The 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution (behavior, married, Kingdom, existence)

omega

You were asked to deal with the evidence for macro evolution in the link. You then proceeded to complain about a comment on abiogenesis and the term 'axiomatic.' Those have nothing to do with the evidence for macro evolution - keep running.

Man is not an ape and their DNA will prove it.

Another unsubstantiated claim. How will their DNA prove it? Go ahead prove it then!

What is it about "general" that you don't undersatnd? There is over 10,000 species that arE sea life. Do you expect God to list each one individually?

What is it about general that you did not get when I said as such that makes it useless. I expect YOU to tell us what is a kind - it is you who is making these claims. Go ahead I have been asking for ever! Can't do it can you! And since you are using the term specie you are implying that a specie is a kind. If not then get to explaining what a kind is. If so then speciation falsifies your creo crap. You also ignored most of my other points - typical.

Your problem is that you have no evidence of a species not producing after it kind. You don't even understand "speciation." The inability to reproduce CAN'T produce a new species It will cause the species to become extinct.

How can I if you can't tell us what a kind is - HELLO! And It is you who does not understand speciation. One of the definitions of a specie is that it constitutes a reproductive population. So if that population then diverges into two new breeding populations so that one is not able to reproduce with the original that would be speciation and would constitute a new species. Duh!

If God did not create matter, energy and life, how did it come into being?

Do hear yourself - ever? Why is your non-evidenced god the default position? And why did matter/energy have to be created? Ever hear of the 1st law? And if all things must be created then what about your god - remember no special pleading - that too is a fallacy! And why do we have to have an answer? Arguments from ignorance are fallacious as well. We don't know it a good answer - is it not? You have some serious problems with assuming things right out of the gate Mr. Best you start to demonstrate these things rather than assert them.

[omega2xx]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

And that's why it is a crock of crap. You 'debunking' evidence for evolution does not to establish creationism. We could have zero evidence for evolution and this is not evidence for creationism. Arguments from ignorance are fallacious!

You have two options: 1) prove that evolution is impossible or 2) start to give your own evidence FOR creationism.

Neither of those two have you even tried to do.

Wrong. I have said that the laws of genetics refute evolution, and if you understood genetics, you would agree.

I have not said their is evidence for creation. I have said "God did it," is the most logical explanation of any I have ever heard.

If you don' think it is the most logical explanation, offer what you think is.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by omega2xx

First explain how you can say something is happening to something that can't be seen.

Why? Why not just give a reference to someone who agrees with the point you are tying to make? Why put it off and insist that I explain, again, what I and others have already explained several times? I think the answer is obvious: You simply can't reference anyone. And why can't you reference anyone? Because you are either just stringing us along for the fun of it, or you are so deeply confused or close-minded that you can't see the incoherent nature of what you are asking. BTW: The reason that I keep pushing this point about giving references is that if you try to give a reference, and if you are the least bit sincere about wanting to understand this, then you will hopefully begin to realize how confused you are.

The universe doesn't need to have a boundary or a determinate "size" - maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. It simply doesn't matter for the question at hand. We know that galaxies are, on average, getting further apart and our best evidence and models indicate that this is because space is expanding between them. We can measure the distances between galaxies. We can see galaxies, so we are not measuring something that is "unseen". Whether or not we can "see the boundary" of the universe is completely irrelevant. Logically, it makes sense that if intergalactic space is expanding, then "the universe" is probably expanding, in some sense, but - as I already explained earlier - the universe does not need a "boundary" in order expand. Even if the universe is closed, then there still does not need to be a "boundary." (*See note at the bottom of this post)

If I didn't answer your earlier point today, I missed it. Make it aqain and I will respond.

I already did make it again in this exact post that you are responding to. So you could not realistically have "missed it" - you simply ignored it. But, for what it's worth, here it is again:

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

Your claim rests on a principle:
For all X, if the size of X is unknown, then you can't say that X is expanding.
To prove that you are wrong, all we have to do is given one example of some X, such that we do not know the size of X, yet we can still say that X is expanding. In a logical situation like this, one single counterexample is sufficient to prove that your principle is wrong. I have given you a clear counterexample. A balloon of unknown size viewed through a peep hole. We can determine the expansion of the balloon without knowing the size. The balloon might be ten feet in diameter or ten miles in diameter, it doesn't matter. We can still measure the expansion rate within our visual horizon.

