davidylan:

On that we are agreed. I think we can also come to an agreement that your blind devotion to speculative, unproven "theories" is no different from the "faith" in the bible you deride.

Then the entire Christianity crumbles without a rational or empirical ground and can't be a good source of morality and useless in metaphysics. For it must be subscribed to by Faith.

davidylan:

i am a scientist... are you?

Davidylan you are...

davidylan:

i am a scientist... are you?

What do you major in? Are you a social scientist or what?

•

Kay 17:

Then the entire Christianity crumbles without a rational or empirical ground and can't be a good source of morality and useless in metaphysics. For it must be subscribed to by Faith.

and does that also apply to your tenuous belief in a theory that has no empirical basis? Seriously... you're here gripping about how christianity has no rational basis while bleating about how the big b[i]a[/i]ng is the origin of man? Absolute incredulity.

MacDaddy01:


What do you major in? Are you a social scientist or what?

Molecular biology. You?

davidylan:

Molecular biology. You?

. Wait, a biologist saying that there is no proof of evolution! ow many of your biologist friends have disowned you for that opinion?


Marketing and psychology

Have you heard of classical conditioning? Its one of the reasons people are into religion- brainwashing!

Cheers01:


. Wait, a biologist saying that there is no proof of evolution! ow many of your biologist friends have disowned you for that opinion?


Marketing and psychology

Have you heard of classical conditioning? Its one of the reasons people are into religion- brainwashing!

Cheers is my other (macdaddy)account

Cheers01:


. Wait, a biologist saying that there is no proof of evolution! ow many of your biologist friends have disowned you for that opinion?


Marketing and psychology

Have you heard of classical conditioning? Its one of the reasons people are into religion- brainwashing!

Hold it for a second... i dislike a debate with those who deliberately obfuscate the facts. Evolution is split in two - micro and macro. No biologist disagrees with micro evolution as there is plenty of empirical evidence to back it up. Macro evolution - the idea that somehow man originated from primordial soup is the PROBLEM here.

Please note the difference when next you feel the need to hyperventilate over things you know nothing about.

davidylan:

Hold it for a second... i dislike a debate with those who deliberately obfuscate the facts. Evolution is split in two - micro and macro. No biologist disagrees with micro evolution as there is plenty of empirical evidence to back it up. Macro evolution - the idea that somehow man originated from primordial soup is the PROBLEM here.

Please note the difference when next you feel the need to hyperventilate over things you know nothing about.

Havent I debunked you already on this issue?


Let me expose your ignorance on the artificial distinction of micro and macro evolution.


both types of evolution rely on the same principles. One is limited to changes within a population's gene pool that doesnt result in as new species while the other consists of significant changes in organisms that result in new species.


They both rely on the same principles. To accept one and not the other is the height of s.tupidity

davidylan:

and does that also apply to your tenuous belief in a theory that has no empirical basis? Seriously... you're here gripping about how christianity has no rational basis while bleating about how the big b[i]a[/i]ng is the origin of man? Absolute incredulity.

Of course, castles built in the sky must crumble. BUT the Big Bang theory is a scientific theory. But like Galileo, it conflicts with the supernatural teachings of the Church.

MacDaddy01:


Shut up. I asked you first. I am not a scientist.

Hahaha.
Guy, why do u want to be a stumbling block for davidylan?
Do u want him to give u in kind then u will say he has broken his vows.
Lol.
Keep the "shut up" aside so that u can help ur guy ride.

Cheers01:

Havent I debunked you already on this issue?


Let me expose your ignorance on the artificial distinction of micro and macro evolution.


both types of evolution rely on the same principles. One is limited to changes within a population's gene pool that doesnt result in as new species while the other consists of significant changes in organisms that result in new species.


They both rely on the same principles. To accept one and not the other is the height of s.tupidity

Atheists are quite funny.

1. There really is a huge gulf between micro and macro evolution. the reason atheists like to cry about it being an "artificial distinction" is solely because their only "proof" for macro evolution is MICRO evolution! Once you make that separation, all of a sudden their "empirical evidence" claims fall to pieces. They are clearly unable to justify macro evolution without micro evolution.

2. Micro and macro evolution rely on the same principles? Not really... micro evolution is provable in the lab, macro evolution is a speculative assumption that what happens on a micro scale is responsible for the macro evolution of man from primordial soup...

