RF:
We agree related to microevolution. Regardless of how macro-evolution is
defined, it appears to me that the only evolution that now takes place
related to animals is micro-evolution. Do you agree?
Jason

We agree related to microevolution. Regardless of how macro-evolution is
defined, it appears to me that the only evolution that now takes place
related to animals is micro-evolution. Do you agree?

In article <1136755038.166321.134750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
richard@plesiosaur.com wrote:

Jason wrote:

Of course some agendas are honest and some are based on lies.
Intelligent Design is one such lie-based agenda. Supporting science is
one that is based on evidence and honesty.

I disagree. Evolutionists claimed that evolution is to be based on
science. However, anyone that has a Ph.D. in in biology or a related field
of science knows that micro-evolution is based on science but that
macro-evolution is based on an assumption that life can evolve from
non-life.

Anyone with a PhD in biology knows that the distinction between micro-
and macroevolution made by creationists is utterly bogus and has no
basis whatsoever in biology. Macroevolution, in the sense that the term
is used by scientists, is a descriptive term referring to evolution at
the level of speciation and beyond. As speciation events have been
recorded on many occasions, it is simply false to assert that it is
"not based on science".

Furthermore, creationists use the term in a way in which is utterly
meaningless: it refers to microevolution as variation within "kinds",
and macroevolution as evolution outside "kinds". As there is no
biologically meaningful definition of kinds, the concept is
meaningless.

Not even most creationists confuse evolution at any scale with
abiogenesis, as you do.

True science is NOT based on assumptions.

All science is based on the assumption that the universe behaves in a
consistent and coherent way. Without that assumption the could be no
science.

You may say that the
creation of life is NOT related to evolution. However, without life there
can be no evolution.

The origin of life is related to evolution. However, the evidence which
supports evolution at all scales stands on its own regardless of the
orgin of living organisms.

RF

RF,
We agree related to microevolution. Regardless of how macro-evolution is
defined, it appears to me that the only evolution that now takes place
related to animals is micro-evolution. Do you agree?

I disagree. Evolutionists claimed that evolution is to be based on
science. However, anyone that has a Ph.D. in in biology or a related field
of science knows that micro-evolution is based on science but that
macro-evolution is based on an assumption that life can evolve from
non-life.

True science is NOT based on assumptions. You may say that the
creation of life is NOT related to evolution. However, without life there
can be no evolution.

In article <pg21s1tdgbsn3fgi0bjn969vnpu7ko6ovi@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:06:04 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701061906040001@pm4-broad-54.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

cactus,
Thanks for the above post. It's the best post that I have seen in three weeks.
Believe it or not, many advocates of evolution have an agenda and don't
even realize it. You understand that advocates of evolution have an
agenda. Their agenda was obvious during the Dover case.

Of course some agendas are honest and some are based on lies.
Intelligent Design is one such lie-based agenda. Supporting science is
one that is based on evidence and honesty.

I disagree. Evolutionists claimed that evolution is to be based on
science.

However, anyone that has a Ph.D. in in biology or a related field
of science knows that micro-evolution is based on science but that
macro-evolution is based on an assumption that life can evolve from
non-life.

True science is NOT based on assumptions.

You may say that the
creation of life is NOT related to evolution. However, without life there
can be no evolution.

NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

In article <ckb0s15h783qgmvnk2o3mb7irqo3j424bs@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 12:40:50 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701061240510001@pm4-broad-26.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <tl70s1l5cnvprdeanaa14r28q717cdb0ad@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 12:02:14 -0800, in free.christians
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701061202140001@pm4-broad-26.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <l360s1lm58tvl94g8pinbg628ugdjaf93l@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 09:31:29 -0800, in free.christians
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701060931290001@pm4-broad-43.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <jkMvf.61690$Cj5.5552@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:

Jason wrote:

I have not conducted any research on animals other than great

apes so it

would be unwise to come to any conclusions about other

animals. I have

stated in a recent post that I took a close look at the

classification

system and it seemed to me to make sense. Those are the

reasons that I

refuse to be drawn into a discussion about how various animals are
classified. One person wanted me to base my conclusions about

two animals

based on how they look. I know that other factors are also

involved in

regard to how animals are classified so I refused to express an

opinion.

apart from the times you said that you believed scientists were

correct

in the rest of the decisions

That's true. When I took a look at the entire classification system, it
made sense. I did not focus on specific animals. The only thing

exception

was the fact that great apes and humans were in the same family.