We don't have to see the whole balloon, or the boundaries of the balloon, in order to know that it is expanding. And, as I said already, technically the balloon doesn't even have to have a "size" or "boundaries" at all because we are really measuring the expansion of space, not the "size" of the universe, as such. Just for the record, here was the point that you "missed" even though it was right there in the post you were responding to:

But, most important of all: The expansion of space between galaxies doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the "size of the universe" anyway. The common phrase is "the universe is expanding" but that is a misleading phrase. What we measure is not the expansion of "the universe" as such, but the expansion of space itself. Whether or not there is a "boundary" of the universe at all does not matter. Whether or not the universe even has any determinate "size" does not matter. It is the expansion of space between galaxies that we measure.

From the fact that space is expanding, it seems perfectly reasonable to surmise that "the universe" is expanding, but technically that is irrelevant because it is the expansion of space between galaxies that we care about, and that is what we are measuring.

*Note: And, just for the convenience of anyone who happens to stumble into this thread, here is where I earlier explained why the universe does not need to have a "boundary" in order to be expanding:

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

Just to be clear: My balloon analogy is a good quick 'n' dirty explanation for how we are able to determine whether space is expanding, contracting, or in a steady state. But it is just an analogy, so some cautionary remarks are worth noting. The universe is almost certainly not actually a sphere that is expanding like a balloon out into some void. There is, for example, no point in the universe that is "closer to the middle" or "closer to the edge" than any other. Every point in the universe is "the center of the universe" from the perspective of that point (just as every point on the surface of a sphere is the "center" of the surface of the sphere). In the analogy, the 2D surface of the balloon represents 3D space. Also keep in mind that it is space itself that is expanding. In other words, it is not just that objects in space are flying further apart, like bits of matter in an explosion. There is no "absolute space" frame of reference that you can use to say that objects are flying further apart in that simplistic "explosion" sense of the term. Rather, space itself is expanding, so light waves "stretch out" and since longer wavelengths are "redder" we call this a "red shift."

Now, of course, independently of the expansion of space, some objects are moving relative to each other, and because of this, some galaxies are actually moving towards each other, despite the overall expansion of space. (E.g., the Milky Way and Andromeda will eventually collide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androm..._Way_collision ) But, again, this type of relative movement is independent of the expansion of space, so it doesn't count as any sort of evidence against the expansion of space.

But, of course, my main point here is that simply asserting "you can't say something is expanding unless you can see the outer edges" does not count as an argument or explanation. It is merely a bald assertion without any logical or empirical support whatsoever. I gave a perfectly good explanation for how we can, in fact, measure the rate of expansion without "seeing the outer edge." Simply asserting, yet again, that "you can't say something is expanding unless you can see the outer edges" is a bit like closing your eyes and plugging your ears and screaming "You can't do that! You can't do that!" over and over while someone shows you exactly how you can to do that. Indeed, this is essentially what omega has been doing with all of the evidence and arguments we've been offering for evolution.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

Wrong. I have said that the laws of genetics refute evolution, and if you understood genetics, you would agree.

BS! Operative word is 'said' - demonstrate is what you need to do not assert things. You have no clue about genetics.

I have not said their is evidence for creation. I have said "God did it," is the most logical explanation of any I have ever heard.

Again, demonstrate it don't say it.

If you don' think it is the most logical explanation, offer what you think is.

So, if I just proclaim it you will be satisfied just as you have only proclaimed God is more logical. Yeah, the hypocrisy is so thick with you. I think it more logical that matter/energy are eternal. And I will give you 4 reasons why after you respond again with your useless and empty replies.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

I don't know enough about astronomy to have an explanation.

Yet you know enough to be so adamant and absolute in your other astronomical claims. What is wrong with this picture? And you also just ignore those who have more knowledge on the subject than you ever will and simply deny their work.

I know enough that light moving is not evidence of the universe expanding.

And yet red shift has everything to do with light moving.

You are trying to use something that can be seen with something that can't be seen.

Do you really not understand the difference?

