Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote:to differentiate between macro and micro evolution is at now, best an argument from ignorance. There's evidence after evidence. But to most Christians it's ez to reject it because they are looking for the wrong evidence. The famous crocaduck comes to mind and other examples. That is what is being expected, and thus the strawman is defeated.

No it's not. You keep saying that, but you still bring up evidence that you say shows macroevolution. But that evidence fits just as easily into Progressive Creationism.

You choose to accept the evidence points to (macro)Evolution, while others see Progressive Creationism.

At best from the evidence, you assume macro from micro.

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:to differentiate between macro and micro evolution is at now, best an argument from ignorance. There's evidence after evidence. But to most Christians it's ez to reject it because they are looking for the wrong evidence. The famous crocaduck comes to mind and other examples. That is what is being expected, and thus the strawman is defeated.

No it's not. You keep saying that, but you still bring up evidence that you say shows macroevolution. But that evidence fits just as easily into Progressive Creationism.

You choose to accept the evidence points to (macro)Evolution, while others see Progressive Creationism.

At best from the evidence, you assume macro from micro.

It is hardly an assumption to say that all data is consistent with the theory.

The data for your "Progressor" . What evidence is there for its role in evolution?
(That isnt equally consistent with the "Bat Boy Done It" theory?)

neo-x wrote:to differentiate between macro and micro evolution is at now, best an argument from ignorance. There's evidence after evidence. But to most Christians it's ez to reject it because they are looking for the wrong evidence. The famous crocaduck comes to mind and other examples. That is what is being expected, and thus the strawman is defeated.

Neo I realize most of the time when discussing evolution with creationists it comes down to micro and macroevolution,but that is not my argument at all. I don't even accept micro-evolution because it is just normal variation in reproduction,called micro-evolution,and when it comes to macro it is the same kind of evidence showing normal variation in reproduction,the only difference is they claim it cannot breed,but it does not matter whether it can or cannot breed it is still going to produce variation amongst the kind of life it is,so that it really does not matter if it can breed or not,or it will simply stop being produced like corn for example,if man stopped growing it? It would stop growing,it would not cause it to evolve,etc because of environmental pressures,it would go extinct. And scientists already know not all life can breed that is said to have evolved.

I tutored a Japanese girl in English. Her sentences were long and ungrammatical, impossible to make sense of them. In Japanese, long sentences dont get grammatically difficult. I taught her to write short sentences. Stylistically, it left something to be desired, but, you could understand what she was saying, and the grammar was correct.

Hint: ab could try the same thing. PLEASE!!

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:to differentiate between macro and micro evolution is at now, best an argument from ignorance. There's evidence after evidence. But to most Christians it's ez to reject it because they are looking for the wrong evidence. The famous crocaduck comes to mind and other examples. That is what is being expected, and thus the strawman is defeated.

Neo I realize most of the time when discussing evolution with creationists it comes down to micro and macroevolution,but that is not my argument at all. I don't even accept micro-evolution because it is just normal variation in reproduction,called micro-evolution,and when it comes to macro it is the same kind of evidence showing normal variation in reproduction,the only difference is they claim it cannot breed,but it does not matter whether it can or cannot breed it is still going to produce variation amongst the kind of life it is,so that it really does not matter if it can breed or not,or it will simply stop being produced like corn for example,if man stopped growing it? It would stop growing,it would not cause it to evolve,etc because of environmental pressures,it would go extinct. And scientists already know not all life can breed that is said to have evolved.

You could try admitting this is all your opinion instead of Truth from on high.
Which it aint.

audie wrote:


It is hardly an assumption to say that all data is consistent with the theory.

You're right. Saying that all data is consistent with the theory, is an assertion. One yet to be shown.

The data for your "Progressor" . What evidence is there for its role in evolution?
(That isnt equally consistent with the "Bat Boy Done It" theory?)

Audie,

I have no idea what you just said. If you can't speak in proper English, I can't respond.

RickD wrote:

audie wrote:


It is hardly an assumption to say that all data is consistent with the theory.

You're right. Saying that all data is consistent with the theory, is an assertion. One yet to be shown.

The data for your "Progressor" . What evidence is there for its role in evolution?
(That isnt equally consistent with the "Bat Boy Done It" theory?)

Audie,

I have no idea what you just said. If you can't speak in proper English, I can't respond.

So your response is to act silly.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

audie wrote:


It is hardly an assumption to say that all data is consistent with the theory.

You're right. Saying that all data is consistent with the theory, is an assertion. One yet to be shown.

The data for your "Progressor" . What evidence is there for its role in evolution?
(That isnt equally consistent with the "Bat Boy Done It" theory?)

Audie,

I have no idea what you just said. If you can't speak in proper English, I can't respond.

So your response is to act silly.

I'm being serious. I can't understand what you said. Please write in simple, easy to understand, English, if you want a response from me. I really don't have the desire to decipher your sentences.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

audie wrote:


It is hardly an assumption to say that all data is consistent with the theory.

You're right. Saying that all data is consistent with the theory, is an assertion. One yet to be shown.

The data for your "Progressor" . What evidence is there for its role in evolution?
(That isnt equally consistent with the "Bat Boy Done It" theory?)

Audie,

I have no idea what you just said. If you can't speak in proper English, I can't respond.

So your response is to act silly.

