Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Is it possible that you will cease this? You bring nothing to this argument scientifically, yet urge me to go read something posted on a different thread. I will wait for him to make his arguments personally.

i posted a link, which u didnt click, read it, its just a page of stuff. all his material needed for a debate is there, is it honestly that hard to take 5 minutes of your time and read it instead of making it a 30 min argument on whether u shoiuld read it or not?

I have read your link. Now. In your own words. Tell me what you think it proves.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
I have read your link. Now. In your own words. Tell me what you think it proves.

that micro and macroevolution have both occured and will continue to do so.

No, i meant Digi.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
well seeing as that there is no higher authority on classifications other than humans, it seems fit that WE classify stuff. so our classifications are done by observation and the like.

You are wrong about this one. Nature is the higher authority.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are wrong about this one. Nature is the higher authority.

well seeing as how nature cant write and we're left to classify things as we see fit, our classifications work just fine

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are wrong about this one. Nature is the higher authority.

Until we crush it beneath our iron soled boots.

Besides nature hasn't actually classified anything for us AFAIK.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Until we crush it beneath our iron soled boots.

Besides nature hasn't actually classified anything for us AFAIK.

we already crushed nature, its called smog.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
well seeing as how nature cant write and we're left to classify things as we see fit, our classifications work just fine

We can classify all we like, but if it doesn't match observation in nature, it has no value.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We can classify all we like, but if it doesn't match observation in nature, it has no value.

but.......it....does 😕

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We can classify all we like, but if it doesn't match observation in nature, it has no value.

That defines our methods of classification.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
but.......it....does 😕

How is that? A classification must have scientific value in order for it to be a scientific classification. It is yet to be seen if Micro and Macro evolution has any merit. It could be an accurate clarification, but conclusions can lead to a outcome that does not agree with observation in nature. It is most likely our lack of understanding, but I personally am more conservative in these matters.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How is that? A classification must have scientific value in order for it to be a scientific classification. It is yet to be seen if Micro and Macro evolution has any merit. It could be an accurate clarification, but conclusions can lead to a outcome that does not agree with observation in nature. It is most likely our lack of understanding, but I personally am more conservative in these matters.

well they have both been observed and they both have scientific merit. i see no reason to disregard either term. they both seem very valid to me

The only reason there is a difference in this classification is that we have seen "Micro-evolution" (changes in allele frequency causes phenotypic differences), but never "Macro-evolution" which involves speciation (which we have never seen before) and natural selection (a flawed idea of a natural pressure). That is the difference; one can be seen, one is speculation.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
The only reason there is a difference in this classification is that we have seen "Micro-evolution" (changes in allele frequency causes phenotypic differences), but never "Macro-evolution" which involves speciation (which we have never seen before) and natural selection (a flawed idea of a natural pressure). That is the difference; one can be seen, one is speculation.

well i disagree with you on the macro evolution part, but both are classifications with merit. they are both real and both deserve to exist, why shaky has such a hard time dealing with that fact is beyond me 🙁

To all KMC forum members-

DigiMark007 and I debated Evolution and Intelligent Design (ID) exhaustively on the thread entitled, "Evolving Robots Challenge Evolution," if not others; the facts concerning this debate are simple, but unproven theories are often mistaken as scientific, because they are easy to "conceptualize," having absolutely nothing to do with emperical evidence. And I'm referring to macroevolution (or Darwinian theory). For example, most of us can conceptualize the evolutionary process of a bicycle developing into a motorcycle. At first glance, such process are a no-brainer, but processes of this caliber couldn't be futher from the truth, and this has absolutely nothing to do with microevolution; some persons on this thread simply do not know the difference between micro and macro evolutionary processses. And so, naturally, your views are going to be false (or incomplete).

Microevolution has been scientifically proven--many cases have been documented and are available for study. A classic example of microevolutionary processes in nature can be contributed to man's best friend: the dog. As we all know, hundreds of dog species are alive today. And to revert to man-made machines, hundreds of bicycle and motorcycle models are available on the market for purchase. Each man-made machine--despite various models--remain bicycles and motorcycles; this also applies to organisms. A dog--despite various species--remain dogs; but macroevolution implies that a dog (or dog species) could evolve into a completely different organism by means of Natural Selection and/or Mutation.

