Evolution, directed or un-directed?

[Tart]

For all those who think evolution is not directed, nothing but random chance, how do you know that? How do you know evolution isnt directed by God (or anything else at that matter)?

[Bust Nak]

So, I put my creationist goggles down...while you keep your naturalistic goggles on? Sure, as fair as it gets.

It sure is, we are evaluating the merits naturalistic theory after all, but I guess that's too much to expect from a creationist.

Depends on why I can't conceive it happening..and the reason is because I think it is naturally impossible for it to occur. And I cant conceive of logical impossibilities.

Okay. Follow up rhetorical question, does your evaluation of the possibility (or lack there of) for evolution equate to actual possibility (or lack there of) of said theory?

Um, I made that distinction when I said "You may not be lying, but it is a lie" (paraphrasing).

Which is why I am asking you to quit it, if you acknowledge that I am not lying.

Successful in what?

Successful in evolutionary terms.

Um, I am simply distinguishing something I can see with my own two eyeballs (micro), and something that I can't (macro).

Just stating the facts. And no, just because I can't see it with my eyeballs doesn't mean that it didn't happen...rather, it just simply means that I have no reasons to believe that it did happen.

If that was all you were saying then it's irrelevant. What you can and cannot see with your own two eyeballs is not a valid indicator of the truth of evolution.

Well, based on your worldview, it must be true. It is the only game in town after you negate the existence of God.

As soon as a better naturalistic theory is available, I will discard evolution. It's not the case that evolution must be true.

Birds have legs and wings.

Right, but that's not relevant to the point I was making. If you acknowledge it's a matter of luck, why isn't "they got lucky" a sufficient answer?

I gotta disagree with you there, amigo.

Quit it. Whether science works or not is not a matter of opinion.

Bruh, was not the archeo considered the transitional fossil (reptile-bird)? So how does the "I found the fossilized remains of a an animal that died a long time ago; therefore, reptiles evolved into a bird" thing not demonstrate the rationale that was used?

Because the rationale is missing completely. If you know about transitional fossil, why trivialize the explanation by omitting it?

Sure, because a mindless and blind process implies organized order, doesn't it?

No, why would you think that?

So you would be the only person in history that ever went in a pet store and asked for "vertebrates". You are better off going in the pet store and just asking "can you take me to the animals section?".

And had I asked that, I would accept birds, reptiles, fish and so on. What seems to be the problem here? If you ask for a fox, would you accept a dog?

And I've never technically saw a reptile evolve into a bird or anything close to such a transformation in nature.

Again, irrelevant. What you've and haven't seen with your two eyeballs is a red herring as to the scientific merit of evolution.

And your misconception about nature is leading you to believe all the wrong things.

I understand the model proposed by creationism, I simply think it false, where as you don't understand the model proposed by evolution.

In that case, neither is Jesus' Resurrection.

Not in the same sense, evolution is a scientific theory.

Oh, I got the point...I just disagree with you as to what should come after the word "common".

If you got the point then address it. Disagreeing doesn't advance your case one bit.

Because most naturalists don't seem to acknowledge the point...

Wherever are you getting that impression from? Haven't we made a huge enough deal affirming that science cannot prove that God doesn't exist?

which goes back to the "you can't say evolution is a brute fact without knowing whether abiogenesis is true" spiel.

Who is saying evolution is a brute fact? As far as I can tell, you are the one who brought this up.

Oh, I got it.

You got the significance of what you said and don't feel it retracting it? You affirmed that evolution could be inferred from the fossil record, is that not a big deal coming from a creationist?

Which is why I fully accept microevolution..you know, an observational fact in science.

But that doesn't explain why you reject macroevolution you know, an observational fact in science.

The sabre toothed tiger went extinct. Was it because evolution didn't equip them properly?

Yes. Sabre toothed tigers are less fit than hamsters.

Whether or not an animal evolved wings in the first place was also irrelevant..but that didn't stop them from getting wings, did it?

