Featured Ross vs. Hovind Debate

So, you are saying that evolution rises only to a hypothesis??

And what do you consider creationism?

 

thanks, we both agree that paul was one of the finest calvinistic minds God ever made!

Are you saying that you would place evolution and creationism on same levels of "proof" then, even though jesus was the creator?

 

I believe there is much evidence for creation, especially the Cambrian Explosion.

That said, there is much evidence for evolution, because "micro" evolution is true as any educated creationist would tell you. There are wide varieties within kinds.

You must understand the evolutionists are usually speaking of micro-evolution when they say there is evidence for evolution. They are absolutely correct, there is.

But there is no evidence for macro-evolution where one type of animal turns to another, such as this teaching that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

 

Agree that the lord designed and used micro in his creation of life forms, but isn't the real truth that when we see the term evolution, it really means Billions of yeras, Macro, species transformation, mankind evolved from primates etc though?

 

3 main reasons!

The bible in genesis VERY clear that God made all things in original creation"after their own kind," so no species changing into another one going on there

Macro evolution preassumes extreme aging, which is NOT proven, nor even really verifiable, and also assumes man end product of macro process, not creastion of God!

Finally, there have NEVER been found ANY fossils in the records that support inter species transformations, and even Darwin himself said that was biggest achilles heel to his theory!

 

Micro evolution is a misnomer. I am the son of a microbiologist with and earned Dr. If an organism will react the same way every time, to external stimuli, it isnt evolution, it is mutation. If it were, the original organism would cease to exist in the generation that evolved. The subsequent offspring would never again be able to reproduce a dna pattern that matched their parent's pre-evolution pattern.
This is over simplified, but to call it evolution is to admit ignorance of science.
Dont expect the educaters to help, either. I remember my Mother's doctoral dissertation on gene mutation in e coli. The questions asked by the committee that reviwed here presentation had my sister and I giggling. They had been asked and answered by Dr. Mom, in the dissertation. She was gracious, we laughed out loud.

 

Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

 

The genes of one generation do not conspire with the genes of another, to continue a trend, or direction.
Pure rubbish!
Within a specific species, the same response to the same stimuli affects every generation individually.
If a genetic response to stimuli is not a permanent change within that species, it isn't evolution, it's mutation. Mutation in one generation isn't necessarily going to carry into subsequent ones.
Mutation of the permanent nature will likely cause sterility.
There is no such thing as interspecial mutation, hence mutation cannot be "evolution", or a conspiracy between generations in a species to become another, separate species over time.
Any attempt to explain otherwise is boring old tripe from the ignorant, God denying, falsely-so-called sciences/scientists. So they call gene mutation "micro evolution", cute, zzzzzzz.

 

Right. But if it does, that's micro evolution.

How do you explain the butterflies that changed to blend in with smog? A mutation. That carried over. From generation to generation. They evolved. But only on a small (or micro) level. Micro-evolution. You do realize that gene mutation that stays IS micro evolution, right?

You are arguing a non position. You are allowing in your arguments exactly what you are arguing against. It's pure semantics. "They didn't evolve, they just passed on a mutated gene." That's evolving.

 

You are trying to argue over your own head, parroting others who were doing the same.

 

the simple truth on this is that there has NEVER been evidenced achange in species, as all changes have been within a species to adapt/evolve/mutate, but never been changed to a new and different species as Evoultionary process demands!

 

Wow, an insult to intelligence and a post not furthering the thread all in one. Not that I have to give any answer to your insult, but I've been studying creation and evolution since I fell in love with the argument at the age of 10. I am parroting no one, simply stating facts that you somehow think are inferior to acknowledge.