[__ Science __ ] Some Thoughts On The Religion Of Evolution.

[Barbarian]

Again you are trying to present horrible evidence as if it were law.

As you see, it's just facts. That's how it is. No point in denial.

The mitochondria endosymbiotic theory is again just a theory.

Not until recently; there was considerable evidence for it, but not quite enough to qualify as a settled theory. The mitochondria look like bacteria, with bacterial membranes, their own circular (bacterial) DNA, and other features. But we didn't really have an example of endosymbiosis being observed to evolve. Now we have at least two observed cases. Would you like to learn about that?

On top of that the DNA that they extracted from from the lizards came from their tail clippings and the DNA of the lizards is exactly the same as it was originally.

The mitochondrial DNA is the same. However, as you learned, mitochondrial DNA is just the way mitochondria reproduce in cells. It's not the DNA of the organism itself. MDNA evolves fairly quickly, so that is a good way to check ancestry.

It does not matter which traits emerged from their gene pool, it is the same species of lizard.

We don't know. As far as I know, no one has tried crossing the evolved population with the original.

But macro evolution is argued on the family level of taxonomy.

Speciation. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa.

Macroevolution Definition​

Macroevolution refers to the concept of large-scale evolution that occurs at the level of species and above.

Macroevolution - Definition, Examples and Quiz | Biology Dictionary

Macroevolution refers to the concept of large-scale evolution that occurs at the level of species and above. Macroevolution can be used to describe the differences between two closely related but distinct species, such as the Asian Elephant and the African Elephant, which cannot mate due to the...

biologydictionary.net

And in all that there has been absolutely no instance of macro evolution occurring.

There are many such examples. Even many YE creationists admit the evolution of new species, genera, and families, and sometimes even more.

If macro evolution were to occur anywhere it would be with rabbits and it doesn't.

Bad assumption. As Darwin pointed out, a well-fitted population, in a constant environment, would be kept from evolving very much by natural selection. Those wall lizards, for example, evolved a new digestive structure, because they were placed in an environment that offered few insects to eat, and had to depend on plant matter.

All we ever see is micro evolution occurring as natural selection breeds out traits losing them and making the species less genetically diverse. That is reality.

No. For example we see the evolution of sticklebacks in lakes diversifying into several genetically-distinct populations over time. They became more genetically diverse.

Novel physiological challenges in different environments can promote the evolution of divergent phenotypes, either through plastic or genetic changes. Environmental salinity serves as a key barrier to the distribution of nearly all aquatic organisms, and species diversification is likely to be enabled by adaptation to alternative osmotic environments. The threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) is a euryhaline species with populations found both in marine and freshwater environments. It has evolved both highly plastic and locally adapted phenotypes due to salinity-derived selection

Sticklebacks adapted to divergent osmotic environments show differences in plasticity for kidney morphology and candidate gene expression

Novel physiological challenges in different environments can promote the evolution of divergent phenotypes, either through plastic or genetic changes. Environmental salinity serves as a key barrier to the distribution of nearly all aquatic organisms, and species diversification is likely to be...

jeb.biologists.org

However, theories are in proven, they are not fact.

Theories explain facts. We observe evolution, which is a fact. And there is a scientific theory that explains it. As you see, a hypothesis becomes a theory only after its predictions have been repeatedly confirmed by observation. But in science there is no such thing as logical certainty. Logical certainty is when we know all the rules and apply them to particular instances. In science, we observe the particulars and infer the rules, like a child learning a game by watching others play it. There's always the chance that we missed something. Which might seem shaky to you, but nothing else humans can do, works better for learning about nature.

 

[Barbarian]

Observed instance of evolved endosymbiosis:

Endosymbiosis in amoebae: Recently established endosymbionts have become required cytoplasmic components​

Journal of Cellular Physiology
Volume89, Issue2
October 1976
Pages 337-344
K. W. Jeon M. S. Jeon

Abstract ​

A strain of large, free‐living amoeba that became dependent on bacterial endosymbionts which had infected the amoebae initially as intracellular parasites, was studied by micrurgy and electron microscopy. The results show that the infected host cells require the presence of live endosymbionts for their survival. Thus, the nucleus of an infected amoeba can form a viable cell with the cytoplasm of a noninfected amoeba only when live endosymbionts are present. The endosymbiotic bacteria are not digested by the host amoebae and are not themselves used as nutritional supplement.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution is not a fact.

[/QUOTE]
It's a directly observed fact. The only people who argue against it, are those who don't know what it is.

Now one ever ever argues about the law of gravity.

