Do creationists have anything new?

[siti]

There is no evidence for macro-evolution in any library.....it doesn't exist. All of the students interviewed said that they strongly believed in evolution, yet none of them could think of one example of macro-evolution, that didn't require faith or belief in what someone else had told them, despite all of them expressing absolute faith in it. That is very telling IMO. I think they call that "brainwashing".

@Deeje - to make this a fair test, old Mr Comfort (is it just me or has he evolved into a real live troll?) should have been able to point to just one example of divine creation - no not one from thousands or millions of years ago - we can't actually observe that...the entire argument of the video is completely fatuous...anyway - here's a few observations you can make on your own body...

1. Try to wiggle your ears - if you can this is because you have inherited a trio of muscles that allowed our pre-human ancestors - and other mammals today - to rotate their ears in response to sounds in order to determine the direction of potential prey or predators. Studies have shown that these muscles - although incredibly weak in humans - are still activated reflexively in response to sounds - our ears don't actually move, but the mechanism by which they would have done in our evolutionary ancestors has been retained.

2. Stretch out your forearm on the table in front of you palm up, touch your thumb to your little finger and slightly raise your hand. If you see a raised band in the middle of you wrist, this is a tendon that connects to the palmaris longus - a vestigial muscle in our forearms that about 10-15% of humans no longer inherit (i.e. they are born without it) - they don't have it because we no longer need it - it is a muscle that in other mammals is used for locomotion using the forelimbs - we don't, for the most part, walk with our arms, so it is being phased out gradually in our evolution. Some people have it in one arm but not the other.

3. Did you ever get goosebumps when you got cold? That's another futile vestigial response mechanism that we have inherited from hairier ancestors. Most of us have nowhere near enough hair to make us any warmer and the hairs on our forearms standing up certainly don't make us look any more fearsome to a potential adversary.

But I think the clearest evidence is the currently ongoing speciation event that humans are undergoing as creationists and evolutionists diverge into homo stultus and homo sapientiorem - the brain seems to be on the verge of vestigiality for one - I'll let you figure out which.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, the Bible is our teacher and it provides all the evidence we need to believe in an Intelligent Designer of the universe, this earth, and everything upon it.

Then Darwin's book could serve in the same capacity for somebody willing to believe a book because it's a book.

I've seen the book that you just called evidence. Not very compelling to me. What are the parts of it that convinced you to trust it more than a public school science textbook? Maybe you can give me and other skeptics a reason to take another peak at it. When I look at it, I see tales of unbelievable things without precedent in my life, internal contradictions, failed prophecies, unkept promises, moral and intellectual errors attributed to a god, and errors in science and history. I need more than that.

Look at the accomplishments of science. What else do you need to see to make a choice between them when the contradict one another?

Of course, that would be evidence based thought, not faith. You've chosen faith. Nobody can help you except to tell you that if you like to believe by faith, choose evolution by faith. Why not? It's not why I accept the theory, because I don't believe by faith, but you do.

 

[Vancouversailor]

I am somewhat familiar with the creationist gang as my parents who now are in their nineties have been staunchly entrenched in that camp for many years. I remember some years ago my father proudly declaring that he had cancelled his lifetime subscription to National Geographic Magazine as they had an article about a cave excavation from Africa that had been dated to over 100,000 thousand years ago. ("We all know that God created earth 7000 years ago so that magazine is full of lies", right?).
I don't have any recent examples as for the past 10 years my birth family decided I was to be shunned for being a proponent of the satanic belief in evolutionism. To add insult to injury, unlike my father I am not a proponent of capital punishment, and unlike my father I believe it is better that one guilty man go free than that ten innocent men be executed. However, I have been quite happy not having to interact with that gang of religious nutters for the past decade.
As for whether there is anything new there, answer is no. Same old, same old B.S. with an absolute rejection of any facts that don't vibe with their delusions. And that is the key. Blinkers on the moment anyone brings up any facts or proof that their beliefs are false. Which is why they have no need to provide anything new.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I've been (in various ways) interacting with creationists for over 20 years now. Part of doing that included reading up on the history of creationism and the people who advocate it, so I consider myself to be pretty well versed in creationism and the arguments its adherents put forth. But in looking over the threads here and the discussions therein, something stands out to me......while the creationists who show up and argue for creationism may change over time, the actual arguments they make don't. IOW, the cast changes, but script remains the same.

