How God can create through evolution:

[abelcainsbrother]

I don't think so.

I don't know where you get this from. Abelcainsbrother suffers from the same delusion. Scientists most certainly do not want you to accept things without question. On the contrary, they demand that you question everything, examine the evidence, and decide for yourself. Are you confusing evolutionists with creationists? Because creationists often make hopelessly unsupported statements which they happen to believe, and get quite miffed when anybody attempts to question them. I am not an atheist, but if I were, I doubt if any insistence that I believe literally in the words of a book, without any supporting evidence, would be likely to change my mind.

Delusion? I have given reasons why I reject evolution,regardless of what scientists say.I actually took it easy on evolutionists in this thread as to why I don't believe God created through evolution.

A person who knows more than any scientist on earth certainly should take that stand.

On the other hand, one such as yourself who knows next to nothing and that little gleaned from pop science and then regurgitated in a nearly unrecognizable new form... someone like that might wonder if he is being delusional. If he thinks he knows more than any scientist on earth, that is.
To think it is delusional. it would not do to be delusional. Yet there it is;

"regardless of what scientists say". Yep, our abe must the the greatest scientist ever. Or, delusional.


Your endless dodges when asked for one (1) fact contrary to ToE..why is that?
Could it be really that your "reasons" are nothing but ill-informed vaporware?

If not, give us the fact now. Waiting....

I never claimed I know more than a scientist.I have researched and examined the evidence scientists use for evidence life evolves and it does not demonstrate what they explain and this is why I don't accept evolution.I expect better from science

That is precisely where you claim to know more and better than any scientist on earth.
Anyone else here can see you doing that. It is delusional. Both to say it and to deny saying it.

. I do not just believe everything a book,man,etc says is true unless it comes to the bible

.

You only believe your chosen interpretation of the bible, which is just as arrogant as the claim of knowing more than any scientist.

If I'm interested in something I try to examine the evidence behind it before I accept it.I could careless less about what the majority thinks about it

It is good not to go with majority just because it is majority. But you do not know enough to have anything remotely resembling a valid opinion. Your position is like a janitor saying he does not accept the majority opinion interpreting a CAT scan before neurosurgery.

.Majority is not how we go about determining what is right or not. I have already given many examples and have shown and explained how the evidence in evolution science is weak

Your grasp is what is weak. Notice how you cannot provide one contrary example to ToE?

and does not back up and demonstrate what scientists explin when they explain how life evolves and yet you have ignored it,or rejected it.

But it does, and you dont even know enough to realize that.

So why should I keep giving more reasons if its just going to be rejected?

You have given exactly one reason: Abe doesnt understand.

With reading comprehension on the level that you came up with the statement that "evolution teaches that dinosaurs learned to fly to escape predators"
it is no wonder you are confused by what you read, and of course, see what you set out to see: nothing but nonsense.

I'll wait until a more opportune time to. Why should I cast pearls before swine?

As for referring to me as swine, that is pretty uncool. You of course, have no pearls.

Just the same thing over and over, your weak comprehension.

And BTW we notice you still cant produce one fact contrary to ToE.


What would it take for you to notice that fact, and wonder what it means?

I have just given reasons why I reject evolution and it has nothing to do with my interpretation of the bible that you can't stand.I would still reject evolution based on the evidence science has provided.There is no reason for me to produce one fact contrary to evolution as I've given reasons why I reject it and do not accept it. I'm not angry at those who do.I'm not angry because they believe it while I don't. I don't think they are ignorant because they accept it,I don't think I'm better than them because they accept it,I don't think they are ignorant or un-educated because they accept it. But I reject it based on the evidence.

[Audie]

Delusion? I have given reasons why I reject evolution,regardless of what scientists say.I actually took it easy on evolutionists in this thread as to why I don't believe God created through evolution.

A person who knows more than any scientist on earth certainly should take that stand.

On the other hand, one such as yourself who knows next to nothing and that little gleaned from pop science and then regurgitated in a nearly unrecognizable new form... someone like that might wonder if he is being delusional. If he thinks he knows more than any scientist on earth, that is.
To think it is delusional. it would not do to be delusional. Yet there it is;

"regardless of what scientists say". Yep, our abe must the the greatest scientist ever. Or, delusional.


Your endless dodges when asked for one (1) fact contrary to ToE..why is that?
Could it be really that your "reasons" are nothing but ill-informed vaporware?

If not, give us the fact now. Waiting....

