Yet again you have avoided answering our simple and very necessary questions.
You still have not explained to us what an "evolutionist" is. You still have not explained what you mean by "evolution".
All you have done has been to regurgitate standard creationist nonsense in a typically creationist brain-dead manner.
And you still have not supported your use of the utterly stupid creationist "kind producing kind" argument (ie, that evolution is supposed to require dogs producing cats), which is so completely and utterly stupid that only creationists believe it.
Evolution predicts "kind producing kind"; that's called Monophyly. But we have already explained that to you repeatedly, like my Message 16 on 13 Feb 2019:
What we observe is that "kind produce kind." Both historical and observable science support this fact.
Yes, and evolution demands it because that's how it works: daughter species remain within its parents species' clade. We call it Monophyly, though more colloquially, "nested clades" (quoted from that Wikipedia link):
quote:In cladistics, a monophyletic group, or clade, is a group of organisms that consists of all the descendants of a common ancestor. Monophyletic groups are typically characterised by shared derived characteristics (synapomorphies), which distinguish organisms in the clade from other organisms. The arrangement of the members of a monophyletic group is called a monophyly.
So, somehow you seem to think that "kind produce kind" disproves evolution. Could you please explain that position, because it doesn't make any sense. For example, if you believe evolution requires one kind producing offspring of a different kind then please state so explicitly and offer examples that you would expect and why -- a common creationist example I've seen is that evolution would cause us to expect a dog having kittens.
In your subsequent posts you confirmed my suspicion and demonstrated that you do indeed believe in that must stupid of creationist false claims which you call "kind producing kind". Only "then why are there still monkeys?" or "but they're STILL MOTHS!!!" might be more stupid.
Stop avoiding discussion. Stop being a mindless troll. Learn something. You cannot ever hope to fight effectively against evolution (though you have also refused to explain why you hate evolution so much) unless you learn as much as possible about evolution, not the lies and misrepresentations that the creationists have taught you. The audience can clearly see when you are only beating up a straw man and not your actual declared opponent.
The issue of Christianity vs Evolution is simply utter nonsense taught by the Christian Cult of *********. Use peek mode if needed. Within Christianity almost all of the major Christian sects fully acknowledges that ALL of the evidence supports the Theory of Evolution, an Old Earth, that humans are simply a lineage withing the Order Primates and that neither of the Biblical Flood myths ever happened.
Evolutionists believe minute changes, which they refer to as micro evolution (it is nothing more than variations in a species), over the course of eons, leads to macro evolution. Evolutionists require great amounts of time in order for a species to evolve and create a totally different species.
They believe that "time" can do the impossible.
Evolutionists must have great faith to believe in their concept, because it certainly isn't observable. There is no way possible for them to prove their assertions.
Curiously I don’t know any scientist, biologist, ecologist, or otherwise that believes any of this muddled twaddle
And I notice you did not define EVOLUTION, which is probably why this twaddle you rattle on about.
Please give it a whack, and now also define what you mean by “macro evolution” ... just for fun. And then tell me what you mean by “a totally different species.” Because good debate depends on all parties understanding what each other says.
I only believe in science that can be proven. True science never relies solely on assumptions
Never took a real science have you?
Nothing is proven in any science. If you think otherwise give an example.
The theory of gravity is not proven, for example, so if you don’t believe science unless proven, I invite you to jump off a 10 story building. You can test the theory and perhaps invalidate it.
Do you know what the scientific method is? Occam's Razor? Anything on Popper’s theories?
It seems you have a lot to learn. A good first start is that what you think you know is probably wrong.
And what I observe is "kind producing kind"
Don’t you mean “kinds reproducing within their kinds” ... ? Not producing (some other) kind.
Curiously, what I observe is clades reproducing (generation after generation), offspring within their clades
Kind refers to, in this case, animals that are biologically related; have common ancestors; and, can reproduce.
All humans are of the same kind. We fulfill the criteria. All three.
I group kind into the classification of family.
Donkeys, horses, and zebras are of the same kind because they fit the criteria. However, they are not the same species. Even though some offsprings might have great difficulty reproducing they are still of the same kind.
The same is true for dogs; coyotes; foxes; wolves; etc.... And all species grouped into the same kind.
Two animals of the same kind, but not necessarily the same species, can reproduce. And, as I previously stated not always can the offspring replicate. This is also true of humans. Sometimes "isolation" plays a role in this, but loss of genetic information is not evolution; in fact, it is the opposite.
Kind is the limit to reproduction.
Observation science has shown that kind produce kind, just as Moses stated in Genesis.
Moshe, if Moshe even really existed, did not write Genesis, Genesis is the product of an unknown number or authors, editors, story tellers and redactors over many many centuries and from at least two entirely different theologies and cultures.
You ask if I were an eyewitness to the resurrection. The answer is no, and I freely admit this. However, there were numerous eyewitnesses. Many of them were willing to die because His resurrection had changed them to the depth of their soul. These were the same people who had cowered in fear, and who had denied Him.
If this had been a hoax the Pharisees would have exposed it at any cost.
In any event, I am not trying to have Christianity taught in school at taxpayers expense.
Faith based beliefs should not be supported by taxpayers. This is true for evolution
And yet the stories of the resurrection all vary and evolve just like all folk tales. It's just like the stories of Saul's conversion and of the Great Commission, as each tale gets repeated and retold it becomes more and more fanciful and unbelievable.
Evolution though is NOT based on faith but in fact based on doubt. That is the big advantage. Any tentative conclusions are tested not just against new evidence but also through EVERY new line of inquiry; every new means of testing. That is why it is science and not faith based. No conclusion in evolution or other areas of sience goes unchallenged.
Religion though should be taught in my opinion, and taught early and continuously so that religious beliefs are held to the same standards of evidence as reality or science. Religion has done some good in the world but mostly harm, and it's important that both the good and harm be acknowledged.