No, I have done no such thing.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

It is not necessary for me to see God to see His handiwork. I also have a written. record that He has inspired for me to know the truth. That is far different from man saying something is happening to something they can see.

The universe may be expanding, but matter moving is not evidence that it is.

When God declared His creation finished and very good, that implies the universe was as it will always be. There is no need for it to expand.

Well, then we can see nature's handiwork as well by the inference of other phenomenon. You have a double standard. Again, you said it was foolish to comment on something that is not observed so as I predicted you gave this BS response about handiwork not realizing that you just proved my point and that you are a fool according to your own standard. Handiwork is not observing God nor is a so called written record. Science in a inferential methodology omega. Duh!

Originally Posted by omega2xx

When God declared His creation finished and very good, that implies the universe was as it will always be. There is no need for it to expand.

If all it will ever be is 'very good' - then why is there death, disease, the 2nd law, etc. And don't give me your made up, non-evidenced BS claim about a Fall. That's just more assertion without any speck of evidence of such a thing. You see what we observe - death, disease, etc. speaks against this 'very good intelligent' creation so much so that you invent another unsubstantiated BS story called the Fall because you know damn well that the natural world and what we OBSERVE in it does not speak in your favor of a very good creation.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by omega2xx

Creationism is not about debunking science, it is about debunking evolution as being based on science.

I agree. Creationism loves science - so long as it sits up an begs when Biblefaith cracks the whip. I understand ofc ourse that Creationism is about debunking evolution -theory and thus the conclusions based on the scientific evidence. We knew that.

We knew that Creationism also presents conclusions and claims they are based on the science. But is fact it isn't. It presents conclusions like the Ice canopy, Noachian flood, ID and Biblical Kinds, and the facts (that you won't accept, of course) is that these claims are not supported by science. That's when the debunking of science begins.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

It is not necessary for me to see God to see His handiwork. I also have a written. record that He has inspired for me to know the truth. That is far different from man saying something is happening to something they can see.

The universe may be expanding, but matter moving is not evidence that it is.

Yes it is. The Universe is made up of the matter that is in it. There is no 'Universe' apart from what it is composed of, just as there no America apart from the matter than makes it up. The rest is all human convention.

When God declared His creation finished and very good, that implies the universe was as it will always be. There is no need for it to expand.

Since it evidently is, and since all the rest of the science seems to debunk what the Bible says, I suggest that you stop trying to use it as a science -book.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

Wrong. I have said that the laws of genetics refute evolution, and if you understood genetics, you would agree.

I have not said their is evidence for creation. I have said "God did it," is the most logical explanation of any I have ever heard.

If you don' think it is the most logical explanation, offer what you think is.

The laws of genetics do not refute evolution. If they do, explain how. I can indeed offer a more Logical explanation than God dunnit. There is a plausible explanation fo abiogenesis and at least a more plausible 'something from nothing' explanation than a god that didn't need to come from anywehre. And of course the rest of the evidence support a natural development of both universe and biosphere.

But even if we had no hypothetical explanation, that would be better than claiming "God" without any real evidence and in fact in spite of it.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

Yes, iit as yu dsay, can e observed.



I don't know enough about astronomy to have an explanation.



I know enough that light moving is not evidence of the universe expanding. You are trying to use something that can be seen with something that can't be seen.

Do you really not understand the difference?

If you don't understand the astronomy, you really ought not to make astronomical claims. The universe is a thing made up of what's in it. That is galaxies..

bugger.

I don't don't know anything bout it either.

It should be the galaxies moving apart, but why should the stars in them be moving apart. Let me check..

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by omega2xx

If you think there is genetic evicene that supports evolution, you do not understand genetics.

Does this guy quoted above understand Human Chromosome 2?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by LuminousTruth

Does this guy quoted above understand Human Chromosome 2?

That's the linking of 2 others that gives us less than the Chimp? No, I'm sure he doesn't. Eusebiius, his teacher (at least) thought it meant a half dozen percentage difference that meant Men and apes were totally different. In fact it is evidence of descent from a common ancestor. Just as surely as the fused ribs of birds doesn't show that they are unrelated to land animals but is hard evidence that are descended from land animals. This is real evidence; this is real science, and to deny it on Faith in Genesis is real denial.