I never claimed I know more than a scientist.I have researched and examined the evidence scientists use for evidence life evolves and it does not demonstrate what they explain and this is why I don't accept evolution.I expect better from science

That is precisely where you claim to know more and better than any scientist on earth.
Anyone else here can see you doing that. It is delusional. Both to say it and to deny saying it.

. I do not just believe everything a book,man,etc says is true unless it comes to the bible

.

You only believe your chosen interpretation of the bible, which is just as arrogant as the claim of knowing more than any scientist.

If I'm interested in something I try to examine the evidence behind it before I accept it.I could careless less about what the majority thinks about it

It is good not to go with majority just because it is majority. But you do not know enough to have anything remotely resembling a valid opinion. Your position is like a janitor saying he does not accept the majority opinion interpreting a CAT scan before neurosurgery.

.Majority is not how we go about determining what is right or not. I have already given many examples and have shown and explained how the evidence in evolution science is weak

Your grasp is what is weak. Notice how you cannot provide one contrary example to ToE?

and does not back up and demonstrate what scientists explin when they explain how life evolves and yet you have ignored it,or rejected it.

But it does, and you dont even know enough to realize that.

So why should I keep giving more reasons if its just going to be rejected?

You have given exactly one reason: Abe doesnt understand.

With reading comprehension on the level that you came up with the statement that "evolution teaches that dinosaurs learned to fly to escape predators"
it is no wonder you are confused by what you read, and of course, see what you set out to see: nothing but nonsense.

I'll wait until a more opportune time to. Why should I cast pearls before swine?

As for referring to me as swine, that is pretty uncool. You of course, have no pearls.

Just the same thing over and over, your weak comprehension.

And BTW we notice you still cant produce one fact contrary to ToE.


What would it take for you to notice that fact, and wonder what it means?

I have just given reasons why I reject evolution and it has nothing to do with my interpretation of the bible that you can't stand.I would still reject evolution based on the evidence science has provided.There is no reason for me to produce one fact contrary to evolution as I've given reasons why I reject it and do not accept it. I'm not angry at those who do.I'm not angry because they believe it while I don't. I don't think they are ignorant because they accept it,I don't think I'm better than them because they accept it,I don't think they are ignorant or un-educated because they accept it. But I reject it based on the evidence.

it has nothing to do with my interpretation of the bible

someone else musta said this, then.

I do not just believe everything a book,man,etc says is true unless it comes to the bible

.I would still reject evolution based on the evidence science has provided

Though you have essentially no idea of what that evidence is.

There is no reason for me to produce one fact contrary to evolution as I've given reasons why I reject it

You reject it because, a) you dont know anything about it, and b) you choose to.

As for "no reason to produce one fact". REALLY? You keep trying to convince people that ToE ;is wrong, gappistry is right. You seem to think it is important.

YET, the ONE thing that would have spectacular success, you have no reason to do it?

ONE solid fact that disproves ToE would shake the world!

no reason to produce one, he says. Seriously, you cant think of a reason?



There IS of course, a reason that you do not produce one.

You still have not admitted the reason.

Do you actually not know why you are utterly unable to produce even one fact contrary to ToE?

[abelcainsbrother]

A person who knows more than any scientist on earth certainly should take that stand.

On the other hand, one such as yourself who knows next to nothing and that little gleaned from pop science and then regurgitated in a nearly unrecognizable new form... someone like that might wonder if he is being delusional. If he thinks he knows more than any scientist on earth, that is.
To think it is delusional. it would not do to be delusional. Yet there it is;

"regardless of what scientists say". Yep, our abe must the the greatest scientist ever. Or, delusional.


Your endless dodges when asked for one (1) fact contrary to ToE..why is that?
Could it be really that your "reasons" are nothing but ill-informed vaporware?

If not, give us the fact now. Waiting....

I never claimed I know more than a scientist.I have researched and examined the evidence scientists use for evidence life evolves and it does not demonstrate what they explain and this is why I don't accept evolution.I expect better from science

That is precisely where you claim to know more and better than any scientist on earth.
Anyone else here can see you doing that. It is delusional. Both to say it and to deny saying it.

. I do not just believe everything a book,man,etc says is true unless it comes to the bible

.

You only believe your chosen interpretation of the bible, which is just as arrogant as the claim of knowing more than any scientist.