3. To accept one and reject the other is actually VERY PLAUSIBLE because both are not dependent on each other. Micro evolution is a very independent biological process that does not require macro evolution - a phenomenon that has absolutely no proof.

Kay 17:

Of course, castles built in the sky must crumble. BUT the Big Bang theory is a scientific theory. But like Galileo, it conflicts with the supernatural teachings of the Church.

you really shld keep quiet. your nauseatingly empty headed on this issue.

Where is your empirical evidence for the big b[i]a[/i]ng?

davidylan:

you really shld keep quiet. your nauseatingly empty headed on this issue.

Where is your empirical evidence for the big b[i]a[/i]ng?

QUESTION!
ANSWER = NONE
I hoped my answer was useful kay17?

davidylan:

Atheists are quite funny.

1. There really is a huge gulf between micro and macro evolution. the reason atheists like to cry about it being an "artificial distinction" is solely because their only "proof" for macro evolution is MICRO evolution! Once you make that separation, all of a sudden their "empirical evidence" claims fall to pieces. They are clearly unable to justify macro evolution without micro evolution.

2. Micro and macro evolution rely on the same principles? Not really... micro evolution is provable in the lab, macro evolution is a speculative assumption that what happens on a micro scale is responsible for the macro evolution of man from primordial soup...[/quote]

Creationists like yourself fail to realise that macro evolution is a result of micro evolution over time. The boundary between micro and macro evolution is non-existent.

Is "species" consistently defined in biology? No. So how do you differentiate between micro and macro evolution? How do you know the boundary that can not be crossed from micro into macro evolution?

davidylan:
3. To accept one and reject the other is actually VERY PLAUSIBLE because both are not dependent on each other. Micro evolution is a very independent biological process that does not require macro evolution - a phenomenon that has absolutely no proof.

To accept one and reject the other is very foolish. Macro evolution is micro evolution on a larger scale. Unless you have a more logical theory or explanation for the gradual change in species from transitional stage.

davidylan:

Atheists are quite funny.

1. There really is a huge gulf between micro and macro evolution. the reason atheists like to cry about it being an "artificial distinction" is solely because their only "proof" for macro evolution is MICRO evolution! Once you make that separation, all of a sudden their "empirical evidence" claims fall to pieces. They are clearly unable to justify macro evolution without micro evolution.

2. Micro and macro evolution rely on the same principles? Not really... micro evolution is provable in the lab, macro evolution is a speculative assumption that what happens on a micro scale is responsible for the macro evolution of man from primordial soup...

3. To accept one and reject the other is actually VERY PLAUSIBLE because both are not dependent on each other. Micro evolution is a very independent biological process that does not require macro evolution - a phenomenon that has absolutely no proof.

Davidylan let's start by defining what is evolution
.

You shoot first.

Logicbwoy:
2. Micro and macro evolution rely on the same principles? Not really... micro evolution is provable in the lab, macro evolution is a speculative assumption that what happens on a micro scale is responsible for the macro evolution of man from primordial soup...

Creationists like yourself fail to realise that macro evolution is a result of micro evolution over time. The boundary between micro and macro evolution is non-existent.

Foolishly incoherent statement. where is the evidence for this? This is a widely accepted but false assumption used by atheists to excuse their own sheer ignorance and incompetence at finding anything to prove that macro evolution truly exists. Micro evolution is incredibly slow, most inefficient and most of the time are deleterious to the organism in question. The assumption here would be that over time, man will evolve into a higher being due to numerous micro evolutionary events? BS.

Another thing you fail to take into consideration is the numerous mechanisms the genome has devised to minimize the impacts or sometimes reverse the effects of micro evolution.

Logicbwoy:
Is "species" consistently defined in biology? No. So how do you differentiate between micro and macro evolution? How do you know the boundary that can not be crossed from micro into macro evolution?

this is an incoherent rant. what is your point?

Logicbwoy:
3. To accept one and reject the other is actually VERY PLAUSIBLE because both are not dependent on each other. Micro evolution is a very independent biological process that does not require macro evolution - a phenomenon that has absolutely no proof.


To accept one and reject the other is very foolish. Macro evolution is micro evolution on a larger scale. Unless you have a more logical theory or explanation for the gradual change in species from transitional stage.

