Originally Posted by Weatherhead03

After reading this, its quite clear you don't have the slightest understanding of the theory of evolution. You continuously misunderstand the meanings of key terms, as well you continue to quote some engineer as if he has any sort of meaningful knowledge about the theory.

I always find it quite amusing when someone without the slightest understand of a topic, feels they know more than people who devote their entire life to studying that topic.

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

ALTER2EGO -to- WEATHERHEAD:

[COLOR="Navy"]Your response is the typical self-opinionated response of someone who doesn't want to face the music. I've read books and papers on the evolution theory and know exactly where I'm coming from.

You complained that I quoted from John Morris Ph.D., an engineer, in your initial response. I directed you to my OP in which I quoted from two different school textbooks that agree with what the "engineer" said. I also posted a response to you in which I quoted from a total of three different textbooks and gave you the definition of "microevolution" and "macroevolution" from all three books. All three textbooks are in agreement with what the "engineer" said.

Since you clearly are unable to overcome what's written in all three textbooks, you've reverted back to your earlier complaint that John Morris is merely an engineer--despite the fact that what he said is confirmed by the three school textbooks.

Your ploy is very familiar. Been there and done that too many times. I've debated evolutionists at other websites who do exactly what you're now doing. When presented with evidence they can't overcome (the three text books I gave you), they start running back to earlier rebuttals that have already been overcome. When it isn't that, they're claiming—like you're doing now: "you don't understand evolution theory."


I don't have time to waste playing "cat and mouse." Since that's where you've decided to go with this, the conversation between us is over.[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by Sommerset

Yet you don't know the difference between a species and a family

science help us.

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

ALTER2EGO -to- WEATHERHEAD:

I used terminologies that are used by scientists in the evolution community for the sole purpose of exposing them as false terminologies meant to mislead laypersons. How else am I supposed to debunk this theory in a way people can relate, unless I use familiar terms that are used within the theory? In other words, both the terms "microevolution" and macroevolution" are trick-phrases and unrealities. They never happened.

The term "microevolution" is a trick-phrase that merely refers to variations of the exact same species of animal (Doberman dog, Rottweiler dog, Collie dog, etc.). In other words, the animal did not evolve into anything other than what it started off as: A DOG.

Dr. Morris is doing the very same thing that I'm doing. He's debunking the term "microevolution" by explaining that it's not evolution at all. It's simply variation of the same type or species of animal. In order for him to debunk the term "microevolution," he had to do what I'm doing. He had to use the word "microevolution," after which he explained that it's merely with reference to "variation" of the same animal. Variation is not evolution. That's the point being made.

If an interracial couple (1 is black and 1 is white) have a child together, the resulting child will be neither fully black nor fully white, The child will be a variation of both of its parents. Because a human being is involved, evolutionists do not hesitate to call it what it is: a variation of the human species. Yet, when the very same thing happens in the animal kingdom, they refer to it as "microevolution."

Originally Posted by CompleteDegen

I already addressed your concerns in a previous post. We have many observed examples of speciation, even speciation which results in mutually infertile groups. "Cat to dog" is a severe mischaracterization and the time scales to see further divergence past the species level are simply too long, at least with current experimental protocols and technology.

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

ALTER2EGO -to- WEATHERHEAD:

Your response is the typical self-opinionated response of someone who doesn't want to face the music. I've read books and papers on the evolution theory and know exactly where I'm coming from.

You complained that I quoted from John Morris Ph.D., an engineer, in your initial response. I directed you to my OP in which I quoted from two different school textbooks that agree with what the "engineer" said. I also posted a response to you in which I quoted from a total of three different textbooks and gave you the definition of "microevolution" and "macroevolution" from all three books. All three textbooks are in agreement with what the "engineer" said.

Since you clearly are unable to overcome what's written in all three textbooks, you've reverted back to your earlier complaint that John Morris is merely an engineer--despite the fact that what he said is confirmed by the three school textbooks.

Your ploy is very familiar. Been there and done that too many times. I've debated evolutionists at other websites who do exactly what you're now doing. When presented with evidence they can't overcome (the three text books I gave you), they start running back to earlier rebuttals that have already been overcome. When it isn't that, they're claiming—like you're doing now: "you don't understand evolution theory."


I don't have time to waste playing "cat and mouse." Since that's where you've decided to go with this, the conversation between us is over.

Originally Posted by VeeDDzz`

What is your actual argument, if you can sum it up for me in a single sentence?

Are you arguing that the theory of evolution does not have sufficient evidence?

Or are you arguing that the theory of evolution is incorrect? and that there is some sort of alternative that has greater explanatory power?

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

Originally Posted by Sommerset

Sorry, but why are you guys trying to correct someone who has shown to have no regard for what's true? If he did, he would have conceded his earlier basic errors and rethought his position. Anything you guys correct him on won't be accepted anyway

just seems sorta fruitless

Originally Posted by VeeDDzz`

I find it a great opportunity for me to learn something about his unique perspective. Although I may disagree with his conclusions, I still want to hear him out.

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego