Evolutionary Theory predicts almost nothing?

[FarWanderer]

I would not turn to evolutionary theory because it predicts almost nothing.

Rarely have I encountered a statement that strikes me as ridiculous as this. What in biology does evolutionary theory NOT predict?

[Bust Nak]

Thank you for proving my point...my "been there, done that" had nothing to do with "grabbing God by the collar"...you were demanding from me evidence for God...

Incorrect. I did not merely ask for evidence for God, I explicitly demanded that you present the Christian God as evidence. Which you later affirmed that you interpreted that demand as basically "grab God by the collar and drag him to my doorstep, so I can examine him."

This is "selective quoting" at its best.

I don't know why you think that could fly on an internet forum when people can simply click on my links and see the context of the quotes for themselves. I said directly observed instances of macroevolution is evidence of macroevolution and somehow you thought it would be a good idea to substitute macroevolution with God with your "the Christian God is evidence for the Christian God" claim. So go ahead and produce the Christian God for examination.

It has to be a fact, first.

Sure, that's moot since it is a fact that macro evolution is backed by empirical evidence.

I disagree.

Which would make you incorrect.

They have? Well, record it, show it to me

Been there, done that. I refer you again to the long term evolution experiment with e-coli; Darwin's finches and whatever examples others in this thread has brought up.

and I will become an evolutionist like you (4th time suggesting this).

And the corresponding 4th I point out that you won't despite your claim because you haven't.

You find problems with my posts, because my posts are against your religion (evolution).

Incorrect, I find problems with your post because your posts are against science, you have already been informed that I have no religion.

D: None of the above

Lets see how long that last.

All of that is irrelevant. A bird did not naturally come from a non-bird. Point blank, period.

Again, we are not taking about what you believe or don't believe here. Quit trying to steer the topic from science.

That is what the theory of evolution states, and that is what I demand adequate scientific evidence for...

Which you got plenty of.

so all of that other stuff is just a combination of splitting hairs and red herrings.

What you refer to splitting hairs and red herring is to do with whether you understand evolution or not. The distinction between "a reptile evolving into a bird" and "birds owe their origins to dinosaurs" is hugely important.

Ok, fine..I said I was wrong ':D'). I was wrong in stating "a reptile (as evolution states) evolved into a bird. Instead, I should have been saying "evolution states that a bird came from a non-bird", because that is what evolution states.

That's still wrong. You should have been saying "evolution states that birds (plural) came from non-birds (plural,)" because individuals do not evolve; a population of organisms evolves. Is that really that hard to get right? Use plural.

let me explicitly state: I do not believe a bird came from a non-bird, and I view all evidence presented as unviable and unscientific.

Again, not about what you believe or don't believe.

LOL empirical evidence.

The "none of the above" thing didn't last long...

Anyways, I don't see any OEP that the birds of today came from nonbirds of yesterday. That is what you see, but that aint what I see.

Are you doing this on purpose? You know full well we are not talking about yesterday. Why do you have to be like this?

I already stated why I reject the presented evidence...and you've yet to challenge my objections..

Of course I have, your objections revolve about what you personally believe or not believe; what you personally accepts and rejects, as opposed to what is backed by empirical evidence or not. As such your objections are invalid.

I reject it because it is both illogical and unscientific. It defies common sense and rational thinking, and it also lacks OEP.

How would you know that when you haven't heard what I was gonna say?

So therefore, I have good reasons to reject it..but hey, I am open minded...

Open minded people don't ask for an explanation with the purpose of rejecting it in advance.

and that is why I keep stressing that when you see the stuff happen..record it..show it to me..and I will be and evolutionist (5th time asking).

No, you won't.

Wolves and dogs are both canines. And I don't know any reasonable person that will deny a canine/canine occurrences ..because after all, canine/canine is supported by OEP.

Reptiles and birds are both vertebrates. And no reasonable person that will deny a vertebrates/vertebrates occurrences ..because after all, vertebrates/vertebrates is supported by OEP. Which leaves you out as not reasonable.

I do..I understand it, and I am leaving it.

You say that yet you are still using singular instead of plural forms, after I explained why the distinction is important.

Whether you want to call it populations or individuals...the concept is the same...the populations will all remain the same "kind"...and the individuals will all remain the same "kind." Anything beyond this is voodoo speculation.

So don't go beyond that. Evolution does not go beyond "kinds," recall if you will, I told you explicitly evolution says "dogs will always produce dogs."

And with that comes certain truth values and implications.

Right, so stick to those and not what you believe or don't believe.

Please pay more close attention to what I am implying. If certain animals eventually evolved feathers, wings, and began to fly...then what is stopping other animals (namely humans, on your view) from also evolving feathers, wings, and beginning to fly?

What is stopping it? Those same limitations that you are putting on humans, I am putting on animals, considering I don't believe that any animals evolved feathers/wings in the first place.

Which is why we keep telling you that you don't understand evolution. Those very same limitations that we put on humans, won't stop animals from evolving feathers/wings in the first place. Humans could potentially evolve into something like birds, but we would never ever, not in a billion years evolve into birds, that is the limit of evolution. See dolphins for a real life example of that principle: they have evolved into something like fishes, but not in a billion years would dolphins evolve into fishes. Pretty simple concept, no?

And you will get no argument there from the microevolutionist in me.

Evolution covers both macro and micro evolution. Macro evolution also says dogs will always produce dogs.

Just take your pick on any one of those videos...

Sure looks like OEP to me LOL.

I take it that means you haven't see it in real life or in real time? And that you are happy with going along with empirical evidence?

Wait a minute, you had just said that evolution states that birds came from nonbirds...so how, all of a sudden, is me asking you the above question all of a sudden rendered to a "evolution does not say that" response?

Again, pay more attention to what is being said. Note the difference between "birds caming from non-birds" and "a non-bird producing a bird."

So are you saying that these "non-birds" that are the origin of birds..are you saying that they had beaks, feathers, and wings?

Kinda. But that wasn't what I was getting at, I am trying to train you to use the plural form consistently first.

Directly observed? Record it, etc. (6th time).

Been there done that, (6th time.)

Because I don't believe those were you true feelings, is what I was trying to say.

All the more reason to keep it to yourself. Some nerve you have commenting on what my true feelings are.

What is keeping you from accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior?

Lack of empirical evidence. I will become a theist as soon as someone can present a god for examination. I will become a Christian as soon as someone can grab the Biblical God by the collar and drag him to my doorstep.

Bottom line; Accept Christ and join the winning team. Reject Christ and..

I am currently happy with just being on the winning team on Earthy matters.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Thank you for proving my point...my "been there, done that" had nothing to do with "grabbing God by the collar"...you were demanding from me evidence for God...

Incorrect. I did not merely ask for evidence for God, I explicitly demanded that you present the Christian God as evidence. Which you later affirmed that you interpreted that demand as basically "grab God by the collar and drag him to my doorstep, so I can examine him."

