Judas1X:

Lol. Oboyee. It's the first time I'm hearing this one oo. Can you provide objective evidence of this "substrate" and how you contacted it bro? Your story interests me
As far as I know, you're the only boy with this understanding

Really? This is coming from the same boy who keeps riding Tamara for not presenting objective evidence for evolution? Do you know what the terms "objective" and "evidence" connote.

The truth is nasty, my dear failed logician. And the truth here is you want to bait us into considering your position using questions that appeal to ignorance instead of persuading us through the objective evidence. We see through the bullshit you've drowned yourself in, and if you think we'll jump into that pool of shit to play with you, you must be off your meds

Tamaratonye5:

I thought I was the only one who saw that. Yeah, though. His questions are disingenuous to put it mildly

It has not come to that nau
Young Man, if you they write exam, you go submit empty script con expect marker to mark am for you? Come on now, be a diligent young lad and attempt the questions I asked or forever be labelled a cowardly hypocrite.

You've been displaying unparalleled arrogance on this thread. Maybe Tamara is too chicken to give you what you're asking for. Me, I have no qualms when it comes to delivering verbal artillery. Answer my questions boy.

DrLiveLogic:

I totally understand you, bro, but it also shows you've not been reading my posts and this is not a new understanding.
Heb 11:1-3 ...and faith is the substrate of what we hope for, the object of proof not seen(immaterial like your emotions, conscience...) because in it, the elders became witnesses. Faith makes us understand that the ages were structured by the utterance of God, to that the visible things did not become from visible things (the Singularity is pointing towards this).
Note these are only claims but can be validated. The quest begins from the questions and after introspection, a method will be proferred. All the elders were scientists, researching in the immaterial world while living in the material. The validity of that was determined in their personal search, not provided by another.


The problem is you don't get the bane of logic. Understand axioms and self-evident truths. All logic derives from and builds on these not proving these. They are verified by consciousness, like virtually all matter, so with faith.



No you weren't Tantrum, denial can give us the same lens and truth isn't nasty, dear old man friend. It's denial that causes torture, misrepresenting it. Plus your problem is you really came with a prejudice from whatever previous encounters you may have had with 'theists'. If you'd simply try read my posts, I never claimed uncertainty of evolutionism validates creationism. I have all through only tried to invalidate the false security in it and suggest empirical validation of faith.


Very well then, my senior old man friend and examiner, if repetitive use of boy, lad et al makes you feel more accomplished and superior. Just remember that I answered your questions for what they're worth(or not) and offered mine not to examine you actually but for self-examination. These questions don't validate faith, they can only lead you on the quest to resolve the unknown, like science. Faith will be validated only when contacted.


Actually, you're yet to match Tamaratonye5's tirades. The reason they may look non-existent to you is because such are feckless in my world so I don't respond in kind. If you don't believe, give your best shot. And don't worry, this doesn't require logic, just mere experimentation, like faith. However, my demeanor is not arrogance but simply from a state of peace inside. Like I told her, I really wish her the best and on the quest of faith, I actually wish you all success from my heart of hearts but if you have no interest in researching faith matters the way I've suggested, let's not waste each other's time, I can plead no further or should I put a knife to your throat?
One love bro.

PS. I hope dragonflyy can see that Tantrum, doesn't want to drop it with her claims on evolutionism and lol, Tantrum, ain't calling for help, you gave Daejoyoung a link, I offered him a refutation. That's how we arrive at a circumspect perspective but would you ever know that. LMAO.
Dear Tantrum, faith cannot be derived etymologically and certainly not by a dictionary because it is immaterial in nature. Only those who have the experience know what it really is. Try Paul up there.

