Upward evolution simply means that a species survives due to its mutation having been found fit for the environment. giraffes survived ny virtue of its mutation - that's upward evolution, it IS indeed an improvement in the sense that they did not become extinct.
A giraffe getting a longer neck isnt upward evolution. There is a criteria for macroevolution.
The concept of macroevolution is as follows "the emergence of entirely new and more “advanced” features through innumerable, completely new genetically-defined traits"
The giraffe put simply, is not an example of macroevolution.
OK even though I don't get what you're saying EXACTLY (the only part of it I understand is the mutations and stuff and how they did not become extinct etc and all that but not the macro and all that seeing as i'm only 15 😑 lol) but anyway.... it makes more sense than what you are trying to say clickclick..no offence. And before about you saying I was sad for agreeing him? Why is it sad? You told me that people have been known to be taught bullshit so why can't he say that people have been known to be taught bullshit about God? It's exactly the same thing. And plus I was agreeing with him saying that it can't be proved so that's why he doesn't believe. What I don't understand is where people get the idea of it in the first place. Will someone explain fully and then I will express my views lol....
but anyway.... it makes more sense than what you are trying to say clickclick..no offence. And before about you saying I was sad for agreeing him? Why is it sad?
In all honesty now, I dont believe you know the intricacies of all this to really speak about what it is that makes more or less sense. The theory of evolution consistently fails to fit observed scientific evidence. Yet somehow it is purported as scientific theory? 😆
The atheistic belief that everything has simply a naturilistic explanation isnt objective, it is blind faith. Atheists not only violate their supposed problem with theists but they also violate everything that science stands for while at the same time they attempt to misuse it to confirm their anti-theisitic beliefs.
You told me that people have been known to be taught bullshit so why can't he say that people have been known to be taught bullshit about God? It's exactly the same thing. And plus I was agreeing with him saying that it can't be proved so that's why he doesn't believe. What I don't understand is where people get the idea of it in the first place. Will someone explain fully and then I will express my views lol....
Its not remotely the same thing and this is glaringly obvious. The things that I have said were known to be bullshit were unequivocal, there is no question that it was false. Your opinion that God does not exist is just that. Therein lies a huge difference. The theory of evolution fails on so many levels. It fails for example on the level of observed scientific data such as fossil records aswell as biochemical evidence. However that is but one part and one aspect of how it fails. There is much much more and ultimately, it is most certainly not supported by scientific evidence.
If god exists, then out doubts cant make him not exist.
If he doesnt exist, none of our faith will make him exist.
All that we can change is our perceptions of god and our definitions of him/her/it. Even if an athiest defines god as an imaginary non-existant concept, then they are defining that as god.
It is nonsensical to define god as 'an imaginary non-existing concept', because you can't define something by saying it is non-existing. You are then effectively un-defining the entity in such a case. You are making a contradiction. Also, the atheist does not define god as an imaginary non-existant concept, but rather defines god as a mere concept - a concept cannot be imaginary and non-existent, then you're saying that there is no concept in the first place, but in truth an atheist does not define god, he negates the existence of god, so he cannot actually define god.
Your statement does not make logical sense.
Everything inside existence does have a natural explanation - it is objective, and it is surely not blind faith - blind faith is when one merely believe something without experiments and scientific probing. Believing in a god is blind faith, as nothing suggests the existence of a god.
Everything inside existence? To believe that everything in our universe has merely a naturalistic explanation is unquestionably, blind faith. It is NOT based on evidence, you couldnt even claim for such to be the case.
The funny thing about evolutionists is that their blind faith is so strong that they dismiss scientific evidence or a lack there of consistently just in order to maintain their theory. Of which, it doesnt work on so many levels that it is laughable that one would purport it as scientific theory or even much worse yet, FACT.
Your saying that "nothing suggests" the existence of God is merely your opinion. However that is expected because you have a prejudice. You have your "religion" in naturalism. Blind faith away...