If I'm interested in something I try to examine the evidence behind it before I accept it.I could careless less about what the majority thinks about it

It is good not to go with majority just because it is majority. But you do not know enough to have anything remotely resembling a valid opinion. Your position is like a janitor saying he does not accept the majority opinion interpreting a CAT scan before neurosurgery.

.Majority is not how we go about determining what is right or not. I have already given many examples and have shown and explained how the evidence in evolution science is weak

Your grasp is what is weak. Notice how you cannot provide one contrary example to ToE?

and does not back up and demonstrate what scientists explin when they explain how life evolves and yet you have ignored it,or rejected it.

But it does, and you dont even know enough to realize that.

So why should I keep giving more reasons if its just going to be rejected?

You have given exactly one reason: Abe doesnt understand.

With reading comprehension on the level that you came up with the statement that "evolution teaches that dinosaurs learned to fly to escape predators"
it is no wonder you are confused by what you read, and of course, see what you set out to see: nothing but nonsense.

I'll wait until a more opportune time to. Why should I cast pearls before swine?

As for referring to me as swine, that is pretty uncool. You of course, have no pearls.

Just the same thing over and over, your weak comprehension.

And BTW we notice you still cant produce one fact contrary to ToE.


What would it take for you to notice that fact, and wonder what it means?

I have just given reasons why I reject evolution and it has nothing to do with my interpretation of the bible that you can't stand.I would still reject evolution based on the evidence science has provided.There is no reason for me to produce one fact contrary to evolution as I've given reasons why I reject it and do not accept it. I'm not angry at those who do.I'm not angry because they believe it while I don't. I don't think they are ignorant because they accept it,I don't think I'm better than them because they accept it,I don't think they are ignorant or un-educated because they accept it. But I reject it based on the evidence.

it has nothing to do with my interpretation of the bible

someone else musta said this, then.

I do not just believe everything a book,man,etc says is true unless it comes to the bible

.I would still reject evolution based on the evidence science has provided

Though you have essentially no idea of what that evidence is.

There is no reason for me to produce one fact contrary to evolution as I've given reasons why I reject it

You reject it because, a) you dont know anything about it, and b) you choose to.

As for "no reason to produce one fact". REALLY? You keep trying to convince people that ToE ;is wrong, gappistry is right. You seem to think it is important.

YET, the ONE thing that would have spectacular success, you have no reason to do it?

ONE solid fact that disproves ToE would shake the world!

no reason to produce one, he says. Seriously, you cant think of a reason?



There IS of course, a reason that you do not produce one.

You still have not admitted the reason.

Do you actually not know why you are utterly unable to produce even one fact contrary to ToE?

It would'nt matter if I did because its not peer reviewed and the Gap Theory is a biblical interpretation and science looks at everything from a materialistic view point. I have always maintained that had Gap Creationism been taught instead of Young Earth Creationism evolution would have been defeated by creationists along time ago,this is not because it might change science but that alot less people would accept and believe life evolves because based on the evidence in the earth and on it,it does not prove life evolves it instead proves that there is "A Lost World" that got overlooked because of evolution and looking at everything in the earth from that evolution perspective. It matters how many people accept and believe the TOE even if science still rejected Gap Creationism because it is not peer reviewed evidence,or because they are caught up in materialism. But relax,because it did not happen and so the TOE is doing fine and stronger than ever and believed by so many.

[Audie]

There is no science, peer reviewed or otherwise, for gappery. Just admit it, and quit pretending it
is science, or that you know any science.

Ard you ever going to understand why there are no facts contrary to
ToE? You keep avoiding that little problem.

[abelcainsbrother]

There is no science, peer reviewed or otherwise, for gappery. Just admit it, and quit pretending it
is science, or that you know any science.

Ard you ever going to understand why there are no facts contrary to
ToE? You keep avoiding that little problem.

Yeah,that's why it would'nt matter if I did provide one contrary fact to evolution.You're expecting somebody to change your mind for you,when you can choose to believe anything you choose to. Instead I give reasons why I reject the TOE as it relates to the evidence for evolution.

[RickD]

There is no science, peer reviewed or otherwise, for gappery. Just admit it, and quit pretending it
is science, or that you know any science.

Ard you ever going to understand why there are no facts contrary to
ToE? You keep avoiding that little problem.

Yeah,that's why it would'nt matter if I did provide one contrary fact to evolution.You're expecting somebody to change your mind for you,when you can choose to believe anything you choose to. Instead I give reasons why I reject the TOE as it relates to the evidence for evolution.