Physicists do constantly. But as you learned, it's a theory (as Newton pointed out) not a law. A law merely predicts things; the theory of gravitation predicts and explains things. Nevertheless, there are many controversial arguments about the nature of gravity.

Science or Fiction: Is Gravity an Illusion? - Bringing you Truth, Inspiration, Hope.

Gravity is one of the fundamental concepts in physics. Gravity is used to explain the creation and sustenance of the universe, from the smallest particle to

visiontimes.com

As I pointed out, gravity is less-settled than evolution; we know why evolution works; we still aren't completely sure why gravity works.

Also there is only one explanation for how gravity works

No. See above. Everything looks simple when you don't know the details.

and that is mass attracts other mass and the more mass an object has the stronger its attractive force

That hasn't been the consensus since the 1930s. Mass distorts space, and that produces the effects of gravity. Or so the evidence so far indicates.

There is also divergent, convergent, and parallel theories.

No. Those are just modes of evolution which are explained by evolutionary theory. Darwin discussed these in his book.

There is orthogenesis

Darwin showed why orthogentic theories are wrong.

(won't even begin to show how many theories fit under pathogenesis

Pathogenesis is about the way disease conditions form. Perhaps you got the wrong word?

There is gradualism and punctuated equilibrium.

Which are part of Darwinian theory. Darwin himself showed that the pacing of evolution would depend on fitness and selective pressure. Would you like to see that?

It's why Stephen Gould (co-founder of punctuated equilibrium) called himself "an orthodox Darwinian." Darwin discussed such cases.

 

[Moseme]

Barbarian
I just got off work and I don't have the energy to go around this mountain again with you. That's all it is is a cycle where you say evolution is fact and we say evolution is just a theory and has not been proven and that the evidence actually stands against evolution and we present that evidence and you ignore it and say evolution is fact and try to provide evidence that has either already been disproven or doesn't support your claim at all. And we point out the flaws in your evidence and present our own evidence which you ignore and you say evolution is fact and again try to present flawed evidence....

Let me change the flow of this. Despite the disagreement, I like you. I suspect that if we were to live close that we would be great friends. I dont want you to feel as if I ever dislike you. Sometimes I have a hard time remembering that there are people on the other side of these ideas. I'm sorry for the times that I got to harsh.

I once struggled with atheism as a teen because the young earth theory was not connecting any dots. So I looked at the evidence and saw a universe designed by a brilliant mind. And I began to see that evolution also wasn't connecting the dots. Sure the evolutionists were drawing lines but those lines were dreams. So all of that aside taking a new route, what would you say to an evolutionist who believes that there is no God?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian
I just got off work and I don't have the energy to go around this mountain again with you. That's all it is is a cycle where you say evolution is fact and we say evolution is just a theory

[/QUOTE]
You've confused the phenomenon of observed evolution with the theory that explains it. For some reason you're not getting that. And you don't seem to know what the scientific definitions of "theory" and "evolution" are.

and has not been proven

No scientific theory is "proven." Logical certainty isn't part of science. We just collect enough evidence to be sure we're right. But without knowing all the rules, we can't deduce the truth. We have to infer it.

and that the evidence actually stands against evolution and we present that evidence and you ignore it

So far, we haven't seen any evidence against evolution. Since evolution is observed daily, that would be pretty unlikely.

and say evolution is fact

As you've seen there are numerous examples of documented evolution. In fact, most YE sites even admit the fact of new species, genera, and families evolving. Would you like me to show you?

and try to provide evidence that has either already been disproven or doesn't support your claim at all. And we point out the flaws in your evidence and present our own evidence which you ignore and you say evolution is fact and again try to present flawed evidence....

As you see, it's well-documented. Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means in biology. What do you think it means?

Let me change the flow of this. Despite the disagreement, I like you. I suspect that if we were to live close that we would be great friends. I dont want you to feel as if I ever dislike you. Sometimes I have a hard time remembering that there are people on the other side of these ideas. I'm sorry for the times that I got to harsh.

I don't resent it. I'm pretty thick-skinned. And I'm very patient. I value bluntness.

I once struggled with atheism as a teen because the young earth theory was not connecting any dots.

It's a doctrine, not a theory. Theories are hypotheses that have been tested and confirmed repeatedly to the point that they are considered true.

So I looked at the evidence and saw a universe designed by a brilliant mind.

God has no need to figure things out. He's the Creator, not the "maybe a space alien" designer of the IDers.

And I began to see that evolution also wasn't connecting the dots.

So far, it's all been verified. There are a huge number of predictions of evolutionary theory that have been verified. Would you like to see some of them?

Sure the evolutionists were drawing lines but those lines were dreams. So all of that aside taking a new route, what would you say to an evolutionist who believes that there is no God?

