Always talking about micro-evolution?

Which is what theistic evolutionists believe. But you're speaking against what some others in your camp have proclaimed (that its perfectly alright for a Christian to believe in billions of years). Are you separate from those guys, or did you not get together with them to decide what to say about this? If you believe what you just said, I need you to explain that to the rest of the folks in your camp. Or maybe I'm just wondering where you really stand.

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

Sorry for asking, but: What's a POTM? Maybe it's getting too late for me (02:35 A.M. local).

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

It's been a busy week for me, and I'm still catching up on replies.You wrote: No, rather facetious. Thought you could tell that. Of course. No doubt in my mind. I thought I've made that clear long ago; was that a real question? Of course, we need to define the "bait and switch" definition of "evolution". Let me be more specific:Micro evolution: Yes.
Macro evolution: No.Do we need to go over the basics of this again? I don't mind repeating myself if it'll help you. Remember, I was the guy who offered the analogy of (micro) walking from Chicago to Milwaukee as opposed to (macro) walking from Chicago to the Moon (or Jupiter for that matter). I seem to remember it may have been you who responded, or at LEAST someone from your camp, about finding artifacts on the moon, which would be proof that man was indeed there, etc.
Your example followed my point; walking to the next town is NOT the same process as rocketing to the moon. There is a connection for WALKING between CHI and MKE, but NO connection for WALKING to the moon (or Corona Borealis for that matter). Do you remember this? But yet you still insist: Have you been following along here, or do you just make bold statements as a tactic to throw your debate opponent for a loop?

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

Post of the Month. There's threads in the "Posts of the Month" forum where we "nominate" noteworthy posts each month. You got one, by the way. Check "Feburary Posts of the Month."No, you don't get a prize.

Skeptick,Sorry I missed your subtle irony. Your wit is just as sharp as your scientific acumen.So are we back to square one, then? Talk about bait-and-switch. You accept exactly the sort of change in populations that demonstrates the Darwinist variation-selection process in action, but you deny that this process could result in the sort of large-scale change that we'd expect to see it produce over time.So now the questions you so sarcastically avoided remain unanswered. Because no one can demonstrate to you the development of life on Earth during the last few billion years, you don't accept the theory of common ancestry. Because your personal incredulity is greater than your ability to assess scientific evidence, you don't even accept that variation and selection could account for colorful bird plumage. Because no one can give you precise odds of a certain evolutionary event, you remain unconvinced that the event was even possible.And that's fine. You're missing out on the wonders of Nature, but that's your choice. You're choosing ignorance over evidence and believing that it's a virtue to do so. You're ridiculing us for being fascinated by Nature and having the capacity for rational, objective assessment of facts. Some people's capacity for self-delusion is boundless, and there's nothing we can do to change that.So, Skeptick, there'll be no more questions from me and no more attempts to answer yours. I don't know whether any amount of evidence would convince you, or what this evidence would be. I don't know what you hope to achieve by acting the way you do. I only know you're a waste of time.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

quote:

---

You accept exactly the sort of change in populations that demonstrates the Darwinist variation-selection process in action, but you deny that this process could result in the sort of large-scale change that we'd expect to see it produce over time.

---

Now be reasonable Hambre. You never actually witnessed your own conception...in fact, you have never personally witness a conception event at the level of sperm and egg. This obviously demonstrates an the anti-stork conspiracy among scientists. Ha ha..next you will have me believe that bacteria can exchange genetic material with one another ha ha ha.

Mammuthus,This is the difference between my brand of skepticism and yours. It's easy to deny things that you never witnessed, and that's the basis of the watered-down excuse for skepticism you peddle. And then there's the heroic ability to deny what you can see right in front of you, and that's my theme song, babe. I can say, "Wow. Pretty amazing stuff, that DNA. VERY amazing." But then I'll turn around and claim that we know nothing about DNA and it tells us nothing about common ancestry. Ain't I a genius?Esteban "Fart at the Devil" Hambre

And what is it that I am speaking against?And what is it that theist evolutionists believe? Tinkering? I don't think that's right with the definition of theist evolution that most use.