Um, there is nothing in either of tho ... 9]Bust Nak"]
I don't know why you think that could fly on an internet forum when people can simply click on my links and see the context of the quotes for themselves. I said directly observed instances of macroevolution is evidence of macroevolution and somehow you thought it would be a good idea to substitute macroevolution with God with your "the Christian God is evidence for the Christian God" claim. So go ahead and produce the Christian God for examination. [/quote]

Thus, the grab God by the collar thing.

Been there, done that. I refer you again to the long term evolution experiment with e-coli; Darwin's finches and whatever examples others in this thread has brought up.

SMH.

and I will become an evolutionist like you (4th time suggesting this).

And the corresponding 4th I point out that you won't despite your claim because you haven't.

It may have to do with your evidence being weak.

You find problems with my posts, because my posts are against your religion (evolution).

Incorrect, I find problems with your post because your posts are against science, you have already been informed that I have no religion.

You believe in evolution, right?

All of that is irrelevant. A bird did not naturally come from a non-bird. Point blank, period.

Again, we are not taking about what you believe or don't believe here. Quit trying to steer the topic from science.

And vice versa..you believe in evolution, and we are not talking about what you "believe"...we are talking about what does the evidence show, and doesn't show.

What you refer to splitting hairs and red herring is to do with whether you understand evolution or not. The distinction between "a reptile evolving into a bird" and "birds owe their origins to dinosaurs" is hugely important.

I fail to see the difference. I am saying that a bird did not come from a non-bird, PERIOD.

Therefore, whatever animal you "believe" the bird evolved from is completely irrelevant. Take your pick...

Me: Birds did not evolve from reptiles.

You: But evolution does not say that birds evolved from reptiles, rather, birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Me: Ok, fine. Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, either.

X (whatever birds evolved from) can be whatever suits your fancy. It is irrelevant, if it didn't happen at ALL.

t a bird came from a non-bird", because that is what evolution states.

That's still wrong. You should have been saying "evolution states that birds (plural) came from non-birds (plural,)" because individuals do not evolve; a population of organisms evolves. Is that really that hard to get right? Use plural. [/quote]

But it didn't happen at all though. Plural, singular, NEITHER.

let me explicitly state: I do not believe a bird came from a non-bird, and I view all evidence presented as unviable and unscientific.

Again, not about what you believe or don't believe.

It is more about whether the presented evidence is convincing, which it ain't.

Anyways, I don't see any OEP that the birds of today came from nonbirds of yesterday. That is what you see, but that aint what I see.

Are you doing this on purpose? You know full well we are not talking about yesterday. Why do you have to be like this?

Um, I am talking about the theory of evolution, which seems to have a "hundred million years" time-frame stapled to it all of the time.

A hundred million years should cover the concept of "yesterday", shouldn't it?

Of course I have, your objections revolve about what you personally believe or not believe; what you personally accepts and rejects, as opposed to what is backed by empirical evidence or not. As such your objections are invalid.

Bro, the empirical evidence (that is presented); I don't find it convincing. Do you find the presented evidence for God to be convincing? Yes, or no?

I reject it because it is both illogical and unscientific. It defies common sense and rational thinking, and it also lacks OEP.

How would you know that when you haven't heard what I was gonna say?

I am talking about evidence that have been presented thus far, not just from you, but from ANYONE. Now, if you have something to throw in the mix, by all means, go for it..

*points to mix*

So therefore, I have good reasons to reject it..but hey, I am open minded...

Open minded people don't ask for an explanation with the purpose of rejecting it in advance.

But I've already dealt with the presented evidence.

and that is why I keep stressing that when you see the stuff happen..record it..show it to me..and I will be and evolutionist (5th time asking).

No, you won't.

Depends on evidence.

Wolves and dogs are both canines. And I don't know any reasonable person that will deny a canine/canine occurrences ..because after all, canine/canine is supported by OEP.

Reptiles and birds are both vertebrates. And no reasonable person that will deny a vertebrates/vertebrates occurrences ..because after all, vertebrates/vertebrates is supported by OEP. Which leaves you out as not reasonable.

Ok, but still, the fact still remains: I've never seen one kind of vertebrate (dinosaur) produce another kind of vertebrate (bird), therefore, OEP is lacking.

But I have seen one kind of canine (dog), produce another kind of canine (dog)...therefore, canine/canine phenomena is OEP verified.

So, it sounds like to me that these "limitations" that we were referring earlier is limited to no higher than the "family" level.

Anything beyond that, religion sets in.

I do..I understand it, and I am leaving it.

You say that yet you are still using singular instead of plural forms, after I explained why the distinction is important.

Neither one happened, though.

So don't go beyond that. Evolution does not go beyond "kinds," recall if you will, I told you explicitly evolution says "dogs will always produce dogs."

No arguments from me.

And with that comes certain truth values and implications.

Right, so stick to those and not what you believe or don't believe.

If the evidence don't support it, I have no reason to believe it...if the evidence is against it, I doubt it is true...if a combination of both, I explicitly don't accept it as true.

Which is why we keep telling you that you don't understand evolution. Those very same limitations that we put on humans, won't stop animals from evolving feathers/wings in the first place. Humans could potentially evolve into something like birds, but we would never ever, not in a billion years evolve into birds, that is the limit of evolution. See dolphins for a real life example of that principle: they have evolved into something like fishes, but not in a billion years would dolphins evolve into fishes. Pretty simple concept, no?

Um, no..it isn't a pretty simple concept. You are merely stating that it doesn't/can't happen, when the question is WHY won't it happened. It happened to birds, according to you..so why can't it happen to humans?

And how do you know?

And you will get no argument there from the microevolutionist in me.

Evolution covers both macro and micro evolution. Macro evolution also says dogs will always produce dogs.

Then we disagree on definitions.

I take it that means you haven't see it in real life or in real time?

No, but a video of it occurring is good enough for me.



And there you have it..finches; all day, every day.

Wait a minute, you had just said that evolution states that birds came from nonbirds...so how, all of a sudden, is me asking you the above question all of a sudden rendered to a "evolution does not say that" response?

Again, pay more attention to what is being said. Note the difference between "birds caming from non-birds" and "a non-bird producing a bird."

Bird coming from non bird.

Non bird producing a bird.

Same thing. You are being disingenuous.

So are you saying that these "non-birds" that are the origin of birds..are you saying that they had beaks, feathers, and wings?

Kinda. But that wasn't what I was getting at, I am trying to train you to use the plural form consistently first.

Man, you prefer a slow death, rather than a sudden one, eh? LOL.

Because I don't believe those were you true feelings, is what I was trying to say.

All the more reason to keep it to yourself. Some nerve you have commenting on what my true feelings are.

I call an ace an ace.

What is keeping you from accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior?

Lack of empirical evidence. I will become a theist as soon as someone can present a god for examination. I will become a Christian as soon as someone can grab the Biblical God by the collar and drag him to my doorstep.

Some people just wont get in *sigh* SMH.

Bottom line; Accept Christ and join the winning team. Reject Christ and..

