One question for Christians

[Esquilax]

If you intend to argue against what scripture depicts, then you'll need to use scripture whether you believe in it or not, there is no other sources to go to unless you've been holding out on the world.

Oh no, there's one other source, though I'm not surprised you're unfamiliar with it.

It's called reality.

Seems you're reading other post than mine, I've given plenty of scriptural support for my argument. I do agree though God's divine plan rules the day every day all day long.

And then you've reinterpreted the words of the scripture so they agree with what you want them to say, without providing any evidence that yours is the correct interpretation.

Dude, I'm already familiar with theist operating procedure, you don't need to explain it!

Words from a big man, in the eyes of who?

Everyone who sees me, I'm quite tall.

I understand how evolution is suppose to work, thing is there is no truly reliable indication it ever has, there is no proof that it ever has happened. Yes I know there are changes within species, changes so they can adapt to their environment, not to become another specie. I've seen that in just four generations and I can assure you my great nephews are very much human beings.

Okay, I'm not going to be kind here, because now you're being fucking ignorant. It's become clear that you don't understand evolution at all, despite your assertions to the contrary. The thing is, your inability to understand simple concepts, and your preference for arguing against strawmen, does not mean that you're right. It's means you're ignorant.

Go and do some research. Look at what evolution actually is. What it actually means. Not what you think it means, but what scientists do. Then come back and argue like a rational adult.

See, this is what staggers me about evolution deniers like you: it's so very clear that you haven't done a single moment of study on the topic you think you're qualified enough to deny by fiat, to the point where you don't even know what it is, and yet you arrogantly strut around declaring that it doesn't exist. How can you possibly think you can deny this stuff, when you aren't even familiar with the basics? It could be one hundred percent correct or one hundred percent wrong, and right now you still have no rational basis for declaring it to be either.

You know you're not doing well when you could be absolutely right and still be an irrational bag of dicks.

Okay I'll agree wolves are of the canine specie, just as the domesticated dogs are a canine. Humans and apes are genetically similar, last I heard man and apes can't make mapes.

No, and nobody is asserting that they could, not even evolutionary biologists. Because man and ape are separate species, that happen to share a common ancestor. The "man don't come from no monkey!" canard is an old stalwart of the ill informed and the liar alike. I wonder which you are?

Only an idiot would believe they are anything other than canines, they all can interbreed and still only canines come out of the breeding, canine is a species period. There is no proof what you purpose is true, I nor the many people I know have ever seen this.

What I propose? Have you even paid attention to what I've proposed? Go back and look; I think you'll find that all along I've been saying that evolution never states that one animal would suddenly give birth to a different animal, but that the changes would be gradual and cumulative. The fact is, you agree with what evolution actually says, which is that all of those canine breeds are genetically similar yet still diverse, you're just... well, kind of dumb about this subject.

What I also like is that you're so bad at arguing evolution that you can't even argue against the arguments I, and the theory, are making. Only your own fallacious strawmen.

Have you had some kind of seizure?

Or do you actually think that three emoticons invalidates the actual proof I gave you a few pages back? Because it's still there, for anyone to see. Do you think that they'll read that, then come here and see what passes for a rebuttal from you, and then think you've come out ahead?

I do not have to lie about things that are unproven, there are no living organisms alive today that have evolved from another specie.

All living creatures evolved from another species. Your ignorance of the actual science at work here is not an argument, just another monument for your inability and unwillingness to learn anything that doesn't have a cross on the front of it.

You will not read the Bible passages that are relevant to the discussion and you dismiss it without ever considering it valid to the argument. So you are not one to point fingers.

There is no such thing as a relevant bible passage in a discussion of factual matters.

They are not evolved from a completely different specie. There is no proof of evolution. Except maybe in your deluded mind.

Seriously, go and study. This stuff is incredibly fascinating. Here, I'll even get you started.

Yep, keep changeing things because of the challenges from Christian and non Christian scientist.

Or, alternately, keep changing things to reflect additional information. Incidentally, would you mind linking to mainstream, peer reviewed papers from christian scientists that confirm these challenges to evolution? Or can't you, because those things don't exist?

Also, did you even look up the term macroevolution before you felt educated enough to post about it? Because I did; that's why I actually knew what I was talking about, and you did not.

When the deck is stacked, well it's easy to win.

What was the name of the christian scientist in the case who lost, GC? What was the argument that he proposed as a counter to evolution? Why did it lose out? Can you tell me what the case was about? Can you summarize the main ways which the deck was stacked in this case?

The first four questions I already know the answer to: I just thought it would be interesting to see if you had a passing familiarity with the case before you saw fit to comment on it, or if you would let your ignorance rule the day yet again. Of course, it's easy to look these things up before you post back, so I expect you'll have the answer then anyway, hence the last question. Perhaps the first four will inform you enough to actually argue back, though since you've been lying from top to bottom here, I wouldn't be surprised if what you came back with was a load of tripe.

Micro is nothing more than adaptation within a specie, the specie never changes. Macro has no proof whatsoever, only those who want to imagine some magic force has come along to make one specie from another.

Please, do look up what evolution actually entails. I know you won't admit you were wrong here, but I do hope you'll at least squirm a little in embarrassment right there in your chair before you continue your dishonest tirade.

Like mules. Or this+=

Did you look at the link before you decided it was wrong, GC?