ACB,

I'm with Audie on this one. You have continually asserted that evolution is not true. Yet you haven't shown any facts to back up your assertion.

If Audie kept asserting that God doesn't exist, and you kept asking her to prove her assertion, and she couldn't, she should just stop asserting that shouldn't she?

Well, the same applies to anyone else, including you.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of listening to Audie ask you for facts that disprove evolution.

Edit---
If you don't have any, just stop making the assertion.

If you don't have any, you should just stop making the assertion.

[hughfarey]

You are entitled to your opinion. mine is that there isn't any merit or room for it, from the text.

Well, that's OK. No hard feelings.

Delusion? I have given reasons why I reject evolution,regardless of what scientists say.I actually took it easy on evolutionists in this thread as to why I don't believe God created through evolution.

I fear you misunderstand me. Your delusion is not that you reject evolution, but that you think scientists want you to believe in it as a matter of faith rather than by examining the evidence. And you have given one reason for your rejection of evolution, which is that a process which takes a million years has not been demonstrated in a laboratory. Well, that's OK. I think you're wrong, but I defend your right to be wrong!

I do not just believe everything a book,man,etc says is true unless it comes to the bible.

But you do believe every word of the bible literally. Can you explain why?

If I'm interested in something I try to examine the evidence behind it before I accept it.

Splendid. So do I.

I have already given many examples and have shown and explained how the evidence in evolution science is weak and does not back up and demonstrate what scientists explain when they explain how life evolves and yet you have ignored it,or rejected it. So why should I keep giving more reasons if its just going to be rejected? I'll wait until a more opportune time to. Why should I cast pearls before swine?

No. You have not given many examples; you have given one example many times. And I'm afraid I do not consider it a pearl.

[Audie]

There is no science, peer reviewed or otherwise, for gappery. Just admit it, and quit pretending it
is science, or that you know any science.

Ard you ever going to understand why there are no facts contrary to
ToE? You keep avoiding that little problem.

Yeah,that's why it would'nt matter if I did provide one contrary fact to evolution.You're expecting somebody to change your mind for you,when you can choose to believe anything you choose to. Instead I give reasons why I reject the TOE as it relates to the evidence for evolution.

ACB,

I'm with Audie on this one. You have continually asserted that evolution is not true. Yet you haven't shown any facts to back up your assertion.

If Audie kept asserting that God doesn't exist, and you kept asking her to prove her assertion, and she couldn't, she should just stop asserting that shouldn't she?

Well, the same applies to anyone else, including you.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of listening to Audie ask you for facts that disprove evolution.

If you don't have any, just stop making the assertion.

Now that you mention it, me too. No more from me on this.

[neo-x]

You are entitled to your opinion. mine is that there isn't any merit or room for it, from the text.

Well, that's OK. No hard feelings.

Same here.

[abelcainsbrother]

There is no science, peer reviewed or otherwise, for gappery. Just admit it, and quit pretending it
is science, or that you know any science.

Ard you ever going to understand why there are no facts contrary to
ToE? You keep avoiding that little problem.

Yeah,that's why it would'nt matter if I did provide one contrary fact to evolution.You're expecting somebody to change your mind for you,when you can choose to believe anything you choose to. Instead I give reasons why I reject the TOE as it relates to the evidence for evolution.

ACB,

I'm with Audie on this one. You have continually asserted that evolution is not true. Yet you haven't shown any facts to back up your assertion.

If Audie kept asserting that God doesn't exist, and you kept asking her to prove her assertion, and she couldn't, she should just stop asserting that shouldn't she?

Well, the same applies to anyone else, including you.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of listening to Audie ask you for facts that disprove evolution.

Edit---
If you don't have any, just stop making the assertion.

If you don't have any, you should just stop making the assertion.

I agree with you and I understand and I'm not mad at Audi or anybody but I have already given reasons in this thread why I reject evolution.I've given reasons why I reject it and I have discussed it already in this thread with others as well. I just did'nt really go all out trying to show why I think it is wrong in this thread and why I don't believe God created through evolution.I just touched on a few of the problems I see with the evidence in evolution science and discussed it with a few.

Alot of times I feel like it is a one-sided discussion about it when I'm giving truthful reasons why I reject evolution and the other person just discounts it,but defends evolution but offers no reasons why they accept it other than just trusting scientists and the science behind it.