Again you just repeated the statement you made earlier on without providing any proof for the claim. Do you really know anything beyond repeating the same claim over and over like a broken record?

ghostofsparta:

Davidylan let's start by defining what is evolution
.

You shoot first.

And the relevance of this question is? I clearly made a distinction between micro and macro evolution (a distinction that is also clearly noted on wikipedia - u know that site that is not typically favorable to the creationist viewpoint)... so what was the point of your question?

I've had enough of the musical chairs you ignorant folks play... provide proof that macro evolution is the result of the accumulation of micro evolutionary events... telling us to define evolution like we're back in primary 2? What a joke. See him asking the question as if he knows anything... this from the fellow who only a few weeks ago had no idea what the term "missing link" was all about.

davidylan:

Foolishly incoherent statement. where is the evidence for this? This is a widely accepted but false assumption used by atheists to excuse their own sheer ignorance and incompetence at finding anything to prove that macro evolution truly exists. Micro evolution is incredibly slow, most inefficient and most of the time are deleterious to the organism in question. The assumption here would be that over time, man will evolve into a [b]higher being [/b]due to numerous micro evolutionary events? BS.

Another thing you fail to take into consideration is the numerous mechanisms the genome has devised to minimize the impacts or sometimes reverse the effects of micro evolution.

Where is the evidence for what? Both macro and micro evolution rely on the same prinicples just that one is on a larger scale. Surely, a biologist should understand this.

Furthermore, where do you get an assumption of "higher being"? Is higher being a scientific term or just creationist babble?


[size=14pt]So, as a biologist, how do you explain the stages of change in man or other animals shown in the transitional fossils without macro evolution? The move from homo habilis to homo erectus to homo sapien?
[/size]

Logicbwoy:

Where is the evidence for what? Both macro and micro evolution rely on the same prinicples just that one is on a larger scale. Surely, a biologist should understand this.

that is an assumption on the part of macro evolution as this has NEVER been observed empirically. Please focus on facts and not some atheistic babble.

Logicbwoy:
Furthermore, where do you get an assumption of "higher being"? Is higher being a scientific term or just creationist babble?

Nonsense. Humans are quite clearly intellectually higher organisms compared to cockerels. You dont need a bible to tell you this.

Logicbwoy:

[size=14pt]So, as a biologist, how do you explain the stages of change in man or other animals shown in the transitional fossils without macro evolution? The move from homo habilis to homo erectus to homo sapien?
[/size]

and do you care to show us this "transitional fossils" that only you happen to know about? It would be good to show us actual transitional fossils from BEFORE we split into the human species...

Transitional fossils for apes? Dogs? Fowls? Cockroaches? Pigs? Surely these must exist no?

davidylan:

that is an assumption on the part of macro evolution as this has NEVER been observed empirically. Please focus on facts and not some atheistic babble.

Atheistic babble? Since when did evolution = atheism? Epic fail

[size=14pt]

Please, there is a difference between a theory and assumption. One uses evidence and logical deductions. I have always maintained that you're a quack scientist- at best, you crammed and crammed to get a degree in science. What kind of biologist doesnt understand the difference between an assumption and a theory?

The changes in organisms are due to many factors; adaptation, mutation, migration and natural selection. Some changes are more significant than others. Some changes are so significant that they result in a new specie.


If speciation (an evolutionary process in which new species arise) has been observed and is part of macro evolution, how can you as a biologist deny macro evolution? You are a damn quack![/size]

davidylan:
Nonsense. Humans are quite clearly intellectually higher organisms compared to cockerels. You dont need a bible to tell you this.

Yes, but our brains are just evolutionary material

davidylan:
and do you care to show us this "transitional fossils" that only you happen to know about? It would be good to show us actual transitional fossils from BEFORE we split into the human species...

Transitional fossils for apes? Dogs? Fowls? Cockroaches? Pigs? Surely these must exist no?

Ignorance. This shows that you're a quack! Seriously? You dont realise that some of the transitional for apes/monkeys also are the same for humans. A. ramidus for example.

Transitional fossils for dogs;

Dogs:

Cynodictis (late Eocene) -- First known arctoid (undifferentiated dog/bear).
Hesperocyon (early Oligocene) -- A later arctoid. Compared to miacids like Paroodectes, limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger. From here, the main line of canid evolution can be traced in North America, with bears branching out into a Holarctic distribution.
Cynodesmus (Miocene) -- First true dog. The dog lineage continued through Tomarctus (Pliocene) to the modern dogs, wolves, & foxes, Canis (Pleistocene).



