Difference between Macro and Micro, GIVE IT!

Man of Faith said:

Again, never been observed and speculation.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "never been observed"? Do you mean you personally haven't seen it? If so, I trust that you also discount the existence of Antarctica and Babe Ruth.

If you mean something more like "the evidence doesn't support the conclusion", then you're just wrong.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

What do you mean by "never been observed"? Do you mean you personally haven't seen it? If so, I trust that you also discount the existence of Antarctica and Babe Ruth.

If you mean something more like "the evidence doesn't support the conclusion", then you're just wrong.

Click to expand...

Nobody has observed it.

Man of Faith said:

Micro-evolution is what we observe, for example dogs, we can trace back the evolution of dogs, but they are still four legged panting slobbering tail wagging dogs. Trace them back to wolves or whatever they came from but they are still four legged panting slobbering tail wagging animals. Trace them all the way back to Noah's Ark if you want to but they will still be four legged panting slobbering tail wagging animals. Noah only needed two dogs on the Ark. Trace them back to creation and they will still be four legged panting slobbering tail wagging animals.

Macro-evolution is not observed and never has been observed. A dog has never been anything other than a four legged panting slobbering tail wagging animal. We can speculate which scientists are prone to do that they used to be something else, or came from something else but it has never been observed. We can draw pictuers, lines, put different fossils beside a dog that are similar to dogs, show that dogs DNA are similar to other animals, etc... but that is all speculation.

Click to expand...

Using this kind of logic would you not also have to conclude that humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans etc are all the same “kind”? If not, why not? That is what we need to get from a definition of the word “kind”? Why do you decide to group certain species together and call them “kind” and not group other species together?

Man of Faith said:

Nobody has observed it.

Click to expand...

Is God "nobody"?

Man of Faith said:

Nobody has observed it.

Click to expand...

This.........this is just priceless.

Man of Faith said:

I will indeed be forced to apologize because although I am well versed on the subject, I am not a scientist so I won't be able to give all the detailed information that you are looking for. If my posts seem simple it is because I am a simple man, a man of faith. I am not ashamed of that, everybody has their place in this world. If everybody was a scientist who would serve them food and bring their mail?

One of the misconceptions of scientists that are attempting to prop up evolution is saying that look alike creations must have came from each other. That is because they already have a prior believe that all animals came from a common ancestor.

Click to expand...

I am not demanding to much from you in this case Man of Faith. You have claimed that there is only "kinds" of animals, I need to know what this "kind" is to be able to have some sort of understanding of what you mean, how can we talk about something if your definition of kind is not the same as mine, Agree? I want you to give Yours so we can debate this as you deny the facts of Evolution and this may help you understanding the fact of it, I hope.

Is "kind" the same as Species? Should I use "species" as the definition of "kind"?

Also, you talk about that you do not "observe" Evolution, how do you mean by that? That you do not see it? Could you go into detail about this, as I do not really understand how you mean, you seem to say that Evolution happens (but you call it "micro" Evolution) and you do not "see" Macro Evolution, which you shouldn't be able to as that is not how Evolution works, there is no magic jump between two species, they gradually change and the animal they are is the species, We looking at it from outside this timeframe.

So we seem to be at a point where it is clear that you do not know what Evolution is. But I know you claim to know what Evolution is, so how am I suppose to talk to a person claiming he knows what Evolution is at the same time as he shows he have no idea what it is? You see my dilemma?

A "kind" is a category of animal that a five year old recognizes, such as the horsey kind, birdie kind, fishy kind and buggy kind.

Man of Faith said:

Micro-evolution is what we observe, for example dogs, we can trace back the evolution of dogs, but they are still four legged panting slobbering tail wagging dogs. Trace them back to wolves or whatever they came from but they are still four legged panting slobbering tail wagging animals. Trace them all the way back to Noah's Ark if you want to but they will still be four legged panting slobbering tail wagging animals. Noah only needed two dogs on the Ark. Trace them back to creation and they will still be four legged panting slobbering tail wagging animals.

Click to expand...

What'd I tell ya? The doggy kind!

Macro-evolution is not observed and never has been observed. A dog has never been anything other than a four legged panting slobbering tail wagging animal. We can speculate which scientists are prone to do that they used to be something else, or came from something else but it has never been observed. We can draw pictuers, lines, put different fossils beside a dog that are similar to dogs, show that dogs DNA are similar to other animals, etc... but that is all speculation.

Click to expand...

Or what the rest of us call, "science." MoF repudiates the very possibility of scientific knowledge, and of science itself. Roman Empire? Sheer speculation. Atoms? Bah--can't see 'em. And distant galaxies? Horse-pucky. MoF only believes what he sees. There is a name for this philosophy. It's called Zeteticism, and this is what it leads to.

