Hi jar,
jar writes:
In addition, as has been explained to you, the topic is whether macro-evolution can be disproved.
In
Message 1 JRTjr said:
JRTjr writes:
I propose to dedicate a string to whether or not I can, using scientific methods, definitions, and evidences, disprove ‘Macro-Evolution’ {Also known as ‘Darwinian Evolution’ or ‘Natural selection’}.
This statement asks a question.
That question was used as the title of the topic.
Can I disprove Macro-Evolution?
The balance of the sentence being: "using scientific methods, definitions, and evidences.
I find nowhere that JRTjr said he was going to give any information other than what is in the OP.
You guys have a reading or compherension problem I don't know which.
jar writes:
As you admitted, there is ample evidence that the Theory of Evolution is sufficient to explain how critters evolve.
I have actualy admitted that changes in critters takes place and that change can cause critters not to be able to breed and reproduce.
No place have I admitted that critter 1 can become critter 2 that has never existed before.
That is 'Macro-Evolution'.
jar writes:
The model, the Theory of Evolution, explains that small changes happen over time.
Yes.
jar writes:
It explains why we are all really just one thing we are all living critters.
ToE does not explain why.
It attempts to tell us how current life forms evolved from the first single cell life form on Earth.
jar writes:
The divisions of critters into the various categories is simply a human construct we created to put labels on things. The difference between humans and the rest of the great apes exists only in the minds of man, that we, man, decided to extend the labeling system to that level.
I agree that labels have been put on critters by mankind that has a personal worldview that shapes their beliefs.
jar writes:
Now you may not believe any of this, and that is fine. You are free to believe anything you want.
BUT, there is evidence to support the conventional model, and no evidence to support any alternative.
I am glad I have your permission to think outside the box.
There is evidence to support that changes in species take place over time.
There is no evidence that supports changes from species 1 to a totaly different species 2 that has never existed prior to division.
jar writes:
In addition, neither you or anyone else has presented any reason to even consider that macro-evolution is not simply the sum of micro-evolution over time, much less any evidence that would disprove Macro-evolution.
There is no direct history of 'Macro-Evolution' from Berekeley.
Therefore there is no direct evidence of 'Macro-Evolution'.
jar writes:
Honestly, your contributions to this thread have been about as worthless as the god you try to market.
You are welcome to your opinion and belief just as I am.
jar writes:
When you have a product, something of worth or at least interest, maybe you can try again.
So why have you wasted your time reading what I have posted and then made 12 posts of your own?
jar writes:
But remember, your disbelief is irrelevant. Your doubts are irrelevant.
As are your assertions, and belief
jar writes:
Until you can return with a model that explains what is seen better than the conventional model you have nothing to offer.
Why do I need a model?
But as you know I do have one. God did it.
Now back to the topic.
JRTjr asked the question: "Can I disprove Macro-Evolution?"
Where would one find evidence to disprove 'Macro-Evolution' when there is no direct evidence to refute?
God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
™ Version 4.2
(1)