Most of them are former creationists, who had been taught that creationism was essential to Christian belief. When they discovered that creationism could not be true, they lost their faith. This is the real damage that creationism does.

 

[Barbarian]

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationism. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.

Old Earth Creation Science Testimony - Why I Left Young Earth Creationism, by Glenn Morton

A Christian testimony from an old earth creationist. Why I Left Young Earth Creationism, by Glenn Morton

oldearth.org

 

[GodsGrace]

JAG Writes:
Some Thoughts On The Religion Of Evolution , , ,

Some talk about Abiogenesis {life came from non-life}

Most Evolutionists today do NOT make a case
for Abiogenesis, but some Thread-Evolutionists
have argued for the possibility. To me its an
absurd notion. Life cannot come from non-life.

Most Evolutionists these days go with the word
Evolution and hawk "Natural Selection"
and "Random mutation" , , ,

My view is that it does not matter what you
call it -- the fact remains that , ,

Evolutionists claim that , , ,

~ natural selection
and
~ :random mutation
and
~ atoms and molecules
and
~ chemical reactions
and
~ etc etc etc

plus
unthinking non-intelligent Time
plus
unthinking non-intelligent Chance
plus
unthinking non-intelligent Matter , , ,

, , eventually produced a situation where our ancestors crawled
up out of the Primordial Slime or Primordial Soup, at first just a
tiny speck, later to become the size of a dime, later to become the
size of a golf ball, later to become a Bullfrog or Whatever They Say It Was
later to become a Monkey or a Chimp, later to become a "George W. Bush."

____________


Moreover, , , Evolutionists believe that , , ,


~ unthinking non-intelligent Time
plus
~ unthinking non-intelligent Chance
plus
~ unthinking non-intelligent Matter , , ,

. . . produced a , , ,

■ highly complex Human Brain
and
■ a highly complex Human Eye
and
■ a highly complex Fully Functioning Human Body
and
■ a highly complex Earth
and
■ a highly complex Universe.
and eventually produced a , , ,
■ highly complex "George W. Bush"

_____________


It takes a lot of Faith to believe all that up there.
And my view is that anybody who believes all that
up there is a Great Man Of Faith -- this is why I
speak about the Religion Of Evolution.

Speaking about Faith , ,

I do NOT say that Evolution is not true.

Theistic Evolution may be the way it happened.
My view is that it has NOT been scientifically proved
that the one-celled speck in the Primordial Slime eventually
became "Oprah Winfrey" and "Joe Biden" , ,

, , but, , ,

, , Evolution is not a crucial issue for the Christian anyway.

Millions of us say Evolutionists have NOT scientifically proved
that "George W. Bush" started off as a single-celled speck that
"came up out of the Slime" -- but even if they do, one day, prove
that it happened that way, So what? Who cares?

We Christians will forever believe in the God that created the highly
complex Human Person, the highly complex Human Brain, the highly
complex Human Eye, the highly complex Earth, the highly complex
Universe, and all that exists --- how He did it, is interesting but it has
zero to do with our Faith in God , ,,

, , , repeat , , ,

how He did it, is interesting but it has zero to do with
our Faith in God , ,,

"Have Faith in God."___The Lord Jesus {Mark 11:22}

JAG

I agree with all you've said.
This is post-modernism and the effort to remove God from our civilization.

Lawrence Krauss, out of sheer desperation on the other side, has written on book on
how something could come from nothing. I haven't read it and don't plan too since my
reading is scarce these days.

Until now, scientists believed something could NOT come from nothing and that the universe always
existed and thus had billions of years to create life, as you've stated, once cell turning into Bush.

Now that it has been proven that the universe was CREATED,,,,and something cannot come from nothing
and there is no longer an indefinite amount of time for natural selection, random mutation, etc. the other side
is running into some difficulty.

Wish I could be around IF and WHEN anything is ever proven.

One thing I know for sure....science cannot get beyond the instant of the Big Bang because NOTHING existed before then!
Not even time.

 

[GodsGrace]

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationism. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.

Old Earth Creation Science Testimony - Why I Left Young Earth Creationism, by Glenn Morton

A Christian testimony from an old earth creationist. Why I Left Young Earth Creationism, by Glenn Morton

oldearth.org

Well, young earth creationists do teach some pretty weird stuff - don't they!

 

[Moseme]

Barbarian
The only thing that we observe is micro evolution. If there was ANY instance where we have observed macro evolution then there would be no argument. No one would believe in creationism if that was the case.

But you didnt answer my question. What would YOU SAY to someone who believed in evolution and not God.