What are you talking about? How can an animal get wings, if it didn't evolve wings in the first place?

No, because if you recall, my original question was "Why do some animals get wings, and some don't"... so you pointing out the fact that bats have wings is irrelevant, because I had already acknowledged that fact.

You were asking why are birds so special that they got wings and bats shows that birds are not so special after all.

I don't recall what was discussed there.

Well look at the post history. The point was, you were moving the goal post and that's irrational.

Facts = dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. Anything beyond that is speculative.

That's moot since vertebrate producing vertebrate does not go beyond that.

My argument against macroevolution is simple: Evolution cannot be a brute fact if God does NOT exist.

Plain and simple. Simple and plain.

I don't get where you are getting this "brute fact" business from.

I'm not sure what that means..

I am asking you why not insist that since foxes produce foxes and dogs produce dogs is what we can observed, foxes and dogs are different kind.

That is what you say, but that isn't what we observe. We only observe animals producing what they are, not what they aren't. If you believe otherwise...

No one believes otherwise though.

That being said, we have no reasons to think that those changes can be stretched on a macro scale. I understand that some of us would like to believe that this is the case, however, if we believe this, we are going beyond observation, experiment, and prediction. We are going beyond science.

There you go ignoring the fact that macroevolution has been experimented up on and the observation matches the predictions.

Um, no. When the Bible called bats "birds", it was a show of how they classified animals. Apparently any animal with wings was called "birds". However, one can believe that bats are birds without even hinting the idea that bats evolved into birds or vice versa.

I know, I was asking you if the passage made bats from birds more believable, despite it not saying bats came from birds.

Subjective and arbitrary standard? What do yo mean? It is what I observe!!!

No, you merely observed foxes produce foxes, dogs produce dogs, birds produce birds. That doesn't in any objective way tell you that dogs and birds are different kinds but foxes and dogs are the same kind. That dogs and foxes are the same kind but birds are separate is subjective and arbitrary.

And? What does that have to do with one evolving into the other? Nothing.

Right, but it invalided the "kinds" argument.

I forgot what was discussed here.

You implied evolution cannot be true without abiogenesis also being true.

So are we gonna just pretend like evolution isn't a brute fact in natural reality?

No need to pretend, no one but you have ever suggested evolution as some sort of brute fact.

Honestly, I am not aware of the two going hand in hand. In fact, I wasn't aware of either concepts (OE/YE) having any aspect of "evolution" in it. I thought it was strictly "age of the earth" stuff. But I could be wrong.

However, my position is; I am about 80% convinced that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, and I am even comfortable with the tracing the big bang back to 13.7 billion years.

That being said; from the moment that sentient life began on earth, I am convinced that the diversity in organisms were all, and REMAINED, limited to the micro level.

I don't know how many original "kinds" God created, but it is apparent to me that it is from all of those original "kinds", from which all varieties of those "kinds" came from.

So why can't vertebrate be one of the original kind, from which birds, reptile and other such animals originated from?

[benchwarmer]

Funnily enough, if you would actually provide a proper definition for 'kind', you are actually right.

I did.

You provided a lot of 'hand waving' and have not provided a specific definition or even an exhaustive list of 'kinds'. According to you, it seems to be a loosely defined word that contains dogs, cats, birds, and reptiles. Care to be more specific or at least point to an actual scientific list of these 'kinds'?

A modern day bird is the same 'kind' as an ancient reptile who was it's common ancestor.

According to your religion (ToE), I guess so. And according to my religion (Christianity), Jesus is the Savior for mankind. So now what?

Now it seems you are happy labeling peer reviewed, observational science as religion. To each their own.

The reptile gained so many mutations we slapped a special word on it and called it a 'bird'. Technically, it's still the exact same 'kind' as it's ancestor.

Sure, again..that is what you believed to have occurred. You haven't seen that kind of stuff in nature, though. You believed that it happened x million years ago..and you can believe it as much as you want...but that ain't science. That is religion.

