If you accept microevolution

[jamesmorlock]

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?

[nobspeople]

And that clearly demonstrates nothing about the actual evolutionary process. Have you even tried to learn what it is all about?

Yeah, this is what this is all about; it is about the necessity of unbelievers to explain the origins of species without invoking God...because if you negate God's existence, evolution is the only game in town...so what you have is evolutionists defending their religion (evolution) just as vigorously as believers defend their religious faiths.

That is what it is all about.

I very much doubt it, because if you had you would not be making all the patently incorrect statements that are contained in your posts.

All I said was "dogs produce dogs". Please enlighten me on what is "patently incorrect" about me saying "dogs produce dogs"...as if we don't have thousands of years of actual observational, experimental, and predictable evidence (you know, actual science) of this being the case.

I don't believe I said that.

[The Barbarian]

Yeah, this is what this is all about; it is about the necessity of unbelievers to explain the origins of species without invoking God...because if you negate God's existence, evolution is the only game in town...so what you have is evolutionists defending their religion (evolution) just as vigorously as believers defend their religious faiths.

That is what it is all about.

That is easily falsified by the large number of Christians who accept evolution. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things.

[Tcg]

Yeah, this is what this is all about; it is about the necessity of unbelievers to explain the origins of species without invoking God...because if you negate God's existence, evolution is the only game in town...so what you have is evolutionists defending their religion (evolution) just as vigorously as believers defend their religious faiths.

That is what it is all about.

That's a fascinating theory. Of course it doesn't explain the existence of theists who also accept evolution as a fact. It certainly doesn't negate god's existence for them. Some of them conclude that evolution is a tool god uses. Of course, like all other theists, they've failed to produce any verifiable evidence of god/gods so their conclusion lacks support.


Tcg

[We_Are_VENOM]

That's a fascinating theory. Of course it doesn't explain the existence of theists who also accept evolution as a fact.

Sure, I will also be willing to accept evolution as a fact if it was based on the proposition that God was behind it all. That is the ONLY way I will accept it as a viable theory...but the evidence for evolution is so poor, that I don't even see evidence that God did it that way.

That being said, I also have beef with the concept of theistic evolution...although this is more of an "in house" debate between believers and falls into the same category of "Young Earth vs Old Earth" debates among believers....as it makes for great conversations, but has no barren on any doctrine of significance.

More of a half time show than the actual "game".

It certainly doesn't negate god's existence for them. Some of them conclude that evolution is a tool god uses. Of course, like all other theists, they've failed to produce any verifiable evidence of god/gods so their conclusion lacks support.
Tcg

Hey, while you wait patiently for evidence that God did it at all, I will wait patiently for evidence that God did it that way.

So far, from both of our perspectives, we've got NOTHING.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Yeah, this is what this is all about; it is about the necessity of unbelievers to explain the origins of species without invoking God...because if you negate God's existence, evolution is the only game in town...so what you have is evolutionists defending their religion (evolution) just as vigorously as believers defend their religious faiths.

That is what it is all about.

That is easily falsified by the large number of Christians who accept evolution. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things.

I clearly said if you "negate" God's existence...obviously, to say that God used evolution as a method of creation is clearly not "negating" God's existence.

We all know that if God exists, he can certainly "use" evolution to orchestrate his plans...the question is not a matter of "if", but "did".

Did he use it, or not? I say not.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I don't believe I said that.

My bad, homie. That was meant for brunumb.

[nobspeople]

I don't believe I said that.

My bad, homie. That was meant for brunumb.

No worries. I say some things - just wanted to make sure I didn't say that

[Clownboat]

Sure, I will also be willing to accept evolution as a fact if it was based on the proposition that God was behind it all. That is the ONLY way I will accept it as a viable theory...

(To the bold) Once again, this is a mechanism of religions that cause humans to stop learning. Imagine being so close minded on a subject, not just evolution, that you wouldn't even consider explanations that don't stem from your preferred god concept.

Knowledge combats faith, which is why religions are waning in modern countries and growing in 3rd world countries.
Many religious people know this, thus why they attempt level the playing field by making empty 'faith' claims, or calling evolution a religion.

Imagine all the violence and hatred caused by religions vanishing from our planet! Or imagine people being able to learn without being handicapped by being forced to insert god concept for which there is no evidence for nor are they falsifiable concepts to begin with. The worst part is, these types of religious people need to do no more than convince themselves that others are being led astray by a devil or demons. Fully justified in their heads once that is claimed.

[Clownboat]

Yeah, this is what this is all about; it is about the necessity of unbelievers to explain the origins of species without invoking God...because if you negate God's existence, evolution is the only game in town...so what you have is evolutionists defending their religion (evolution) just as vigorously as believers defend their religious faiths.

That is what it is all about.

That is easily falsified by the large number of Christians who accept evolution. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things.

I clearly said if you "negate" God's existence...obviously, to say that God used evolution as a method of creation is clearly not "negating" God's existence.

You're doing science wrong.
You first need to observe a god or things about a god before you are allowed to invent such an idea as an explanation for the observed mechanism we call evolution. I'm talking about the fact of evolution here mind you, not the theory we have that best explains the fact.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... l%20record.

We all know that if God exists, he can certainly "use" evolution to orchestrate his plans...the question is not a matter of "if", but "did".

Cart before the horse here. What observations were made that led you to not only a god being behind it all, but your preferred god concept (I assume Yahweh?).

[Dimmesdale]

This is just my overall sense:

When I look at an animal, like an elephant or a lion or a cheetah, I don't see a being in the midst of transitioning. I see a finished product. It doesn't help that I've never seen an animal midway between elephant and some other form either, "closely related to it" - and I mean morphologically. I look at horses, cows, dogs, and dolphins and so on. Such wonderful creatures. But I don't see forms antecedent to them. Perhaps I haven't been exposed to the right contenders. Perhaps evolution has progressed to the point where these other forms died out due to "obsolescence" but... no. I don't buy macroevolution because I don't see why the biggest, most prominent animals we have shouldn't be shown to be members in a series still extant. It seems to me we should see alive certain relatives that bear a
"half" or "three quarters" resemblance to them. I see nothing to fit the bill in my view.

Then again, I dismiss evolution from the outset, so maybe I am biased. Actually, I am.

But if anyone has any good contenders for transitional forms NOW relating to the animals we have NOW, I'd like to see them.

But don't tell me that a tapir is related to a horse or something and that that proves your point. It doesn't. I need something like you find in those old encyclopedias. In essence, I want to see a saber-tooth tiger.

But I doubt anyone can present such.