Yet you've admitted that you don't know enough about taxonomy to give a
meaningful criticism of the decision to put all of the great apes,
including humans, into the same family. Your prejudice against evidence
is extremely inflexible.

I have stated in numerous posts that the bone and fossil EVIDENCE is
very important.

You have also shown that you ignore the evidence that is inconvenient.
If you are committed to using evidence, you have to use all of the
evidence, not just the stuff that you like. You also have to stop
letting yourself be misled by the religious doctrines that you accept.
As long as you claim that Genesis is scientific evidence, you are an
enemy of scientific evidence. The fact that you selectively accept or
ignore the physical evidence, based on your religious beliefs does not
mean that you think that bone and fossil evidence is very important. It
means that you have an agenda, not a commitment to learning.

It's my opionion that some of the advocates of evolution also have an
agenda.

You have demonstrated that your opinion is not based on evidence.

Upon request, I will provide an URL of a website that proves my point.

If you have evidence, point to it. Don't tell us we have to ask. Of
course our experience with your references is that they don't say what
you think they say.

H. McHenry wrote an article about many of the bones that have been
found over the years. He mentioned whether or not various bones supported
evolution theory and the reasons why certain bones supported evolution
theory. It was obvious to me that H. McHenry had an agenda. I asked one of
the other members of this newsgroup to read it and his conclusion was that
H. McHenry did not have an agenda. I concluded that some advocates of
evolution have an agenda and it's so strong that they don't even realize
that they have an agenda.

The agenda is a commitment to evidence and science.

Do you want to read the article?

Is is full of lies like your ICR resources?

No--it was written by an evolutionist. He has an agenda and I doubt that
he realizes it. It was obvious to me when I read his article. However, I
doubt that is would be obvious to very many advocates of evolution since
they also have an agenda.

In article <ckb0s15h783qgmvnk2o3mb7irqo3j424bs@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 12:40:50 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701061240510001@pm4-broad-26.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <tl70s1l5cnvprdeanaa14r28q717cdb0ad@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 12:02:14 -0800, in free.christians
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701061202140001@pm4-broad-26.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <l360s1lm58tvl94g8pinbg628ugdjaf93l@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 09:31:29 -0800, in free.christians
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0701060931290001@pm4-broad-43.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <jkMvf.61690$Cj5.5552@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:

Jason wrote:

I have not conducted any research on animals other than great

apes so it

would be unwise to come to any conclusions about other

animals. I have

stated in a recent post that I took a close look at the

classification

system and it seemed to me to make sense. Those are the

reasons that I

refuse to be drawn into a discussion about how various animals are
classified. One person wanted me to base my conclusions about

two animals

based on how they look. I know that other factors are also

involved in

regard to how animals are classified so I refused to express an

opinion.

apart from the times you said that you believed scientists were

correct

in the rest of the decisions

That's true. When I took a look at the entire classification system, it
made sense. I did not focus on specific animals. The only thing

exception

was the fact that great apes and humans were in the same family.

Yet you've admitted that you don't know enough about taxonomy to give a
meaningful criticism of the decision to put all of the great apes,
including humans, into the same family. Your prejudice against evidence
is extremely inflexible.

I have stated in numerous posts that the bone and fossil EVIDENCE is
very important.

You have also shown that you ignore the evidence that is inconvenient.
If you are committed to using evidence, you have to use all of the
evidence, not just the stuff that you like. You also have to stop
letting yourself be misled by the religious doctrines that you accept.
As long as you claim that Genesis is scientific evidence, you are an
enemy of scientific evidence. The fact that you selectively accept or
ignore the physical evidence, based on your religious beliefs does not
mean that you think that bone and fossil evidence is very important. It
means that you have an agenda, not a commitment to learning.

It's my opionion that some of the advocates of evolution also have an
agenda.