I've seen many of my fellow science defenders express frustration and/or boredom with how this all goes, where a set of creationists will show up, make a set of arguments, we counter them, and those creationists eventually leave only to be replaced by a new set of creationists who make the same arguments all over again.

Just today I see Guy T. argue that if something isn't experimentally reproduced, it's not science. I've been seeing that sort of ignorant argument from various creationists for years.

I see Deeje saying there are no transitional fossils and making claims about "kinds". Again, I'm sure most of us science defenders have heard that from creationists countless times.

The creationist argument that evolutionary theory is facing "imminent demise" is ridiculed as "the longest running falsehood in creationism", because it can be traced back to 1825! Yet creationists still repeat it today (e.g., the "Dissent from Darwin" list).

For the creationists, I have to ask a couple of things. First, do you even realize that these tired old arguments and talking points have had absolutely zero impact on science? Creationists have been making claims about transitional fossils for over a century, and what impact have they had on paleontology? None. So what exactly do you think will change by repeating them yet again?

Finally.....do you have any new arguments? As noted above, none of your old arguments have impacted science in any way at all, so do you keep repeating them simply because you have nothing else?

Do we religious folks have anything new??? huh? No, nothing new and happily so! The truth never changes and so our answers do not change. Science changes almost daily much like a con mans story. And that's ok sometimes science gets it right even if it takes a hundred years to do so! Don't get me wrong, science is now a necessary evil, it being the Pandora box things both beautiful and horrific, beautiful things like the images of Hubble and awful things such as creating the nuclear genie who just biding its time to unleash the devils final solution. Science that could feed the world if not for mans ungodly hate for his fellow man, but I digress. I do love science I consider myself a modestly talented amateur astronomer for example. But to close this reply, I will reveal the moral of my story and reply, it is this; Don't bet your life, this three score and seven life on securing material gain because the real treasure is with Jesus. Please don't bet your eternal soul on another (the father of all lies) game. Dont base your soul and material life or what is true or not on a system that must rely on falsification to function.

God bless this forum ~

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

reply to Vancouversailor post #43

If it means anything to you I feel your parents were mistaken for 'shunning' you. Instead of distancing themselves from you they should of embraced you. 'Fundamental Christianity' like 'fundamental Islam' taken too far, not allowing dissent and discussion etc, often perverts the religions into something they were not meant to be IMO. I can say the latter with more confidence about Christianity as I am not an expert in Islam. I should say that I began life as an atheist/agnostic, and become hardened activist atheist before searching for something that made more sense to me. Anyway I suppose it helps me understand you because I feel evolution is correct and is compatible with religious belief. The reason I have little problem with evolution is Evolution really does not concern itself with how life began but what happened to life after it began. So I agree with 95% of the theory. One reason I became attracted to religious belief was the PhD enabled Christian apologists, such as William Craig and others successfully rebutting some of the more aggressive atheists. All that happened about the same time as God was declared Dead by time and every professor on campus with a scientific related degree as attempting to convince the students to hate those with a religious conviction. So being an average angry adolescent student that hated authority I began rejecting the authority of my atheist professors
After college I began researching all the major religions and settled on Christianity as my long term bud. Oh lastly Van I agree 100% with you about the DP. To support the DP makes one an accessory to murder when an innocent man is murdered by the state. However I am pro gun and pro other things~

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

@Deeje - to make this a fair test, old Mr Comfort (is it just me or has he evolved into a real live troll?) should have been able to point to just one example of divine creation - no not one from thousands or millions of years ago - we can't actually observe that...the entire argument of the video is completely fatuous...anyway - here's a few observations you can make on your own body...

1. Try to wiggle your ears - if you can this is because you have inherited a trio of muscles that allowed our pre-human ancestors - and other mammals today - to rotate their ears in response to sounds in order to determine the direction of potential prey or predators. Studies have shown that these muscles - although incredibly weak in humans - are still activated reflexively in response to sounds - our ears don't actually move, but the mechanism by which they would have done in our evolutionary ancestors has been retained.

2. Stretch out your forearm on the table in front of you palm up, touch your thumb to your little finger and slightly raise your hand. If you see a raised band in the middle of you wrist, this is a tendon that connects to the palmaris longus - a vestigial muscle in our forearms that about 10-15% of humans no longer inherit (i.e. they are born without it) - they don't have it because we no longer need it - it is a muscle that in other mammals is used for locomotion using the forelimbs - we don't, for the most part, walk with our arms, so it is being phased out gradually in our evolution. Some people have it in one arm but not the other.

