Geology, physics and/or chemistry are all considered science because they are testable by the empirical senses. Evolution is not testable by the empirical senses. Therefore it is not science.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Thank you for agreeing with me that you believe that people who deny evolution is science are either ignorant--incompetent (basically the same thing) or liars. Were you ignorant when you were a young earth creationist or were you lying? Is you dad ignorant, or is he lying?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

"Evolution is not testable by the empirical senses."

If you weren't ignorant and too lazy to research or understood how science works and what it is, you'd realize this statement is, in very simple terms, wrong. Jerry D. McDonald, you are a prime example for a gullible, ignorant creationist - the #1 target for money-hungry people and organizations like Kent Hovind and the CSE Ministry.

Since you think that I am so stupid why don't you produce "empirical evidence" for biological macro-evolution.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Easily speaking, because scientists tend to not work on things that have already been done and repeated successfully often enough.

That's convienent. They have already done it. Produce the documentation!
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Notice how Jerry has shifted the subject. Now it's not just biological evolution. Now he's referring more specifically to macroevolution. Bear in mind he's so clueless about science he thinks the earth didn't exist more than about 6,000 years ago, and so in his scientifically illiterate mind he thinks of the entire fossil record as a chaotic morasse laid down in a worldwide flood. The more YECs pretend they don't ignore the facts, the more they do.

I guess your "un"scientific mind thinks that there is no difference between Macro-evolution and Micro-evolution.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Jerry, macroevolution IS microevolution. The distinction is that macroevolution refers to the *effects* of microevolution over substantial periods of time. Thus, scientific study of macroevolution involves differing areas of science in some of the same areas as those for microevolution but also different areas (such as paleontology). In regard to having an unscientific mind, all of us - including you - already know that young earth creationism does not exist in professional science today.

Wrong, microevolution is "comparatively minor changes involving the accumulations of variations IN POPULATIONS" (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, p. 784) Will continue...

And that's what I said. Again, you keep *demonstrating* that incompetence in understanding concepts that I've mentioned. Thank you for doing so.

You keep demonstraiting your cowardess in refusing to answer specific yes or no questions with a specific yes or no response. You continue demonstraiting your cowardess in refusing to show proof of macroevolution apart from geology or palentology.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

There are numerous lines of evidence for macroevolution, from biology, as well as from paleontology. Your sheer ignorance is not an argument (though you pretend that ignorance is bravery). You also keep jumping like a crazy rabbit from topic to topic to topic while ignoring the numerous errors you've already made both in terms of conceptual errors as well as scientific errors. You've also totally ignored the actual topic of my video that your video here is supposedly in response to.

Be specific. Document the evidence that has been observed by scientists now living, where macroevolution has occured between kinds.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

"You keep demonstraiting your cowardess in refusing to answer specific yes or no questions with a specific yes or no response. You continue demonstraiting your cowardess in refusing to show proof of macroevolution apart from geology or palentology.
"

the correct spelling is cowardice...

Macroevolution is "evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as IN SPECIES FORMATION). (P. 745).

Micro is small changes within a kind and macro is large changes in species formation or in other words, going between kinds.

And that's what I said. Again, you keep *demonstrating* that incompetence in understanding concepts that I've mentioned. Thank you for doing so.

I am not demonstraiting any incompetence. You are demonstraiting what a coward you are. You make challenges, but when it comes right down to it you are too much of a coward to debate.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

This is not the proper forum for proper debate. You know this so very well, which is precisely why you RAN AWAY from carrying out detailed discussion in a proper discussion forum, because your incompetence in dealing even with basic logic embarrassed you so much.

While this is not the proper forum for proper debate I am only responding to your posts which came after I published my video. If you don't want to continue this, it is your decision. I got off of Robert's list because you backed out of the debate and I saw no reason to stay on it.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

You are the one who backed out of the debate when I refused to allow you to change the stated subject of the debate (the propositions) from the antiquity of the earth to biological evolution. Every single time you lie otherwise, I will point out your lie.