Man of Faith said:

One of the misconceptions of scientists that are attempting to prop up evolution is saying that look alike creations must have came from each other. That is because they already have a prior believe that all animals came from a common ancestor.

Click to expand...

This is a flat out, unvarnished, lie. It's slander. And it reveals how much MoF hates science.

So, MoF, when you're sick, do you go to a doctor, or do you rely on prayer?

Autodidact said:

There is a name for this philosophy. It's called Zeteticism, and this is what it leads to.

Click to expand...

Well my dear Lady (Autodidact that is.. If you got confused), maybe he is right?

Lets have a quick look at the facts, the Holy Bible inspired by God says the world is a Flat Disc, and does it not look like a Flat Disc? Who says its not? Well, Scientist, and what do they know? They can not see it, they have what they call satelites, but these send IMAGINARY images back to earth, these are mere conjecures, the computers "think" it sees a "spherical globe", this is not Observe, this is Fiction.

Yes Yes, then we have the "Astronauts" (Cosmonauts for our Russians here) who claims to "Seen" the world to be "spherical", but seriously, imagine a guy jumping in a ship and get flown OUT TO SPACE, alot of g-force, and clearly his senses are not 100% as well as we are suppose to take his "word" for it, no, MoF did not see the world to be spherica, so therefore it is a flat Disc, just as the Bible says.

How dare you question Autodidact, what right do you have.....

LittleNipper said:

After the FLOOD, these kinds began to express their variations once again, so that over 6 thousand years or so, we have multiple examples of frogs, cats, dogs, cattle, sheep, elephants, beetles, flies, etc... I have no problem accepting this line of reasoning in light of the Biblical Epic.

Click to expand...

Ah, beetles again! It always makes me chuckle when a creationist who will fight to the death against the idea of cats and dogs having a common ancestor will quite complacently allow tiger beetles and weevils - far, far more different in anatomy, physiology and behaviour than cats are from dogs - to have evolved from some vague 'beetle kind' in no time at all.

Man of Faith said:

I thought I already addressed this when I said that look alikes, like dogs and cats doesn't mean they are the same or came from a common ancestor. Same thing with apes and man, we look alike but that doesn't mean we are the same creatures.

Click to expand...

Errrr...yes it does. Not only does the fossil record back it up, the DNA Evidence does too. You accuse us of having a pre-conceived notion of common ancestor, but you have the pre-conceived notion that Goddidit, so don't look an further into it.

Whereas we have proof of our notion, you have none, nothing but faith, which i am sure you know doesn't make it true, no matter how much you want it to be.

You're an Ape, get over it.

LittleNipper said:

What it all comes down to is that "species" is a modern term that suggests specialization. Kind is a broader type that has a range of manifestations. Honestly speaking; dogs, wolfs, foxes, wild dogs are likely all related in kind. That kind possessed a potential range that GOD foreordained. Kinds have a potential of change within limitations.

As a Christian, I do imagine that GOD created specific kinds. These kinds began to vary. The FLOOD happened. A select sampling of the kinds was chosen by GOD to be saved on the ark. After the FLOOD, these kinds began to express their variations once again, so that over 6 thousand years or so, we have multiple examples of frogs, cats, dogs, cattle, sheep, elephants, beetles, flies, etc... I have no problem accepting this line of reasoning in light of the Biblical Epic.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, neither geological evidence nor the fossil record support this speculation. There is no fossil record of animals migrating from the Ark to other continents.

LittleNipper said:

What it all comes down to is that "species" is a modern term that suggests specialization. Kind is a broader type that has a range of manifestations. Honestly speaking; dogs, wolfs, foxes, wild dogs are likely all related in kind. That kind possessed a potential range that GOD foreordained. Kinds have a potential of change within limitations.

As a Christian, I do imagine that GOD created specific kinds. These kinds began to vary. The FLOOD happened. A select sampling of the kinds was chosen by GOD to be saved on the ark. After the FLOOD, these kinds began to express their variations once again, so that over 6 thousand years or so, we have multiple examples of frogs, cats, dogs, cattle, sheep, elephants, beetles, flies, etc... I have no problem accepting this line of reasoning in light of the Biblical Epic.

Click to expand...

But what you 'believe' does not make it true, you need to provide evidence for your claim else there is no difference between you or some guy claiming that the world is flat because he sees no evidence a nd have faith its true.

Also, you seem to believe in some sort of Super Evolution, 6000 years and all the species we have.. Wowiee.... This is a problem I have with creationist, they have so little understanding of how small and insignificant they are, they think 6000 years is a long time and that their belief is true because they say so and then they go against scientific facts and knowledge and say it is impossible, it is just mindboggling.