There is no (macro) evolution

[Mark F]

Why are YOU unable to use any reasoning skills?
Probably because you don't have any.

Reasoning - even if possible - is not its plan. It is trolling for attention.

 

[Pin dÁr]

Why are YOU unable to use any reasoning skills? Probably because you don't have any.

The reasoning is this:

If there is evidence i will accept it, if there is no evidence I will reject it.

Difficult eh?!

 

[HonestJoe]

well, as far as I can see it is all only micro-evolution

What makes you imagine there needs to be distinct evidence for macro-evolution? If you’ve acknowledged the evidence of evolution there, you’re accepting that species can change over time. What would be the barrier to a sub-species changing to the extent that it wasn’t capable of interbreeding with other branches of the same species, essentially becoming a new species?

 

[Mark F]

The reasoning is this:

If there is evidence i will accept it, if there is no evidence I will reject it.

Difficult eh?!

Well that's not true.

 

[Pin dÁr]

There is soo much more...

“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]

 

[Pin dÁr]

en much more/

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

 

[Pin dÁr]

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

Even contrary to the 'reasoning' of the above person. So much for her 'reasoning"

 

[Pin dÁr]

It is all bollocks and ****e

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]

 

[Pin dÁr]

no evidence...again

“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]

 

[Pin dÁr]

lack of evidence.....again

“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupl�ne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

 

[Pin dÁr]

lack of evidence...again

The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

 

[Pin dÁr]

you really can't out-reason a lack of evidence!



unles you are mad.

 

[TheGoverness]

you really can't out-reason a lack of evidence!



unles you are mad.

I'm not surprised that you pulled all of those quotes completely out of context.

How disingenuous of you. Just as disingenuous as a Creationist.

But I expected nothing less from a CT like you.

 

[Pin dÁr]

I'm not surprised that you pulled all of those quotes completely out of context.

How disingenuous of you. Just like a Creationist.

out of context????????????????


lol

You mean it is too difficult and painfull to take them seriously!


You are a joke!

 

[TheGoverness]

out of context????????????????


lol

You mean it is too difficult and painfull to take them seriously!


You are a joke!

Yes, out of context. It's what CT's like you do all the time when providing "evidence" for all of your outlandish claims.

 

[Fishking]

There is no (macro) evolution, there was not, there is not and there never will be any macro evolution.

Yes, there is micro evolution.

Before we start, I am not a creationist.
People think you have to be a creationist to dismiss the extremely stupid macro-evolution theory.
That is how stupid people think.

Just looking at the missing facts! If there is no evidence to support the non-sense we have to do away with the non-sense.

But eh?! Let's face it. People are brainwashed with this nonsens at school.
So, the cognitive dissonance will run amok!

let's see.

Question: If you don't believe in macro evolution, and you are also not a creationist, how did we get all the species of life we have today?

 

[Deuce]

I never wrote something like that at all.

You said you rejected evolution when somebody asked you, personally, to supply evidence for it. You were unable to do so, so you decided it was false.

Why did your personal lack of evidence make you believe there was no evidence?

 

[TheGoverness]

You said you rejected evolution when somebody asked you, personally, to supply evidence for it. You were unable to do so, so you decided it was false.

Why did your personal lack of evidence make you believe there was no evidence?

Well, he rejected MACRO evolution. For some reason he can accept that small changes happen over small periods of time (microevolution), but he can't accept that larger changes happen over larger periods of time.

 

[Mark F]

Well, he rejected MACRO evolution. For some reason he can accept that small changes happen over small periods of time (microevolution), but he can't accept that larger changes happen over larger periods of time.

One would seem to naturally follow the other.

 

[TheGoverness]

One would seem to naturally follow the other.

Exactly. It's makes absolutely no sense to deny macroevolution but somehow accept microevolution.

I've seen this argument come from Creationists before, so I'm not a stranger to it.

 

[Deuce]

Exactly. It's makes absolutely no sense to deny macroevolution but somehow accept microevolution.

I've seen this argument come from Creationists before, so I'm not a stranger to it.

But today you are arguing with someone who isn't a Creationist, just someone who believes all the various species sprang into existence simultaneously in roughly their current form.

 

[Tim the plumber]

But today you are arguing with someone who isn't a Creationist, just someone who believes all the various species sprang into existence simultaneously in roughly their current form.

No, just somebody who believes that he can believe whatever he wants to and has no inclination to think that making stuff up should be regarded as lying.

Very much reminds me of my father.

 

[Quag]

The burden of proof of this is then now upon you.

If you think this is really true, then give some evidence........there is none

I suggest you go back and look at the links I posted. If you bothered you would perhaps understand

 

[Quag]

I have and I have.

Obviously not

 

[Pin dÁr]

Yes, out of context. It's what CT's like you do all the time when providing "evidence" for all of your outlandish claims.

Then show me and put them in context so you can prove they are out of context.

But wait...you can't.