3. Did you ever get goosebumps when you got cold? That's another futile vestigial response mechanism that we have inherited from hairier ancestors. Most of us have nowhere near enough hair to make us any warmer and the hairs on our forearms standing up certainly don't make us look any more fearsome to a potential adversary.

But I think the clearest evidence is the currently ongoing speciation event that humans are undergoing as creationists and evolutionists diverge into homo stultus and homo sapientiorem - the brain seems to be on the verge of vestigiality for one - I'll let you figure out which.

Lol and you guys are whining about we religious types having no new arguments!

 

[Vancouversailor]

I appreciate your comment.
I have a daughter who chose to belong to the Seventh Day Adventists and respect her for that, much like she respects my agnostic beliefs.
As for your views on gun laws and other things I agree. I have had a handgun permit and a .357 magnum for the past 40 years, Initially only for target shooting but as one grows older one becomes more aware of one's vulnerabilities and it is handy to have around just in case, like if you stumble over an injured and suffering animal...
The question remains though, do we have an inherent need to have religious based beliefs, or not?.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

You are welcome. Firearms are a friend. I suppose having been brought up in east Tennessee (everyone hunted except me) and then being on the road going from job to job (protection) made the love firearms inevitable. I am getting soft as the years pass, I never could bear to shoot my food and now finding it difficult to eat red meat due to the ethics thing. (I haven't changed my profile and am over a decade older than posted!). One trip to a slaughter house put a visual in my mind that will not go away.
Do we have a inherent need to have religious beliefs? Can I play the part of the devils advocate?

lol... Well if I were an unbeliever I would say I think our brain is hardwired to believe in a higher power, maybe its due to the tens of thousand of years of looking at the stars and wondering where it all came from? The natural wonder of our world is a powerful thing and one reason given as evidence for the existence of God even if its a rather weak one, I think its called revelation (special general, not to be confused with Albert relativity theories lol)) and and of the. Secondly, all or most people have an fear of dying. So that too ie the hope of going on after the death of the body is another reason for religions, if God didn't exist or had no part in our design and having a fear of death, of not going on or not existing, and that is a very very powerful fear!

Ok, playing on that I too have a question. Why do most of us fear death? These days it can be made painless, so whats the problem with going away? Of non existence? At first it seems a simple question but as one thinks about it e its not so simple at all? Like the self depreciating joke 'pardon me but you have obviously mistaken me for somebody that has something to live for, people with awful pain and other problems want to live every second possible. Why?

Thanks for your reply ~

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

when you do actually understand what science is 'suggesting' without a single shred of provable scientific evidence, it becomes clear who has the bigger fantasy to sell.

Then you didn't understand the evidence. Evolutionary theory has more evidence than is needed. Every time a new technology comes along that gives us another peak at biological systems in another way, it confirms evolutionary science again. The theory was already firmly entrenched by fossil data, biogeographic data such as Darwin's finches, ring species, and the marsupial niches of Australia, and comparative gross anatomy and embryology before the structure of DNA and the mechanism for heritable mutation was understood. Since then, we've added DNA sequencing capabilities. Nested hierarchies and molecular clocks also point at evolution.

And speciation events have occurred in human history: Sex, speciation, and fishy physics

Sorry, but the theory is here to stay. It has no competition. Only creationists find it objectionable, and they do so on religious grounds, which means based on faith. That's all well and good if that's the way you want to think, but your thinking won't be of much value or interest to those that consider faith a logical error.

But that shouldn't be of any concern to you. You are free to believe what you like and nobody minds that you don't accept evolutionary science. Nobody but you could possibly benefit if you did. And you can't convince a critical thinker to join you. That can only be done through faith, and many of us simply don't find any merit in that kind of thinking. Faith cannot possibly be a path to truth if you can believe anything or its polar opposite by faith.

So there is nothing for you to be arguing about. Enjoy your creationist worldview. The rational skeptic isn't coming with you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

IOW.....''we worship science because as far as evidence is concerned, our interpretation of it MUST be right....because we said so".

Atheists don't worship.

Besides, you're quoting yourself. Nobody speaks like that but creationists making straw men arguments. We accept the science because it works. The method that gave us space travel, telecommunications, and the polio vaccine also gave us evolutionary theory, and it works, too.

It gives us an elegant mechanism for evolution, is falsifiable but has never been falsified, makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature that have been confirmed without violation, and has been put to work in a number of fields including agriculture and medicine.

Why would we toss that out?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Intelligent Design doesn't have that problem.

