Nothing will shake my belief that god was ultimately responsible
This is truly closed minded of you.
Anyway your talking about abiogenesis not evolution.
The law of biogenisis states that no life can come from non-life. Evolution requires this. Spontaneous generation has never been observed.
The law of biogenesis has since been discredited. We have created the basics for life to arise from non life using methods that could accrue naturally.
Natural selection only gets rid of harmful characteristics, it does not make new ones. Diversity is actually lost. No better material is coming in, so no new species can come out.
Wrong again otherwise we wouldn't have things like downs syndrome. We also have examples of new species arising (see two quote replies down)
"Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful: some are meaningless, many are lethal."
Three strikes your out!
Most mutations are benign. Some are harmful, but the harmful ones will often be weeded out through the process of natural selection. Some are beneficial, if the mutation does benefit the species it get's passed on and spreads. What is beneficial is defendant on the environment. If the environment changes so can what is beneficial.
Seriously show me ANY evidence for macro-evolution as this debate is going no where you say it's true I say it's not so prove it now!
Macroevolution; changes at or above the level of the species
Speciation; the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.
observed speciation
Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
Maize (Zea mays)
There have been discovery of new species of cichlids (five I think) forming within 400 years after being separate from the parent stock.
(we can determine the speciated cichlids parent stock the same way we can determine any parental decent)
So evolution explains how the earth began?
biological evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the Earth.
How the earth began? The big bang? How all the matter got there? It has just always been there?
Not exactly. That is what got the ball rolling on the universe but if we are to focus on the earth in particular we would be looking at the interaction of gravitation forces exerted from our sun.
It has everything to do with the fact that abiogeneis is impossible due to the probability of it occurring.
Come on now this argument has already been mooted.
So now your going to tell me that microevolution leads up to macroevolution; microevolution has nothing to do with changes in species and therefore they are completely different.
Changes in a species is exactly what microevolution is.
Microevolution; the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as "change below the species level".
The last, oh three pages or so I've been testing your ability to have any sort of a debate with someone who believes in Creationism as this is the point of the thread. You failed; bad.
LOL, I thought you were being a bit to much like a d^%& there.
Well I hope my replies have been a bit better. Then again I gave you that video to being with.
Nice move.
I think we need a new Evolution vs. Creationism thread. This one has not only been derailed completely but has an error in the title.
We pretty much do have one.
http://armorgames.com/community/thread/5542017/intelligent-design-vs-evolutionAdvocacy of or belief in biological evolution.
As the wiki article points out this is moot.
"
In the modern scientific community, the term is considered an anachronism and redundant since the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution, and so it is not used."
Again as the article points out this use by creationists.
"
The Institute for Creation Research, however, in order to treat evolution as a category of religions, including atheism, fascism, humanism and occultism, commonly uses the words evolutionism and evolutionist to describe the consensus of mainstream science and the scientists subscribing to it, thus implying through language that the issue is a matter of religious belief. The basis of this argument is to establish that the creation-evolution controversy is essentially one of interpretation of evidence, without any overwhelming proof (beyond current scientific theories) on either side. Creationists tend to use the term evolutionism in order to suggest that the theory of evolution and creationism are equal in a philosophical debate."
Which is exactly how you and others have appeared to have used the term.