I am currently happy with just being on the winning team on Earthy matters.

But the Earth itself is losing.

[Bust Nak]

Um, there is nothing in either of those posts where you will you find me saying "been there, done that", though.

That's in another post I already linked to, remember? I was providing the context by linking to my post where I requested that you present God for examination, to which you claimed to "have been there and done that." In the second quote you said you understood my request "presenting God for examination" as "grabbing God by the collar."

Just as I figured, because I know what I said, when I said it, and how I said it.

Right, so you knew you said "been there and done that" as a response to my request to present God as evidence, as opposed to present evidence for God, what excuse do you have left? "I don't remember?"

Thus, the grab God by the collar thing.

Which you have yet to do, despite your claim to have "been there and done it."

It may have to do with your evidence being weak.

It's strong enough to stand up to 150 years worth of scientific scrutiny, why is that not strong enough?

You believe in evolution, right?

Correct, but that is a red herring as it does not change the problem with your posts are that they are unscientific, nor the fact that I have no religion.

And vice versa..you believe in evolution, and we are not talking about what you "believe"...we are talking about what does the evidence show, and doesn't show.

Correct, and yet there you are trying to steer the topic towards what I believe. Quit it.

I fail to see the difference. I am saying that a bird did not come from a non-bird, PERIOD.

Again, what you believe did or didn't happen is not relevant, here we are talking about what evolution says. And it says birds came from non-birds, as opposed to a bird coming from a non-bird. The difference is obvious - plural versus singular; and the reason why that difference is important - individual organisms do not evolve, a population of organisms evolves. And before you try and tell me that neither happened again, we are talking about what evolution says.

Me: Birds did not evolve from reptiles.

You: But evolution does not say that birds evolved from reptiles, rather, birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Me: Ok, fine. Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, either.

You say it's fine yet you keep slipping back to disputing stuff that evolution does not say. And while we are here, my main focus was singular reptile vs plural reptiles, the distinction between reptiles and dinosaurs can wait for now.

X (whatever birds evolved from) can be whatever suits your fancy. It is irrelevant, if it didn't happen at ALL.

It is relevant because evolution does not say it happened.

But it didn't happen at all though. Plural, singular, NEITHER.

But why would that stop you from sticking to the plural forms?

It is more about whether the presented evidence is convincing...

No, it isn't. It's about what is and isn't scientific.

Um, I am talking about the theory of evolution, which seems to have a "hundred million years" time-frame stapled to it all of the time.

A hundred million years should cover the concept of "yesterday", shouldn't it?

Sure, it covers it. But covering it doesn't make your challenge any less of a red herring since the difference between a hundred million years and a day is huge. Use the right terms.

Bro, the empirical evidence (that is presented); I don't find it convincing.

Again, that's not relevant. Stop appealing to what you find convincing or not.

Do you find the presented evidence for God to be convincing? Yes, or no?

No, of course not. But we are not talking about what I find convincing either, we are talking about what is scientific or not.

I am talking about evidence that have been presented thus far, not just from you, but from ANYONE.

That doesn't help because you stated the reason for asking me to throw stuff into the mix was that you wanted to reject it.

But I've already dealt with the presented evidence.

You need a time machine to do that, because you rejected whatever I was gonna say in advance.

Depends on evidence.

You got the evidence.

Ok, but still, the fact still remains: I've never seen one kind of -ird), therefore, OEP is lacking.

You are once again appealing to what you have or have not personally seen. That you haven't seen it in no way support the claim that OEP is lacking.

But I have seen one kind of canine (dog), produce another kind of canine (dog)...therefore, canine/canine phenomena is OEP verified.

But you have see one kind of vertebrate produce another kind of vertebrate though, just not those specific examples, why was that no good enough?

So, it sounds like to me that these "limitations" that we were referring earlier is limited to no higher than the "family" level.

Why would it sound like that to you?

Neither one happened, though.

That doesn't explain why you keep getting the wording wrong consistently.

No arguments from me.

And yet there you are still trying to dispute macroevolution.

If the evidence don't support it, I have no reason to believe it...if the evidence is against it, I doubt it is true...if a combination of both, I explicitly don't accept it as true.

That's still irrelevant since I don't care much what you accept or believe. We are talking about what is and isn't supported by empirical evidence.

Um, no..it isn't a pretty simple concept. You are merely stating that it doesn't/can't happen, when the question is WHY won't it happened. It happened to birds, according to you..so why can't it happen to humans?

I just told you exactly why - evolution, that's both marco and micro, has limits. And I explained what the limits are - kinds will always produce their own kinds - humans are not birds, so we will never evolve into birds. You say you get it as a pretty simple concept, so what exactly is it that is missing from that explanation that lead you to ask me why it won't happen?

And how do you know?

By "OEP" of course.

Then we disagree on definitions.

Then you need to change your definitions to match the scientific definition.

No, but a video of it occurring is good enough for me.

But 150 years worth of empirical evidence isn't good enough for you, why the double standard?

Bird coming from non bird.

Non bird producing a bird.

Same thing. You are being disingenuous.

Once again you charge me with being disingenuous when you've made a mistake. Go back and read my point again:

Birds coming from non-birds.

Non bird producing a bird.

Not the same thing. It might have been a easy thing to miss, if not for me banging on and on about the important distinction between singular and plural, you have some nerve calling me disingenuous.

Man, you prefer a slow death, rather than a sudden one, eh? LOL.

Because trying to get you to use the correct terminology is a slow death? Sounded very much like an confession that you were doing it on purpose to get a rise out of me.

I call an ace an ace.

Well you are treading on thin ice with your so called "ace."

Some people just wont get in *sigh* SMH.

Don't feel sad, just do better.

But the Earth itself is losing.

All the more reason to discard unscientific claims, science is the way Earth can win.

[For_The_Kingdom]

That's in another post I already linked to, remember? I was providing the context by linking to my post where I requested that you present God for examination, to which you claimed to "have been there and done that." In the second quote you said you understood my request "presenting God for examination" as "grabbing God by the collar."

Ohhh yeah. The first go round, my subconscious couldn't grasp the fact that you would suggest that I present to you the actual Christian God, so I read it as "present evidence for God", which is why I said "been there, done that", because throughout my tenure on this great forum, I've presented more than enough evidence for the existence of God..

But then when you clarified the fact that you literally meant "present the Christian God", that is when I asked if you meant "grab God by the collar".

Gotcha. Well, let me put it to you this way; I will show you the Christian God when you can scientifically demonstrate how inanimate life came from nonliving material.

Thus, the grab God by the collar thing.

Which you have yet to do, despite your claim to have "been there and done it."

Again, I simply read wrong, as stated above. Otherwise, why would I say "been there, done that" to "grabbing God by the collar"...knowing full well that I never presented such to you.

Makes no sense.

It may have to do with your evidence being weak.

It's strong enough to stand up to 150 years worth of scientific scrutiny, why is that not strong enough?

150 years? That's it? I can do you one better..I can give you 5,000 years..5,000 years of no man ever seeing a (non-bird to bird) kind of transformation in nature.

