Theists And Evolution

No indeed, anymore than Latin speaking parents gave birth to Spanish or French speaking children, yet it’s an objective fact the latter languages evolved from the former.

Time and small slow changes result in much larger changes. The longer the timescales the greater the change.

1 Like

My bad, I should have added a mention that almost everyone sometimes appeals to authority.

The thing is, a genius can hit on a world-changing idea, but that does not guarantee everything they ponder is infallible.

I know PhD’s who are brilliant in their fields, yet have trouble tying their shoes.

1 Like

Yes this is true.

So I just asked him for the same thing as many of us ask, for some sort of evidence for a god.

Once again, I have a brace of posts over on the old version of the forums, clearing up numerous misconceptions about speciation that are apposite to bring here. Unfortunately, they will need heavy editing to reprise here because of the woefully short post size limit.

From memory, the only argument I can recall being used by apologists here is some variation of intelligent design. That stubborn insistence in using an argument debunked centuries ago clearly reflects the paucity of thought and intellectual dishonesty of such folks.

–I DO remember a recent visitor here claiming there’s a lot of evidence for the existence of Jesus. Literally true; what there is not is contemporary or credible evidence…


Ah, it appears I’ve already brought one of those posts here already, though I had to split it across three posts in its incarnation here, and the second post is the part that covers some subtle but insidious misconceptions about speciation. :slight_smile:

Would pasting your post into Google docs and posting a link be easier for you?

A species has never change to a whole new species. A dog stays a stupid dog nomatter if chiwawa or bull dog

You are demonstrably wrong.

  • Hawthorn fly.
  • Three-spined sticklebacks.
  • Cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago.
  • Tennessee cave salamanders.
  • Greenish Warbler.
  • Ensatina salamanders.
  • Larus gulls.
  • Petroica multicolor.
  • Drosophila
  • Mayr bird fauna
  • Finches
  • Squirrels in the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon
  • Apple maggot
  • Faeroe Island house mouse
  • Primula kewensis

Are just a few examples of observable speciation; what you are wrongly calling “macro evolution”.

Your problem is that you have no idea what the word ‘Species’ means, and no comprehension of the amount of time involved in the evolutionary process.


looks like a strawman

Thanks you much, and I knew evolution but hadn’t that much idea things were still evolving. Makes perfect sense though.

Looks like someone has no idea at all what the definition of a species is. NONE!

1 Like

Fievel, change is constant. If I compare myself to my parents and siblings, we are all different. If mutations and change did not occur, I would be identical to my brothers in every way. And everything is transitional. I still retain nipples (completely unnecessary in a male), a tailbone, and the muscles that produce goosebumps. In the past, my ancient ancestors would have use for those now-useless parts.

So your saying a finch is a t rex. I would highly doubt that since bigger animals wouldn’t have survived.

Phylum group of species I major in science and chemistry

Then please do not attempt to boost yourself pretending to know anything about science. Either the gaps in your knowledge are so large you could drive an ocean liner through them, your are a religious nut who rejects facts because they conflict with your bible, or you are just a troll.

I have novel idea.

Why don’t you take some time to actually READ some of Charles Darwin’s writings.
“The Voyage Of The Beagle” is an easy place to start.

Doesn’t matter to me you understand. If you armed yourself with a little knowledge and understanding you might not look quite as ignorant.

Are you aware that there is actually no debate about evolution? That it has been mainstream science for over 100 years? That today the only people who insist on arguing the point are bloody minded literalists. These intellectual giants insist that not only is the bible the word of god, that it is the INNERRANT word of god, regardless of proof to the contrary, EG FOSSILS!

I remind you once again, that you may not use the bible as an authority here.

Really? Perhaps time you started to pay attention in class.

Of course I understand your position, I was being snide. IE .:That you absolutely support science and the scientific method, 100%.—Unless of course science contradicts your dogma, then you ignore it. EG as with evolution, about which you seem to have no knowledge or understanding which does not come from leading scientists, such as Ken Ham and, Ray Comfort


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !~!! Science “AND” Chemistry Huh! What an idiot!

1 Like

We believed that germs came from rocks for 200 years.