You have demonstrated that your opinion is not based on evidence.

Upon request, I will provide an URL of a website that proves my point.

If you have evidence, point to it. Don't tell us we have to ask. Of
course our experience with your references is that they don't say what
you think they say.

H. McHenry wrote an article about many of the bones that have been
found over the years. He mentioned whether or not various bones supported
evolution theory and the reasons why certain bones supported evolution
theory. It was obvious to me that H. McHenry had an agenda. I asked one of
the other members of this newsgroup to read it and his conclusion was that
H. McHenry did not have an agenda. I concluded that some advocates of
evolution have an agenda and it's so strong that they don't even realize
that they have an agenda.

The agenda is a commitment to evidence and science.

Do you want to read the article?

Is is full of lies like your ICR resources?

No--it was written by an evolutionist. He has an agenda and I doubt that
he realizes it. It was obvious to me when I read his article. However, I
doubt that is would be obvious to very many advocates of evolution since
they also have an agenda.

In article <opptr1le2qvus7tk4jaaup1t7lh2mbpn43@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

So when you said it was based on the differences between humans and
chimps you were lying. As is the ICR when they say their views are
based on the evidence. As are all creationists when they claim it is
science. I don't know how you get "not special" from biology. But I do
understand that you need, so very much, to have something that says
you are special in this world. The small minded fear of creationists
and fundamentalists is rather obvious and rather sad. You have no
faith in God at all and have to put all your faith in some
interpretation of some text.

I stated in several posts that I based various conclusions on
written evidence--the first three chapters of the Bible. The typical response
is The Bible is not scientific evidence.

I have also stated in other posts that the differences between great apes
and mankind is another reason.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 12:45:42 -0800, in alt.atheism ,

In article <n5dtr193ujulk09fgs94sudqujrl1dbeej@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:28:08 -0800, in alt.atheism ,

I define macroevolution the same way that Dr. John Morris defines it--not
the way some evolutionists define it.
Visit the icr.org website and type MACROEVOLUTION into their search
engine. Look for the article on the list entitled, "macroevolution and
microevolution defined" by John Morris.

"What Is The Difference Between Macroevolution And Microevolution?"
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1156

I have done so. You should really get the title right and learn to
provide a URL instead of a search suggestion.

I already explained the problems with that "definition". He claims
that "macro" evolution is "major evolutionary changes over time, the
origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but
different, ancestral types" while micro is "varieties within a given
type".

There is a major problem with this, even ignoring the attempt to
redefine the terms used by the scientists. (That primarily serves to
confuse things.) First, he never explains what "major" change is nor
how we can tell is something is a "new type". Without that the term is
just meaningless. Are giraffes and okapi the same or different
"types"? How can we tell? How about the 45 different species of deer?
Or humans and chimps? He offers no rule at all for determining the
difference. Without such a rule how can we determine if macroevolution
has occurred? We can't depend on Morris to tell us each time, can we?

What you mean and what Morris means is not what he states there.
Rather for both of you macro evolution is evolution that involves
humans and anything else. You are willing to consider giraffes and
okapi sufficiently alike to allow a common ancestor, you are willing
to consider a caribou and a muntjac similar enough to allow a common
ancestor, but you are not willing to consider humans and chimps
sufficiently alike. The DNA is more similar for humans and chimps, all
of the morphology is more similar for humans and chimps, by any
objective measure humans and chimps are more alike that a giraffe and
an okapi or a caribou and a muntjac. You can't afford to give a real
definition, that would allow the ideas to be tested and the flaws
exposed.

Matt,
Thanks for the exact URL--I made a note.
I'll tell you the reason that the advocates of creation science believe that
Great Apes and Humans are not in the same family. I'm surprised you have
not figured out the real reason based on my posts.
If you re-read the first three chapters of the Bible, it makes it clear
that mankind is special. Apes are not special. Apes are not even listed in
the first book of the Bible.