So no, 150 years for something that never happens is not "strong enough" evidence.

You believe in evolution, right?

Correct, but that is a red herring as it does not change the problem with your posts are that they are unscientific, nor the fact that I have no religion.

No, macroevolution is unscientific...and it is a religion. A faith based religion.

And vice versa..you believe in evolution, and we are not talking about what you "believe"...we are talking about what does the evidence show, and doesn't show.

Correct, and yet there you are trying to steer the topic towards what I believe. Quit it.

You want me to stop steering the topic to what you believe? Again, we are talking about evolution, right? Isn't evolution what you believe? Aren't we talking about evolution?

I fail to see the difference. I am saying that a bird did not come from a non-bird, PERIOD.

Again, what you believe did or didn't happen is not relevant, here we are talking about what evolution says. And it says birds came from non-birds, as opposed to a bird coming from a non-bird. The difference is obvious - plural versus singular; and the reason why that difference is important - individual organisms do not evolve, a population of organisms evolves. And before you try and tell me that neither happened again, we are talking about what evolution says.

LOL. Ok, I agree..the theory of evolution states "it (evolution) says birds came from non-birds". Plural, not singular.

Ok, that is what the theory states. Ok? Cool. Now..

I don't find the evidence for the notion of birds coming from nonbirds (plural) to be convincing enough for me to believe it, therefore, I don't believe in evolution.

Also, I have evidence AGAINST the truth value of birds (plural) coming from nonbirds.

Therefore, based on the totality of both the inadequate evidence FOR it, AND the strong evidence AGAINST IT; I can confidently say that the notion that birds came from nonbirds is scientifically FALSE.

Now, I played your game, on your playing field, and the end result is the same; It didn't happen.

You say it's fine yet you keep slipping back to disputing stuff that evolution does not say. And while we are here, my main focus was singular reptile vs plural reptiles, the distinction between reptiles and dinosaurs can wait for now.

Its been covered, see above. We are gonna play your game and see will anything change.

It is more about whether the presented evidence is convincing...

No, it isn't. It's about what is and isn't scientific.

I agree.

Sure, it covers it. But covering it doesn't make your challenge any less of a red herring since the difference between a hundred million years and a day is huge. Use the right terms.

But if I am saying, regardless of whether we are talking about suddenly (yesterday) or gradually (a hundred million years), it didn't happen...at all.

I would say that all areas are covered, wouldn't you?

Bro, the empirical evidence (that is presented); I don't find it convincing.

Again, that's not relevant. Stop appealing to what you find convincing or not.

LOL. Evolution is on trial, and I am part of the jury. Imagine the judge telling the jury; "Hey guys, do not appeal to what evidence you find convincing or not".

SMH.

No, of course not. But we are not talking about what I find convincing either, we are talking about what is scientific or not.

Well, lets talk about it. It ain't scientific.

That doesn't help because you stated the reason for asking me to throw stuff into the mix was that you wanted to reject it.

Because you will ultimately appeal to evidences that I've already examined, found it inadequate, and rejected it.

Why shouldn't I reject already-confirmed-inadequate evidence in advance? Now, if you have something new, go for it.

*points to mix again*

Depends on evidence.

You got the evidence.

Well, hey..if that's the best you can present, then I will remain unconvinced.

Ok, but still, the fact still remains: I've never seen one kind of -ird), therefore, OEP is lacking.

You are once again appealing to what you have or have not personally seen.

Thus, the "O" in OEP.

That you haven't seen it in no way support the claim that OEP is lacking.

If it fails the first letter in the acronym, it can't make it to the rest.

But I have seen one kind of canine (dog), produce another kind of canine (dog)...therefore, canine/canine phenomena is OEP verified.

But you have see one kind of vertebrate produce another kind of vertebrate though, just not those specific examples, why was that no good enough?

When have I see a vertebrate produce another kind of vertebrate (nonbird to bird) type?

So, it sounds like to me that these "limitations" that we were referring earlier is limited to no higher than the "family" level.

Why would it sound like that to you?

Because that is where OEP stops. We need not go beyond necessity. The buck stops with "family". We go where the evidence takes us, and it doesn't take us past family, so at family we stay.

No arguments from me.

And yet there you are still trying to dispute macroevolution.

For good reason.

If the evidence don't support it, I have no reason to believe it...if the evidence is against it, I doubt it is true...if a combination of both, I explicitly don't accept it as true.

That's still irrelevant since I don't care much what you accept or believe. We are talking about what is and isn't supported by empirical evidence.

Ok, so you don't care what I believe, you want to stick with the empirical evidence..so, present the empirical evidence, and lets discuss that.

I just told you exactly why - evolution, that's both marco and micro, has limits. And I explained what the limits are - kinds will always produce their own kinds

Well, I reject the notion that nonbirds producing birds is a "same kind" concept. To me, that is unscientific. But of course, you don't care what I think..well, you view nonbirds producing birds as the "same kind" concept, right?

Well, I don't care what YOU think either.

- humans are not birds, so we will never evolve into birds.

The question is, why? The "nonbird" that the birds evolved from wasn't birds, either...yet, that is where birds come from (on your view). Well, why not humans?

You say you get it as a pretty simple concept, so what exactly is it that is missing from that explanation that lead you to ask me why it won't happen?

Because I am not understanding why some animals get the good stuff and some don't..does mother nature show favoritism? I want some wings, too.

Lenny Kravitz voice: "I want to get away, I just want to flyyy awayyy. Yeahhh. Yeahh. Yeahhh".

Then we disagree on definitions.

Then you need to change your definitions to match the scientific definition.

LOL.

No, but a video of it occurring is good enough for me.

But 150 years worth of empirical evidence isn't good enough for you, why the double standard?

150 years of empirical evidence contradict a live birth of finch hatchlings?

I call an ace an ace.

Well you are treading on thin ice with your so called "ace."

On thin ice, and it is getting warm outside.

Some people just wont get in *sigh* SMH.

Don't feel sad, just do better.

With Jesus Christ, there is no "better".

But the Earth itself is losing.

All the more reason to discard unscientific claims, science is the way Earth can win.

Matt 24:35, "Heaven and earth will pass away."

[Bust Nak]

Ohhh yeah. The first go round, my subconscious couldn't grasp the fact that you would suggest that I present to you the actual Christian God, so I read it as "present evidence for God", which is why I said "been there, done that..."

Well you could have conceded that much days ago when I first pointed out that I explicitly ask you to present God as evidence, (as opposed to present evidence for God.) Instead of dragging this on and on with your accusation of selective quoting. This is far from the first time you attacked my integrity for a mistake on your part.

Gotcha. Well, let me put it to you this way; I will show you the Christian God when you can scientifically demonstrate how inanimate life came from nonliving material.

I will hold you to that. There is a good chance we can figure the mechanism out within my life time.

Again, I simply read wrong...

Then I consider this part of our conversation resolved.