All these Epistles and you'll still didn't answer my questions! There is problem ooo

Tamaratonye5:

I thought I was the only one who saw that. Yeah, though. His questions are disingenuous to put it mildly

Issokay m'lady. Leave him to me. I know the method to his madness. Dude Is busy telling long tales but he doesn't know he started the insults
DrLiveLogic, I actually feel sorry for you. I haven't even started to think of attacking you verbally. You seem to be uneasy all of a sudden. Today's a busy day for me. Please endeavour to answer my questions before I return. If you think you've got lip, then you thought very wrong
State of peace indeed

Judas1X:

Issokay m'lady. Leave him to me. I know the method to his madness. Dude Is busy telling long tales but he doesn't know he started the insults
DrLiveLogic, I actually feel sorry for you. I haven't even started to think of attacking you verbally. You seem to be uneasy all of a sudden. Today's a busy day for me. Please endeavour to answer my questions before I return. If you think you've got lip, then you thought very wrong
State of peace indeed

DrLiveLogic:

Yawn!!

Please provide proof of the insults I started or add one more trouble to your conscience.
LMAO. It's funny how uneasy I seem to you or how you correlate peace and uneasiness.
As for your questions, you know this is a public forum, you're being watched so quit clowning around. Reproduce your questions and I'll again reproduce the answers since you pretend you missed them.
I will likely be free tomorrow, so come back later and either answer my questions or let be.

If you think I'll let you dictate the pace of this convo, you're sorely mistaken. You answered nothing. You only made bare claims without evidence. Even you can't deny this. So keep asking people to support evolution with evidence when you can't do the same for ID. You're too boring for me to waste scathing expletives on

DrLiveLogic:
No you weren't Tantrum, denial can give us the same lens and truth isn't nasty, dear old man friend. It's denial that causes torture, misrepresenting it. Plus your problem is you really came with a prejudice from whatever previous encounters you may have had with 'theists'. If you'd simply try read my posts, I never claimed uncertainty of evolutionism validates creationism. I have all through only tried to invalidate the false security in it and suggest empirical validation of faith.

DrLiveLogic:

I totally understand you, bro, but it also shows you've not been reading my posts and this is not a new understanding.
Heb 11:1-3 ...and faith is the substrate of what we hope for, the object of proof not seen(immaterial like your emotions, conscience...) because in it, the elders became witnesses. Faith makes us understand that the ages were structured by the utterance of God, to that the visible things did not become from visible things (the Singularity is pointing towards this).
Note these are only claims but can be validated. The quest begins from the questions and after introspection, a method will be proferred. All the elders were scientists, researching in the immaterial world while living in the material. The validity of that was determined in their personal search, not provided by another.


The problem is you don't get the bane of logic. Understand axioms and self-evident truths. All logic derives from and builds on these not proving these. They are verified by consciousness, like virtually all matter, so with faith.



No you weren't Tantrum, denial can give us the same lens and truth isn't nasty, dear old man friend. It's denial that causes torture, misrepresenting it. Plus your problem is you really came with a prejudice from whatever previous encounters you may have had with 'theists'. If you'd simply try read my posts, I never claimed uncertainty of evolutionism validates creationism. I have all through only tried to invalidate the false security in it and suggest empirical validation of faith.


Very well then, my senior old man friend and examiner, if repetitive use of boy, lad et al makes you feel more accomplished and superior. Just remember that I answered your questions for what they're worth(or not) and offered mine not to examine you actually but for self-examination. These questions don't validate faith, they can only lead you on the quest to resolve the unknown, like science. Faith will be validated only when contacted.


Actually, you're yet to match Tamaratonye5's tirades. The reason they may look non-existent to you is because such are feckless in my world so I don't respond in kind. If you don't believe, give your best shot. And don't worry, this doesn't require logic, just mere experimentation, like faith. However, my demeanor is not arrogance but simply from a state of peace inside. Like I told her, I really wish her the best and on the quest of faith, I actually wish you all success from my heart of hearts but if you have no interest in researching faith matters the way I've suggested, let's not waste each other's time, I can plead no further or should I put a knife to your throat?
One love bro.

PS. I hope dragonflyy can see that Tantrum, doesn't want to drop it with her claims on evolutionism and she doesn't even know what we mean by code in DNA lol. Tantrum, ain't calling for help, you gave Daejoyoung a link, I offered him a refutation. That's how we arrive at a circumspect perspective but would you ever know that. LMAO.
Dear Tantrum, faith cannot be derived etymologically and certainly not by a dictionary because it is immaterial in nature. Only those who have the experience know what it really is. Try Paul up there.