[abelcainsbrother]

I can give one fact about the theory of evolution. No scientist has ever demonstrated life evolves eventhough they have tried to many of times to. Yet despite this they just keep pushing it up the hill when they do not even know if life evolves. The only thing they have demonstrated is there is limited variation in reproduction and that life can adapt and from this evidence they assume life evolves and just believe it does by faith.So that we are right back to where Darwin was 150 years ago assuming life evolves based on variation in reproduction.

Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" is what led to the theory of evolution becoming a scientific theory. And yet Darwin insisted that the tiny variation we see in a litter of kittens,might be accumilated,generation by generation,and extrapolated ad infinitum in order to finally turn a cat into a totally new and different kind of creature. This is the very samething scientists are still assuming today based on their evidence.

Now I have cracked the code and figured out what scientists have done to keep the theory of evolution going and to even confuse you about evolution.It was in 1927 that Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko introduced the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" and scientists confuse people with these terms because they imply evolution however micro-evolution is the only thing that scientists have actually demonstrated but all micro-evolution is is normal variation in reproduction that plant and animal breeders exploited like roses and dogs and for thousnds of years before Darwin and even Darwin was well aware of variation as it is exactly what caused him to assume it would eventually lead to life evolving over time. We see many different kinds of dogs but despite different shapes and sizes they are still dogs and roses as well,we see different styles and colors but they are still roses. So that all micro-evolution is is the normal variation that we all see no matter what species of life we could look at. We see normal variation and it should not be called micro-evolution.

However it is macro-evolution that has never been demonstrated which is one kind of life evolving into a totally new and different kind of life.And yet when we look at the evidence scientists use for evidence for macro-evolution we still see variation in reproduction still being used for evidence like salamanders.
Here are salamanders used for evidence for speciation and we just see the normal variation in reproduction we see with all other species.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02

Based on this kind of evidence I cannot accept evolution,therefore I cannot believe God created through evolution. This is not evidence life evolves or speciation happens and I cannot trust scientists that use this kind of evidence to push the evolution myth up the hill.

[hughfarey]

Alot of times I feel like it is a one-sided discussion about it when I'm giving truthful reasons why I reject evolution and the other person just discounts it,but defends evolution but offers no reasons why they accept it other than just trusting scientists and the science behind it.

May I respond on behalf of "the other person"? You have in fact only given one piece of evidence for rejecting evolution, which is the failure of scientists to demonstrate speciation in a science laboratory to your satisfaction. You studious ignore any suggestion that a few decades is simply not long enough for that to be possible. However, your comment is carefully noted, not "just discounted". Another reason for your (and others') rejection of evolution is that you do not think the human mind can have evolved from a non-human mind, nor birds from reptiles. These are opinions rather than evidences, and you are entitled to them. You are not entitled to say that "the other person" just defends evolution but offers no reasons why they accept it. I think evolution is a good explanation for the changing forms of the variety of living organisms observed over the centuries, for the similarities observed between organisms, especially their DNA, for the obviously inherited changes between organisms of similar ancestry, for the apparent redundancy of certain design features of a number of organisms, and for the ability of humans to breed such huge variation in domesticated animals and plants. I have studied these for 40 years, and have certainly not just "trusted scientists".

I can give one fact about the theory of evolution. No scientist has ever demonstrated life evolves eventhough they have tried to many of times to.

This is nonsense, as you have previously agreed. What you mean is that scientists have not demonstrated one interbreeding group of animals dividing into two separately interbreeding groups of animals, something which might be expected to take hundreds of years, at the least, rather than decades. You have already accepted that a large variety of different organisms evolve from a primordial "form", which is the essence of evolution. You granted that zebras, horses and donkeys were variations on a original, but claim that they do not demonstrate evolution. You have been told about transitional forms such as cows and yaks, or lions and tigers, animals which can be made to interbreed but mostly don't. You have accepted almost everything about evolution except the possibility that one species can evolve into another.

Yet despite this they just keep pushing it up the hill when they do not even know if life evolves. The only thing they have demonstrated is there is limited variation in reproduction and that life can adapt and from this evidence they assume life evolves and just believe it does by faith.

Variation through reproduction and life adapting is what evolution is. If you accept this you accept evolution. Scientists believe that by these two mechanisms the whole variety of living organisms have developed. You do not believe that these two mechanisms can have done so. That's fair enough; you are entitled to disagree.

