How can a good God allow suffering

Are you disputing natural selection ???

No. Speciation.

. . . Speciation was not a part of the remarks to which i responded. . .

True, but speciation is the form of evolution to which I take exception. See my post here

I apologise if I did not discern your defense of adaptation.

The more specific my statements become, the more vague your defense becomes. And you certainly do love a straw man. You have been referring to speciation, not me.

Speciation is not a cut and dried matter--no responsible biologist who knows her business says that it is. Speciation can occur from sexual isolation--one group being cut off from another--as well as genetic drift which eventually results in an inability to interbreed. From an online article in the journal Science:

Quote:

Brown bears—some of which are called grizzlies—and polar bears are closely related and are even able to interbreed.

That article is concerned with the diet of polar bears--but it serves to show that speciation can occur through the sexual isolation of part of a species, and that the two parts of a species can remain sexually viable, while occupying different niches, and having radically different food sources.

But you're just attempting to move the goal posts again.

And it is hilarious that you suggest an equivalence between holy rollers and scientists.

Holy rollers start from a premise--that there is a god--for which they provide zero evidence. You have not addressed at all the fatal weakness of the "god did it" crew, and their penchant for employing the "god of the gaps" technique.

At no time have i "proclaimed" that anything i've said must be considered axiomatic.

Your rhetoric is a mess, and your claim to rely upon and adhere to the naturalistic scientific method more and more implausible.

Natural selection works upon disctint mutations that are pseudo random,

yet the argument seems to disappear that you guys have posted about your denial about evolution of whales in 20 to 40 MILLION years.

Always like your "evidence-free ID" arguments separate so they dont collide with each other eh?

I don't think that such an evolution is possible in even 100 million years.

I see no separation or collisions though

Leadfoot Quote:
"I see no separation or collisions though"

Then you are being purposely obtuse.

Replication, indirectly, both in the fossil record and in the world we inhabit--the peppered moth being a classic example of the principle of natural selection observed in nature in the lifetimes of millions of observers. Falsification--show that it can't have happened that way, and you're on the way, but it still won't authorize your holy roller explanation. Macro-evolution simply refers to time scales and more widespread populations, don't try to hobble my response in advance. Basically, people like you attempt to say that if someone can't satisfy your "god of the gaps" objections, you get to come up with that "god did it" BS.

You should really leave this to farmer. He at least can talk the talk. There is a huge difference between adaptation and speciation. The peppered moth is still a moth. My spaniel can still make puppies with a dachshund.

If you follow the story, everyone else but Noah's family had gone irretrievably bad. Since that was the state after many generations you would expect the children to be the same. Being God probably gives you an advantage in foreseeing things like that.

If you are going to use a story from the bible, use the whole thing.

If you follow the story, everyone else but Noah's family had gone irretrievably bad. Since that was the state after many generations you would expect the children to be the same. Being God probably gives you an advantage in foreseeing things like that.

If you are going to use a story from the bible, use the whole thing.

Babies had gone "irretrievably bad"?

theoretical physicists now say there is no reason time cannot be run either forwards or backwards.