Judas1X:

Issokay m'lady. Leave him to me. I know the method to his madness. Dude Is busy telling long tales but he doesn't know he started the insults
DrLiveLogic, I actually feel sorry for you. I haven't even started to think of attacking you verbally. You seem to be uneasy all of a sudden. Today's a busy day for me. Please endeavour to answer my questions before I return. If you think you've got lip, then you thought very wrong
State of peace indeed

dragonflyy:
[s][/s]
guy how do you manage to say so much, and end up passing zero meaning accross

dragonflyy:
[s][/s]
guy how do you manage to say so much, and end up passing zero meaning accross

A law isn’t better than a theory , or vice versa. They’re just different, and in the end, all that matters is that they’re used correctly. … For example, evolution is a law — the law tells us that it happens but doesn’t describe how or why. A theory describes how and why something happens

Though scientific laws and theories are supported by a large body of empirical data, accepted by the majority of scientists within that area of scientific study and help to unify it, they are not the same thing.

"Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon; for example, Newton’s Law of Gravity or Mendel’s Law of Independent Assortment. These laws simply describe the observation. Not how or why they work, said Coppinger.

empirical
adjective

based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic

Faith
Noun

strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof

DrLiveLogic: suggests empirical validation of faith

Vic2Ree:

dragonflyy:

guy how do you manage to say so much, and end up passing zero meaning accross

dragonflyy:

that guy is blabbing pure pseudoscience. none of what he's saying has ever been validated by science! honestly one of the cringiest apologists I've ever seen. Jeez!!!

Judas1X:

If you think I'll let you dictate the pace of this convo, you're sorely mistaken. You answered nothing. You only made bare claims without evidence. Even you can't deny this. So keep asking people to support evolution with evidence when you can't do the same for ID. You're too boring for me to waste scathing expletives on

Tamaratonye5:

Christ on a bike but creatards are dumb. They'd rather suggest, but not provide empirical proof of faith.

DrLiveLogic:
Nor will any of what I'm saying be validated by science. A simple reading my posts would have made that clear. An attempt at the Ten questions. would have helped you see that science only explains one domain of existence, our space-time universe, but points to a domain beyond it also. So if you believe science, you would believe there's a domain beyond science as it says of itself.
Faith is only found in the same domain your conscience and emotions are beyond science's domain but is experiential nonetheless like your conscience and desire.
You must answer the ten questions to begin researching faith is all I'm saying. That should be easy enough to understand. Ready when you are.



The onus to research faith is on y'all. I can't do it for you. Only he who seeks will find, Jer 29:13, Mt 7:7. That is the rules of engagement. The only valid question is how to find. The answer begins with a simple touch on this. Ten questions. These will not validate faith but create an awareness for the journey to begin.
When any is done, mention me again, we will discuss and I'll suggest a method to discover faith.


Tantrum, my dear, as I said before, no shame in learning. I learn everyday too.
But if you keep attempting @ law Vs theory, you'll only keep revealing your lack of training in science.
Evolutionism is a just a theory else every single scientist must be bound by it. Science is not politics and not about numbers but is objective. LMAO. Consider.
Gravity, Upthrust, Thermodynamics, are laws, they don't get overturned. Evolutionism is a mere subjective attempt to make sense of objective findings. It is interpretation of facts. It's been revised over and over and will be revised many more times with new findings till we arrive at truth. Learn how theories are overturned with new theories, ma Theory Vs theory.
Natural selection, adaptation, common descent are validated. It is such evolution that every scientist accepts as fact, even ID crew. They can be theorised under ID exclusive of trans-speciation. Trans-speciation from Darwinism is a theory and has never been validated and is the bone of contention with ID crew.
As for faith, always learn to go to source when seeking true answers. Funny you quoted it first and now I expound on it, you shift goalposts to juxtapose from dictionary which can only explain material things. It's like checking an encyclopedia to know what heaven looks like. LMAO. Once again, faith, as defined by source viz. proven men of faith, Heb 11:1, will only be validated empirically, using a method I'll suggest to the one serious enough to answer all ten questions sincerely.