Now I have cracked the code and figured out what scientists have done to keep the theory of evolution going and to even confuse you about evolution.It was in 1927 that Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko introduced the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" and scientists confuse people with these terms because they imply evolution however micro-evolution is the only thing that scientists have actually demonstrated but all micro-evolution is is normal variation in reproduction that plant and animal breeders exploited like roses and dogs and for thousnds of years before Darwin and even Darwin was well aware of variation as it is exactly what caused him to assume it would eventually lead to life evolving over time. We see many different kinds of dogs but despite different shapes and sizes they are still dogs and roses as well,we see different styles and colors but they are still roses. So that all micro-evolution is is the normal variation that we all see no matter what species of life we could look at. We see normal variation and it should not be called micro-evolution.

Evolutionists like myself do not distinguish between micro- and macro- evolution, and consider that given the right environmental pressure and enough time, the one produces the other.

However it is macro-evolution that has never been demonstrated which is one kind of life evolving into a totally new and different kind of life.

You do not really say what you mean by "totally new and different kind of life". Do lions and tigers count? They are on the point of becoming different kinds of life. Or were you hoping to see a crocodile give birth to an ostrich? Because if so, then you do not understand what evolution is about. There is no such thing as macro-evolution, except insofar as it is an accumulation of micro-mutations.

Based on this kind of evidence I cannot accept evolution,therefore I cannot believe God created through evolution. This is not evidence life evolves or speciation happens and I cannot trust scientists that use this kind of evidence to push the evolution myth up the hill.

Well that's OK. You are entitled to your opinion. But do not pretend that evolutionists are mindless accepters of dogma, or that they do not listen to your views.

[Audie]

Alot of times I feel like it is a one-sided discussion about it when I'm giving truthful reasons why I reject evolution and the other person just discounts it,but defends evolution but offers no reasons why they accept it other than just trusting scientists and the science behind it.

May I respond on behalf of "the other person"? You have in fact only given one piece of evidence for rejecting evolution, which is the failure of scientists to demonstrate speciation in a science laboratory to your satisfaction. You studious ignore any suggestion that a few decades is simply not long enough for that to be possible. However, your comment is carefully noted, not "just discounted". Another reason for your (and others') rejection of evolution is that you do not think the human mind can have evolved from a non-human mind, nor birds from reptiles. These are opinions rather than evidences, and you are entitled to them. You are not entitled to say that "the other person" just defends evolution but offers no reasons why they accept it. I think evolution is a good explanation for the changing forms of the variety of living organisms observed over the centuries, for the similarities observed between organisms, especially their DNA, for the obviously inherited changes between organisms of similar ancestry, for the apparent redundancy of certain design features of a number of organisms, and for the ability of humans to breed such huge variation in domesticated animals and plants. I have studied these for 40 years, and have certainly not just "trusted scientists".

I can give one fact about the theory of evolution. No scientist has ever demonstrated life evolves eventhough they have tried to many of times to.

This is nonsense, as you have previously agreed. What you mean is that scientists have not demonstrated one interbreeding group of animals dividing into two separately interbreeding groups of animals, something which might be expected to take hundreds of years, at the least, rather than decades. You have already accepted that a large variety of different organisms evolve from a primordial "form", which is the essence of evolution. You granted that zebras, horses and donkeys were variations on a original, but claim that they do not demonstrate evolution. You have been told about transitional forms such as cows and yaks, or lions and tigers, animals which can be made to interbreed but mostly don't. You have accepted almost everything about evolution except the possibility that one species can evolve into another.

Yet despite this they just keep pushing it up the hill when they do not even know if life evolves. The only thing they have demonstrated is there is limited variation in reproduction and that life can adapt and from this evidence they assume life evolves and just believe it does by faith.

Variation through reproduction and life adapting is what evolution is. If you accept this you accept evolution. Scientists believe that by these two mechanisms the whole variety of living organisms have developed. You do not believe that these two mechanisms can have done so. That's fair enough; you are entitled to disagree.

Now I have cracked the code and figured out what scientists have done to keep the theory of evolution going and to even confuse you about evolution.It was in 1927 that Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko introduced the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" and scientists confuse people with these terms because they imply evolution however micro-evolution is the only thing that scientists have actually demonstrated but all micro-evolution is is normal variation in reproduction that plant and animal breeders exploited like roses and dogs and for thousnds of years before Darwin and even Darwin was well aware of variation as it is exactly what caused him to assume it would eventually lead to life evolving over time. We see many different kinds of dogs but despite different shapes and sizes they are still dogs and roses as well,we see different styles and colors but they are still roses. So that all micro-evolution is is the normal variation that we all see no matter what species of life we could look at. We see normal variation and it should not be called micro-evolution.