Again, take a genetics class. You can actually observe this in nature, you just have to look at the genetic level. Staring at that pigeon on your window sill is not going to cut it. Science has moved far beyond that.

I've watch you dance around avoiding actually defining 'kind', but you are probably trying to say 'species' without saying it because that word is not in your holy book in the Noah fable.

As I said before...a "dog", a wolf, and a coyote <---those are different "species"..but they are clearly the same "kind" of animal. No matter how you slice the cake, they are all dogs/canines.

And how do you know this? Because they all have 4 legs and a tail? How does science know they are the same 'kind'? Please be specific.

[For_The_Kingdom]

It sure is, we are evaluating the merits naturalistic theory after all, but I guess that's too much to expect from a creationist.

Strange...evaluating the merits of naturalistic theories, theories of which aren't observed in..nature.

Very strange indeed.

Okay. Follow up rhetorical question, does your evaluation of the possibility (or lack there of) for evolution equate to actual possibility (or lack there of) of said theory?

When you say "evaluation of the possibility" (or lack there of), that is implying that my position is "maybe/maybe not"...when instead, my position is absolutely, positively not.

I based this strong position on the argument from consciousness. If consciousness can't come from physical material, then of course, there goes your sentient life...out of the window.

Which is why I am asking you to quit it, if you acknowledge that I am not lying.

I acknowledged you are not lying, while at the same time acknowledging that you believe in a lie. Now, you may not like this but hey, it is what it is.

If that was all you were saying then it's irrelevant. What you can and cannot see with your own two eyeballs is not a valid indicator of the truth of evolution.

True, if you want to take it at face value. However, you need not take it at face value, because my case against evolution is a cumulative case. It isn't based on just one thing...it is based on at least 3 different things.

Again, we are talking about macroevolution without God..I have at least 3 reasons why it is impossible to have occurred without God. And those reasons are damaging to the theory.

As soon as a better naturalistic theory is available, I will discard evolution. It's not the case that evolution must be true.

And what will a "better" theory be? Throw something at me.

Right, but that's not relevant to the point I was making. If you acknowledge it's a matter of luck, why isn't "they got lucky" a sufficient answer?

I believe it is a matter of luck for arguments sake; based on the unproven, impossible theory that we are talking about.

Obviously, since I am a creationist, "luck" had nothing to do with it..unless it is in the sense of "They were lucky that God gave them wings".

Quit it. Whether science works or not is not a matter of opinion.

Apparently, it is.

Because the rationale is missing completely. If you know about transitional fossil, why trivialize the explanation by omitting it?

?

No, why would you think that?

Why not, if a "mind behind the purpose" concept is negated.

And had I asked that, I would accept birds, reptiles, fish and so on. What seems to be the problem here? If you ask for a fox, would you accept a dog?

No, but if I asked for the dogs and a fox was there, I would accept that. Even though, admittedly, it would seem odd...........however, I would put a dog, wolf, coyote, fox as types of "canines"..but again, that is about as far as I can stretch it.

They are all the same "kind" of animal.

Again, irrelevant. What you've and haven't seen with your two eyeballs is a red herring as to the scientific merit of evolution.

So, science ain't based on observation? Since when? Since you are unable to explain why your theory lacks the basic fundamental of the scientific method?

Yup, I think that's it.

I understand the model proposed by creationism, I simply think it false, where as you don't understand the model proposed by evolution.

I understand, I just don't believe it. Big difference.

Not in the same sense, evolution is a scientific theory.

I don't know about all that..

If you got the point then address it. Disagreeing doesn't advance your case one bit.

What do you call what I've been doing throughout this discourse; not addressing it?

Wherever are you getting that impression from? Haven't we made a huge enough deal affirming that science cannot prove that God doesn't exist?

I don't get enough of that impression.

Who is saying evolution is a brute fact? As far as I can tell, you are the one who brought this up.