DrLiveLogic:




Nor will any of what I'm saying be validated by science. A simple reading my posts would have made that clear. An attempt at the Ten questions. would have helped you see that science only explains one domain of existence, our space-time universe, but points to a domain beyond it also. So if you believe science, you would believe there's a domain beyond science as it says of itself.
Faith is only found in the same domain your conscience and emotions are beyond science's domain but is experiential nonetheless like your conscience and desire.
You must answer the ten questions to begin researching faith is all I'm saying. That should be easy enough to understand. Ready when you are.



The onus to research faith is on y'all. I can't do it for you. Only he who seeks will find, Jer 29:13, Mt 7:7. That is the rules of engagement. The only valid question is how to find. The answer begins with a simple touch on this. Ten questions. These will not validate faith but create an awareness for the journey to begin.
When any is done, mention me again, we will discuss and I'll suggest a method to discover faith.


Tantrum, my dear, as I said before, no shame in learning. I learn everyday too.
But if you keep attempting @ law Vs theory, you'll only keep revealing your lack of training in science.
Evolutionism is a just a theory else every single scientist must be bound by it. Science is not politics and not about numbers but is objective. LMAO. Consider.
Gravity, Upthrust, Thermodynamics, are laws, they don't get overturned. Evolutionism is a mere subjective attempt to make sense of objective findings. It is interpretation of facts. It's been revised over and over and will be revised many more times with new findings till we arrive at truth. Learn how theories are overturned with new theories, ma Theory Vs theory.
Natural selection, adaptation, common descent are validated. It is such evolution that every scientist accepts as fact, even ID crew. They can be theorised under ID exclusive of trans-speciation. Trans-speciation from Darwinism is a theory and has never been validated and is the bone of contention with ID crew.
As for faith, always learn to go to source when seeking true answers. Funny you quoted it first and now I expound on it, you shift goalposts to juxtapose from dictionary which can only explain material things. It's like checking an encyclopedia to know what heaven looks like. LMAO. Once again, faith, as defined by source viz. proven men of faith, Heb 11:1, will only be validated empirically, using a method I'll suggest to the one serious enough to answer all ten questions sincerely..

DrLiveLogic:

The onus to research faith is on y'all. I can't do it for you. Only he who seeks will find, Jer 29:13, Mt 7:7. That is the rules of engagement. The only valid question is how to find. The answer begins with a simple touch on this. Ten questions. These will not validate faith but create an awareness for the journey to begin.
When any is done, mention me again, we will discuss and I'll suggest a method to discover faith.


Tantrum, my dear, as I said before, no shame in learning. I learn everyday too.
But if you keep attempting @ law Vs theory, you'll only keep revealing your lack of training in science.
Evolutionism is a just a theory else every single scientist must be bound by it. Science is not politics and not about numbers but is objective. LMAO. Consider.
Gravity, Upthrust, Thermodynamics, are laws, they don't get overturned. Evolutionism is a mere subjective attempt to make sense of objective findings. It is interpretation of facts. It's been revised over and over and will be revised many more times with new findings till we arrive at truth. Learn how theories are overturned with new theories, ma Theory Vs theory.
Natural selection, adaptation, common descent are validated. It is such evolution that every scientist accepts as fact, even ID crew. They can be theorised under ID exclusive of trans-speciation. Trans-speciation from Darwinism is a theory and has never been validated and is the bone of contention with ID crew.
As for faith, always learn to go to source when seeking true answers. Funny you quoted it first and now I expound on it, you shift goalposts to juxtapose from dictionary which can only explain material things. It's like checking an encyclopedia to know what heaven looks like. LMAO. Once again, faith, as defined by source viz. proven men of faith, Heb 11:1, will only be validated empirically, using a method I'll suggest to the one serious enough to answer all ten questions sincerely.


Wish you all the best nonetheless.

Judas1X:
[s][/s]
Gravity is a theory… We have two usable theories of gravity, Einstein’s Theory and Newtonian Theory.

Thermodynamics? What is the theory of thermodynamics?

