It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by sirnex
Anyways, I started learning everything I could about not only science, but also about religion. Turns out both are pretty similar in their belief structures and inner workings. Both expound a 'truth' and both have faulty logic and misunderstandings to back up that 'truth'. Both forms of belief also 'evolve' in a sense in what they believe. Religious thoughts have changed many times in the thousands of years it's been recorded, so has scientific reasoning's.
I believe the use of the term micro-evolution by evolutionists is misleading and deceptive because it has nothing to do with macro-evolution or abiogenesis, nor does it prove them.
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by John Matrix
And yet, you disregard that some religious authorities are trying to reconcile evolution with the genesis account of creation. Trying to show that evolutionary theory can and does fit in with the biblical accounts.
One question before I answer the rest of the post. Do you take the bible literally, word for word as the infallible word of god?
Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by John Matrix
I believe the use of the term micro-evolution by evolutionists is misleading and deceptive because it has nothing to do with macro-evolution or abiogenesis, nor does it prove them.
They don't and haven't done for a long time. You saying that they do when they don't is misleading.
Originally posted by sirnex
Stop and ask yourself why your receiving observations of your character and intelligence. You argue with dead terminology and argue with hypocritical statements, and yet you seriously wonder why I ask you to argue with more maturity and intelligence. It's been pointed out that your arguments are born of disused terms and thoughts, yet you continue with that line of thought.
Some religious authorities try to avoid controversy by attempting to reconcile a lot of things, it doesn't mean they are correct. Jesus never backed away from conroversy....he confronted people with the scriptures, confronted people by pointing out their own sins, confronted people with the truth.... and in all this he caused controversy!
Originally posted by Welfhard
Well firstly I don't need to because my understanding of evolutionary theory has nothing to with the fact that macro and micro-evolution are not scientific terms because they are one and the same but on different scales.
Micro-evolution is to macro-evolution what metres are to kilometres.
The accusations fall apart with a little research. www.darwinismrefuted.com...
Evolutionists made up the term microevolution or micro-evolution themselves.
The consensus of the scientific community is that the alleged micro-macro division is an artificial construct made by creationists and does not accurately reflect the actual processes of evolution. Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence, while controversial with the public at large, is not disputed within the scientific community.
Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by John Matrix
Some religious authorities try to avoid controversy by attempting to reconcile a lot of things, it doesn't mean they are correct. Jesus never backed away from controversy....he confronted people with the scriptures, confronted people by pointing out their own sins, confronted people with the truth.... and in all this he caused controversy!
Did he? Did he really? I've yet to see any evidence the man existed. I do not take things on faith like you do.
Ok. Variation within species, and adaptative responses are observable and proven as fact.
These variations and adaptive responses are the result of the DNA application.
How does any of this support the theory of evolution?
Originally posted by Welfhard
Lol. Yes because we all know how impartial creationist websites are.
Wiki says...
The consensus of the scientific community is that the alleged micro-macro division is an artificial construct made by creationists and does not accurately reflect the actual processes of evolution. Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence, while controversial with the public at large, is not disputed within the scientific community.
And goes on to cite talkorigins which is a compendium of science's responses to creationist claims. Citation 1, 2 and 3
If you are seeking a definition and evidence with which to argue then I suggest looking into talkorigins simply because 99% of all creationists claims here and on other websites can be refuted by simple copy and pasting from Talkorigins.
Originally posted by Eight
Now stop accusing creationists for coming up with these terms, and stop accusing me...OK?