What? EVERYONE who believes in evolution has pretty much said or implied it. Check the thread..

But wait a minute, are you saying that evolution ain't a brute fact, specifically macroevolution? If you are now saying that evolution isn't a brute fact, that would mean that if you believe it, you are believing it based on faith...but that would contradict what you said in post #194..

Me: You are right, it doesn't have to be confrontational. I just want evolutionists to admit that there is an element of faith; even to their beliefs. Think I will ever get it?

You: No, you are never going to get that.

Remember that?

You got the significance of what you said and don't feel it retracting it? You affirmed that evolution could be inferred from the fossil record, is that not a big deal coming from a creationist?

Um, I never inferred that from the fossil record. You got the wrong guy.

But that doesn't explain why you reject macroevolution you know, an observational fact in science.

Because I see one and not the other.

Yes. Sabre toothed tigers are less fit than hamsters.

SMH.

What are you talking about? How can an animal get wings, if it didn't evolve wings in the first place?

Goddidit.

You were asking why are birds so special that they got wings and bats shows that birds are not so special after all.

So now the question is; how come bats and birds have wings, and other animals don't? Right back to square 10-9..

Well look at the post history.

Too much work..

That's moot since vertebrate producing vertebrate does not go beyond that.

Specific vertebrates produce specific vertebrates. How about that one?

I don't get where you are getting this "brute fact" business from.

You know how you just told me to look at the post history...well, you look at the thread history..and the record will show posters like Divine Insight and Dr.NoGods and a few others all either said or implied evolution to be a brute fact.

I am asking you why not insist that since foxes produce foxes and dogs produce dogs is what we can observed, foxes and dogs are different kind.

They are different kinds of of canines. I already stated that obviously, there are different varieties of every kind of animal (for the most part)...and that is in fact evolution, microevolution.

That is the limit of what we can see, so that should be the limit of what we should believe.

No one believes otherwise though.

Yeah, but the difference is, you believe that when the reptile evolved into a bird, that the bird was a different type of reptile...and I am saying that a bird is a different type of animal, altogether.

Big difference.

There you go ignoring the fact that macroevolution has been experimented up on and the observation matches the predictions.

I haven't seen it.

I know, I was asking you if the passage made bats from birds more believable, despite it not saying bats came from birds.

Answer: No.

No, you merely observed foxes produce foxes, dogs produce dogs, birds produce birds. That doesn't in any objective way tell you that dogs and birds are different kinds but foxes and dogs are the same kind. That dogs and foxes are the same kind but birds are separate is subjective and arbitrary.

Regardless, why do I need to go beyond what I see?

Right, but it invalided the "kinds" argument.

I disagree.

You implied evolution cannot be true without abiogenesis also being true.

Right, without God, absolutely.

No need to pretend, no one but you have ever suggested evolution as some sort of brute fact.

Check the records (thread) and allow it to validate what I am saying in this regard.

So why can't vertebrate be one of the original kind, from which birds, reptile and other such animals originated from?

It can, if that is the way God planned it. I simply see no evidence for it either way.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 233 by For_The_Kingdom]

Again, we are talking about macroevolution without God..I have at least 3 reasons why it is impossible to have occurred without God. And those reasons are damaging to the theory.

If you accept "microevolution" then you are also accepting "macroevolution". In reality there is no distinction between them. There is only evolution, the changes which occurs in populations of organisms over time. Once enough small changes have occurred over a very large number of generations, the resulting organism is sufficiently different from the distant ancestor to warrant it being regarded as a distinct species.

If you had a computer program that allowed you to make lots of tiny incremental changes to the physiology of a cat you could easily convert it into something that was readily identifiable as a dog. I understand why you would refuse to accept that fact. It undermines your entire stance on evolution, your total argument against which can easily be summed up as "'Tis not".

[Bust Nak]

Strange...evaluating the merits of naturalistic theories, theories of which aren't observed in..nature.

Very strange indeed.

