It is more about the Lord ministering rather than how you are accusing me as not having an honest conversation with you.
I'm willing to re-characterize your approach to this conversation. How would *you* characterize someone in a conversation who declines to offer an explanation?
I did not say that evolution theory did but I pointed out that on the chromosome level we are closer to the pig than the ape and yet you share that bit of info and so now I address it as why they say we share a common ancestor with something else when we are closer to the pig on that chromosome level?
OK, if we want to discuss this issue, can you first provide a link to an authoritative source that says how close we are to pigs chromosomal compared to how close we are to apes (but, then again, we *are* part of the ape family, so you'll need to refine exactly what you mean there). Perhaps you mean chimpanzee, which is one of our closest relatives?
No. I do not agree with that evolutionary concept at all.
So, if you don't agree that gills don't have to disappear before lungs evolve, that would seem to mean that you *do* hold that gills would *have to* disappear before lungs evolve. Is that what you hold?
Hardly any evidence at all when it has never been observed but assumed as existing only in the minds of the imagination.
This reduces to the idea that we don't need to have an eyewitness to something to make conclusions about it. So, see below.
By the way, you never responded to this, which relates directly to the lack of a need for an eyewitness:
If you wake up one morning, look out your window, and see that everything is wet, you can't promptly conclude it rained overnight because you weren't an eyewitness it to?
You did not read my post carefully. I had posted:
A case can be proven when there are eyewitnesses to the account,
I never denied that. It's like you don't understand the logic that's going on. You attempted to discredit evolution because there's no eyewitness. I replied that an eyewitness isn't needed, just like detectives don't need it. That doesn't mean that cases can't be proven when there is an eyewitness, so saying that cases can be proven with eyewitnesses is meaningless, it doesn't change anything about not needing an eyewitness.
but if your superiors are going to insist that you follow one crime scene that was supposedly solved to apply it to all other crime scenes, then that same butler did it every time.
This has nothing to do with whether you need an eyewitness to solve a crime.
Thus alluding to the definition of real science which has to be observed and proven. You have to have eyewitnesses acount.
Can you find me an authoritative source that says this? Everything I've read about science doesn't say that.
Real science is about what can be observed and proven.
Not only is that not stated precisely enough to move the argument along (what does "is about" actually mean? Of course science **uses** observation, but it doesn't need to observe the phenomenon in question, it can make inferences, so does that mean that science is or is not about what can be observed? Who knows?), but you've been told repeatedly that science doesn't prove things; it makes conclusions that might be 99.99% certain, but that's not a proof.
Shall I apply the reverse that what cannot be observed and therefore no proven is a false science? Is it not logical?
See above.
It is magic when it is not observed.
Try telling that to a detective that solves a case without an eyewitness.
It is akin to believing the bullet macroevolved itself in the victim's corpse for how it had died. So case of death is natural. No murder at all.
No, evolution is based on evidence. Did you read the 29 evidences for evolution that I linked?
I only referred to that as proof of tainted education, sir. You are only confirming it.
How is that proof of whose tainted education? I don't know what you mean. Can you write more clearly?
The Law of Biogenesis does.
What?! You just said that the Law of Biogenesis says that a dog will give birth to something other than a dog. What?
remember that pesky law of science which disprove the macroevolution of this evolution theory?
As if you mentioned some law of science that disproves macroevolution? What on earth are you talking about?
And an example of that is where we can see?
Every time any organism gives birth. Did you really need to ask me that?
A lion & a tiger were by man's intervention,
No, that's not what I said. You have to be precise in your writing, this is a major problem.
thus by intelligent design, bred together to create a new species, a liger, both male & female, but they cannot reproduce in carrying on that new species. Same for a mule from a donkey & a horse. They females can mate with their other species still, if I recall that correctly, but as for continuing on as that new species, they cannot.
See the problem?
Gosh, no, I honestly don't. Can you explain it in another way?
Science with an established bio system
What on earth is a bio system that science has established?
cannot breed new species for it to continue on as a new species
Why is this relevant?
and yet we are supposed to believe that by random chance,
It's not just by random chance. Mutations in DNA are random in many respects, but natural selection, which is an essential part of evolution, is not at all random.
macroevolution will occur where they are no longer that former specie that can breed with the former species,
That's pretty close.
and yet somehow out of this random chance, an opposite sex will be provided for that new species for this new species to continue?
Are you seriously suggesting that the availability of the opposite sex kills the theory of evolution? I just need that confirmed before I go on, because it is kinda wild.
Ah, I might as well just get to the punchline. A mutation in DNA can well be dominant, which means that if only one parent has that mutation, all the offspring will, too. That takes care of the problem of the opposite sex.
What does the power of observation tell you there? Macroevolution is not happening ever.
See above.