Intelligent design doesn't have any problems apart from having been declared pseudoscience and banished from American public schools, having no theory, not being falsifiable, having never produced any useful research findings, the leak of the Wedge document and the fact that ID is a religious and social movement rather than a scientific program, and having so many of its prominent figures tarnished already (Behe, Dembski, and Sternberg).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This world is running out of time for fence sitters to make up their minds.....so any help we can offer the undecided is our God-given duty. Exposing an inconvenient truth can create hostility, as we see on these threads.

If there is no Creator, then our existence on this planet is meaningless and we have no hope for the future, except what man can provide....and none of that fills anyone with hope, given his pathetic track record. If that empty picture appeals to you then you are welcome to it. I have higher hopes that the Creator will do all that he said he will.

The future that is set out in scripture is not all about heaven...it is about planet earth and all living things upon it. It was created for a purpose and so were we. We are at present proving our worthiness to become permanent citizens of this earth with God as its only ruler. Humans have proven that they are useless at governing themselves and in taking care of this planet, its eco-systems and its creatures. An eviction notice has been served on corrupt and greedy humans....but its not too late.....yet.

That's a very bleak world view. It doesn't appeal to me. If I could choose to believe anything I wanted by faith, why believe that? For example, you say that, "If there is no Creator, then our existence on this planet is meaningless." That evidence of what this bleak ideology has done to your thinking and experience of life on earth. You are saying that the only meaning of which you are aware is to earn a spot praising a god for eternity. Sorry, but that seems like a meaningless existence to me. And I find life deeply meaningful without that thought - apparently more so than you do.

If I needed more help with my personal philosophy, I would go to something upbeat.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Then you didn't understand the evidence. Evolutionary theory has more evidence than is needed. Every time a new technology comes along that gives us another peak at biological systems in another way, it confirms evolutionary science again. The theory was already firmly entrenched by fossil data, biogeographic data such as Darwin's finches, ring species, and the marsupial niches of Australia, and comparative gross anatomy and embryology before the structure of DNA and the mechanism for heritable mutation was understood. Since then, we've added DNA sequencing capabilities. Nested hierarchies and molecular clocks also point at evolution.

And speciation events have occurred in human history: Sex, speciation, and fishy physics

Sorry, but the theory is here to stay. It has no competition. Only creationists find it objectionable, and they do so on religious grounds, which means based on faith. That's all well and good if that's the way you want to think, but your thinking won't be of much value or interest to those that consider faith a logical error.

But that shouldn't be of any concern to you. You are free to believe what you like and nobody minds that you don't accept evolutionary science. Nobody but you could possibly benefit if you did. And you can't convince a critical thinker to join you. That can only be done through faith, and many of us simply don't find any merit in that kind of thinking. Faith cannot possibly be a path to truth if you can believe anything or its polar opposite by faith.

So there is nothing for you to be arguing about. Enjoy your creationist worldview. The rational skeptic isn't coming with you.

I love to say this truthful statement to an abrasive atheist etc; THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT A FACT. Lol! Yes evolution has made some truthful and verifiable predictions etc. But taken as a whole it's remains theory. As I have said in this thread and elsewhere I even as a Christian and ordained minister take most of evolution as truth. That said, I would like to see more evidence for some claims of evolution such as cross-species changes. There is little evidence for CSC. : {>

 

[capumetu]

Simply put in recorded history there have been no changes in apes. They have not developed language, nor build houses, they are still simply apes. What distinguishes man from every other live being? Gen 1:26 Have a nice day.

capumetu @yours.com

no space after u

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science has its place and we can benefit from its achievements, but when it comes to suggestions about how life began, scientists are at a complete loss.

No, science is not at a complete loss accounting for the origin of life. They are presently trying to build a virtual chain connecting the chemical elements and molecules present on the early prebiotic earth with the first replicator, so called chemical evolution (or abiogenesis or biopoiesis). Several links and strands of links have been assembled, but the connections are not complete.

.instead they would rather argue about how living things changed and adapted, embellishing what they can prove to cover what they can't.

You seem to feel a need to mischaracterize science. Do you think scientists mischaracteize creationism? Why would they? Why would they even comment on it?

Science isn't arguing with you. It's having discussions within its own community as it confronts and solves new problems. Those working on biological evolution are not the ones working on chemical evolution, and I doubt the two groups have much interaction.

Incidentally, arguments based on what we don't know yet (god of the gaps arguments, or arguments from ignorance) are not valid arguments against evolutionary theory. How could they be? Once, we knew nothing on the subject. Evolutionary science would have been as correct then as now, we just didn't know it yet. Evolution was just waiting to be discovered.