Wow, did I just debunk you again?


See what creationism does to you? I can pull facts because facts and science are on my side. You're a biologist struggling to debate a businessman on biology because of you fantasy called creationism. Shameful!

Logicbwoy:

Atheistic babble? Since when did evolution = atheism? Epic fail

[size=14pt]

Please, there is a difference between a theory and assumption. One uses evidence and logical deductions. I have always maintained that you're a quack scientist- at best, you crammed and crammed to get a degree in science. What kind of biologist doesnt understand the difference between an assumption and a theory?

The changes in organisms are due to many factors; adaptation, mutation, migration and natural selection. Some changes are more significant than others. Some changes are so significant that they result in a new specie.


If speciation (an evolutionary process in which new species arise) has been observed and is part of macro evolution, how can you as a biologist deny macro evolution? You are a damn quack![/size]

Please note the complete lack of evidence for macro evolution is deceptively papered over by overly stretching the principles of micro evolution to fit a preconceived idea.

Logicbwoy:

Yes, but our brains are just evolutionary material

really? That's really a BS comment.

Logicbwoy:
Ignorance. This shows that you're a quack! Seriously? You dont realise that some of the transitional for apes/monkeys also are the same for humans. A. ramidus for example.

Dumb. There is no point responding to this piece of idiocy but let me leave you with this quote on A. ramidus from wikipedia - The fossils of Ardipithecus have not yet been studied by researchers beyond the original (2009) group of describers, and the paleobiology and relationships of these creatures are the subject of controversy.[16][17] Skeptics claim that many of the allegedly hominin-like features seen in the Ardipithecus material are found elsewhere among living and fossil primates, and that claims about its hominin status and locomotor habits are not adequately supported by the available evidence.

and he has the nerve to call others quacks?

Logicbwoy:
Transitional fossils for dogs;

Dogs:

Cynodictis (late Eocene) -- First known arctoid (undifferentiated dog/bear).
Hesperocyon (early Oligocene) -- A later arctoid. Compared to miacids like Paroodectes, limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger. From here, the main line of canid evolution can be traced in North America, with bears branching out into a Holarctic distribution.
Cynodesmus (Miocene) -- First true dog. The dog lineage continued through Tomarctus (Pliocene) to the modern dogs, wolves, & foxes, Canis (Pleistocene).

Rather than go over the above hubris one by one... let me again leave this ignorant dolt (sorry for that is the fact here not an insult) with this piece from wikipedia - Cynodictis, ("in-between dog" is a member of extinct terrestrial carnivores belonging to the family Amphicyonidae, suborder Caniformia, which inhabited Eurasia from the Late Eocene subepoch to the Early Oligocene subepoch living from 37.2—28.4 Ma, existing for approximately 8.8 million years.[2]
[size=14pt]Cynodictis was one of the oldest amphicyonids, and was not the ancestor of the canids, as it was believed some decades ago.[/size]

Of course you know the Canids here includes the dog genus right? Obviously the individual you copied from had not updated his theories just yet.

The real shameful part is the above is a brazen, brainless copy/paste job from quack websites. Examples of websites containing the above WORD FOR WORD include -

http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/off-topic/121670-evolution-67/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070317194158AAIBNNr

Just more evidence that the above, rather than being well researched FACTS, are nothing but another silly, widely circulated bunch of nonsense from desperate hacks that first appeared on the notorious talkorigins website. You would think these eediots forever yelling about "facts" would actually provide peer-reviewed scientific articles rather than hoax websites as "evidence".

Logicbwoy:
Wow, did I just debunk you again?

See what creationism does to you? I can pull facts because facts and science are on my side. You're a biologist struggling to debate a businessman on biology because of you fantasy called creationism. Shameful!

lol what a disgrace.

An interesting article describes the atheist mindset when it comes to the evolution debate succinctly...

A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)

Note how the above aptly describes folks like "logicboy, thehomer and co". Kay17 is even worse... he just doesnt know anything at all.

ghostofsparta:

Davidylan let's start by defining what is evolution
.

You shoot first.

I thought to address this piece of idiocy again.