150 years? That's it? I can do you one better..I can give you 5,000 years..5,000 years of no man ever seeing a (non-bird to bird) kind of transformation in nature.

First of all, use plural. Secondly, we see directly, with our own two eyes, "non-X to X" kind of transformations in nature all the time, just not specifically with birds. More importantly we have scientifically observed (non-birds to birds) kind of transformations via genetics as well as the fossils record.

No, macroevolution is unscientific...and it is a religion. A faith based religion.

Incorrect, macroevolution is backed by empirical evidence, hence science. No faith required.

You want me to stop steering the topic to what you believe? Again, we are talking about evolution, right? Isn't evolution what you believe? Aren't we talking about evolution?

We are talking about evolution, not in the context of what I believe though, but in the context of science. I need not be a believe in evolution to talk about the science of evolution. Which is why I keep telling you, what you (or I in this case) believe is irrelevant.

LOL. Ok, I agree..the theory of evolution states "it (evolution) says birds came from non-birds". Plural, not singular.

Ok, that is what the theory states. Ok? Cool. Now..

Well, it's not cool yet, until you keep using the plural term consistently, there is already one slip up above, lets see how long until the next one...

I don't find the evidence for the notion of birds coming from nonbirds (plural) to be convincing enough for me to believe it, therefore, I don't believe in evolution.

But it is convincing enough to form a scientific consensus, why is that not good enough? Besides, we aren't talking about what you believe, but what is and isn't scientific.

Also, I have evidence AGAINST the truth value of birds (plural) coming from nonbirds.

All you have is evidence FOR the truth value of birds coming from birds. That doesn't work as evidence AGAINST the truth value of birds coming from non-birds. Just as no amount of white swans can be use as evidence against the existence of black swans. Care to try again if that wasn't what you had in mind?

Its been covered, see above. We are gonna play your game and see will anything change.

Does that mean we can move onto reptiles vs dinosaurs?

I agree.

Then stop appealing to your own judgement and start appealing to empirical evidence.

But if I am saying, regardless of whether we are talking about suddenly (yesterday) or gradually (a hundred million years), it didn't happen...at all.

I would say that all areas are covered, wouldn't you?

Right, but that doesn't make your "yesterday" statement any less of a red herring. We are treading over old grounds. You believe neither birds from non-birds, nor a bird from a non-bird happened. But any a bird from a non-bird challenge is automatically moot since evolution does not claim that. You seemed to have accepted that much. The same logic applies here - stick to the plural forms, and stick to evolution time scale.

LOL. Evolution is on trial, and I am part of the jury. Imagine the judge telling the jury; "Hey guys, do not appeal to what evidence you find convincing or not".

There are rules in the court of laws just as there are rules in science. Imagine what a judge would say to a juror who dismisses the evidence presented because he never saw it with his own two eyes, or appealed to evidence not admissible in court. If you pulled the kind of stuff you do here in a court of law, you risk being charged with being in contempt of court.

Well, lets talk about it. It ain't scientific.

Incorrect, it is scientific.

Because you will ultimately appeal to evidences that I've already examined, found it inadequate, and rejected it.

That would be a pretty good guess, but someone opened minded still wouldn't reject something he hasn't heard.

Why shouldn't I reject already-confirmed-inadequate evidence in advance?

It's not about should or shouldn't. You literally cannot confirm something to be inadequate in advance. You need a time machine to do that.

Well, hey..if that's the best you can present, then I will remain unconvinced.

But it is convincing enough to form a scientific consensus. Why is your standard unreasonably high in this case, yet so much lower in other cases?

Thus, the "O" in OEP.

The O in OEP stands for observation as in scientific observation. Not observed by For_The_Kingdom. That you haven't seen it in no way support the claim that "O" is lacking.

If it fails the first letter in the acronym, it can't make it to the rest.

Sure, but that's moot since it does not fail the first letter.

When have I see a vertebrate produce another kind of vertebrate (nonbird to bird) type?

Presumably never? You have however affirmed that a vertebrate has indeed produce another kind of vertebrate (similar to but not specifically non-birds to birds). Why is that not good enough?

By the way, you forgot about plural again. That didn't take long, did it?

Because that is where OEP stops.

But that is not where OEP stops. The caniformia (non-dogs) to dogs example that you didn't seem to have a problem with, went beyond the family level. Incidentally, there is no video of this, and yet you accept it happened.

For good reason.

Not scientific reason.

Ok, so you don't care what I believe, you want to stick with the empirical evidence..so, present the empirical evidence, and lets discuss that.

Right, lets revisit finches speciation then. It is an example of a vertebrate producing another kind of vertebrate. Empirical enough for you?

Well, I reject the notion that nonbirds producing birds is a "same kind" concept.

Unless you are bold enough to deny that the non birds in question and the birds evolution says they produced are not both vertebrates, then it follows trivially that they are the same kind, as opposed to a different kind e.g. invertebrates.

well, you view nonbirds producing birds as the "same kind" concept, right?

Well, I don't care what YOU think either.

Okay, but you should care about what the scientific consensus says.

The question is, why? The "nonbird" that the birds evolved from wasn't birds, either...yet, that is where birds come from (on your view). Well, why not humans?

Because humans always produces humans and birds always produces birds, that's why we can never evolve into birds; where as the non-birds and the birds they evolved into are of the same kind, and hence does not violate the "humans always produces humans and birds always produces birds" rule described by evolution (that's both macro and micro evolution.) There is nothing stopping us from evolving into something that looks superficially like a bird, but we would never evolve into birds. Just as dolphins evolved into something that looks superficially like a fish, but they would never evolve into fishes. Is that specific enough?

Because I am not understanding why some animals get the good stuff and some don't..does mother nature show favoritism? I want some wings, too.

Mother nature has no foresight, any perception of favoritism is just that: perception.

LOL.

Why LOL? To borrow your analogy, you are going to be charged with contempt of court, if a judge found out that you return a guilty verdict because an action counts as murder by your own definition but not the legal definition of murder. A juror is to change their own definitions to match the legal definition, and you should change yours to match the scientific definitions in this debate.

150 years of empirical evidence contradict a live birth of finch hatchlings?

No, 150 years of empirical evidence consistent with a live birth of finch hatchlings. Why did you ask?

On thin ice, and it is getting warm outside.

So quit it with your accusations?

With Jesus Christ, there is no "better".

By all means, present Jesus Christ himself for examination, that would be good enough for me.

Matt 24:35, "Heaven and earth will pass away."

Well, okay, science is the key to winning long enough for us to move to an alternative planet.

[Jubal]

What about the famously successful predicted discovery of Tiktaalik ?

Based on evolutionary evidence, scientists predicted a certain type of transitional fish species would be found in a certain age strata.

They went looking where they expected to find it ...

Success !
The transitional species Tiktaalik was discovered - exactly as predicted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Jubal

[Danmark]

What about the famously successful predicted discovery of Tiktaalik ?

Based on evolutionary evidence, scientists predicted a certain type of transitional fish species would be found in a certain age strata.