 

[Thumper]

I love to say this truthful statement to an abrasive atheist etc; THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT A FACT. Lol! Yes evolution has made some truthful and verifiable predictions etc. But taken as a whole it's remains theory. As I have said in this thread and elsewhere I even as a Christian and ordained minister take most of evolution as truth. That said, I would like to see more evidence for some claims of evolution such as cross-species changes. There is little evidence for CSC. : {>

Actually, it's both theory and fact ...

That life on this planet changes over generations is a undeniable fact. We see it in the fossil record and we see it in the laboratories. We see it in the extinction levels of life that has come before man. Life changes and we refer to this generational change as evolution. Period.

Given that we know these changes occur, biologist then ask what natural mechanisms drive these changes. This set of mechanisms we've been able to derive are collectively referred to as the Theory of Evolution. In science, a theory never, ever rises to another level of distinction. A theory is always a theory. And typically, a theory is always subject to revision as we learn more about the field of endeavor being studied.

To address your last question about "cross-species" stuff. You should understand that the concept of "species" is a human created term to separate life into categories for study, nothing more. And there are numerous plants and animals that don't fit neatly into our taxonomy breakdowns - the platypus comes immediately to mind.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I love to say this truthful statement to an abrasive atheist etc; THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT A FACT. Lol! Yes evolution has made some truthful and verifiable predictions etc. But taken as a whole it's remains theory.

Did you consider me an abrasive atheist? I have tried to be respectful and remain dispassionate. Perhaps you didn't like my treatment of "faith."

It is a commonplace to read that evolution is both a fact and a theory. The facts are those things that have been observed, including speciation events. We know that evolution occurs.

The theory unifies the observations, offers a mechanism for them, and offers some predictions.

Here's a nice example. Evolutionary theory predicted that we should find transitional fossils connecting a last common ancestor with the chimp-bonobo line to man (and another connecting that ancestor to the chimps). Then they were found. The theory unifies the series of radiodated hominin fossil series including older forms more like the smaller brained, robust, nut eating, brachiating apes through more intermediate forms such as Lucy (bipedal but small brained and robust) to more modern and more nearly human forms such as Java man (large brained, omnivorous, could sail).

Incidentally, theory is the highest level of scientific understanding, higher than observation (fact), and higher than scientific law. Theory is the ultimate in science.

As I have said in this thread and elsewhere I even as a Christian and ordained minister take most of evolution as truth. That said, I would like to see more evidence for some claims of evolution such as cross-species changes. There is little evidence for CSC. : {>

Is cross-species change the same as speciation? The evidence for speciation is easy to find on the Internet.

So you accept evolutionary theory? Would you call your beliefs Darwinian evolutionary theory?

You used the word "most." What parts of the scientific theory do you reject and why?

 

[LuisDantas]

You make a mistake in assuming that all who reject evolution are creationists.

Is that so? Who else would be left?

Creation science is an evangelical thing. I am not evangelical, nor do I subscribe o ll of their ideas, like a young earth.

"Old-Earth" Creationism is not really much better, even when it is called Intelligent Design.

By any name, all of those are variations on a theme of superstition-based denial of scientific knowledge. Hardly a defensable stance in a society that relies ever more on science to make the survival and confort of its growing, greedy population possible.

But anyway, you act really smug, as if you and those who think like you, are so bored with proponents of creation.

We should be. It has been literally over a century of arrogant, obscurantist posturing of denial attempting to present itself as informed and virtuous.

As an idea, Creationism (ill named as it is) is just not at all respectable. Whatever attention and respect it receives is justifiable only by virtue of the involvement of actual human beings with it.

Like you are all so intellectually superior. Well some of us are bored with the things evolutionists keep saying.

Trust me, we are bored sick of having to repeat them as well. We keep finding new evidence, but there is no willingness to listen to fact nor reason among so-called Creationists.

There are good rebuttals for your arguments.

That sounds most unlikely.

At the very least, I don't think I have ever met any of those, despite a lot of promises. All that I met was a sorry display of ignorance and misguided pride.

It actually hurts the image of theism considerably. To say nothing of its intellectual integrity.

 

[shmogie]

I see that you are excellent at being a troll. I find most people who think they know something about evolution don't. They have no idea how far fetched the actual findings are not having gone through drawers of very little with very big conclusions. And of course there is this convenient little thing with evolution where origin of life is really not part of the study so why people like you think you have anything to offer those who believe in a creation and then talk about evolution makes little sense.