That would indeed be strange, that's why we only appeal to things that can be observed in nature.

When you say "evaluation of the possibility" (or lack there of), that is implying that my position is "maybe/maybe not"...when instead, my position is absolutely, positively not.

I based this strong position on the argument from consciousness. If consciousness can't come from physical material, then of course, there goes your sentient life...out of the window.

That doesn't answer my question. Could you potentially be wrong about your "argument from consciousness?"

I acknowledged you are not lying, while at the same time acknowledging that you believe in a lie. Now, you may not like this but hey, it is what it is.

Quit it!

True, if you want to take it at face value. However, you need not take it at face value, because my case against evolution is a cumulative case. It isn't based on just one thing...it is based on at least 3 different things.

Again, we are talking about macroevolution without God..I have at least 3 reasons why it is impossible to have occurred without God. And those reasons are damaging to the theory.

The reason "I can't see it with my own two eyeballs," one of the 3 reasons? If so then you are incorrect, that reason is invalid and does nothing to damage the theory. If it is not one of the three, then you have repeatedly brought up a red herring that's irrelevant to the debate.

And what will a "better" theory be? Throw something at me.

Don't know, if I knew a better theory, I would be writing a paper instead of trying to converse with you. I want my Nobel prize.

I believe it is a matter of luck for arguments sake; based on the unproven, impossible theory that we are talking about.

Obviously, since I am a creationist, "luck" had nothing to do with it..unless it is in the sense of "They were lucky that God gave them wings".

All the more reason for you to put your creationist goggles down. You are judging the merit of evolution according to how different it is to creationism. All you are saying here is, evolution isn't creationism, therefore evolution is false.

Apparently, it is.

Which means the problem is with you perception.

Why not, if a "mind behind the purpose" concept is negated.

Because it is irrational. A implies B, doesn't imply B implies A.

No, but if I asked for the dogs and a fox was there, I would accept that.

I will take that as a no then, no where in my question hinted at a lack of dogs.

They are all the same "kind" of animal.

The question is why you would think that when you've never saw a fox giving birth to a dog.

So, science ain't based on observation?

No, science is indeed based on observation, however it isn't based on what you can see with your own two eyeballs. Your challenge here once again tries to equate what you've seen with scientific observation. Stop it.

Since you are unable to explain why your theory lacks the basic fundamental of the scientific method?

Loaded question cannot be answered. The premise that evolution lacks the basic fundamental of the scientific method, is false.

I understand...

That's demonstrably false, given your "kinds" argument.

I don't know about all that..

That's why we are here, to teach you.

What do you call what I've been doing throughout this discourse; not addressing it?

I would call it hand wavy dismissal, with your "I disagree," "?," "LOL," "don't remember what we were discussing," and "SMH," not to mention the constant stream of "I haven't seen it" style response.

I don't get enough of that impression.

That's a rather unjustified impression, given we keep affirming it whenever the topic comes up.

What? EVERYONE who believes in evolution has pretty much said or implied it. Check the thread..

I have taken an active part in the thread, I know what people has been telling you. You were the one making the suggestion.

But wait a minute, are you saying that evolution ain't a brute fact, specifically macroevolution?

Yes, it's a scientific theory, and can be replaced if a better naturalistic theory comes along.

If you are now saying that evolution isn't a brute fact, that would mean that if you believe it, you are believing it based on faith.

That's a non sequitur. The conclusion that one believe it on faith, does not follow from the premise that evolution isn't a brute fact.

Me: You are right, it doesn't have to be confrontational. I just want evolutionists to admit that there is an element of faith; even to their beliefs. Think I will ever get it?

You: No, you are never going to get that.

Remember that?

Yes, I do remember that. I don't know why you would think that in any way implies evolution is a brute fact.

Um, I never inferred that from the fossil record. You got the wrong guy.

But you did say it could be inferred from the fossil record. I have the quote to show that.

Because I see one and not the other.

Not good enough, what you see and what can be scientifically observed is vastly different.