Our planet Earth, is four to five million years old, and man has never documented one case of macroevolutionary processes in nature. Instead, Darwinian theory can only be found on paper and internet articles. If you wish to manufacture a bicycle into a motorcycle, assembly instructions at the factory must be rewritten; and this notion is no different than organisms, namely, the DNA level. For a dog to develope into a completely different organism, the genome of the dog must be rewritten (or perhaps additional--brand new--information must be introduced into the genome). This isn't Creationist propaganda, and it isn't wishful speculation; it's fact! Darwinian theory deflates when applied to natural processes, more specifically, the function of DNA. Darwinian theory is simply not true.

Darwinian proponents, having read this, will post a counter-argument; but note, that all fail to provide an example macroevolutionary processes occuring in nature. All they have are "theories," but if macroevolutionary processes in nature are fact, readily examples of such should be obvious, much like science has documented examples of microevolution. Of course, such examples are not possible; as previously stated, "Darwinian theory is simply not true." Proponents of Darwinian theory overlook the obvious for the inobvious; it's a belief system, no better (or worse) than religious belief systems.

I realize that I did not thwart an argument supporting ID, but I will in the future. Unfortunately, I am under time restraints, and it will have to wait. And by the way... does anyone on this thread share my views?

Whob whob whob whob whob.

To all KMC forum members-

DigiMark007 and I debated Evolution and Intelligent Design (ID) exhaustively on the thread entitled, "Evolving Robots Challenge Evolution," if not others; the facts concerning this debate are simple, but unproven theories are often mistaken as scientific, because they are easy to "conceptualize," having absolutely nothing to do with emperical evidence. And I'm referring to macroevolution (or Darwinian theory). For example, most of us can conceptualize the evolutionary process of a bicycle developing into a motorcycle. At first glance, such process are a no-brainer, but processes of this caliber couldn't be futher from the truth, and this has absolutely nothing to do with microevolution; some persons on this thread simply do not know the difference between micro and macro evolutionary processses. And so, naturally, your views are going to be false (or incomplete).

Microevolution has been scientifically proven--many cases have been documented and are available for study. A classic example of microevolutionary processes in nature can be contributed to man's best friend: the dog. As we all know, hundreds of dog species are alive today. And to revert to man-made machines, hundreds of bicycle and motorcycle models are available on the market for purchase. Each man-made machine--despite various models--remain bicycles and motorcycles; this also applies to organisms. A dog--despite various species--remain dogs; but macroevolution implies that a dog (or dog species) could evolve into a completely different organism by means of Natural Selection and/or Mutation.

Our planet Earth, is four to five million years old, and man has never documented one case of macroevolutionary processes in nature. Instead, Darwinian theory can only be found on paper and internet articles. If you wish to manufacture a bicycle into a motorcycle, assembly instructions at the factory must be rewritten; and this notion is no different than organisms, namely, the DNA level. For a dog to develope into a completely different organism, the genome of the dog must be rewritten (or perhaps additional--brand new--information must be introduced into the genome). This isn't Creationist propaganda, and it isn't wishful speculation; it's fact! Darwinian theory deflates when applied to natural processes, more specifically, the function of DNA. Darwinian theory is simply not true.

Darwinian proponents, having read this, will post a counter-argument; but note, that all fail to provide an example macroevolutionary processes occuring in nature. All they have are "theories," but if macroevolutionary processes in nature are fact, readily examples of such should be obvious, much like science has documented examples of microevolution. And asking for one example of macroevolutionary processes in nature (covering four to five million years) is not an unfair request. But of course, such examples are not possible; as previously stated, "Darwinian theory is simply not true." Proponents of Darwinian theory overlook the obvious for the inobvious; it's a belief system, no better (or worse) than religious belief systems.

I realize that I did not thwart an argument supporting ID, but I will in the future. Unfortunately, I am under time restraints, and it will have to wait. And by the way... does anyone on this thread share my views?

I agree with you ushomefree. I have been debating Digimark in the last few posts.

macro evolution can be achieved over many generations, it is again something that must be observed over time, it isnt just a fish giving birth to a cow. its much more complicated. microevolution can lead to macro evolution if given enough time. not every organism mutates but some do, and the ones that have an advantageous mutation survive. now some may lead to a stable form of an organism, IE. a fly has 4 legs and it gives birth to a fly with 6 legs. if the fly with 6 legs survives and does better that trait will continue and live on while the 4 legged fly will either die out or just keep surviving while the 6 legged fly willl thrive. eventually with small mutations it will become a big mutation, which will lead to speciation