I didn't change anything. You were the one who was doing the changing, all of this is documented on the challenge website.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Thank you for so blatantly lying about this, Jerry, and thus showing everyone how young earth creationists just delight in being deceitful. The fact that you tried to change the subject from the antiquity of the earth, to biological evolution, will full quotes of you saying so, is documented on my website. Every time you lie otherwise, I will point out your lie.

Well, I have documented everything on my challenge website. All emails between you and me concerning the debate is documented.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

And the documented discussion shows that when I refused to let you CHANGE THE SUBJECT in the debate propositions, from dealing with the antiquity of the earth, to dealing instead with biological evolution, you then ran away from debating me, because you knew you could not debate me on the subject of the antiquity of the earth and that you had every intention of changing the subject with all sorts of utterly irrelevant red herring on the subject of biological evolution.

Well, I'll let the reader make up his/her own mind as to who ran and who changed.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

i have decided you changed and are dishonest.

after all you claim to be a christian and resort to calling someone a retard.

im seriously considering calling some agancies that deal with MR and contacting the organisation that oversees your church in order to see if this is the type of message they want to send.

(cont)
the simple fact that you used "mental retardation" as an insult shows that you have very little respect for people who actually deal with mental retardation on in their lives.

you are a sick sick individual.

Well, if I am a sick individual then don't mess with me.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

thats all the more reson to mess with you.
you are trying to spread your sick message and lies as if they were fact.

Well, if you are going to keep messing with me quit complaining about how sick I am. You certainly don't have the ability to make me better. You couldn't possibly last in a real debate with me to save your life.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

You couldn't possibly last in a real debate with me to save your life.

i am crushing you already.
this will continue or i will call the "church of christ" to discuss your use of the word "retard" as an attack against another person you do not agree with.

What are you talking about? Where did I use the word "mental retardation"?

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

"Todd, I wondered if you were mentally retarded, but afer watching this video, I'm absolutely sure that you are.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald "

any more questions?

Yes, if this was said, it was said on Todd's comments or Baty's list. However, I have tried to find this on both my comment section and Todd's and have been unable to come up with it. Be more specific. Give me the time (1 month ago, etc.,) that I said this.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald
P.S. If I did say it I was probably responding to some thing that Todd said to me which included that kind of language.

so please point me to the part in the bible where jesus says "if a man strikes you strike him back" or "if a man insults you make a derogatory remark claiming he has a disability that he clearly does not have... for people with this disability will not be bothered when it is used as an insult"

you KNOW you made the remark .. it WAS on Todd's page and if you were truly following the teaching laid out in your bible there is NO valid reason for your statement.

unless being a hipocrite counts.

Solomon said "answer the fool according to his folly."
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

unfortunately jesus himself said turn the other cheek... so you are allowing solomon to trump jesus with regards to dogma?

help me understand jerry .. is solomons word greater than that of jesus himself?

I have tried to find it on both pages with the search and find option, but am unable to find it. However, you don't seem to be upset that Todd called me a mental retard, you are just upset that I called him one back. You talk about hypocrasy.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

i like how you are such a coward that you deleted my reply to this ... its ok ... ill just call the church of christ in your area and direct them to where you posted it.

Have scientists, now living, ever observed (empirically) microevolution between two kinds of animals? (Please document).

Have scientists, now living, ever observed (empirically) macroevolution within a kind of animals? (Please document).

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Yes, there is empirical evidence of both. Jerry there is no way we're going to have a serious discussion of this in a forum that limits responses to 500-character posts. We could have this discussion in an appropriate discussion forum, but YOU RAN AWAY FROM THE DISCUSSION FORUM because the illogical nature of your comments was so obvious you had made yourself look so silly it embarrassed you.

You blew any chance of a serious discussion when you refused to debate me on the subject. Now where is any evidence of macroevolution? Where is there any evidence of one kind evolving into another kind?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

You are the one who refused to engage in honest negotiations, even to playing word games precisely for the PURPOSE OF CHANGING THE SUBJECT. You ran away from debating the astronomical and geological science relevant to the facts that the universe and the earth have been in existence far longer than any mere 6,000 years. When you made it your deliberate intention to change the subject to biological evolution right in the debate propositions is when YOU ran away from the debate.