So when you said it was based on the differences between humans and
chimps you were lying. As is the ICR when they say their views are
based on the evidence. As are all creationists when they claim it is
science. I don't know how you get "not special" from biology. But I do
understand that you need, so very much, to have something that says
you are special in this world. The small minded fear of creationists
and fundamentalists is rather obvious and rather sad. You have no
faith in God at all and have to put all your faith in some
interpretation of some text.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 12:45:42 -0800, in alt.atheism ,

Matt,
Thanks for the exact URL--I made a note.
I'll tell you the reason that the advocates of creation science believe that
Great Apes and Humans are not in the same family. I'm surprised you have
not figured out the real reason based on my posts.
If you re-read the first three chapters of the Bible, it makes it clear
that mankind is special. Apes are not special. Apes are not even listed in
the first book of the Bible.

So when you said it was based on the differences between humans and
chimps you were lying. As is the ICR when they say their views are
based on the evidence. As are all creationists when they claim it is
science. I don't know how you get "not special" from biology. But I do
understand that you need, so very much, to have something that says
you are special in this world. The small minded fear of creationists
and fundamentalists is rather obvious and rather sad. You have no
faith in God at all and have to put all your faith in some
interpretation of some text.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 12:45:42 -0800, in alt.atheism ,

In article <n5dtr193ujulk09fgs94sudqujrl1dbeej@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Matt,
Thanks for the exact URL--I made a note.
I'll tell you the reason that the advocates of creation science believe that
Great Apes and Humans are not in the same family. I'm surprised you have
not figured out the real reason based on my posts.
If you re-read the first three chapters of the Bible, it makes it clear
that mankind is special. Apes are not special. Apes are not even listed in
the first book of the Bible.

So when you said it was based on the differences between humans and
chimps you were lying. As is the ICR when they say their views are
based on the evidence. As are all creationists when they claim it is
science. I don't know how you get "not special" from biology. But I do
understand that you need, so very much, to have something that says
you are special in this world. The small minded fear of creationists
and fundamentalists is rather obvious and rather sad. You have no
faith in God at all and have to put all your faith in some
interpretation of some text.

In article <n5dtr193ujulk09fgs94sudqujrl1dbeej@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:28:08 -0800, in alt.atheism ,

I define macroevolution the same way that Dr. John Morris defines it--not
the way some evolutionists define it.
Visit the icr.org website and type MACROEVOLUTION into their search
engine. Look for the article on the list entitled, "macroevolution and
microevolution defined" by John Morris.

"What Is The Difference Between Macroevolution And Microevolution?"
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1156

I have done so. You should really get the title right and learn to
provide a URL instead of a search suggestion.

I already explained the problems with that "definition". He claims
that "macro" evolution is "major evolutionary changes over time, the
origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but
different, ancestral types" while micro is "varieties within a given
type".

There is a major problem with this, even ignoring the attempt to
redefine the terms used by the scientists. (That primarily serves to
confuse things.) First, he never explains what "major" change is nor
how we can tell is something is a "new type". Without that the term is
just meaningless. Are giraffes and okapi the same or different
"types"? How can we tell? How about the 45 different species of deer?
Or humans and chimps? He offers no rule at all for determining the
difference. Without such a rule how can we determine if macroevolution
has occurred? We can't depend on Morris to tell us each time, can we?

What you mean and what Morris means is not what he states there.
Rather for both of you macro evolution is evolution that involves
humans and anything else. You are willing to consider giraffes and
okapi sufficiently alike to allow a common ancestor, you are willing
to consider a caribou and a muntjac similar enough to allow a common
ancestor, but you are not willing to consider humans and chimps
sufficiently alike. The DNA is more similar for humans and chimps, all
of the morphology is more similar for humans and chimps, by any
objective measure humans and chimps are more alike that a giraffe and
an okapi or a caribou and a muntjac. You can't afford to give a real
definition, that would allow the ideas to be tested and the flaws
exposed.

Matt,
Thanks for the exact URL--I made a note.

I'll tell you the reason that the advocates of creation science believe that
Great Apes and Humans are not in the same family. I'm surprised you have
not figured out the real reason based on my posts.
If you re-read the first three chapters of the Bible, it makes it clear
that mankind is special. Apes are not special. Apes are not even listed in
the first book of the Bible.