Goddidit.

Well that's not scientific.

So now the question is; how come bats and birds have wings, and other animals don't? Right back to square 10-9..

They got lucky.

Specific vertebrates produce specific vertebrates. How about that one?

No problems there. That's what we observed and that's what we appeal to.

You know how you just told me to look at the post history...well, you look at the thread history..and the record will show posters like Divine Insight and Dr.NoGods and a few others all either said or implied evolution to be a brute fact.

I checked, anyone mentioning brute facts are responding to you, I want to know what gave you the impression that such a thing was implied. What do you even think the term "brute fact" means? Could it be that you think something that is treated as obviously true is a "brute fact?"

They are different kinds of of canines. I already stated that obviously, there are different varieties of every kind of animal (for the most part)...and that is in fact evolution, microevolution.

That is the limit of what we can see, so that should be the limit of what we should believe.

That doesn't answer my question. You can see there is differences and similarities between foxes and dogs, sure. That much is easy to see, but why group them together as the same kind? There is no labels on dogs and foxes.

Yeah, but the difference is, you believe that when the reptile evolved into a bird, that the bird was a different type of reptile...and I am saying that a bird is a different type of animal, altogether.

Big difference.

Sure, there is a big difference but that doesn't explain why you would keep bringing the fact that animals producing what they are, not what they aren't, up, when no one is disputing it.

I haven't seen it.

Irrelevant what you have and haven't seen. What matters is whether it has or hasn't been scientifically observed.

Answer: No.

And yet you gave as one of your reason for rejecting evolution is that the Bible doesn't put crocodiles and birds in the same classification? Explain this apparent inconsistence.

Regardless, why do I need to go beyond what I see?

Because what you can or cannot see is not a valid indication of what is and isn't scientifically observed.

Right, without God, absolutely.

The current confusing over what you mean by abiogenesis pending, that's understandable.

Check the records (thread) and allow it to validate what I am saying in this regard.

And I found it to be invalidated.

It can, if that is the way God planned it. I simply see no evidence for it either way.

That's a decidedly softer tone than, no way - it's impossible type of response I was hearing from you.

[For_The_Kingdom]

If you accept "microevolution" then you are also accepting "macroevolution".

In a perfect, naturalistic world, I guess that would be the case.

In reality there is no distinction between them.

But there is...we can see one (micro)...and we can't see the other (macro).

There is only evolution, the changes which occurs in populations of organisms over time. Once enough small changes have occurred over a very large number of generations, the resulting organism is sufficiently different from the distant ancestor to warrant it being regarded as a distinct species.

You've left science. Congratulations; now you are in the land of religion, right along with benchwarmer, DrNoGods, and Bust Nak.

If you had a computer program that allowed you to make lots of tiny incremental changes to the physiology of a cat you could easily convert it into something that was readily identifiable as a dog.

Science fiction.

I understand why you would refuse to accept that fact.

Lack of convincing evidence.

It undermines your entire stance on evolution, your total argument against which can easily be summed up as "'Tis not".

Pretty much like your argument against religion, right?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 236 by For_The_Kingdom]



I think you're trolling or hopelessly digging in your heels at this point, FotK.

You acknowledged millions of generations of microevolution already.

So what do you think an organism looks like after that many millions of years of gradual change/mutation?

You think it's just a different color or has a slightly different tail or something?

Agreeing to countless millions of mutations in an organism over that span IS macroevolution, and it's only reasonable to expect shocking differences in the lineage of an organism over those time scales.

To keep shaking your head and LOL'ing says more about your inability to divorce reason from religion than any honesty you approach the evidence with.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 236 by For_The_Kingdom]

You've left science. Congratulations; now you are in the land of religion, right along with benchwarmer, DrNoGods, and Bust Nak.

Would you agree with the definitions below, extracted from this thread, for a custom FTK Dictionary?

Macro-evolution: Not the result of a series of "microevolution" events, but an impossibility based on personal incredulity.