They went looking where they expected to find it ...

Success !
The transitional species Tiktaalik was discovered - exactly as predicted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Jubal

Great example!
'Unearthed in Arctic Canada, Tiktaalik is technically a fish, complete with scales and gills - but it has the flattened head of a crocodile and unusual fins. Its fins have thin ray bones for paddling like most fishes', but they also have sturdy interior bones that would have allowed Tiktaalik to prop itself up in shallow water and use its limbs for support as most four-legged animals do. Those fins and a suite of other characteristics set Tiktaalik apart as something special; it has a combination of features that show the evolutionary transition between swimming fish and their descendants, the four-legged vertebrates - a clade which includes amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and of course, humans.'
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... _tiktaalik

[Danmark]

Ohhh yeah. The first go round, my subconscious couldn't grasp the fact that you would suggest that I present to you the actual Christian God, so I read it as "present evidence for God", which is why I said "been there, done that", because throughout my tenure on this great forum, I've presented more than enough evidence for the existence of God..

Really? ZERO you call "more than enough."
Because ZERO is the amount of evidence you've shown here. Perhaps you can refresh my memory re: your 'evidence.'

[For_The_Kingdom]

Well you could have conceded that much days ago when I first pointed out that I explicitly ask you to present God as evidence, (as opposed to present evidence for God.) Instead of dragging this on and on with your accusation of selective quoting. This is far from the first time you attacked my integrity for a mistake on your part.

Again, the idea that someone would ask me to "present God as evidence" is so far fetched, that it threw everything off, at least for me.

I will hold you to that. There is a good chance we can figure the mechanism out within my life time.

By life, I mean sentient life...now hold me to that.

First of all, use plural. Secondly, we see directly, with our own two eyes, "non-X to X" kind of transformations in nature all the time, just not specifically with birds.

Again, "we", don't see anything. Again, 6th time (I think), record it...show it to me..and I will become an evolutionist.

Hold me to that, too.

More importantly we have scientifically observed (non-birds to birds) kind of transformations via genetics as well as the fossils record.

Right, and that is what I mean...the evidence (what you observe) is different than what I observe when I look at the same evidence. Fossils and genetics don't tell me what it is telling you.

Similar to what I believe to be rather convincing evidence for God..and apparently the evidence that I find convincing for God, you obviously can't rock with it.

Same thing.

We are talking about evolution, not in the context of what I believe though, but in the context of science. I need not be a believe in evolution to talk about the science of evolution. Which is why I keep telling you, what you (or I in this case) believe is irrelevant.

But you believe in everything you are saying about it!! That is the driving force behind the entire conversation; your belief in the science which you believes support your position...and vice versa, for me.

Well, it's not cool yet, until you keep using the plural term consistently, there is already one slip up above, lets see how long until the next one...

Yeah, there is an occasional slip up...but that is a moot point since I don't believe in either one (plural, or singular). So your constant correction in this regard is just wasting time.

Adding an "s" on the end of the word doesn't change anything. I am saying that the science doesn't support the singular or the plural.

Singular macroevolution: Science doesn't support (what evolution doesn't say)
Plural macroevolution: Science doesn't support (what evolution say)

It isn't as if science will magically begin to support the theory because you add an "s" on the end of the word "bird".

If I slip up, I slip up. Just add the letter "s" to in your brain, and we can get back to me failing to accept the inadequate scientific evidence supporting the theory, either way you look at it.

I don't find the evidence for the notion of birds coming from nonbirds (plural) to be convincing enough for me to believe it, therefore, I don't believe in evolution.

But it is convincing enough to form a scientific consensus, why is that not good enough?

Consensus? The theological consensus for most theologians is that God exists..so, will you become a theist based on that alone?

Besides, we aren't talking about what you believe, but what is and isn't scientific.

Right, and since we are talking about what is/isn't scientific, I'd like to discuss the scientific evidence...but you apparently would rather waste more time splitting hairs, than dealing with the meat and potatoes of the matter (the actual evidence)

Also, I have evidence AGAINST the truth value of birds (plural) coming from nonbirds.

All you have is evidence FOR the truth value of birds coming from birds. That doesn't work as evidence AGAINST the truth value of birds coming from non-birds.

Ok, lets discuss the evidence that YOU have for birds coming from non-birds. Whatcha got?

Just as no amount of white swans can be use as evidence against the existence of black swans. Care to try again if that wasn't what you had in mind?

?

Its been covered, see above. We are gonna play your game and see will anything change.

Does that mean we can move onto reptiles vs dinosaurs?

Umm, I don't know.

I agree.

Then stop appealing to your own judgement and start appealing to empirical evidence.

Still waiting to see that empirical evidence.

Right, but that doesn't make your "yesterday" statement any less of a red herring. We are treading over old grounds. You believe neither birds from non-birds, nor a bird from a non-bird happened. But any a bird from a non-bird challenge is automatically moot since evolution does not claim that. You seemed to have accepted that much. The same logic applies here - stick to the plural forms, and stick to evolution time scale.

We are on YOUR playing field...we are on plural, evolutionary theory playing field. Now, where is this empirical evidence for plural macroevolution that I've been hearing so much about??

There are rules in the court of laws just as there are rules in science. Imagine what a judge would say to a juror who dismisses the evidence presented because he never saw it with his own two eyes, or appealed to evidence not admissible in court. If you pulled the kind of stuff you do here in a court of law, you risk being charged with being in contempt of court.

Ok, macroevolution is on trial, and it is being charged with lying on its tax forms about producing different kind of animals, which is illegal.

The prosecution is saying that macroevolution is lying, and the defense is saying that macroevolution is telling the truth.

I am on the jury..and I listen to the prosecution present their evidence of macroevolution lying. I find the evidence to be strong (all evidences considered).

Next, I listen to the evidence that the defense presents that evolution is telling the truth (all evidences considered), and I find this evidence to be, in my opinion, very, very weak.

So, after hearing both sides of the equation, me and the rest of my jury peers go to the jury room to deliberate. It doesn't matter how my jury peers vote, all I know is, the evidence that macroevolution is lying is very convincing to me.

Therefore, I vote: Macroevolution is guilty of LYING about changing into different kinds of animals.

Case..closed.

Because you will ultimately appeal to evidences that I've already examined, found it inadequate, and rejected it.

That would be a pretty good guess, but someone opened minded still wouldn't reject something he hasn't heard.

That's my point..let me hear it.

Why shouldn't I reject already-confirmed-inadequate evidence in advance?

It's not about should or shouldn't. You literally cannot confirm something to be inadequate in advance. You need a time machine to do that.

So, if you don't like Donald Trump as POTUS (and as a person), and he is coming up for reelection, and he tells you he wants your vote and ensures you that he will be the same person/President he was for the past 4 years.

Can you safely reject him and his campaign/policies for the next four years in advance?

Well, hey..if that's the best you can present, then I will remain unconvinced.

But it is convincing enough to form a scientific consensus. Why is your standard unreasonably high in this case, yet so much lower in other cases?