Thermodynamics , science of the relationship between heat, work, temperature, and energy. In broad terms, thermodynamics deals with the transfer of energy from one place to another and from one form to another. The key concept is that heat is a form of energy corresponding to a definite amount of mechanical work.

YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THE Bleep YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Not only that you cannot tell the difference between a theory and a ‘Law’ Why don’t you just GIVE IT UP.

ALL SCIENCE IS WRONG. YOUR DIPFUCK ASSERTIONS ABOVE ARE ALL TRUE. THEORIES ARE LAWS AND LAWS ARE THEORIES AND ANY WAY YOU DEFINE THEM IS PERFECTLY CORRECT.

NOW DEMONSTRATE YOUR GOD EXISTS.

1000WaysToLive:
Creationists and JWs, etc., love the laws of thermodynamics.


They like to tell people that evolution violates the second law because it runs in the opposite direction to entropy, therefore god.

They conveniently forget that the law applies to "isolated systems:, which fortunately the Earth is not.

I just love it. DrDeadLogic's creationist method played out to perfection

Dtruthspeaker:


Faith in Jesus is Based on the Personal Knowing of The Lord, Jesus.

You do not know mr incredible hulk, personally, beyond what you were told by Comics.

Tamaratonye5:

[1] Gravity and thermodynamics have been revised many times as well. Which kind of lets the air out of the tires of your argument, in my opinion

[2] If you think speciation hasn’t been observed in nature, let alone reproduced in the laboratory, then I could find numerous scientific papers waiting to disabuse you of this fatuous idea.

1000WaysToLive:
Empirical validation of faith is easy.
Just look at all the people who travel to places like Lourdes each year in the sure hope of divine intervention to cure their ailments.
That’s evidence that those people have faith.
But the fact is, there’s absolutely no evidence that faith actually affects anything.

1000WaysToLive:
Creationists and JWs, etc., love the laws of thermodynamics.
They like to tell people that evolution violates the second law because it runs in the opposite direction to entropy, therefore god.
They conveniently forget that the law applies to "isolated systems:, which fortunately the Earth is not.

Judas1X:

I just love it. DrDeadLogic's creationist method played out to perfection

1. Spew ignorant creationist rant, evolution is a great subject to use.
2. Get called out and corrected.
3. Claim superior intellect and double-down on ignorance.
4. Get called out again, have it explained to you in detail.
5. Spew more ignorance and insults.
6. Have views rightfully mocked.
7. Spew more ignorance and insults, claim victory and leave.
8. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Judas1X:

Gravity is a theory… We have two usable theories of gravity, Einstein’s Theory and Newtonian Theory.

Thermodynamics? What is the theory of thermodynamics?

Thermodynamics , science of the relationship between heat, work, temperature, and energy. In broad terms, thermodynamics deals with the transfer of energy from one place to another and from one form to another. The key concept is that heat is a form of energy corresponding to a definite amount of mechanical work.

YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THE Bleep YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Not only that you cannot tell the difference between a theory and a ‘Law’ Why don’t you just GIVE IT UP.

ALL SCIENCE IS WRONG. YOUR DIPFUCK ASSERTIONS ABOVE ARE ALL TRUE. [s]THEORIES ARE LAWS AND LAWS ARE THEORIES AND ANY WAY YOU DEFINE THEM IS PERFECTLY CORRECT.[/s]
NOW DEMONSTRATE YOUR GOD EXISTS.

DrLiveLogic:

The theories/explanations of the concept of gravity, yes, which is my point exactly. A theory which is an explanation of the dynamics of observed phenomena, can be revised, improved on or rescinded. Only when a theory is proven to be all encompassing and irrefutable, does it become established fact like the doc I showed you. Laws, like reported speech, merely report observed phenomenon, and are an objective given.


Trans-speciation, which has never been observed, is the least criterion. Not adaptation/subspeciation.


