't watch the second video either, which makes your comment look very foolish.

False! As with all these silly videos promoting religion, the underlying assumption is "the gods didi it". Attempting to force even inconsequential amounts of data to fit a preconceived view is dishonest. Religious claims to supernaturalism is not science.

Only because they lack faith in a creator while closing their minds to the evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You keep telling yourself this. I notice no scientific response just another naturalistic response.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Speaking of indoctrinated!!! There is very little science involved in the TOE. I'm not talking about the genetics level stuff but Darwin's stupid theory that is totally baseless in science. There are no tested hypothesis. There is no agreed upon definition of fitness. There is no evidence for gradual change in the fossil record (hundreds of thousands of fossils and counting, a few so so examples at best of transitional fossils). Yet, the quacks call it science and you, Daws, fall for it. Not only that, but you fall for passages like you posted above, basically saying nothing but that some people question the science but we know the TOE is true because it is. Are you really falling for this stuff? The biggest joke is that one of their ICON's is the finch beak story. No proof whatsoever for that story or the conjecture about Giraffe necks but it they call it an Icon??? This makes me like at the mass ignorance that would fall for such fairy tales passed off as science.

To claim that there is very little science involved in the TOE is so far from the truth. You are either ignoring or ignorant of the tomes of multi-disciplinary empirical data that support the TOE. Despite what you may think the fossil record provides powerful evidence of 'macro-evolution'. For example, the discovery of tiktaalik- a genus that had long been predicted to exist by the TOE- is powerful evidence that humans and fish share a common ancestor. Additionally, the breadth of fossils in the homo and austrolapithicines is for all intents an purposes incontrovertible proof that humans descended from a common ancestor shared with the great apes. Take a look at this chart showing the fossils of the Homo genus

Template:Homo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm curious as to how someone who believes in creation would explain the numerous species we have identified in the Homo genus from their fossilized remains. There isn't any scientific data that contradicts the TOE- it is universally supported by a massive multi-disciplinary dataset. Its disappointing that many people still believe that the TOE is a massive fraud perpetrated for nefarious reasons as nothing could be further from the truth.

Change within a family of organisms is not evidence of macroevolution, It sure as heck is not evidence of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

 

[Hollie]

evolution for all practical purposes is fact.


kids are forced in to buying you fairytale...you using the word nonsense is ironic.

You are in it so you can't see it. There isn't really even any proof for natural selection. I am awaiting your response on the detailed scientific experiments and data collection that elevated the Galapagos finch to Icon status.

It is so amazing to me intelligent people grab onto this most moronic ideal, that the Galapagos finches represent natural selection, with dear life and hold tight. There is no statistically relevant scientific data to support their assumptions no more than there is comparing the length of noses across the human population of America over the last 20 years and trying to correlated it with some natural event. You would be laughed out of job if you even proposed such a thing. The finch beak length variation is a Darwin answer looking for a Darwin question. It is the tale wagging the dog in the worst way!!!

The question is not whether there is change. The question is, "does descent with modification account for the origin of new species?" Going one step further, does it account for every species? Like change over time, descent with modification within a species is not controversial. But Darwinian evolution claims that descent with modification explains the origin and diversification of all living things. There is ZERO EVIDENCE to support this so Daws, you have been duped. You believe in a lie that has absolutely no scientific experimentation to back it up. In fact, genetic studies are not only not backing it up, they continue to poke holes in it daily!!!!

With that said, I just want to say, What's up Finches? Where my Finches at? Darwinian Feyotches.

It really is only the creationist ministeries which refuse to accept the fact of natural selection.

In addition, Darwin's theory does not seek to explain the origins of life. It truly is remarkable to witness the lies and deceit used by the religious zealots to denigrate science and knowledge.

You obviously didn't watch the second video either, which makes your comment look very foolish.

False! As with all these silly videos promoting religion, the underlying assumption is "the gods didi it". Attempting to force even inconsequential amounts of data to fit a preconceived view is dishonest. Religious claims to supernaturalism is not science.

The video with the evolutionist concerning moleular machines was amazed by what the molecular machines do. If you can't see that evidence as evidence of design you are in denial.

I see. I'm in denial because I don't accept the manufactured contents of a YouTube video. An important concept you're missing is this: "it must be true because I read it on the internet", is not a grown up way to discern truth from falsehood.

As usual, you are requiring others to accept your religious claims without any evidence to support them. Do you truly believe a YouTube video is adequate toward supporting evidence for your gods?

