@johnnyz256:
Speciation is not the same as microbes-to-man evolution. Your assertion that one leads to the other is completely unfounded. That's what atheists and evolutionists desperately want to believe, but their belief is, again, without foundation.
My Assertion? I assert that evolution is change over time. I'm not playing into whatever strawman you're building. Also, another theme of your statements is just calling something unfounded. You're not citing any examples or proof. You can't just say, "oh well that's unfounded." When it absolutely is, and expect people to take you seriously.
Creationists don't question speciation; this is clearly true. Creationists doubt microbes-to-man macroevolution, which is utterly scientific and CONTRARY to observational science.
Bam. End of debate here buddy. If you're not questioning specialization, then by extension you are allowing for evolution in its most pure form, to exist from you. Here's where you're showing your true colors, you've basically admitted that evolution is a real process that takes place, your problem is that you don't like popular scientific interpretations of the formation of early life, so you just call it unscientific and offer nothing in place of it beyond implying that the supernatural is more credible than the natural.
The problem is that evolution is basically a religion for those who don't want God (or, at least, the God of the Bible).
No, you've already admitted you subscribe to evolution as it exists as change over time. You're just upset that people use it to speculate as to the origin of life being something reasonable as opposed to something supernatural.
You're saying: You're wrong, because you can't prove your claims, but I'm not even though I can't prove my claims either. This is a lose-lose argument here, and it's the only one you can make. If you try to hold up creationists to scientists and compare their claims based on empirical data, there is absolutely nothing that suggests creationist ideas hold more water than their scientific counterparts.
Creationists often depend on observational science for their beliefs. How is that unscientific?
Because people live, geologically speaking, a short amount of time. too short to easily notice evolution in their lifespans, even many lifespans are too slow to notice it in some cases. Wait, don't tell me you also believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Now that would actually be unscientific, and a little absurd.
The problem is that you're biased against the supernatural, so of course creationists are unscientific.
Well there you go, you made my argument for me. Yes, the supernatural is entirely regarded as unscientific. Please, I challenge you to find something that can prove the existence of the supernatural as observable, and you might convince some people of your potion. Maybe a burning bush, or a floating man that creates matter and energy from nothing..? Come up with anything that is objectively supernatural, and you'll have won.
The vast majority of mutations are either neutral or negative, and yet evolutionists think that mutations and natural selection are the engines that have miraculously caused microbes to evolve into humans over billions of years. It's utterly unscientific nonsense.
Okay, here's where you really show you're not too well versed in genetics. While many mutations can have no affect or a negative affect on an organism, there have been countless beneficial mutations for organisms, which grant them competitive advantages throughout time, This is Evolution at Work. You have lived between 8-90 years. You just made such an arrogant statement, that you can talk about what happened over BILLIONS of years, while offering no proof or evidence, is frankly insulting.
"Science" isn't based on speculations and subjective interpretations of scientists
Duh, its based on OBJECTIVE evidence, and any SCIENTIFIC speculation made is made based upon OBJECTIVE evidence.
, which is what evolution is. Scientists look at the fossil record and conclude evolution, but that is a subjective interpretation. No scientist living today was around when the fossil layer was formed. Any belief about the fossil record is an interpretation.
Sure, no scientist was around millions of years ago. Way to prove nothing. that speculation however, is based on OBJECTIVE observation of today's natural world. Looking at a fossil record and making assumptions about if would be fruitless UNLESS, scientists, had a modern day counterpart to compare it to, which they do.
Actually, the fossil record is much better explained by a worldwide flood, but, of course, this sounds way too much like the Bible, so many reject it out of hand. The fossil layers are indicative of rapid burial. Normally, animals and humans that die return to the dust and no fossilization occurs.
No it's not, and you again don't know what you're talking about. There is NOT ENOUGH water in the world to cause a worldwide flood. And unless you can disprove existing geographical data and plotting of tectonic plate movements, the Earth's surface was never flat enough for such an event to take place.
Your flood interpretation is largely unscientific, and frankly, laughable. OBSERVABLE SCIENCE, which, being a scientist, you'd know is the go-to for science shows that landmasses move. For chrissakes, the Atlantic ocean is measured to grow several centimeters each year. THAT is an easily provable example of a natural phenomenon. Because is its observable, it makes it a much more REASONABLE method of speculating how the Earth looked millions of years ago, which at one point or another, featured continents which were moved together and pulled apart, on a geological timescale large enough to see organisms in the fossil record spread in ways they couldn't have otherwise, and evolve in their isolation.
There are many other reasons to doubt long ages and macroevolution. But everyone starts with their own axioms. For those whose starting axioms do not include God, evolution must be true, despite the overwhelming mountain of evidence to the contrary.
What mountain, the one that only exists because you believe in it? This is frustrating for me, and its becoming a waste of my time. If you can only echo poor arguments made by Ken Ham and his ludicrous theologists, then don't bother any further reply. Here's a guy who'll answer your further questions.
Log in to comment