Freddy Davis shares how the beliefs of Naturalists are based on faith, not science as they believe.
Scientist Says Free Will Doesn’t Exist
July 5, 2024 | Freddy Davis
Sign Up To Receive Our Free Newsletter In Your Inbox!
Hi Freddy,
Please refute this arg from a Thiestic Evo:
“” As you know, evolution is directly observed. Speciation is a observed fact. Even honest YE creationists admit the evidence indicates common descent:
Evidence for not just one but for allthree of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms “”
Thanks!
Micro-evolution is directly observed, but there is absolutely NO evidence for macro-evolution. Evolutionists conflate the two, but it is simply not true. This fact blows up every argument they throw out.
The person using this quote to support evolution thinks macro evolution is defined as speciation.
What evidence do you have to debunk that?
Macro-evolution is not the same as speciation. Macro-evolution involves changes that are so large that you end up with entirely different kinds of living things. It is one thing to have wide varieties of ducks, and another thing altogether to assert that an amoeba ultimately evolved into a duck. There is just no evidence that macro-=evolution (evolution from molecule to man) is even possible. It is not based on science. It is a theory based on naturalistic philosophy with no science to back it up.
Yes ,
but the person is saying that a Creationist is “admitting proof of evolution”.
Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
Is Wise compromised?
I’m not fully familiar with Dr. Wise’s approach to this, but it appears to me that he simply asserts that there is not enough data out there on this topic to give a scientific evaluation of those who claim there are legitimate transitional forms. But it doesn’t matter what anyone says because all that is out there is nothing but speculation based on their previously held naturalistic philosophy. What does the actual science say? There is no science whatsoever that supports macro-evolution. None! And when it comes to “transitional forms,” anything anyone says about it is pure speculation. There simply is no science (actual observation and experimentation) to back it up. To believe in macro-evolution, a person has to begin with a belief in naturalistic philosophy then draw their conclusions from there. No one can begin with science and make a case for any part of a naturalistic worldview.
He is giving this as evidence of M-evolution.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=11023302
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/snakes-grow-legs-evolution
Please dive in to these two, and address their claims accordingly. thank!
Neither of these article give any evidence of naturalistic evolution. They both assume it. That’s the way most articles that are trying to support evolution deal with the topic. They use terms like “may have” or “possibly,” but the don’t know. They just assume and speculate. Even the legs on the snake don’t prove macro evolution. It could easily be a dormant micro-evolutionary trait. They assume naturalistic evolution is true, then pontificate “as if” it is true. There is no actual evidence of macro-evolution at all.