Abiogenesis: Any naturalistic mechanism for the origin of life, ocurring on any celestial body.

Panspermia: Just another word for abiogenesis.

Evolution: A process that depends on the mechanism for origin of life, and therefore cannot be valid because it does not explain the origin of life.

Religion: Any belief whether evidence based or faith based ... eg. science, christianity, islam, etc.

Did I miss anything? If you redefine enough words you can support just about any position you want to take. But if you accept the standard definitions your opposition to "macro" evolution quickly falls apart.

[For_The_Kingdom]

That would indeed be strange, that's why we only appeal to things that can be observed in nature.

I don't know about "only".

When you say "evaluation of the possibility" (or lack there of), that is implying that my position is "maybe/maybe not"...when instead, my position is absolutely, positively not.

I based this strong position on the argument from consciousness. If consciousness can't come from physical material, then of course, there goes your sentient life...out of the window.

That doesn't answer my question. Could you potentially be wrong about your "argument from consciousness?"

It doesn't answer your question because "could I be wrong about argument from consciousness" was not the original question.

The answer to the original question was "no". Now, moving along to the new question...no, I could not be wrong about the argument from consciousness.

Quit it!

Hey, I am just the messenger. Kill the message (evolution is a lie), not the messenger (me).

The reason "I can't see it with my own two eyeballs," one of the 3 reasons? If so then you are incorrect, that reason is invalid and does nothing to damage the theory. If it is not one of the three, then you have repeatedly brought up a red herring that's irrelevant to the debate.

Observation is one of the fundamental principals of the scientific method. You can't take observation out of the equation and still claim you are doing science.

When you take observation out of the equation, it becomes speculation.

Don't know, if I knew a better theory, I would be writing a paper instead of trying to converse with you. I want my Nobel prize.

Well, until you start knowing instead of assuming, perhaps you should be slow to speak on such matters.

All the more reason for you to put your creationist goggles down. You are judging the merit of evolution according to how different it is to creationism. All you are saying here is, evolution isn't creationism, therefore evolution is false.

True, evolution is false...but how I got to that conclusion is vastly different than your portrayal.

Because it is irrational. A implies B, doesn't imply B implies A.

Oh agree...I just don't see how it relates to what we are talking about.

I will take that as a no then, no where in my question hinted at a lack of dogs.

I was just telling you what I am willing to accept...based on the Big Three. I understand you may not like that, but hey.

The question is why you would think that when you've never saw a fox giving birth to a dog.

I also never saw a cheetah give birth to a domestic cat, but despite this lack of an observation, it is clear that a cheetah and a domestic cat are the same kind of animal.

Maybe a fox is able to reproduce with a dog...sounds like a good area for biologists to dive in to...all goes back to experiment, you know, science stuff.

No, science is indeed based on observation, however it isn't based on what you can see with your own two eyeballs. Your challenge here once again tries to equate what you've seen with scientific observation. Stop it.

Well let me put it to you this way; I've never see it, nor do I have any reasons beyond observation to conclude that it can/has occurred.

There, all bases are covered.

Loaded question cannot be answered. The premise that evolution lacks the basic fundamental of the scientific method, is false.

I understand why that is what you believe.

I would call it hand wavy dismissal, with your "I disagree,"

Only in a perfect world would people agree with everything you say. Only.

"?,"

When something don't make sense to me or I lack understanding in something, I question it.

"LOL,"

It is called; humor.

"don't remember what we were discussing,"

Honesty.

and "SMH,"

Expression.

not to mention the constant stream of "I haven't seen it" style response.

More honesty.

I have taken an active part in the thread, I know what people has been telling you. You were the one making the suggestion.

So, if I do my homework and give you examples of those who said/implied that evolution is a brute fact...will you apologize for being disingenuous?

If you were as active in this thread as you claim you are, then we really shouldn't be having this discussion.

Yes, it's a scientific theory, and can be replaced if a better naturalistic theory comes along.