Evolutionists like myself do not distinguish between micro- and macro- evolution, and consider that given the right environmental pressure and enough time, the one produces the other.

However it is macro-evolution that has never been demonstrated which is one kind of life evolving into a totally new and different kind of life.

You do not really say what you mean by "totally new and different kind of life". Do lions and tigers count? They are on the point of becoming different kinds of life. Or were you hoping to see a crocodile give birth to an ostrich? Because if so, then you do not understand what evolution is about. There is no such thing as macro-evolution, except insofar as it is an accumulation of micro-mutations.

Based on this kind of evidence I cannot accept evolution,therefore I cannot believe God created through evolution. This is not evidence life evolves or speciation happens and I cannot trust scientists that use this kind of evidence to push the evolution myth up the hill.

Well that's OK. You are entitled to your opinion. But do not pretend that evolutionists are mindless accepters of dogma, or that they do not listen to your views.

Talk of evolution creating a "new and totally different kind of
life" actually does have a very specific meaning.

It is the same meaning as talk of racking up balls on the
basketball rink.

It shows the author hasnt the dimmest clue about the subject matter.

[abelcainsbrother]

Alot of times I feel like it is a one-sided discussion about it when I'm giving truthful reasons why I reject evolution and the other person just discounts it,but defends evolution but offers no reasons why they accept it other than just trusting scientists and the science behind it.

May I respond on behalf of "the other person"? You have in fact only given one piece of evidence for rejecting evolution, which is the failure of scientists to demonstrate speciation in a science laboratory to your satisfaction. You studious ignore any suggestion that a few decades is simply not long enough for that to be possible. However, your comment is carefully noted, not "just discounted". Another reason for your (and others') rejection of evolution is that you do not think the human mind can have evolved from a non-human mind, nor birds from reptiles. These are opinions rather than evidences, and you are entitled to them. You are not entitled to say that "the other person" just defends evolution but offers no reasons why they accept it. I think evolution is a good explanation for the changing forms of the variety of living organisms observed over the centuries, for the similarities observed between organisms, especially their DNA, for the obviously inherited changes between organisms of similar ancestry, for the apparent redundancy of certain design features of a number of organisms, and for the ability of humans to breed such huge variation in domesticated animals and plants. I have studied these for 40 years, and have certainly not just "trusted scientists".
Actually I have also brought up no transitional fossils,cladistics and fruit flies also. I realize we all have opinions too. Similarities in DNA Darwin could not have known about but this is not evidence life evolves. It comes down to how we view this kind of evidence and interpret it.There are other ways to interpret this kind of evidence. Yes but it is limited variation by the breeding of domesticated animals and plants.It shows that there are limits that cannot be crossed. I have read about,researched and examined the evidene in evolution science over time for years and I've also read views from all sides of the debate say about it too,including evolutionists that have been honest enough to speak out about the problems in evolution science and have even tried to come up with new ideas to help evolution,only to be ignored by the majority.They see the lack of evidence and when I have went back and looked into the problems they have discussed they are right.

I can give one fact about the theory of evolution. No scientist has ever demonstrated life evolves eventhough they have tried to many of times to.

This is nonsense, as you have previously agreed. What you mean is that scientists have not demonstrated one interbreeding group of animals dividing into two separately interbreeding groups of animals, something which might be expected to take hundreds of years, at the least, rather than decades. You have already accepted that a large variety of different organisms evolve from a primordial "form", which is the essence of evolution. You granted that zebras, horses and donkeys were variations on a original, but claim that they do not demonstrate evolution. You have been told about transitional forms such as cows and yaks, or lions and tigers, animals which can be made to interbreed but mostly don't. You have accepted almost everything about evolution except the possibility that one species can evolve into another.
No interbreeding should'nt have anything to do with demonstrating life evolves.Scientists already know the ability to breed or not is not an indicator life has or can evolve,except when it comes to evolution then they decide when it is important.Because they just assume it happens and hav conditioned themselves to believe it.I've already explained based on Darwin what was supposed to have been demonstrated. No I accept the limited variation in reproduction we all see and Darwin knew about as well.Zebras,horses.donkeys,yaks,lions and tigers show us limited variation in reproduction. What was supposed to be demonstrated is what Darwin assumed based on variation which I've already explained. Did you know if man stopped growing corn it would stop growing? There is a limit to variation and this is what plant and animal breeders have shown for thousands of years.

