If evolution is true, then obviously "Jesus" is not real.

You're trying way too hard to make a semantic point. The "process of evolving" is what we call BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION.

 

You merely need a clue and a Cause to understand the concepts.

Evolution is required for the process of evolving.

Evolution must happen to evolve.

 

Please, give a concrete example of the difference between the two. Merely repeating (*)(*)(*)(*) over and over again isn't very lucrative for business.

 

Change must occur and be successful to evolve.

 

A concrete example. All you did was replace the word "evolution" with "change". Considering "evolve" and "change" are synonyms, all you're saying is "change must occur and be successful to change". No (*)(*)(*)(*). That's a tautology.

 

The example is "concrete". It is only your understanding that is not fixed as a Standard very well.

In any Case, the sole surviving species in the Homo genus is a form of evolving through evolution. The Miller-Urey experiment was only an experiment in evolution.

 

You haven't provided ANY example, you've provided a tautological definition. Do you understand what an example means?

Do you not understand that he wasn't asking for an example of chemical evolution? He's asking for evidence of a completely different process.

If I asked you for proof that you could cook an egg, and you instead baked a cake while yelling "They're both chemical processes!", you'd look just as ridiculous as you do now.

 

Non sequiturs are just that, and usually considered a fallacy.

In any Case, the sole surviving species in the Homo genus is a form of evolving through evolution. The Miller-Urey experiment was only an experiment in evolution.

Chemical evolution had to happen for biological evolution to occur.

 

You purposefully misquote me and then argue against your misquote.

Surely you don't see that as reflecting badly on me.

 

Since you just jumped in and missed what I've said I will repeat it.

Evolutionists claim that one kind of animal changes into another kind of animal. The animal "kind" is roughly equal to the current classification of "Family".

Show me evidence of one kind (family) of animal changing into another.

- - - Updated - - -

creating amino acids is creating amino acids, not life.

Where is your scientific evidence supporting your myth of evolution?

 

No would have been much more effective answer.
And it would have given you credibility. Now you're just another who thinks he has all the answers without ever giving an answer.

 

Yes, it's trivial to show that designers exist, but that doesn't indicate that God exists.

And, comparing the history of autos to the history of life makes no sense.

 

No, that is not what the Theory of Evolution says. The age of new families arising is long past. Change only occurs at the species level.

 

Families are just broader groupings somewhat like species are groupings of life forms that can interbreed.

Unlike with species, there isn't a precise definition of how much difference there needs to be for two life forms to be said to be in a different family. Families are useful in that members have common characteristics, allowing them to be studied and understood as a group.,

So, new families arise from continuing evolution that results in groups of species that are useful to study as a group. There isn't any reason for further evidence than evidence of evolution. You've been handed plenty of that.

Biologists would not accept your "one animal changing into another" terminology. It's a misleading way of saying what is actually happening. That terminology leads to the misunderstanding that (for example) a monkey turned into a human - which is quite obviously not what happened.

 

why stop at family and not species and sub-species?

abiogenesis.

Evolution does not require life as we know it; evolving may.

 

Evolution is a very slow process compared to our lifespans, It has to do with small mutations that give an advantage over other, for instance nocturnal creatures do better with night vision, so those that can see better at night would be more successful hunters, those with night vision would become dominant in the species due to their advantage and would breed more, essentially phasing out the inferior vision of the species. If this process happens many times of many thousands of years the animal will evolve into a more successful species. Or the old version might become more successful day hunters and they become their own species, and 2 species come out of one.

What you are describing, is a instantaneous (overnight) evolution, I think this model was created by creationists just to argue, I heve never heard of anyone actually believing that "instant evolution" scenario.

On a side note...Humans bred dogs the way they are today. We guided their evolution to make them more submissive/loyal/obedient/protective breeds for pets.

 

Simply being the sole surviving species in the Homo genus is an example of evolving through evolution.

 

If you have had 2 flu vaccinations in your lifetime, then you believe in evolution.

 

I agree.

- - - Updated - - -

Current science.


View attachment 32047

- - - Updated - - -

Where is your scientific evidence supporting your myth of evolution?

 

I hate to have to break out the Lego instructions...

 

Simply being the sole surviving species in the Homo genus is an example of evolving through evolution.

 

I gave you a number of examples of speciation that occurred under close observation.

I pointed out that there is no other theory that explains the fossil record. Creationism certainly does not.

I pointed out that evolution has been studied and accepted by modern biology to the point where evolution has become a founding principle of the entire field of science.

Yet, without any argument to the contrary on any of these, you still ask for evidence.

Clearly, you're tapped out and getting frustrated.

 

Care to point out which conclusion does not follow from my statements? Because I think you don't understand what a non sequitur is.

The hell does that even mean? A form of evolving through evolution? That statement makes literally no semantic sense.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the poster asking for evidence of biological evolution.

 

A bacteria evolving [sic] into a bacteria is not an example of evolution. Scheesch.