I don't know what the creationists believe. I don't think either should be taught in schools as its a waste of time when students could be learning more defined and useful science such as math, chemistry and physics. Evolution theory is like reality TV and its ridiculous the emphasis on it.

I just love the mindset. Lets see, I am a "troll". Since, in your view, I THINK I know something about evolution, when I don't. Then of course there is the convenient little thing with evolution where the study of the origin of life is really not part of the study. Then of course there is the "people like you" that is a good one, a paraphrase of " you people", designed always to get a rise. Macro evolutionists ALWAYS avoid the creation of life, even though their theory is rigidly linked to it. 90% or more of macro evolutionists accept it, and while giving lip service to isolating it, inherently MUST consider it the first step in their process, because they preclude any other possibility. the bifurcation of the two is required for the alleged integrity of evolution, because the critical first step, that most accept, scientifically, is a fairy tale. So, hence the aspersions and avoidance of abiogenesis. Which is amusing, for without the first the second wouldn't exist. Now do I think I have "anything to offer " evolutionists. Well, if one can tear them away from their discipline, and compel them to look at theories of probability and chance, hard numbers about the production of mutations, they being sustained in a given population in time, and a variety of other very, very serious flaws in the theory related to probability, they might, just might, get an inkling of something being wrong. Of course, there is the application of logic, actually a process designed within the primary confines of theology, adopted by evolutionists, and of course, manipulated by them for their own purposes. You once again display one of the most common traits of macro evolutionists, the " I know more than you, thus, what you might say is beneath me" syndrome. Keep saying it if it makes you feel better. BUT, your saying it doesn't make it true.

 

[Thumper]

I just love the mindset. Lets see, I am a "troll". Since, in your view, I THINK I know something about evolution, when I don't. Then of course there is the convenient little thing with evolution where the study of the origin of life is really not part of the study. Then of course there is the "people like you" that is a good one, a paraphrase of " you people", designed always to get a rise. Macro evolutionists ALWAYS avoid the creation of life, even though their theory is rigidly linked to it. 90% or more of macro evolutionists accept it, and while giving lip service to isolating it, inherently MUST consider it the first step in their process, because they preclude any other possibility. the bifurcation of the two is required for the alleged integrity of evolution, because the critical first step, that most accept, scientifically, is a fairy tale. So, hence the aspersions and avoidance of abiogenesis. Which is amusing, for without the first the second wouldn't exist. Now do I think I have "anything to offer " evolutionists. Well, if one can tear them away from their discipline, and compel them to look at theories of probability and chance, hard numbers about the production of mutations, they being sustained in a given population in time, and a variety of other very, very serious flaws in the theory related to probability, they might, just might, get an inkling of something being wrong. Of course, there is the application of logic, actually a process designed within the primary confines of theology, adopted by evolutionists, and of course, manipulated by them for their own purposes. You once again display one of the most common traits of macro evolutionists, the " I know more than you, thus, what you might say is beneath me" syndrome. Keep saying it if it makes you feel better. BUT, your saying it doesn't make it true.

Well you certainly rant like a troll. But that could just be your lack of enough time to be more eloquent.

A few points I would make from what I can glean from your argument.

First off, the theory of evolution is a biological construct that studies the mechanisms of change within biology. When you discuss biogenesis (origins of life), you are talking about biochemistry.

Biology and biochemistry are related disciplines, but they are decidedly not the same thing.

The second point I would make is your usage of the term "macro-evolution." It sound like you think macro-evolution is something more than a collection of micro-evolutionary changes. You might also need to consider here that our taxonomy breakdown is a human construct for convenience in studying biology. So the lines between taxonomy groups are not as clean as you seem to think.

I would also note that biological evolution is not really "random." It is dependent on ability to survive within the environment. In some cases this means increased complexity, and is some it means less complexity. And in most cases, it means that a particular line will become extinct.

Do you have anything to offer biologists? Well, we have been studying biological evolution for over 150 years now. This study has involved scientist throughout the entire world in numerous disciplines of Earth sciences. Thus far it has proven resilient and has never even once be shown to be wrong (although many have tried as this would be an automatic Nobel).

Our current understanding of how biology works serves us well in human healthcare, crop production, animal husbandry, ecology, etc. So whatever you want to add must improve our abilities in one or more of these areas in some way, or your input is meaningless.

So, what have you got?