Yet despite this they just keep pushing it up the hill when they do not even know if life evolves. The only thing they have demonstrated is there is limited variation in reproduction and that life can adapt and from this evidence they assume life evolves and just believe it does by faith.

Variation through reproduction and life adapting is what evolution is. If you accept this you accept evolution. Scientists believe that by these two mechanisms the whole variety of living organisms have developed. You do not believe that these two mechanisms can have done so. That's fair enough; you are entitled to disagree.
The evidence in evolution does not back up that variarion in reproduction and adaptation is what evolution is,or that it causes it to happen. The evidence shows there are limits in variation in reproduction even when life is able to adapt.Like bacteria.Even as resiliant as bacteria is at adapting.Bacteria proves that environmental pressures cannot effect the DNA of any life.You have never seen bacteria evolve into a new and totally different kind of life after it adapted and bacteria goes back atleast 4 billion years.It remains bacteria regardless of the environment and this is what the evidence in evolution science has demonstrated too when they were trying to demonstrate it evolves,it never did,as their evidence shows.

Now I have cracked the code and figured out what scientists have done to keep the theory of evolution going and to even confuse you about evolution.It was in 1927 that Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko introduced the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" and scientists confuse people with these terms because they imply evolution however micro-evolution is the only thing that scientists have actually demonstrated but all micro-evolution is is normal variation in reproduction that plant and animal breeders exploited like roses and dogs and for thousnds of years before Darwin and even Darwin was well aware of variation as it is exactly what caused him to assume it would eventually lead to life evolving over time. We see many different kinds of dogs but despite different shapes and sizes they are still dogs and roses as well,we see different styles and colors but they are still roses. So that all micro-evolution is is the normal variation that we all see no matter what species of life we could look at. We see normal variation and it should not be called micro-evolution.

Evolutionists like myself do not distinguish between micro- and macro- evolution, and consider that given the right environmental pressure and enough time, the one produces the other.
Yes because one who accepts evolution already assumes alot of little mac's lead to big mac's.The problem arises though when they try to show they do and they don't.

However it is macro-evolution that has never been demonstrated which is one kind of life evolving into a totally new and different kind of life.

You do not really say what you mean by "totally new and different kind of life". Do lions and tigers count? They are on the point of becoming different kinds of life. Or were you hoping to see a crocodile give birth to an ostrich? Because if so, then you do not understand what evolution is about. There is no such thing as macro-evolution, except insofar as it is an accumulation of micro-mutations.
I'm not just making up stuff. I have already explained what Darwin assumed based on the variation that is seen in a litter of kittens. Are you now implying Darwin was crazy for assuming this? No lions and tigers show limited variation in reproduction.

Based on this kind of evidence I cannot accept evolution,therefore I cannot believe God created through evolution. This is not evidence life evolves or speciation happens and I cannot trust scientists that use this kind of evidence to push the evolution myth up the hill.

Well that's OK. You are entitled to your opinion. But do not pretend that evolutionists are mindless accepters of dogma, or that they do not listen to your views.

I think it is dogma and I'm not saying they don't listen.I'm saying they usually hide behind scientists and the science behind evolution and even peer-review too.Alot of them do,but maybe not all.

[hughfarey]

Thanks for your reply, abelcainsbrother. If I address it in detail, as I have done before, I hope you will see this as taking your objections to evolution seriously and not simply ignoring you. The evidence you claim to have researched, however, all boils down to your entirely faith-based statement that separate species cannot evolve, and have not evolved. Your entire evidence for this is that it has not been observed - and my explanation for that is that there not been sufficient time, since experiments began, to observe it. You have studiously avoided responding to that point.
As I said, that is your only evidence for the denial of evolution. You have mentioned the fossil record, without explaining why it denies evolution, and cladistics, without explaining why it denies evolution, and fruitflies, but only with reference to the fact that they have not been observed becoming different species. You have admitted variation, but draw the line at speciation entirely on faith, rather than scientific, grounds, simply making statements such as, "there are limits that cannot be crossed" which cannot be justified by the evidence. Just because some arbitrarily limit, which you do not satisfactorily define, has not been shown to be crossed, does not mean that it cannot be crossed, merely that you do not find the evidence that it could be, compelling. And that's OK. I have no doubt whatever that clear and distinct speciation will be observed within the next few decades.