Replies

No, actually I was not calling you ignorant at all and I am not sure where that came from.

It came from all of the ganging up on I received on another thread from several evos who kept calling me ignorant because I didn't accept the TOE in it's entirety. I've had TOE explained in a number of college courses, so I'm not a "stranger" to the theory. I just don't accept the position that different species of animals "evolved" into some other species of animal. There is no evidence anywhere which supports this claim. That Evolution of animals takes place I can accept, although on that Micro-level you alluded to.

I just don't accept the position that different species of animals "evolved" into some other species of animal. There is no evidence anywhere which supports this claim.

I can't believe that you continue to claim that there is not evidence to support it.

We have fossils from so many different species that is is insane, and as we go lower in a geological strata, the fossils are older as well.

It is pretty simple to take those fossils, put them in proper order timiewise, then look at them physiologically, and figure out where they fit.

Then when you have separated, via line and time, it becomes pretty obvious what changes have occurred, and yes, they have become completely different species.

We have plenty of lines that show just that, the horse is well established, as well as the whale, among others, lots of others.

A little studying on your part would fill in the ignorance of evolution that you show on these threads.

The evidence is there, you just have to be willing to look at it in an objective manner.

I just don't accept the position that different species of animals "evolved" into some other species of animal. There is no evidence anywhere which supports this claim. That Evolution of animals takes place I can accept, although on that Micro-level you alluded to.

I'm wondering if you ever looked at this, which explains the concept:
Evolution in Five Easy Steps.

When you've got the concept in mind, you might then visit some of these links:
TONS OF EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION.

Well to my knowledge I did not participate in the "ganging up" on you.

You say Macro Evolution has no proof. I say Creationism has "negative proof". Why you may ask?

Let me ask a question. Why is it that the farther back in the fossil record you go, the less likely you will see any modern species? And not just for the Animal kingdom but for the Plant kingdom as well? Why?

If Creationism was true, we would have to believe that modern humans walked with Dinosaurs and swam with the Trilobites, right? I would have to believe that all the animal species that exist today, existed at the creation of the Earth, right?

But... that isn't what the fossil record shows is it? If anything, it shows that humans were not even close to being around during the time of the Dinosaurs, right? It also shows that conifers did not exists before the Carboniferous period. It shows an exceptionally large number of animals that walked/swam/grew on this Earth a very very long time before humans (or any primates) appeared on the scene.

So why is it that we have a fossil record full of animals that no longer exist yet, we have a large number of modern day animals that only go back "so far" in the fossil record?

When one looks at it Creationism falls apart from a scientific standpoint. There just isn't any evidence that all species were created at once, or even within a hundred million years of each other. Quite the contrary, the evidence shows that over an exceptionally long period of time, different species of life came and went. And that my friend, is perhaps the best "lay man's" proof that Macro Evolution is true. It EXPLAINS what we see in the fossil record and it also makes a heck of a lot of sense as well. If you agree Micro Evolution exists in the short term, it is by no means a stretch of the imagination that Macro Evolution exists over a much longer period of time.

So if anything, there is NO proof that Creationism happened. Everyone knows this, this is why people tried to repackage it as "Intelligent Design". ID says that an "unknown" creator created us (it doesn't and will not say God did). Well that makes no sense does it? What scientific proof is there that there is an "unknown creator" that did all of this?

This is why I am most exceptionally against teaching Intelligent Design as science. Because not only is there no proof to back its claim, ALL the evidence points to the contrary.