Evolution and Religion

[Anonymouse]

Mousy, I'm glad that you clarified what you meant. It would just be nice if you would admit that you posted the wrong thing initially. Heck, you probably do that a lot. Maybe what you mean to say is actually correct, but you just state it wrong. The same with the way you initially tried to say that speciation had never been observed. It's hard to argue with you when every time you are shown to be wrong, you turn around and say that you really meant something else. I would appreciate it if you would do a better job of proofreading your posts in order to make sure that you are saying what you mean to say the first time, so that we needn't go through this drawn-out clarification process.

Why would someone admit they were wrong, when it was initially you that totally misunderstood what you're talking about. I clearly made sure what I was talking about, perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you to understand. If you are going to nitpick every sentence in terms of clarity we might as well talk about the semantic ramifications of every sentence in every thread, to see how precise we can get it at, since nothing is truly clarified until we honestly dive into it. With that said, I stand corrected unless you can show a discrepency between what I posted, and the link offered. Other than that, I have made many posts in other threads that have perhaps been not too clear, yet it's strangely funny that you do not nitpick those, but only this one. But perhaps it has something to do with the intimidation factor or the 'I can't stand Anonymouse' factor. I think the latter is my preferred explanation.

[loseyourname]

This was your first post to this thread:

While a case can be made for "microevolution", since I doubt you will find anyone who will dispute within species variation, I find it very hard to accept the "evidence" for "macroevolution", and for the establishment to prove their case on "macro evolution". It is only assumed that species eventually jump. Have you observed species making a jump to another species?

This is what you said after I posted confirmed speciation events:

Speciation events are nothing new. I already stated this but you didn't pay attention.

Is it safe to say you changed your tune?

[Anonymouse]

This was your first post to this thread:



This is what you said after I posted confirmed speciation events:



Is it safe to say you changed your tune?

You are mixing two fundamental concepts and this is what I referred to in how evolutionists make language elastic and pliable when referring to either "evolution" or "species". When a moth changes color, it is "evolution". When the finches of Darwin have changed beaks it is called "evolution", and these are a new "species". I have however in the past explained, in my other evolution thread, how this is misleading for it makes people believe that evolution is a single process. These are changes on a micro level, which means small. These changes go back and forth, in other words they are adaptational. A moth that changes color to one can change back to another. A moth is still a moth, just like a finch is still a finch, and just like a fruit fly is still a fruit fly. If you want to call those changes within that group as being "evolution" I have never denied that, in fact I would call anyone a fool who does. The only difference is I do not call it "evolution". As far as any of these organisms changing into something other than what they are, well, that is the realm of belief.

[loseyourname]

The only thing that evolution predicts are these small changes. You do realize that, right?

[Anonymouse]

The only thing that evolution predicts are these small changes. You do realize that, right?

Ha! That's funny. It's been changed so many times, you can define it anyway. Nice try, but don't pass.