To answer this question; I need to once again emphasize that I rejecting the notion of naturalistic evolution, namely, evolution orchestrating without divine intervention.

Now, that being said; the reason my unbelief is so dang high, is simply because of the abiogenesis problem. Now, I don't want to have that particular debate here, but you asked..and that is the 80% of the reason my evidence against it...and the other 20% is because of the weak evidence for it.

Thus, the "O" in OEP.

The O in OEP stands for observation as in scientific observation. Not observed by For_The_Kingdom. That you haven't seen it in no way support the claim that "O" is lacking.

You are pretty much implying that I need to be a scientist in order to observe it. That is what I got out of it.

What are they seeing that I am not seeing? We are looking at the same stuff here.

When have I see a vertebrate produce another kind of vertebrate (nonbird to bird) type?

Presumably never? You have however affirmed that a vertebrate has indeed produce another kind of vertebrate (similar to but not specifically non-birds to birds). Why is that not good enough?

I don't recall all of that.

By the way, you forgot about plural again. That didn't take long, did it?

Keep splitting those hairs..

Because that is where OEP stops.

But that is not where OEP stops. The caniformia (non-dogs) to dogs example that you didn't seem to have a problem with, went beyond the family level.

From what I see, no canines can be said to be the evolutionary predecessor of canines. If I am to believe that dogs evolved from wolves (which I only rock with as a compromise), then that is the extent of the change...wolves are still canines who produced canines. It is clearly the same "kind" of animal.

That is "family" level and anything beyond this is voodoo.

Incidentally, there is no video of this, and yet you accept it happened.

I accept it because it is clear that dogs and wolves are the same kind of animal. What isn't clear, is that birds and dinosaurs were/are the same "kind" of animal.

Ok, so you don't care what I believe, you want to stick with the empirical evidence..so, present the empirical evidence, and lets discuss that.

Right, lets revisit finches speciation then. It is an example of a vertebrate producing another kind of vertebrate. Empirical enough for you?

No, because this vertebrate thing you have going on is broad. That is almost no better than, "you see, they both have blood, so clearly they are the same kind of animal". No.

If you don't see the difference between..

1. Finches producing a finches (both bird vertebrates)
2. Dinosaurs (non bird vertebrate) producing a bird (bird vertebrate)

Then I really can't help you, sir.

Well, I reject the notion that nonbirds producing birds is a "same kind" concept.

Unless you are bold enough to deny that the non birds in question and the birds evolution says they produced are not both vertebrates, then it follows trivially that they are the same kind, as opposed to a different kind e.g. invertebrates.

Ok, so according to you, humans and birds and the same "kind"; vertebrates. Yet, I was asking you can a human evolve into a bird, and you said no..*scratches head*.

But we were the same kind to begin with...after all, we are both vertebrates.

well, you view nonbirds producing birds as the "same kind" concept, right?

Well, I don't care what YOU think either.

Okay, but you should care about what the scientific consensus says.

If by "care about" you mean "rock with"...then no, I don't care about what the scientific consensus says.

Because humans always produces humans and birds always produces birds

Which is a completely different concept than your admitted "non birds evolved into birds" concept. Not only is it a difference concept, but it is a direct contradiction.

SMH.

, that's why we can never evolve into birds; where as the non-birds and the birds they evolved into are of the same kind

Same kind..yet one is "non", and one is "it". Makes no sense.

, and hence does not violate the "humans always produces humans and birds always produces birds" rule described by evolution (that's both macro and micro evolution.) There is nothing stopping us from evolving into something that looks superficially like a bird, but we would never evolve into birds. Just as dolphins evolved into something that looks superficially like a fish, but they would never evolve into fishes. Is that specific enough?

Again..

1. Birds always produce birds

contradicts..

2. Non-birds evolved into birds

Because I am not understanding why some animals get the good stuff and some don't..does mother nature show favoritism? I want some wings, too.

Mother nature has no foresight, any perception of favoritism is just that: perception.

Oh, I certainly agree with that. Just don't quite know why some animals get wings and others don't.

LOL.

Why LOL? To borrow your analogy, you are going to be charged with contempt of court, if a judge found out that you return a guilty verdict because an action counts as murder by your own definition but not the legal definition of murder. A juror is to change their own definitions to match the legal definition, and you should change yours to match the scientific definitions in this debate.

Well, that would be the case, however...I accepted YOUR definition of evolution, did I not? So, the definition is no longer in question. Now, I am trying to focus on the evidence after we've defined terms..which, you haven't gotten around to yet.

150 years of empirical evidence contradict a live birth of finch hatchlings?

No, 150 years of empirical evidence consistent with a live birth of finch hatchlings. Why did you ask?

Why bring up finches?

With Jesus Christ, there is no "better".

By all means, present Jesus Christ himself for examination, that would be good enough for me.

In due time..he will present himself to you.

Matt 24:35, "Heaven and earth will pass away."

Well, okay, science is the key to winning long enough for us to move to an alternative planet.

Um, God rules the universe. That would be like you living in New Orleans, and once you hear that Hurricane Katrina is coming to wipe out the entire city...you move from your current house to the house next door. LOL.

*Thumbsup* Good luck with that.

[Bust Nak]

Again, the idea that someone would ask me to "present God as evidence" is so far fetched, that it threw everything off, at least for me.

Okay, but that does not change the fact that you attacked my integrity when you were the one who made the mistake.

By life, I mean sentient life...now hold me to that.

We already have the mechanism from non sentient life to sentient life, tag on non-life to non sentient life, and you have the while chain from non-life to sentient life.

Again, "we", don't see anything.

But we do, with our own two eyes, you've affirmed that it happened - "non-X to X" kind of transformations in nature all the time, just not specifically with birds.

Right, and that is what I mean...

Then don't say you don't see what I said above re: non-X to X but not specifically birds, when you actually meant you don't see what I am saying here re: evidence of non-birds to birds.

the evidence (what you observe) is different than what I observe when I look at the same evidence. Fossils and genetics don't tell me what it is telling you.

Why not?

Similar to what I believe to be rather convincing evidence for God..and apparently the evidence that I find convincing for God, you obviously can't rock with it.

Well, I can explain why I don't find it convincing, and more importantly, I am consistent with my reasoning, I reject the kind of evidence you present to support Christianity, just as I reject the same kind of evidence others present to support their religion. Where as you accept say wolves to dogs, but reject dinosaurs to birds when the same kind of evidence is used in both cases. Why the inconsistency?

But you believe in everything you are saying about it!! That is the driving force behind the entire conversation; your belief in the science which you believes support your position...and vice versa, for me.

Sure, but that is irrelevant as to whether something is scientific or not.

Yeah, there is an occasional slip up...but that is a moot point since I don't believe in either one (plural, or singular).

But it is not moot since evolution says one but not the other. Adding an "s" on the end of the word changes a red herring into a relevant challenge.

I am saying that the science doesn't support the singular...

That's moot since we are not saying the singular...

or the plural.

That part isn't moot and is hence worth debating. See the difference?