Define kind in terms that are not ambiguous... kind is not a scientific term and has no place in a debate about science....

A cow is one kind, a pig is another kind. You cannot cross a cow and a pig. You can cross a Yorkshire pig and a Hampshire pig, but you cannot cross a cow and a pig.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

that is not specific. are you limiting it to breeding? or look?

i did not ask for examples of animals from a kind. i asked you to define kind in an unambiguous way.

please define the specific criteria that are used to determine if an animal if from the same "kind" as another animal.

Without the fossil record and palentology, has macroevolution ever been empirically observed by scientists now living?

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Thank you for pointing out that it is your purposeful intention to ignore the fossil record and paleontology.

in order to rule out the fosil record / palentology as valid evidence you must falsify it via emprical evidence.

my question to you is WHY do you insist on ignoring the evidence from those areas?

I don't insist on ignoring the fossil record. I wanted to use the fossil record in my debate with Todd and he refused to allow it. However, the fossil record can be interpreted in many ways. I would like to see current data.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

empirical evidence is hard to interpret as "god did it" unless you take only a subset of the available data and ignore the data that does not support your viewpoint.

as soon as you are screening your data based on personal preference it is no longer empirical ... it then becomes subjective.

No, empirical evidence is not hard to intepret, but simply looking at the fossil record won't give you empirical evidence. All it does is show what possibly happened in the past. Show what happens in the present; that's empirical
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Without the fossil record, and palentology, what record do we have that reptiles gave place to mammals?

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Thank you for pointing out that it is your purposeful intention to ignore the fossil record and paleontology, that it is your very intention as a creationists to deliberately ignore the scientific evidence that you don't like.

I am not ignoring anything. I wanted to deal with the fossil record (which is a part of geology) in debate but you refused to allow that. You are the one who is evading and ignoring.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Of course, it's irrelevant to debating the astronomical and geological science relevant to the facts that the universe and the earth have been in existence far longer than any mere 6,000 years. Thank you for again demonstrating that it was your very intention to CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

thats like asking "other than falling objects and mass what evidence do you have to support gravitational theory"

silly silly man

evidence to support gravitational theory is empirical. You drop something and it hits the ground. Where is the empirical evidence for biological macroevolution? Can we use human sperm and impregnate a female monkey and get an offspring that is partly human and partly monkey?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

evidence to support evolution is also empirical .. if you dont see it then you havent read any books on evolution that were written by actual scientists or you have only read them enough to quote mine from them.

typical creationist behavior.

I have read books on macroevolution, but none of them have ever documented one experiment where they have taken the sperm of a human and impregnating a monkey and had a successful offspring.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

the simple fact that they were about "macro evolution" tells me that it was creationist litterature.

evolutionary theory does not distinguish between "macro" and "micro"....

While I will admit that evolutionists don't like the use of "micro" and "macro" evolution, even they have to recognize that they are to totally separate kinds of evolution. Where is the evidence that you can cross a dog with a deer? Where is the evidence that you can cross a man with a monkey? There is none. It seems that we creationists are the only ones who have enough sense to recognize that fact.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

"Where is the evidence that you can cross a dog with a deer? Where is the evidence that you can cross a man with a monkey?"
read a biology book evolution does not involve crossing one species with another.

your concept of the GTE is science fiction...

"While I will admit that evolutionists don't like the use of "micro" and "macro" evolution, even they have to recognize that they are to totally separate kinds of evolution"

1st please use spellcheck ... you meant they are TWO seperate kinds... note the word "two" is not the same as the word "to"

let me guess ... high school is as far as you went...

"Evidence from Living Species.
The living evidence for change through time comes in two forms. First by monitoring natural populations, we can directly observe small scale change, or microevolution. Second, if we examine the bodies of living organisms, we can find evidence of dramatic change, or macroevolution" (Evolutionary Analysis, p. 36--Freemon and Herron).
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald