There's too many hate for Christians around the World

[Misanthrope]

12 minutes ago, roboplex22 said:

The thing that gets me the most is all the people who are ignorant to the different views of different Christian religions. Most people think we're all anti-gay and anti-immigration and think we follow the Bible like a history book. I'm Catholic, and I go to a very progressive (liberal) church.

 

Our Priest is extremely focused on others. Our wine and cheese after Mass is sponsored by the LGBT community, and we accept everybody for who they are. We don't shun Gay people, divorcees, or non-Catholics. We welcome them into the whole. We don't follow the Bible like it's etched in stone. Our Priest teaches that a lot of the Bible is metaphor. No, 2 people named Adam and Eve most likely didn't take a bite from a literal apple and then God punished all of humanity for it. It's a metaphor for how we should live our lives, and how we should follow God. Christianity and Science can coexist peacefully.

 

So many people think that all Christians are traditional Southern Baptists (nothing against them, but you know what I mean) and we're not. Pope Francis is one of the most progressive Popes ever, and honestly, it pisses me off that so many non-Christians profile all of us based on a small group who aren't cooperating with modern-day views and rights.

Do you take collection? Because you basically send money to the richest country per capita in the world, The Vatican. Not only that but you implicitly support an institution that actively persecutes homosexuals and has terrible views that are dangerous to society like their stupid stance on contraception.

 

Even disregarding all that, you have to do so many compromises and mental gymnastics to pretend Catolicism isn't anything but quite frankly, fucking evil by their own definition, that you're basically playing pretend with the bible. You might as well believe in Scientology it has about as much in common with your version of Catholicism.

 

So why even call yourself a Catholic in fact? You're disregarding most of the bible, most of the commandments and scripture and most of the rest of the clergy.Yet you want to remain attached to this institution? You wanna be associated with other people who totally are bigots? Do you really expect to take back and clean up Catholicism?

 

At least the protestants had the guts to say "You're all fucking evil I'm not associating with you anymore"

[knightslugger]

1 minute ago, ace_cheaply said:

 

Ok, so you both don't understand the concept of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." That is patently obvious.  

And you are both ok with targeting christians purposefully for the purpose of suing and violating their 1st and 13th amendment rights.  Got it. I disagree, for all of the reasons outlined above. Conversation over.  

100% agree. The thing with these types is, it stops at religion. actually it stops with any Constitutional act be it race, religion, or sex. What about other forms of discrimination that aren't in the US Constitution? Like B2B business... If you aren't a business, you don't get service... shouldn't that be prosecutable if such rulings were to become commonplace? SMH...

[ace_cheaply]

15 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

1) Not understanding does not equal not agreeing

2) Refusing service to anyone is not the same as "For any reason".

 

3) You were explained, in detail, how you were completely wrong on the constitutional amendment matter and so far you continue to assert it without offering a counter argument. Repeating a statement without offering further evidence only serves to deflate your (painful lack of any) arguments.

 

4) The conversation isn't over because you childishly declare it so. Again the conversation being over does not equal you walking away from it.

1)  It must

2) It does

3) It's absolutely laughable you think you proved me wrong on the constitution. I'm literally laughing at you.

4) It is, i have stated my argument using logic, facts, and reason. you have used hypotheticals, feelings. You have nothing more to add to the argument, and none of mine have been refuted, ergo I am walking away and the conversation is done. Now you can quote me again and falsely claim to have proven me wrong when you have misrepresented my argument multiple times and then claim I was the one who backtracked, you can claim to have the moral superiority for forcing people to work, you can make all the false claims you want. I'm done, have a great day. 

[Misanthrope]

Just now, ace_cheaply said:

1)  It must

2) It does

3) It's absolutely laughable you thing you proved me wrong on the constitution.  I'm literally laughing at you.

4) It is, i have stated my argument using logic, facts, and reason. you have used hypotheticals, feelings. You have nothing more to add to the argument, and none of mine have been refuted, ergo I am walking away and the conversation is done. Now you can quote me again and falsely claim to have proven me wrong when you have misrepresented my argument multiple times and then claim I was the one who backtracked, you can claim to have the moral superiority for forcing people to work, you can make all the false claims you want. I'm done, have a great day. 

1) I'm rubber and you're glue!

2) As above

3) I didn't. More over, taking a condescending stance it's still not an argument, go foth and quote said post and deconstruct it.

4) Appart from not being not only inaccurate but a full blown projection on your own insecurities, none of that it's refuting what I said: you walking away from a conversation is not the same as the conversation being over. Parties agreeing to disagree or finding mutual ground would end a conversation. You walking away shows an unwillingness to put forth any more refutations (i.e. this entire post) regardless of the reasons you might have for walking away it doesn't changes the fact that you refused, not I.

 

For example you'll often find that I have no problem in stating things such "Your partisanship is almost beyond my reach and patience" I have no problem from walking away from a conversation and conceding any and all arguments. I don't really mind if I am shown to be incorrect I don't need to agrandize myself with a big stupid fucking exit statement. How about you?

[stconquest]

 

@Misanthrope  Why so harsh to @roboplex22?  I know why he is involved in church (projecting, but w/e):  It has to do with communing and tradition.  Communing with like minded people is healthy and beneficial.  Tradition is fun, not necessarily old traditions but things like wine and cheese after service.  It sounds like a healthy environment.

 

As far as the Ace Ventura is concerned, his arguments have dwindled down to:  If you are okay with slave labor, you are ethically vacant.  What will happen when he realizes that even that last conviction of his, falls in his own mind?  He wants a few cases where "gays" have taken advantage of businesses to shame/punish them, and wants policy to abolish the equal rights for all in his country.  He does not see it that way, but in essence... it's evident.  Access to the market economy means you play by the rules of that market economy.  Sucks for him that "gays" are part of the economy of the USA... equal footing with any "straight" person.

[dalekphalm]

44 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

1)  It must

2) It does

3) It's absolutely laughable you think you proved me wrong on the constitution. I'm literally laughing at you.

4) It is, i have stated my argument using logic, facts, and reason. you have used hypotheticals, feelings. You have nothing more to add to the argument, and none of mine have been refuted, ergo I am walking away and the conversation is done. Now you can quote me again and falsely claim to have proven me wrong when you have misrepresented my argument multiple times and then claim I was the one who backtracked, you can claim to have the moral superiority for forcing people to work, you can make all the false claims you want. I'm done, have a great day. 

You're essentially giving up, since you stopped trying to refute our points several posts ago, and started to degrade into these posts.

38 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

1) I'm rubber and you're glue!

2) As above

3) I didn't. More over, taking a condescending stance it's still not an argument, go foth and quote said post and deconstruct it.

4) Appart from not being not only inaccurate but a full blown projection on your own insecurities, none of that it's refuting what I said: you walking away from a conversation is not the same as the conversation being over. Parties agreeing to disagree or finding mutual ground would end a conversation. You walking away shows an unwillingness to put forth any more refutations (i.e. this entire post) regardless of the reasons you might have for walking away it doesn't changes the fact that you refused, not I.

 

For example you'll often find that I have no problem in stating things such "Your partisanship is almost beyond my reach and patience" I have no problem from walking away from a conversation and conceding any and all arguments. I don't really mind if I am shown to be incorrect I don't need to agrandize myself with a big stupid fucking exit statement. How about you?

Thirteenth Amendment:

Quote

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Definition of "Involuntary Servitude":

Quote

Involuntary servitude or involuntary slavery is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs.

Continuing to operate your business as usual and serving a gay person is not "coercion" that benefits another, and furthermore, since running a business is by definition part of the workers financial needs, it seems to me that there is absolutely no way you can consider serving a gay or black person "involuntary servitude" simply because you don't like gay or black people.

 

In fact, there seems to be nothing at all in the thirteenth amendment that guarantees "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

 

I looked over both lines of text in the Amendment. Nothing at all about guaranteeing the owner the right to refuse service in any capacity, let alone the right to refuse service to anyone.

 

sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_servitude

 

So if you feel that forcing someone to help a gay person because they are gay is a protected right, you should take it up with the Supreme Court of the United States and get a ruling on it's constitutional significance - since clearly to any rational mind, there is no obvious link in the text.

 

The only way you can make a link is by doing some crazy mental gymnastics to try and pervert the meaning of the 13th Amendment to mean something completely different.

