Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[The Reality Salesman01]

---

There you go: you start out by not talking about evolution, and then pretending the things you haven't said about evolution are somehow a problem. But I'll humor you: can you find me a single mainstream, up to date definition of evolution that even has the word "kind" in it?

Species that's what scientist used to divide up the kinds, so they could try and make evolution seem valid, Christians are not fooled by those little tricks.

You have made an error in your thinking Esq, I myself breed show dogs and show them in AKC and Sieger (German style shows). We breed to improve traits not to change them, that is exactly what show breeding is about, if you doubt what I say look up the reasons AKC sets for keeping the dogs ta o a standard, you do know what standard means in the world of the show ring correct. I've just breed my Champion Male and Champion Female Rottweilers because of their shared and unshared ancestors. In doing so I hope to have pups born that will be closer to the breed standard.

And at no point do you stop to think that retention of desirable traits and the elimination of undesirable ones is exactly how natural selection works upon a breeding population? Or where those traits came from? I mean, many of them, up to and including the existence of Rottweilers themselves didn't exist at one point, and came into being gradually through mutation and selective breeding. Just saying that you currently breed to retain traits doesn't change the fact that at some point, those traits arose via mutation.

Natural selection isn't what we're arguing, Christian scientist do not dispute natural selection and natural selection has never turned a dog into a frog. Any animal that can naturally breed to another is of a kind, if you must have it that way. No changes to another kind has ever been seen nor proven and will never be. So all you've ever seen in dog breeding is the same kind being born. Mutations haven't change the canine into anything other than different looking canines, and if it wasn't for a superior mind this would have never come about, there was no need until man stepped in. So, in actuality natural selection never took place with the canine, it was human selection. You're barking up the wrong tree on this.

I do not need to bray, you've shown you do not understand show breeding and it's opposite of your evolution theory. However the dogs your parents breed are still dogs and until they become something other than dogs you you haven't observed evolution.

GC

So... do you actually think that repeating back to me my own example of a factually incorrect talking point I've predicted you might make actually counts as an argument? Because that's... that's just breathtaking.

But please, do find me a mainstream, up to date definition of evolution that mentions dogs siring children that aren't dogs, or any animal doing that, if you can.

There is none, that's why we can safely say evolution is just an imagined, made-up thing written into books to fool people into believing the supposed superior thinking of those who have deluded themselves into believing in something that has no proof of existence. You're trying to deflect what I've said because you used a simply asinine example.

GC

---

GC, do look up the difference between Micro evolution and Micro evolution. Do you know how vaccines work? You can't seriously be this intellectually sealed away. Surely there's something youd be willing to learn about besides Mythological Apologetics...

Micro-evolution- an invention of the evolutionary scientist once they couldn't defend against creation scientist tearing apart macro-evolution. Actually there wasn't any macro-evolution, it was called evolution only. When evolutionary scientist couldn't defend such great changes coming all at once, the terms micro and macro were placed in front of evolution. Christian scientist have always accepted natural selection, evolutionary scientist needed to call it micro-evolution.

GC

---