Welcome to the table. I've gotten exhausted from engaging many on this thread because they are not very good in holding logical, constructive, progressive discourse. That guy for instance, talks like we're in a market square, in the name of presenting cogent arguments. But if you'd keep to the rules of engagement of constructive discourse, I wouldn't mind engaging. What do you say?
@ the bolded is an illogical conclusion for many reasons.
You have assumed those people have faith because they claim to. Since faith is immaterial, it would be dangerous to think anyone has it just cause they say so.
I'll also assume you don't know the definition of faith by my book. Faith isn't blind belief or any belief at all, as usually claimed, though it creates beliefs. Faith is a substrate that can be realised by consciousness like a rock, water or matter in general. Science didn't determine these realities for us but consciousness. Science only went on to make sense and use of them. Rene Descartes said: "I think(am conscious), therefore I am". Goes without saying, whatever were conscious of is real. You are conscious of a moral meter/conscience, your emotions, desires and boredom, a will etc. and will never see any of these but you wouldn't say its blind to believe in them because they're undeniably real to your consciousness. Faith is only found in that same immaterial plane, hence illogical to demand scientific evidence of it.
None of us is born with it, but the search brings about its materialisation. It can never happen without one being conscious of it. So if you've never been conscious of it, you've never had it.
To begin the search, consider my Ten questions, after which when you answer all, I'll suggest a method for empirical validation of faith.
Note also that contrary to your belief, empirical validation of faith isn't easy at all, else all would have had. It takes good investment. And as to how faith affects reality, that can't be overstated, but first you'll have to meet a man of genuine faith not just one of blind belief.


Well, that's too bad for them. I don't see anyone who's presented such arguments here, do you?


You just so love the usual method of trying to justify your unwholesome unbelief by discarding creationist arguments, don't you? . But with me you find I present you the option of empirical validation instead, your worst nightmare that reveals the truth of why you're an atheist - that you really don't want to ever find out that creator is real. So you're trying so hard that I would argue instead. But as I've said over and over, I will not present a single argument for faith but only show how to contact it. Anyone who argued for faith with you in the past was not learned about it. So once again, if you'd stop being so cowardly and face my simple Ten questions which is all I've presented to prepare you for the discovery of faith and after answering all, I'll present you with a method for empirical validation of faith. I'd bet my head, you'll again run with tails between your legs from them only to come back with another digressive rant as if any here is gullible. Like you lied before, I hadn't answered your questions. I challenged you to reproduce them because I had, you disappeared. Now more empty puffing again, just to avoid my questions. Aren't denialists always looking for who to blame, from scientists to religionists, for their nonchalance and unwillingness to research faith themselves. If I don't respond to you again, just know it's cos it ain't worth it. Means I see you're trying to drag me into circular chit-chat while avoiding the crux of discussion.

Plus, my old man friend, experience has taught that your kind, if given the opportunity, always prove themselves. Just look at you messing up @law Vs theory all over the place. smh. Bet you didn't even know you almost made my point while also mixing everything up. LMAO.
Tantrum, in addition to the first two theories I gave you, also research how Einstein's theory overruled Newton's, by its more encompassing reach, but in all, the law of gravity, is constant and maintained. It's why I said theories are subjective but laws are objective and constant in their domain.
Plus, my old man, I'll also come demonstrate your conscience, will, emotions, desire etc. to you first before faith so you'll know you've got em. Keep on lazily transferring responsibility like a good couch potato, friend. Eternity's waiting for you

Bwaaaaaaa haaaaaa haaaa

Your quest for online recognition as a posterboy for Logic has made you stupider than an invalid. Kikikikiki

If you don't know that speciation can and has been observed, not only in the fossil record, but also has been observed in real time in laboratory research, then you're not worth the sweat your quadriplegic uncle and deadbeat mother perspired to produce a diseased intellectual dwarf like you . And by all means, you can make use of the internet to verify this.

DrDeadLogic, the only thing you have achieved is troll again, and lie again. I mean if you really can’t see that sentence "empirical validation of faith" is an hilarious oxymoron then that is very sad for you, but I am extremely skeptical, even after you have claimed the most moronic creationist balderdash of all: that evolution is just a theory, and nor a law. Sadly you fail to know how misinformed those claims are. Your ten questions were desperate pieces of gibberish

You came in here in your High horse acting all condescending, using sly ad hominems like "Tantrum" and now "Old man". Unfortunately, you had to reveal your antics in the presence of the most unapologetic TROLL you've ever known. I butcher insufferable pigs like you using incontrovertible facts and damning expletives at the same time. I'm now going to take you through a long torturous ride until every dead cell in your cranium lights up to my electrical stimulus .