 

[Barbarian]

The only thing that we observe is micro evolution.

No, even most YE creationists now admit the evolution of new species, genera, and families of organisms. Years ago, I discussed this with John Woodmorappe, the author of "Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study" which had been touted by the ICR. He said that the only way to fit all the animals in the Ark would be if there were many species, genera, and families evolving after the Ark landed. He did say that the "development" of new taxa would be limited to familes and below.

As you know, "microevolution" is evolution within a species, and "macroevolution" is the evolution of new taxa.
Macroevolution in the modern sense is evolution that is guided by selection among interspecific variation, as opposed to selection among intraspecific variation in microevolution.[1][2][3] This modern definition differs from the original concept, which referred macroevolution to the evolution of taxa above the species level (genera, families, orders etc.).[4]

Macroevolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If there was ANY instance where we have observed macro evolution then there would be no argument.

[/QUOTE]

YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact

But you didnt answer my question. What would YOU SAY to someone who believed in evolution and not God.

I would tell them that they should not "believe in" scientific theories; you have to take them on the evidence or not a all. And I would suggest they read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity and think about it.

One thing I know for sure....science cannot get beyond the instant of the Big Bang because NOTHING existed before then!
Not even time.

We don't actually know that. We just don't have any evidence for what there was before the big bang. It's noteworthy that atheists attacked the theory because it was first proposed by a Christian, and because it implied a universe that is not eternal.

 

[Barbarian]

Well, young earth creationists do teach some pretty weird stuff - don't they!

The problem usually comes in when someone points out a flaw in their doctrine. So they have to posit another non-scriptural miracle to cover the flaw. And that usually opens up a couple of new flaws, and so on. Eventually those suppositions harden into doctrine and there you are.

 

[GodsGrace]

WONDERING SAID:
One thing I know for sure....science cannot get beyond the instant of the Big Bang because NOTHING existed before then!
Not even time.

BARBARIAN SAID:
(QUOTE)We don't actually know that. We just don't have any evidence for what there was before the big bang. It's noteworthy that atheists attacked the theory because it was first proposed by a Christian, and because it implied a universe that is not eternal.
[/QUOTE)

WONDERING SAID.
Agreed.
Science does seem to be at a stand-still in regard to getting to the time before the BB.
Even the super collider in Cern, SW. cannot get beyond this point. Maybe in the future we will have
this ability.

And yes, the BB idea did bother atheist-hard scientists at the time.
Interesting that they had to accept the bible version of the beginning!

I have a big problem believing in Noah's ark BTW.
I do believe there was a universal flood....I guess we need an explanation of how every man and every animal did not become extinct?

However, with God anything is possible.

 

[GodsGrace]

The problem usually comes in when someone points out a flaw in their doctrine. So they have to posit another non-scriptural miracle to cover the flaw. And that usually opens up a couple of new flaws, and so on. Eventually those suppositions harden into doctrine and there you are.

Right.
They love to disregard hard proof too.
How did we get oil?
Diamonds?
Strada?
etc.
There is no explanation except that of development over time.

 

[Moseme]

Barbarian
I have actually read mere Christianity several times. It is one of my favorite books and one that I recommend to many people as it does a great job of presenting exactly what Christianity is. And I know Lewis believed in evolution and I disagree with him on that. He is still one of my favorite authors. We dont always have to agree on trivial things such as this subject. I dont know why he believe in evolution if you know please tell me because right now I'm just assuming it's because the evidence back then wasn't as flushed out as it is today.

I am going to take a page out of your book and send you a couple links for you to check out. This first link explains the differences between micro-evolution and macro-evolution and how only micro-evolution has been observed. Because you are wrong when you say micro-evolution only happens on the species level. It occurs in the family level and below or to put it in simpler words micro evolution occurs within any groups able to reproduce with each other. Here's the link.

Microevolution versus Macroevolution: Two Mistakes | Evolution News

The mistake I often hear evolution skeptics make is to the effect that “evolution” is all rubbish, bunk, and false.

evolutionnews.org

And second here is a link about a very credited chemist and his views on macro evolution. Basically he is saying that despite being one of the first people who should understand how macro evolution works, he doesn't. He also discusses the difference between micro amd macro evolution and how he can understand micro-evolution.

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution | Uncommon Descent

Now I dont care what young earth creationists say. I dont believe in a young earth but an old earth. More specifically the gap theory. Which has a few scriptures to back it up, fits with micro evolution (not macro), and also fits in with the history of the earth's fossils and layers.

 

[Moseme]

Right.
They love to disregard hard proof too.
How did we get oil?
Diamonds?
Strada?
etc.
There is no explanation except that of development over time.