I'm being serious. I can't understand what you said. Please write in simple, easy to understand, English, if you want a response from me. I really don't have the desire to decipher your sentences.

"One yet to be shown" is neither grammatically correct, nor true.

I asked for data for your agent responsible for "progressive creation".
Do ya got some? (That means, "Do you have some data?)

I doubt your reading and composition skills are as dim as you present them to be.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

audie wrote:


It is hardly an assumption to say that all data is consistent with the theory.

You're right. Saying that all data is consistent with the theory, is an assertion. One yet to be shown.

The data for your "Progressor" . What evidence is there for its role in evolution?
(That isnt equally consistent with the "Bat Boy Done It" theory?)

Audie,

I have no idea what you just said. If you can't speak in proper English, I can't respond.

So your response is to act silly.

I'm being serious. I can't understand what you said. Please write in simple, easy to understand, English, if you want a response from me. I really don't have the desire to decipher your sentences.

"One yet to be shown" is neither grammatically correct, nor true.

I asked for data for your agent responsible for "progressive creation".
Do ya got some? (That means, "Do you have some data?)

I doubt your reading and composition skills are as dim as you present them to be.

You give me far too much credit, Audie.

As I said before, the data just as easily and consistently fits into progressive creation, as it does to the theory of evolution. Actually, I'd say it fits better into PC.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: You're right. Saying that all data is consistent with the theory, is an assertion. One yet to be shown.


Audie,

I have no idea what you just said. If you can't speak in proper English, I can't respond.

So your response is to act silly.

I'm being serious. I can't understand what you said. Please write in simple, easy to understand, English, if you want a response from me. I really don't have the desire to decipher your sentences.

"One yet to be shown" is neither grammatically correct, nor true.

I asked for data for your agent responsible for "progressive creation".
Do ya got some? (That means, "Do you have some data?)

I doubt your reading and composition skills are as dim as you present them to be.

You give me far too much credit, Audie.

As I said before, the data just as easily and consistently fits into progressive creation, as it does to the theory of evolution. Actually, I'd say it fits better into PC.

I know you asserted that. But you've no basis for it, beyond personal whim.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
So your response is to act silly.

I'm being serious. I can't understand what you said. Please write in simple, easy to understand, English, if you want a response from me. I really don't have the desire to decipher your sentences.

"One yet to be shown" is neither grammatically correct, nor true.

I asked for data for your agent responsible for "progressive creation".
Do ya got some? (That means, "Do you have some data?)

I doubt your reading and composition skills are as dim as you present them to be.

You give me far too much credit, Audie.

As I said before, the data just as easily and consistently fits into progressive creation, as it does to the theory of evolution. Actually, I'd say it fits better into PC.

I know you asserted that. But you've no basis for it, beyond personal whim.

Do you even have any idea what progressive creationism is, to make a statement like that?

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: I'm being serious. I can't understand what you said. Please write in simple, easy to understand, English, if you want a response from me. I really don't have the desire to decipher your sentences.

"One yet to be shown" is neither grammatically correct, nor true.

I asked for data for your agent responsible for "progressive creation".
Do ya got some? (That means, "Do you have some data?)

I doubt your reading and composition skills are as dim as you present them to be.

You give me far too much credit, Audie.

As I said before, the data just as easily and consistently fits into progressive creation, as it does to the theory of evolution. Actually, I'd say it fits better into PC.

I know you asserted that. But you've no basis for it, beyond personal whim.

Do you even have any idea what progressive creationism is, to make a statement like that?

Good, good, answer a quedtion with a question.

Takes fewer words to just say "I dont got no stinkin' data."

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
"One yet to be shown" is neither grammatically correct, nor true.

I asked for data for your agent responsible for "progressive creation".
Do ya got some? (That means, "Do you have some data?)

I doubt your reading and composition skills are as dim as you present them to be.

You give me far too much credit, Audie.

As I said before, the data just as easily and consistently fits into progressive creation, as it does to the theory of evolution. Actually, I'd say it fits better into PC.

I know you asserted that. But you've no basis for it, beyond personal whim.

Do you even have any idea what progressive creationism is, to make a statement like that?

Good, good, answer a quedtion with a question.

Takes fewer words to just say "I dont got no stinkin' data."

I have the same data that everyone else has, Audie.
For example, the same evidence that hughfarey lists here, fits in a progressive creation system.

In other words, if it fits in PC, it doesn't make evolution the fact that everyone makes it out to be.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: You give me far too much credit, Audie.

As I said before, the data just as easily and consistently fits into progressive creation, as it does to the theory of evolution. Actually, I'd say it fits better into PC.

I know you asserted that. But you've no basis for it, beyond personal whim.

Do you even have any idea what progressive creationism is, to make a statement like that?

Good, good, answer a quedtion with a question.

Takes fewer words to just say "I dont got no stinkin' data."

I have the same data that everyone else has, Audie.
For example, the same evidence that hughfarey lists here, fits in a progressive creation system.

In other words, if it fits in PC, it doesn't make evolution the fact that everyone makes it out to be.

Sure, there is data on aircraft production, too.

Relevant to your pc agent, no.

Having access to data, and having studied and understood it are not the same thing.
if they were, the janitor should be ok to do brain surgert when you need it..right?

You are drifting into ad's territory with that absurd thing about everyone
making out evolution to bd a fact.