[BuckGup]

On 7/25/2016 at 9:06 AM, Dobbsjr said:

Look, I'm not denying that religion hasn't caused any wars or conflicts, but to say that they caused all wars is an overstatement. An interesting source of truth on the matter is Charles Philip and Alan Axelrod’s three-volume "Encyclopedia of Wars", which chronicles some 1,763 wars that have been waged over the course of human history. Of those wars, the authors categorize 123 as being religious in nature, which is an astonishingly low 6.98% of all wars.  

 

Also,

 

Non-Religious Dictator Lives Lost

• Joseph Stalin - 42,672,000
• Mao Zedong - 37,828,000
• Adolf Hitler - 20,946,000
• Chiang Kai-shek - 10,214,000
• Vladimir Lenin - 4,017,000
• Hideki Tojo - 3,990,000
• Pol Pot - 2,397,000

So your telling me hitler just randomly killed 20 million people because he felt like it. Oh no it was because it was their religion. Doesn't matter if the leader has no religion they still did what they did because of religion.

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, ace_cheaply said:

 

Ok, so you both don't understand the concept of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." That is patently obvious.  

And you are both ok with targeting christians purposefully for the purpose of suing and violating their 1st and 13th amendment rights.  Got it. I disagree, for all of the reasons outlined above. Conversation over.  

Oh I fully understand the concept.

 

I simply refute it. That isn't a right. Not in Canada, not in the USA, not in any modern free society. There are limits to every right - as there should be. In this case, your rights end where they interfere with others rights.

 

Furthermore if two persons rights interfere with each other, then they're both wrong. A balance must be maintained. And forcing that balance with the full force of the Law is often necessary, since history shows us that people who discriminate against others will do whatever is in their power to keep the ability to discriminate.

 

As for your second point, about people targeting Christians specifically:

If you believe in the Law and Due Process, then you believe that the courts will Justly sort out the frivolous lawsuits from actual discrimination.

 

If someone decides to try to abuse the system and sue a Christian (who is innocent, and not a bigot/racist/homophobe), them that Christian will have a chance to defend himself, show the true facts, and counter sue the original person. The original person, if indeed they abused the system, will get SEVERELY PUNISHED. This making your point irrelevant, since that Christian business owner is thus still protected.

 

If someone sues a Christian who is a bigot, etc, and refused the person business simply because they are gay? Well - that's illegal, and rightfully so. That's not against the constitution - if anything, the constitution supports laws that end discrimination (Including refusing to serve a gay person for being gay).

[dalekphalm]

9 minutes ago, SamStrecker said:

So your telling me hitler just randomly killed 20 million people because he felt like it. Oh no it was because it was their religion. Doesn't matter if the leader has no religion they still did what they did because of religion.

Eh - no. Religion was a scapegoat. Convenient and easy to rile the people up.

 

Hitler killed 20 million people because he was evil, and likely mentally ill. He wanted power, and wanted to rule Germany (and eventually the world). He used whatever means worked. Religion could have just as easily been race (In fact, it was both, since Jews were considered a racial people in extension to a religion). It could have just as easily been the jobs they do, the colour of their hair, the way they speak.

 

Hitler didn't give a shit who he was setting the people against, he just needed something that would effectively galvanize people into hate mobs and distract them and placate them enough for himself to take power.

[Guest]

On 7/23/2016 at 2:24 AM, Supermangik said:

It never fails me to hear so many bigots, bias, and personal attacks on Christians and no one says a word or speak up. As soon you look at a black guy the wrong way, you get hammered for it. But you can stand there and call a Christian man a, "Bible thumper, Jesus freak, narrow minded, f@...ot, f%%k you, etc..." And nobody stands up to this.

 

They are the same people who are willing to die for you, they are willing to give up their lives to go live in places they don't want too, so that your life can change. They are the same people who teach our kids (if you have any) the respect to honor father and mother, to love neighbor, brother, and sister. They teach our kids to work hard, love parents, and manners that you don't get any where else. Instead of looking down on them, give them the utmost respect. We spit in their face and call them, "Boy molesters...?" Really? Cmon... There has to be a Christian appreciation for the good works they do for this Country, and for us. I love those people, I respect them, and thank you.