Nature is nature.

That's a non sequitur. The conclusion that one believe it on faith, does not follow from the premise that evolution isn't a brute fact.

Yes it does..in this situation (since evolution is based on contingency, not necessity), to believe in evolution based upon faith is to admit that it isn't a brute fact.

Yes, I do remember that. I don't know why you would think that in any way implies evolution is a brute fact.

Disingenuous. I see I am going to have to keep my convo's with you to a minimum as well.

But you did say it could be inferred from the fossil record. I have the quote to show that.

I said that macroevolution could be inferred from the fossil record? Show me.

Not good enough, what you see and what can be scientifically observed is vastly different.

Well, when I scientifically observe it, I will see it.

Well that's not scientific.

It sure isn't. I have no problem with that, you do.

They got lucky.

Faith.

No problems there. That's what we observed and that's what we appeal to.

Yeah, but..

I checked, anyone mentioning brute facts are responding to you, I want to know what gave you the impression that such a thing was implied. What do you even think the term "brute fact" means? Could it be that you think something that is treated as obviously true is a "brute fact?"

Disingenuous. No one said that they literally used the term "brute fact". I am saying that yeah, as you say, they are treating it as if it is obviously "true" and impossible to be falsified. I call that a "brute fact"....because that is what they are implying, that evolution is a brute fact.

That doesn't answer my question. You can see there is differences and similarities between foxes and dogs, sure.

That much is easy to see, but why group them together as the same kind?

Because same kinds tend to look similar...and they look similar enough to be considered the "same kind".

There is no labels on dogs and foxes.

There are no labels on fossils, either...but that hasn't stopped you people (evolutionists) from doing your thang...has it?

Sure, there is a big difference but that doesn't explain why you would keep bringing the fact that animals producing what they are, not what they aren't, up, when no one is disputing it.

Well, if you are claiming that a reptile slowly evolved into a bird through generations of reproducing...then that is exactly what you are disputing.

Irrelevant what you have and haven't seen. What matters is whether it has or hasn't been scientifically observed.

I haven't seen anything close to a reptile-bird transformation.

And yet you gave as one of your reason for rejecting evolution is that the Bible doesn't put crocodiles and birds in the same classification? Explain this apparent inconsistence.

What? No where have I ever said or alluded to that. I said that the Bible states that animals will produce after their kinds, and that is what I see. Nothing more, nothing less.

Because what you can or cannot see is not a valid indication of what is and isn't scientifically observed.

If I can observe it, I can see it. I can't see it, so I can't observe it.

The current confusing over what you mean by abiogenesis pending, that's understandable.

I mean exactly what the definition mean...

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis
ˌ�bī�ˈjenəsəs/Submit
noun
the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.

And I've been consistent with my understanding and definition of it since day 1-0.

And I found it to be invalidated.

You got the floor. Show me.

That's a decidedly softer tone than, no way - it's impossible type of response I was hearing from you.

It is softer because God is in the equation...however, with God out of the equation, things tend to get more animated.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I think you're trolling or hopelessly digging in your heels at this point, FotK.

I'm easy like Sunday morning.

You acknowledged millions of generations of microevolution already.

Affirmative.

So what do you think an organism looks like after that many millions of years of gradual change/mutation?

I think it will look like a different version of what it was a million years prior...same thing, different version..different variety.

You think it's just a different color or has a slightly different tail or something?

Sure, there are many different breeds of dogs..different colors...hair...some tails longer than others...but all dogs, nevertheless.

Agreeing to countless millions of mutations in an organism over that span IS macroevolution

If you presuppose macroevolution to be true, then I guess so.

, and it's only reasonable to expect shocking differences in the lineage of an organism over those time scales.

I guess we have different definitions on what is considered "reasonable" in this context.

To keep shaking your head and LOL'ing says more about your inability to divorce reason from religion than any honesty you approach the evidence with.

I go where the evidence takes me. Plain and simple.