Evolution - divided into 2 for the sake of clarity

1. Micro evolution - better known really as GENETIC VARIATION simply involves changes in phenotypic traits that are PURELY as a result of recombination of EXISTING genetic information.

2. Macro evolution - better known as evolution until the deliberate and deceptive attempt to merge it with genetic variation above. This typically assumes PROGRESSIVE change in an organism from simple to complex based on the acquisition of COMPLETELY NEW genetic information.

Note the CLEAR difference... while genetic variation does not change the existing genetic information but simply involves recombination of what is already there to form changes in phenotype, macro evolution will involve generation of completely new genetic information from thin air to account for the phenotypic change from the simple organism to a more complex system.

Any attempt to conflate the 2 to justify atheist claims is nothing but blind faith.

Logicbwoy:

Where is the evidence for what? Both macro and micro evolution rely on the same prinicples just that one is on a larger scale. Surely, a biologist should understand this.

Furthermore, where do you get an assumption of "higher being"? Is higher being a scientific term or just creationist babble?


[size=14pt]So, as a biologist, how do you explain the stages of change in man or other animals shown in the transitional fossils without macro evolution? The move from homo habilis to homo erectus to homo sapien?
[/size]

Where is the link?
The last time i check on those assumptions there were forgery here and there that dont even fit. That really begs for explanations.

Actually, that is what desperation causes.

davidylan:

Please note the complete lack of evidence for macro evolution is deceptively papered over by overly stretching the principles of micro evolution to fit a preconceived idea.

[size=14pt]Wait? What??


Lack of evidence for speciation? LMAO. This is a scientist arguing against macro evolution. Fail number one. When told speciation is part macro evolution, he denies that there is evidence and observation of speciation. Epic fail!!
[/size]

davidylan:
Dumb. There is no point responding to this piece of idiocy but let me leave you with this quote on A. ramidus from wikipedia - The fossils of Ardipithecus have not yet been studied by researchers beyond the original (2009) group of describers, and the paleobiology and relationships of these creatures are the subject of controversy.[16][17] Skeptics claim that many of the allegedly hominin-like features seen in the Ardipithecus material are found elsewhere among living and fossil primates, and that claims about its hominin status and locomotor habits are not adequately supported by the available evidence.

and he has the nerve to call others quacks?

LMAO...so bringing up the debate about A. ramidis changes the fact that humans and apes have common transitional fossils that you were ignorant about? This is shameful. The fact remains that apes and humans have common transitional fossils between them and you were ignorant about them

What if I mentioned other common transitional fossils? A. Afarensis and A. Africanus? Are you now going to claim that they are frauds?


Furthermore, the debate on A. ramidis is not whether it is a real or fake fossil. The debate is on how human it was. This does not change the fact that humans and monkeys have similar tansitional fossils.

You shamefully brought up the debate as if it changes the fact of what we are discussing. There are different transitional fossils, so you fail!

davidylan:
Rather than go over the above hubris one by one... let me again leave this ignorant dolt (sorry for that is the fact here not an insult) with this piece from wikipedia - Cynodictis, ("in-between dog" is a member of extinct terrestrial carnivores belonging to the family Amphicyonidae, suborder Caniformia, which inhabited Eurasia from the Late Eocene subepoch to the Early Oligocene subepoch living from 37.2—28.4 Ma, existing for approximately 8.8 million years.[2]
[size=14pt]Cynodictis was one of the oldest amphicyonids, and was not the ancestor of the canids, as it was believed some decades ago.[/size]

Of course you know the Canids here includes the dog genus right? Obviously the individual you copied from had not updated his theories just yet.

The real shameful part is the above is a brazen, brainless copy/paste job from quack websites. Examples of websites containing the above WORD FOR WORD include -

http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/off-topic/121670-evolution-67/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070317194158AAIBNNr

[size=14pt]Lmao. Yes, I copied the listed fossils in haste. No doubt there. However, you were also foolish enough not to check the other transitional fossils


Is the hesperocyon not a a transitional fossil for a dog? Were you not denying that there were transitional fossils for dogs?