It isn't as if science will magically begin to support the theory because you add an "s" on the end of the word "bird".

Sure, but that's moot since science does support the theory, no magic involved.

If I slip up, I slip up. Just add the letter "s" to in your brain...

I could do that, just as I change reptiles to dinosaurs in my brain, but don't take this as an excuse to not pay attention to the letter "s."

Consensus? The theological consensus for most theologians is that God exists..so, will you become a theist based on that alone?

No, but I would accept that the claim that God exist is theologically valid because I see the consensus. Where as you can't bring yourself to accept that macroevolution is scientifically valid despite the consensus. See the difference? Recall if you will, I was and still am trying to get you to accept that macro evolution is scientific, as opposed to accepting that macro evolution is true.

Right, and since we are talking about what is/isn't scientific, I'd like to discuss the scientific evidence...but you apparently would rather waste more time splitting hairs, than dealing with the meat and potatoes of the matter (the actual evidence)

But there is a point to what you called splitting hair - they highlight why your objections are invalid.

Ok, lets discuss the evidence that YOU have for birds coming from non-birds. Whatcha got?

The usual: directly observed instances of speciation, fossils and genetics.

?

Seeing lots of "birds to birds transformation" doesn't mean there aren't "non-birds to birds transformation;" just as seeing lots of white swans, doesn't mean there aren't black swans.

Umm, I don't know.

Lets not then. I will keep replacing reptile with dinosaurs in my mind.

Still waiting to see that empirical evidence.

No need to wait, address the empirical evidence already presented.

We are on YOUR playing field...we are on plural, evolutionary theory playing field.

Good, so less of that talk of yesterday, okay?

Ok, macroevolution is on trial, and it is being charged with lying on its tax forms about producing different kind of animals, which is illegal.

The prosecution is saying that macroevolution is lying, and the defense is saying that macroevolution is telling the truth...

Try this instead: You are on the jury and you listened to the prosecution present their evidence of macroevolution lying. The defense objected and judge sustained the objection and ordered the evidence strike from the record...

After hearing both sides of the equation, you and the rest of your jury peers go to the jury room to deliberate. It doesn't matter how your jury peers vote, all you know is, the evidence that macroevolution is lying is very convincing to you.

Therefore, you wanted to vote: Macroevolution is guilty of LYING about changing into different kinds of animals. The head juror asks for your reasons and you referred to the evidence that was struck from the record. Now you are looking at a contempt of court conviction.

Perhaps more to the point, the rest of the juror voted non-guilty, clearing macroevolution.

Case... closed.

So, if you don't like Donald Trump as POTUS...

Can you safely reject him and his campaign/policies for the next four years in advance?

That question doesn't make sense because I am not judging him in advance. I am judging him right now.

Now, that being said; the reason my unbelief is so dang high, is simply because of the abiogenesis problem. Now, I don't want to have that particular debate here, but you asked..and that is the 80% of the reason my evidence against it...and the other 20% is because of the weak evidence for it.

That doesn't really answer my question. I was not asking why your unbelief is so high, but why your standard of evidence is so high (and inconsistently so.) Form what you say here, it sounds to me you have decided evolution is false in advance, then you set the bar high in order to reject evidence for evolution.

You are pretty much implying that I need to be a scientist in order to observe it. That is what I got out of it.

Well no, I am not a professional scientist and I can observe it. You do however need to apply the scientific method.

I don't recall all of that.

Of course you don't. Try to remember caniformia (non-dogs) to dogs for example.

Keep splitting those hairs..

Not splitting hair, the distinction is important because individuals do not evolve, a population does.

From what I see, no canines can be said to be the evolutionary predecessor of canines. If I am to believe that dogs evolved from wolves (which I only rock with as a compromise), then that is the extent of the change...wolves are still canines who produced canines. It is clearly the same "kind" of animal.

Dinosaurs and birds are the same kind of animal and still you reject dinosaurs producing birds. If caniformia and dogs counts as the same "family" (they don't according to science) then so would dinosaurs and birds.

I accept it because it is clear that dogs and wolves are the same kind of animal. What isn't clear, is that birds and dinosaurs were/are the same "kind" of animal.

There are lots of similarities though.

No, because this vertebrate thing you have going on is broad. That is almost no better than, "you see, they both have blood, so clearly they are the same kind of animal". No.

Actually yes, animals with blood (at least the red blood people are familiar with) are the same kind - they are vertebrates.

If you don't see the difference between..

1. Finches producing a finches (both bird vertebrates)
2. Dinosaurs (non bird vertebrate) producing a bird (bird vertebrate)

Then I really can't help you, sir.

No need to help, I do see the difference... But if you don't see the similarities between

1. Finches producing a finches (both bird vertebrates)
2. Dinosaurs (non bird vertebrate) producing a bird (bird vertebrate)

Then I am here to help.

Ok, so according to you, humans and birds and the same "kind"; vertebrates. Yet, I was asking you can a human evolve into a bird, and you said no..*scratches head*.

But we were the same kind to begin with...after all, we are both vertebrates.

Right, but you are forgetting the rule that humans always produce human, and birds always produce birds. Humans are birds are the same kind, but humans are not birds. Just as cars and buses are the same kind - vehicles, but cars are not buses. Does that help? I don't really know how much detail I need to go into because the concepts here are trivial to me.

If by "care about" you mean "rock with"...then no, I don't care about what the scientific consensus says.

The least you can do is the affirm that the the scientific consensus does decide what is and isn't scientific, if not what is and isn't true.

Which is a completely different concept than your admitted "non birds evolved into birds" concept.

Right, it is a different concept, which is why non-birds evolved into birds does not violate the birds always evolved into birds rule.

Not only is it a difference concept, but it is a direct contradiction.

Well, it's not. Can you tell me why you think there is any contradiction? I think we are finally making some progress.

Same kind..yet one is "non", and one is "it". Makes no sense.

Foxes are non-dogs, yet dogs and foxes are both the same kind - canid. Is it making sense yet?

Again..

1. Birds always produce birds

contradicts..

2. Non-birds evolved into birds

Same as above, they clearly do not contradict, tell me why you think otherwise and I can explain further.

Oh, I certainly agree with that. Just don't quite know why some animals get wings and others don't.

Unpredictable things happens especially when there is no foresight. How is that not trivial?

Well, that would be the case, however...I accepted YOUR definition of evolution, did I not?

Well, no, not especially, you accepted bits of it and rejected others, particularly the part with macro evolution. And it's not just that, there other definitions like "family" and "canine" too.

Why bring up finches?

Finches speciation is an exmple of macro-evolution.

In due time..he will present himself to you.

But when? It's no good unless he shows up in my life time.

Um, God rules the universe. That would be like you living in New Orleans, and once you hear that Hurricane Katrina is coming to wipe out the entire city...you move from your current house to the house next door. LOL.

Well it doesn't look that way, all we can actually detect is a tiny and very specific blast of wind due to destroy one very specific house, leaving the house next door unharmed.