These YouTube videos you post are consistent in that they are staged, edited and contrived to support a narrowly defined perspective proposed by Christian creationists. Attempts to vilify science in desperate attempts to promote religion is a fools errand.

 

[Hollie]

Speaking of indoctrinated!!! There is very little science involved in the TOE. I'm not talking about the genetics level stuff but Darwin's stupid theory that is totally baseless in science. There are no tested hypothesis. There is no agreed upon definition of fitness. There is no evidence for gradual change in the fossil record (hundreds of thousands of fossils and counting, a few so so examples at best of transitional fossils). Yet, the quacks call it science and you, Daws, fall for it. Not only that, but you fall for passages like you posted above, basically saying nothing but that some people question the science but we know the TOE is true because it is. Are you really falling for this stuff? The biggest joke is that one of their ICON's is the finch beak story. No proof whatsoever for that story or the conjecture about Giraffe necks but it they call it an Icon??? This makes me like at the mass ignorance that would fall for such fairy tales passed off as science.

To claim that there is very little science involved in the TOE is so far from the truth. You are either ignoring or ignorant of the tomes of multi-disciplinary empirical data that support the TOE. Despite what you may think the fossil record provides powerful evidence of 'macro-evolution'. For example, the discovery of tiktaalik- a genus that had long been predicted to exist by the TOE- is powerful evidence that humans and fish share a common ancestor. Additionally, the breadth of fossils in the homo and austrolapithicines is for all intents an purposes incontrovertible proof that humans descended from a common ancestor shared with the great apes. Take a look at this chart showing the fossils of the Homo genus

Template:Homo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm curious as to how someone who believes in creation would explain the numerous species we have identified in the Homo genus from their fossilized remains. There isn't any scientific data that contradicts the TOE- it is universally supported by a massive multi-disciplinary dataset. Its disappointing that many people still believe that the TOE is a massive fraud perpetrated for nefarious reasons as nothing could be further from the truth.

Change within a family of organisms is not evidence of macroevolution, It sure as heck is not evidence of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

The obvious problem shared by Christian fundies is their confusion and misrepresentation of evolutionary science. In the broadest sense, there is no such thing as macro, minor or terms seized upon by religious fundies regarding evolution. There is just evolution as a process well established and reasonably well understood by science.

The humiliating defeats sufferrd by the Christian creationist crowd in attempting to force their religious views on others (the total rejection of Christian creationism being part of a public school syllabus) should have been enough to send them packing.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are in it so you can't see it. There isn't really even any proof for natural selection. I am awaiting your response on the detailed scientific experiments and data collection that elevated the Galapagos finch to Icon status.

It is so amazing to me intelligent people grab onto this most moronic ideal, that the Galapagos finches represent natural selection, with dear life and hold tight. There is no statistically relevant scientific data to support their assumptions no more than there is comparing the length of noses across the human population of America over the last 20 years and trying to correlated it with some natural event. You would be laughed out of job if you even proposed such a thing. The finch beak length variation is a Darwin answer looking for a Darwin question. It is the tale wagging the dog in the worst way!!!

The question is not whether there is change. The question is, "does descent with modification account for the origin of new species?" Going one step further, does it account for every species? Like change over time, descent with modification within a species is not controversial. But Darwinian evolution claims that descent with modification explains the origin and diversification of all living things. There is ZERO EVIDENCE to support this so Daws, you have been duped. You believe in a lie that has absolutely no scientific experimentation to back it up. In fact, genetic studies are not only not backing it up, they continue to poke holes in it daily!!!!

With that said, I just want to say, What's up Finches? Where my Finches at? Darwinian Feyotches.

It really is only the creationist ministeries which refuse to accept the fact of natural selection.

In addition, Darwin's theory does not seek to explain the origins of life. It truly is remarkable to witness the lies and deceit used by the religious zealots to denigrate science and knowledge.

False! As with all these silly videos promoting religion, the underlying assumption is "the gods didi it". Attempting to force even inconsequential amounts of data to fit a preconceived view is dishonest. Religious claims to supernaturalism is not science.

The video with the evolutionist concerning moleular machines was amazed by what the molecular machines do. If you can't see that evidence as evidence of design you are in denial.

I see. I'm in denial because I don't accept the manufactured contents of a YouTube video. An important concept you're missing is this: "it must be true because I read it on the internet", is not a grown up way to discern truth from falsehood.