The Canidae subfamily Hesperocyoninae probably arose out of Hesperocyon to become the first of the three great dogs groups: Hesperocyoninae (~40-30 Ma), Borophaginae (~36-2 Ma), and the Caninae lineage that led to present-day Canidae, inclusive of modern-day wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals and dogs (Canis familiaris). At least twenty eight known species of Hesperocyoninae evolved out of Hesperocyon, including Ectopocynus (32-19 mya), Osbornodon (32-18 mya), Paraenhydrocyon (20-25 mya), and Mesocyon-Enhydrocyon (31-15 mya).[4][2]



[/size]

davidylan:
Just more evidence that the above, rather than being well researched FACTS, are nothing but another silly, widely circulated bunch of nonsense from desperate hacks that first appeared on the notorious talkorigins website. You would think these eediots forever yelling about "facts" would actually provide peer-reviewed scientific articles rather than hoax websites as "evidence".



lol what a disgrace.

This shows how useless you are. You are denying the fact that there are transitional fossils for both Humans and dogs which i clearly showed. You desperately went to bring about the debate on the A. ramidus to say that there are no fossils but wait there are actually other transitional fossils. You are really decptive.


Yes, the site I quoted for the dog fossils had not updated its list but the fact remains that there are dog transitional fossils. You pointing out that one in the list is not correct does not negate the others that have been accepted and studied as fossils. Dumbazz

davidylan: An interesting article describes the atheist mindset when it comes to the evolution debate succinctly...

A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)

Note how the above aptly describes folks like "logicboy, thehomer and co". Kay17 is even worse... he just doesnt know anything at all.

You can quote creationist websites all you want but there is no scientific theory behind creationism.

Evolution is a scientific theory which you have yet to counter with any competing theory so far. Who are you to even talk about people not understanding evolution when you deny the fact that there are transitional fossils- the very evidence for evolution in humans?

Damn!

truthislight:
Where is the link?
The last time i check on those assumptions there were forgery here and there that dont even fit. That really begs for explanations.

Actually, that is what desperation causes.

Funny how you and Davidylan actually use the missing link argument out of ignorance.


Why do you use "assumptions"? Do you think evolution is just an assumption?

Logicbwoy:


Funny how you and Davidylan actually use the missing link argument out of ignorance.


Why do you use "assumptions"? Do you think evolution is just an assumption?

YES.
It is assume to be scientific cus those postulating it are in the field of science, though not all of them.

The real science, u and i can see its demonstration all around us, but this(evolution) is not.

What a Science?
that can not be demonstrated, rather, it begs for faith, very large faith at that.
I kind da like u guys, u do have capacity u know?
Ur faith is admirable.
Some of us lost such faith long long time ago.
Hmmm!

truthislight:
YES.
It is assume to be scientific cus those postulating it are in the field of science, though not all of them.

The real science, u and i can see its demonstration all around us, but this(evolution) is not.

What a Science?
that can not be demonstrated, rather, it begs for faith, very large faith at that.
I kind da like u guys, u do have capacity u know?
Ur faith is admirable.
Some of us lost such faith long long time ago.
Hmmm!

Oboy no be small faith wey atheist and evolutionist them get o....

Infact they have so great a faith that can move all d mountains in d world....

Where is d evidence for macro evolution??no evidence!!!!!!!!!

Who was there to witness d big bang/slam theory??nobody...

But by faith they so believe it happend.....

davidylan:

And the relevance of this question is? I clearly made a distinction between micro and macro evolution (a distinction that is also clearly noted on wikipedia - u know that site that is not typically favorable to the creationist viewpoint)... so what was the point of your question?

I've had enough of the musical chairs you ignorant folks play... provide proof that macro evolution is the result of the accumulation of micro evolutionary events... telling us to define evolution like we're back in primary 2? What a joke. See him asking the question as if he knows anything... this from the fellow who only a few weeks ago [h]had no idea[/b]what the term "missing link" was all about.

What makes you think I had no ide[b]a[/b] of the term 'mi[b]ss[/b]ing link' ?. You think I couldn't have asked google if I really don't know as you believe?

Let me tell you...the term 'missing link' has been used like a missing jigsa[b]w[/b] to f[b]i[/b]ll certain yet-unexplainable but under-research ga[b]p[/b] in various subj[b]e[/b]cts.

Now davidylan,
Let's me say if I'm to agree with your dogged anti-evolution stances, or your ”mystery theory” as theHomer puts it. Can you kindly please show us proof that Yaweh your creator made the first man out of dust? Thank you.