For a man as yourself, burdened with so much hormonal fluctuations, I wonder if any male genes from your father survived your epicene embodiment

DrLiveLogic:
Only when a theory is proven to be all encompassing and irrefutable, does it become established fact like the doc I showed you.

DrLiveLogic:
Trans-speciation, which has never been observed, is the least criterion. Not adaptation/subspeciation.

Tamaratonye1:

Examples please? I don't know what you're talking about here


I apologize for my earlier laziness, I had thought you'd be diligent enough to do the fact-finding yourself, but since you keep repeating this blatant lie, I have decided to take the pains and do the heavy-lifting myself (credits to the due sources), so it’s finally time to break out the ordnance to demolish your bullshit. Given the post count limit enforced here, this will be a multi-part exposition. (Edit: Unfortunately, due to the Nairaland spambot removing my expose on the papers, I'll do well to shorten my rebuttal to a reasonable extent)

However, before moving on to the heavy artillery, I’ll provide a brief exposition of the biological species concept, which is applicable here. The biological species concept is a population concept (as indeed are many other evolutionary concepts), and can be summarised as follows …

A population comprises a species, when:

[1] All members thereof (bar occasional mutants) are reproductively interfertile with other members of the population;

[2] All members thereof (again, bar occasional mutants), when mating, produce offspring that satisfy [1] above.

This provides the foundation for understanding speciation processes. I’ll describe a simple case thereof, while noting that more complex cases, such as ring species, also exist, which properly deserve their own complete post.

The simplest case of speciation occurs when the population undergoes a split for some reason, resulting in two new populations, both sharing the same ancestors, but between which gene flow has ceased. That split can arise as a result of the emergence of a physical barrier, or a behavioural barrier, and instances of both are documented in the relevant literature (more on this later). Once that barrier exists, and gene flow between the two separated populations ceases, the populations start to diverge from each other genetically, and it’s possible for the astute to model this process by spending time writing the relevant code to simulate the process.

Among the genes that exhibit divergence in this respect, are the genes belonging to the Major Histocompatibility Complex family. These genes are responsible for such processes as the immune response, tissue typing, and compatibility of egg and sperm (the fertillin genes governing this last process are part of the MHC family), and these genes have been documented as undergoing mutational change at a rapid rate compared to many other organismal genes.

So, when a population is split into two, for whatever reason, the two populations begin diverging from each other, and that divergence encompasses the MHC gene family, including those all-important fertillin genes. The moment that divergence reaches the point where criterion [1] or [2] above fails to be met, a speciation event has occurred. While the fertillin genes are obvious candidates for this process, there exist other genes that are implicated in the speciation process, and have been documented in the literature as exerting the requisite effect.

Having provided a simple exposition of one operating mechanism (covering some of the others would require me to write a book exceeding 1,000 pages in length), it’s now time to look at the literature, which includes the following papers I'll provide in the second part of my post....

Judas1X:

[s][/s]
Bwaaaaaaa haaaaaa haaaa

If you don't know that speciation can and has been observed, not only in the fossil record, but also has been observed in real time in laboratory research, then you're not worth the sweat your ...

[b]DrDeadLogic, the only thing you have achieved is troll again, and lie again. I mean if you really can’t see that sentence "empirical validation of faith" is an hilarious oxymoron then that is very sad for you, but I am extremely skeptical, even after you have claimed the most moronic creationist balderdash of all: that evolution is just a theory, and nor a law. Sadly you fail to know how misinformed those claims are. Your ten questions were desperate pieces of gibberish

[b]You came in here in your High horse acting all condescending, using sly ad hominems like "Tantrum" and now "Old man"... stimulus .

Tamaratonye5:
I want to talk about faith. Of what use is faith in spite of evidence, or the lack thereof? I need rational answers.

Tamaratonye5:

Right: it doesn’t make sense, unless you already believe it.