The Great Brain spews the typical line of reasoning we hear from from die-hard naturalists:
>Of course. Macro-evolution is equivalent to speciation.
Who has made this assertion and is it accepted and proven theory? Wjo accepts this assertion?
>We know of a number of examples of fairly recent speciation. For example, when the Americas were first colonized by Europeans, a species of fruit fly that in Europe colonized only the fruit of the mulberry tree came along for the ride. Eventually it split into two separate, non-interbreeding and non-interacting species -- one that continued to colonize mulberry trees and another that colonized only apple trees.
Isn't this 'speciation' actually a 'speculation'? How do you know it was not a native American fruit fly? LOL
>In the Hawaiian islands, in a few million years, fruit flies have diversified from one or a few founding species into more than 800 species that are found nowhere else in the world.
What???? Who was around to document this? LOL. Is this another 'proof' or more 'speculation on speciation'? "In a few million years' is the best you can do? Good thing we have 'talk origins'! LOL
>In various large African lakes like Lake Victoria, cichlid fishes have diversified from a few founding species to many hundreds in the various lakes in a few million years.
Again, in a 'few million years'. Wow, it looks like 'scientists', like you have more problems with numbers than the Hebrews did! Man, this is so unbelievable. Evolutionists pin all of their hopes and speculation on 'millions and billions of years'. How did these fishes originate in the first place? Oh, I forgot, they just appeared in some great leap of evolution all of a sudden but 'millions' of years ago. How convenient! LOL
How about that fish that shoots down flies for 20% food supply when it can get all it needs from bugs in the water it lives in? It can accurately aim, despite the refraction of light between water and air! How did 'evolutionary pressure' cause that?
>Now, of course, I know that what you really mean is, "has any scientist actually observed macro-evolution in a laboratory?" And of course, the answer is No, because what some people term "macro-evolution" doesn't act that fast.
Point, MATCH, set. Here is the BOTTOM LINE FOR NATURALISTS WHO HAVE FAITH IN EVOLUTION!
>But the fact that it's observed in the far larger laboratory of nature proves that evolution does occur. And that the distinction between "micro" and "macro" is an artificial one that in reality does not exist.
Right, it happens, we can't prove it, we can assert it, we can't measure it, we can't observe it, it just happens. Just believe us because we are scientists and we alone can interpret the facts of origins. No one else can do so unless they go by our presuppositions! That sounds like the Watchtower Society!!!
Bottome line: Again: No, it cannot be observed. Many of the most critical of the naturalist's assertions are nothing more than speculations. Naturalism takes more FAITH to believe in than Christianity.
Have a nice day, 'scholars'.
Rex
The Bottom Line: naturalism depends on speculation and FAITH.
by Shining One 4 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Shining One
-
kid-A
did you forget your antipsychotic medication again? stop wasting our time you uneducated half-wit. Evolution is a fact, and if you had a functioning cortex you would be able to grasp this reality.
-
Daunt
It's quite sad actually. I wonder how many things we've done that he's put into his head to make this forceful of a declaration about it. I would rebut it, and it's quite easy to, but frankly seeing your track record, it would be much like spinning in circles on one of those rotating office chairs.
-
tetrapod.sapien
Point, MATCH, set.
HA HA! playing against ourselves again are we rex?
DING DONG!
-
Daunt
It's funny how folks just totally ignored this post unless they were pointing fun at it.