Maybe I'm a skeptic, too, because I don't think we can convince people like Skeptic or Simple that the evidence is clear enough that evolution occurred over a long period of time. But, it may help you "hold the fort" or convince others.However, I participate in these discussions to learn more about how to debate. As you can see from these guys, the questions they raise can be so unpredictable. They like debate forums because the depth of discussion is so shallow and there is no time to research properly.Anyway, "choose your battles", but please continue to give us your key thoughts.

ThingsChange,I fully agree. I have no problem with people who want to debate certain points, and with whom there is some remote prospect of constructive dialogue. I wasn't trying to be difficult or patronizing when I asked Skeptick those questions. I wanted to know whether there was any point debating with him, and whether there was any evidence he would consider persuasive. I never want to assume right off the bat that there's no hope of reaching agreement.I should know better. The folks who come here accusing evolutionists of being Nazis, racists, or abortionists can't be reached. Facts mean nothing to them, and if they ever possessed the ability to think rationally, it's long gone.regards,
Esteban "Threshold of Pain" Hambre

We never left square one. We knew that before we started. You trying to convince me of evolution would be like Al Gore attending the Republican National Convention to ask everyone to vote for Hillary. Same goes vice versa; you will not believe in God's power to create in 6 days no matter what I show you. The Israelites didn't believe Jesus despite all the miracles he did. If I could heal the sick, make the lame walk, raise the dead, you would try to explain the power of God away like Pharoah did; "...cheap magician's trick...", etc. So what's the point?
My purpose on this forum was different. I'm already on overtime; I should have been off last Thursday at midnight, then got a two day extension, and now I've been in full violation for the last two days. Habit-forming this forum is, no doubt. You're right. Because evolution over billions of years is a lie of the devil. Evidence does not exist, only lots of hot air that keeps changing as scientists continue surmising. But I can quote what I want, you simply won't let God be sovereign. So, again, what's the point?

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

Oh, so others have reached the same conlusion?Anyway, the same is said about you, my friend. Those who come here thinking there is no God, and that life came from non-life, cannot be reached if they maintain their hardness of heart. As far as someone like me, we've already considered the prospect that God perhaps may have used evolution to create, simply because scientists brought the question up. However, examination of the facts by countless experts show a different story than the one we're taught by would-be scientists who refuse to believe in God. There are numerous people (I can name names, and so can you) who left your camp after they got an inside view of evolution. But, of course, you discredit them. There are also those who broke away from my camp to join yours, but their motivation was far different; rebellion against God. Nothing other than rebellion against God. The theistic evolutionsists are different story again, as I've pointed out on different posts.

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

I think I came in at a good time. Mark 4 talks about that point exactly, no one will accept the gospel when they have hardhearts, however, their hearts just need to be plowed and prepared.Yeah, and I believe in evolution:the changing of the mind and renewing of the heart.

I'm convinceable, by the way. I have no particular objection to creationism other than it isn't true. But if you could demonstrate that it's a scientific theory that is falsifiable and makes testable predictions, and gather a siginificant wieght of peer-reviewed data in support, and deal with the fact that the God you're talking about doesn't appear to exist, then I'd be a creationist again. Basically you'd have to do everything science has to do to convince people.Don't mistake your failure to convince us as evidence that we can't be convinced. You just haven't done a sufficient job yet. You could start by supporting your claims with evidence. But if you're going to give up before you've even tried, we're probably going to conclude that you don't have any evidence at all.We, on the other hand, have reams of it. For starters, there's the vastly improbable convergence of cladistics and stratigraphy. Secondly there's the geologic and astronomical time record. Thirdly there's the experimental data. There's more than enough evidence to convince any honest, informed, reasonable person.Guess where that leaves you?

Countless? You could count them on two hands. On the other hand, I can name over 300 biologists who have examined the data and reached the conclusion that it's an accurate model, and that's just the folks named Steve. In my defense as an ex-believer, I wouldn'thave rebelled against God if he hadn't rebelled against me first. Of course, I assume you'll invoke the True Scotsman fallacy to discredit me- I must not have been a "true believer."