I recommend checking out the gap theory.

 

[GodsGrace]

I recommend checking out the gap theory.

I used to know what that was but have forgotten.

Could you please state it simply?
I'm sure everyone here would like to know.

I found this which MIGHT be correct.

What Is the Gap Theory? (The Ruin and Reconstruction Theory?)

One of the most popular ways of understanding the creation account in Genesis is known as the Gap Theory or the ruin and reconstruction theory. Although there

www.blueletterbible.org

 

[GodsGrace]

Barbarian
I have actually read mere Christianity several times. It is one of my favorite books and one that I recommend to many people as it does a great job of presenting exactly what Christianity is. And I know Lewis believed in evolution and I disagree with him on that. He is still one of my favorite authors. We dont always have to agree on trivial things such as this subject. I dont know why he believe in evolution if you know please tell me because right now I'm just assuming it's because the evidence back then wasn't as flushed out as it is today.

I am going to take a page out of your book and send you a couple links for you to check out. This first link explains the differences between micro-evolution and macro-evolution and how only micro-evolution has been observed. Because you are wrong when you say micro-evolution only happens on the species level. It occurs in the family level and below or to put it in simpler words micro evolution occurs within any groups able to reproduce with each other. Here's the link.

Microevolution versus Macroevolution: Two Mistakes | Evolution News

The mistake I often hear evolution skeptics make is to the effect that “evolution” is all rubbish, bunk, and false.

evolutionnews.org

And second here is a link about a very credited chemist and his views on macro evolution. Basically he is saying that despite being one of the first people who should understand how macro evolution works, he doesn't. He also discusses the difference between micro amd macro evolution and how he can understand micro-evolution.

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution | Uncommon Descent

Now I dont care what young earth creationists say. I dont believe in a young earth but an old earth. More specifically the gap theory. Which has a few scriptures to back it up, fits with micro evolution (not macro), and also fits in with the history of the earth's fossils and layers.

I've never studied the gap theory because I don't believe anyone could really know exactly what happened millions and billions of years ago.

I just know that there is intelligent design and that intelligence, to me, is God the Creator.

Just writing to let you know that I like Dr. Tour and have learned a lot from him.

He makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian
I have actually read mere Christianity several times. It is one of my favorite books and one that I recommend to many people as it does a great job of presenting exactly what Christianity is. And I know Lewis believed in evolution and I disagree with him on that. He is still one of my favorite authors. We dont always have to agree on trivial things such as this subject. I dont know why he believe in evolution if you know please tell me because right now I'm just assuming it's because the evidence back then wasn't as flushed out as it is today.

It wasn't. There was a huge issue about how a new trait might get established in a population. Lewis wrote about the time Mendel's work on genetics was becoming known. Mendel showed that inheritance was more like sorting beads than like mixing paint, and that cleared up a huge problem for Darwin, made his theory accepted by almost all biologists.

I am going to take a page out of your book and send you a couple links for you to check out. This first link explains the differences between micro-evolution and macro-evolution and how only micro-evolution has been observed. Because you are wrong when you say micro-evolution only happens on the species level.

No,that's wrong. The scientific definition of microevolution is evolution within a species. After it became obvious that new species, genera, and families evolved, creationists attempted to change the definition, but science retains the original definition. Macroevolution is the evolution of any new taxon.

And second here is a link about a very credited chemist and his views on macro evolution.

[/QUOTE]
That would be like asking your barber if you needed a knee replacement. Find me a noted biologist who is actually qualified to discuss evolution. There are some biologists who are creationists. So they are out there.

Kurt Wise
Jonathan Wells
Gerald Aardsma
Todd Wood
Anjenette Roberts (I believe she is an OE creationist)

 

[Moseme]

I used to know what that was but have forgotten.

Could you please state it simply?
I'm sure everyone here would like to know.

I found this which MIGHT be correct.

What Is the Gap Theory? (The Ruin and Reconstruction Theory?)

One of the most popular ways of understanding the creation account in Genesis is known as the Gap Theory or the ruin and reconstruction theory. Although there

www.blueletterbible.org

I didnt read the entire site but yes from what I saw its pretty accurate abput the gap theory. Id love to answer any other questions about it if you want.

 

[Moseme]

I've never studied the gap theory because I don't believe anyone could really know exactly what happened millions and billions of years ago.

I just know that there is intelligent design and that intelligence, to me, is God the Creator.

Just writing to let you know that I like Dr. Tour and have learned a lot from him.

He makes a lot of sense to me.

Cool I actually just heard about him recently and I'm liking his reasoning and honesty