As usual, you are requiring others to accept your religious claims without any evidence to support them. Do you truly believe a YouTube video is adequate toward supporting evidence for your gods?

These YouTube videos you post are consistent in that they are staged, edited and contrived to support a narrowly defined perspective proposed by Christian creationists. Attempts to vilify science in desperate attempts to promote religion is a fools errand.

Do you know which video we are discussing ?

How would you explain the many different breeds in domestic animals since we see more change in domesticated animals ?

We also see it in families in the wild.

We see animals producing traits in their offspring that have been passed to them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

To claim that there is very little science involved in the TOE is so far from the truth. You are either ignoring or ignorant of the tomes of multi-disciplinary empirical data that support the TOE. Despite what you may think the fossil record provides powerful evidence of 'macro-evolution'. For example, the discovery of tiktaalik- a genus that had long been predicted to exist by the TOE- is powerful evidence that humans and fish share a common ancestor. Additionally, the breadth of fossils in the homo and austrolapithicines is for all intents an purposes incontrovertible proof that humans descended from a common ancestor shared with the great apes. Take a look at this chart showing the fossils of the Homo genus

Template:Homo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm curious as to how someone who believes in creation would explain the numerous species we have identified in the Homo genus from their fossilized remains. There isn't any scientific data that contradicts the TOE- it is universally supported by a massive multi-disciplinary dataset. Its disappointing that many people still believe that the TOE is a massive fraud perpetrated for nefarious reasons as nothing could be further from the truth.

Change within a family of organisms is not evidence of macroevolution, It sure as heck is not evidence of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

The obvious problem shared by Christian fundies is their confusion and misrepresentation of evolutionary science. In the broadest sense, there is no such thing as macro, minor or terms seized upon by religious fundies regarding evolution. There is just evolution as a process well established and reasonably well understood by science.

The humiliating defeats sufferrd by the Christian creationist crowd in attempting to force their religious views on others (the total rejection of Christian creationism being part of a public school syllabus) should have been enough to send them packing.

Really,how well do you know your own theory ?

This is from one of your sites that you guys quote from so much.

My comment ,Your side extrapolates from microevolution which should be termed microadaptations as your evidence for macroevolution. They claim the two are the same process but admit there is no evidence for macroevolution. Macroevolution is only based on a vivid imagination.

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

 

[Hollie]

It really is only the creationist ministeries which refuse to accept the fact of natural selection.

In addition, Darwin's theory does not seek to explain the origins of life. It truly is remarkable to witness the lies and deceit used by the religious zealots to denigrate science and knowledge.

The video with the evolutionist concerning moleular machines was amazed by what the molecular machines do. If you can't see that evidence as evidence of design you are in denial.

I see. I'm in denial because I don't accept the manufactured contents of a YouTube video. An important concept you're missing is this: "it must be true because I read it on the internet", is not a grown up way to discern truth from falsehood.

As usual, you are requiring others to accept your religious claims without any evidence to support them. Do you truly believe a YouTube video is adequate toward supporting evidence for your gods?

These YouTube videos you post are consistent in that they are staged, edited and contrived to support a narrowly defined perspective proposed by Christian creationists. Attempts to vilify science in desperate attempts to promote religion is a fools errand.

Do you know which video we are discussing ?

How would you explain the many different breeds in domestic animals since we see more change in domesticated animals ?

We also see it in families in the wild.

We see animals producing traits in their offspring that have been passed to them.

Did you somehow miss that you are describing the results of evolutionary processes?

 

[Hollie]

Change within a family of organisms is not evidence of macroevolution, It sure as heck is not evidence of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

The obvious problem shared by Christian fundies is their confusion and misrepresentation of evolutionary science. In the broadest sense, there is no such thing as macro, minor or terms seized upon by religious fundies regarding evolution. There is just evolution as a process well established and reasonably well understood by science.

The humiliating defeats sufferrd by the Christian creationist crowd in attempting to force their religious views on others (the total rejection of Christian creationism being part of a public school syllabus) should have been enough to send them packing.

Really,how well do you know your own theory ?

This is from one of your sites that you guys quote from so much.

My comment ,Your side extrapolates from microevolution which should be termed microadaptations as your evidence for macroevolution. They claim the two are the same process but admit there is no evidence for macroevolution. Macroevolution is only based on a vivid imagination.

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

I know the theory well.

"Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. "


"Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution"

It seems the Christian fundies will need to invent a new term to promote their religious views.

May I suggest "supermacrosupernaturalism"