View Single Post
Old 7th May 2012, 06:41 PM   #194
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
Speciation is not macro evolution. Under macro evolution i understand change above species. That has not been observed, and the evidence points clearly out that this is not possible.
You've obviously not read...well, let's just call it ANY paleontological literautre.

Quote:
amazing. Please present the evidence.
"Evolution:: The Triumph of an Idea." "Earth: A Portrait of a Planet". Skepoiski's Curve. pretty much all of the literature by Jablonski, Gould, Valentine, Eldritch, and Peter Ward. In particular, look at "Future Evolution"--it gives specific examples of paleontological evidence of macroevolution as you define it (you use the paleontological definition--the biological definition is pretty much "speciation"). Oh, and just for good measure, I'll toss in every single volume of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology and Tertiary Mammals of North America. You've got to dig a bit deeper with those volumes to see the evidence of macroevolution, but it's there. That should give you enough reading material for a while--and ALL OF IT provides evidence, most of it including specific formations and often outcrops that the information has been found in.

Quote:
what matters, are facts, not credentials.
True, but it's telling that you're unwilling to say what you know, particularly since I merely wanted to know what level of knowledge you have about evolutionary theory. I'm gonna go ahead and assume, for the rest of this conversation, that you know nothing about evolution except what Creationist websites tell you, since that's the only evidence you've cited thus far in this thread.

Quote:
I am satisfied with knowing and aknowledging that the God i believe in created all things. Actually, it makes me happy, since that knowledge gives me meaning and value of my life.
All of this is irrelevant--the only reason to believe anything is because it's demonstrably true. If it's not demonstrably true, it should properly be discarded.

Quote:
Its not honest to have figured out scientifically things, and when the evidence points out clearly that a " natural " explanation is not plausible, then instead of aknowledging that a " supernatural " cause is plausible, just escape with a " we don't know answer ".
But we HAVEN'T determined that natural explanations aren't good enough. In fact, we've found numerous alternative natural explanations for abiogenesis. You're simply ignorant of them, and assuming that your ignorance is universal. It's not.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top