There is no evidence of supernatural powers

There is no micro and macro evolution, they are the same thing

[quote]First off, It's Heavens Remors, not heavens record (L2Read). Second, I never said I wasn't religious. I stated that I never brought it up in any of my previous posts and that you are making an assumption in order to attack my creditability instead of defending your belief. Third, I know enough about evolutionary theory to see the obvious flaws in it. These flaws are more critical to evolution than the flaws in other theories or ideas. Fourth, I'm a rational and critically thinking guy. I'm an engineer for crying out loud. Math and science is my job, but even if you are rational, you need solid, concrete, and undeniable evidence to back it up. Evolution does not have that kind of evidence.[/quote] 1 What can I say auto correct is a bitch... 2 I could make that that logical connection based strictly on the propaganda you are trying to spread. Guess what I was right. 3 If you knew enough about evolutionary theory you wouldn't be vastly misrepresenting it and misunderstanding it. You obviously don't know shit. I'm going to point out though that to become theory you must first be able to have a testable hypothesis. Creationism can't even generate a testable hypothesis. Only after many hypothesis are test, and supporting data found allowing it provide make predictions and to have application in many fields of study does it become theory. Creationism meets none of these criteria, because it can't even make it past the point of having a testable hypothesis. If you were really as educated as you claimed you would see this. 4 evolution does have that. I want to know what does engineering have to do with biology. Unless you were a genetic engineer, in which case you would not only would actually understand evolution but you would also be applying it in your field of study. The thing I find most amusing is creationists put out a petition, which they had signed by "scientists". The thing is these scientist actually weren't scientist, most of them were engineers like yourself who didn't even have a degree in a field of study that evolution applied in. Many didn't even have real degrees, having either honorary degrees from religious schools or a degree from one of the many degree mills. In response to this petition the scientific community put out a similar petition in support of evolution however they did something unique. To give creationists a chance your name had to be some form of steve (Stephan, Stefan, stefanie, etc). Even with this self imposed handicap could you guess whose petition had more signatures. There is a 99.97% consensus in the scientific community in regards to the factual basis of evolution, not even one tenth of 1% deny it. They use it everyday they apply it. Are you saying that the vast majority of scientist are less rational then you are? Especially considering scientists know better then to try and let anything but the raw data shape the conclusion whereas creationism you start with the conclusion and cherry pick data to make it fit. So you feel you are more rational then 99.97% of the scientific community, but you are the one who talks to your imaginary friend even though there is no direct evidence to even show he exists. Don't get me wrong there's nothing wrong with having faith but when you use it as grounds to start a crusade against the truth and to teach lies then their is a huge problem. I suggest mr. Engineer that you revisit your study of evolution in a more rational context free of your initial religious bias. I can tell by what you have posted that you do not actually understand the theory of evolution. That you like many others started with the conclusion and are trying to make the data fit (not rational at all).

Macro evolution is micro evolution on a longer time scale. It's pretty clear you don't actually know what you're talking about

First, GJ at kind of necro-bumping my post... Second, read the rest of the thread b4 you post something that others have posted. Third, irreducible complexity. You imply that micro-evolution leads to more complex (or more evolved) species, but that cannot explain certain species that cannot have existed or formed with less complexity (see my bombardier beetle post below). Fourth, micro-evolutionary adaptions are not permanent. On the Galapagos Isles, during the drought, the birds adapted for sharper beaks to pierce through tough shells of nuts and seeds, but once the rains started and food was plentiful, they adapted back to more round beaks for eating berries. Fifth, just because something is logical, does not mean it is true. You need proof to back up a statement. The gaps in the fossil record are too large to even hint at evolution between species, and drawings don't actually count. Finally, whether or not you actually read what I posted, I'm not going to debate this anymore. This post is put to rest.

Your "Macro-Evolution" is a real thing. It's not just species becoming new species. It's passing down suitable traits from generation to generation, and gradually, over millions of years, new species will arise, and old ones will fall. And much like fractals, it is observable on many levels. Those who just write it off as pure fantasy are fools who don't take to consider it.

Well I can't be serious w/ these 'kids' (I call them that because it is how they act like). They believe whatever crap is shoved down their throats in their public schools. So, all I can do is bait them.

you are a -blam!-ing idiot stop fooling yourself to thinking that you're Einstein dipshit I can be as "smart" as you without having to look up all my words on google

He just made it up and hoodwinked the whole world eh :^)

[quote]Darwin observed one on the Galapagos Isles and made up the other. [/quote] No he didnt.

What are you trying to say friendo