 

Right now, the Obama administration has been denying suffering Christians due to Jihadist/ISIS from entering America, even if they have family here. 

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/obama-refuses-to-allow-yazidi-christians-fleeing-isis-to-enter-united-states/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/17/us-unintentionally-discriminates-against-christian/

 

I can post more on the subject, but this is going on back scene from the Obama administration, but yet, we accepted 96% muslims refugees into your Country, and 1,500 of those refugees were ex-Jihadist? Nobody is speaking a word about this. And here's another thing, Christian business getting shut down left and right because of gay activist, like it was some sort of massive witch-hunt to get rich quick by filing law suit on people beliefs. If no one has ever told you this, I will tell you now, Christians are being treated as second class citizens, and have been for the longest. There was a term I heard a long time ago and it goes like this, "Don't bite the hand that fed you."

 

EDIT: July 27, 2016 7:16 PM EST

 

Donald Trump has addressed this issue on stage, and when he does become President, he will tackle this issue headfirst against this Country discrimination against Christianity.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/donald-trump-has-an-urgent-message-for-christians-every-american-should-see-this/

I Fail to see how this has a place here on a tech forum but i guess ill share my opinion regardless.

 

If it was up to me I would abolish all religion. Maybe then people would get along....

[colonelsofcorn]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I don't think I've ever heard a scientist claim that "A dog can turn into a turtle". No. A dog might evolve into a fox-like creature. A Bird might evolve into a different kind of bird with different features. Fish might evolve into different kinds of fish.

 

Over the course of billions of years, a fish could very well evolve into, say.... a Human, of course. But evolution is an extremely slow beast. In another Billion Years, humans won't even be recognizable (Assuming human lineage survives long enough). I couldn't even begin to imagine what human descendant species would look like in a Billion Years.

According to the evolution I've come to know, everything started from one common ancestor. So by that logic, one thing did turn into a completely different being. 

 

The problem still exists that we cannot observe evolution occurring on the Darwinian scale, thus, there's no intelligent way to say that it's an actual method for animals and beings, well, being as they are today.

[Derangel]

1 minute ago, colonelsofcorn said:

According to the evolution I've come to know, everything started from one common ancestor. So by that logic, one thing did turn into a completely different being. 

 

The problem still exists that we cannot observe evolution occurring on the Darwinian scale, thus, there's no intelligent way to say that it's an actual method for animals and beings, well, being as they are today.

Except for the mountains of evidence pointing towards it having happened. Evolutionary theory holds up a lot better under scrutiny than ANY religion ever practiced on the planet. Especially since it doesn't rely on blind faith on a serious lack of understanding of how the world actually works.

[dalekphalm]

45 minutes ago, colonelsofcorn said:

According to the evolution I've come to know, everything started from one common ancestor. So by that logic, one thing did turn into a completely different being. 

 

The problem still exists that we cannot observe evolution occurring on the Darwinian scale, thus, there's no intelligent way to say that it's an actual method for animals and beings, well, being as they are today.

EVERYTHING didn't necessarily have one single common ancestor - unless you're talking about the primordial goop filled with proteins and nutrients and acids that life sprung from several billion years ago - the very first single cell organisms - then sure. That's our global common ancestor.

 

You're making it seem like the fact that no one has ever observed long term scale evolution, that this somehow disproves Evolution, and the mountain of evidence, facts, observations, and experiments that all confirm that without a doubt - globally, Evolution is backed by science. We've even observed Evolution actually happening on a small scale. And since Evolution is about very small changes over the course of millions of years, this only goes to further support that Evolution is real.

 

A Chicken doesn't suddenly hatch a Giraffe from the egg. But rather, the baby chick has a slightly genetic difference (Say a beak that is more efficient). If this trait helps the baby chick survive, the chick will pass on this mutated (evolved) gene. More chicks will be born with this gene until it's a common trait. In another thousand years, the chicken might hatch a chick that has another difference - say stronger wings, and if the chick survives, it'll pass the gene on. Etc.

 

Actually evolving and changing a species into an entirely new species takes MILLIONS of years. But it's still the same result of very small minor changes, and which mutated genes get passed on.

 

The Chicken in the above example, might hatch 2 eggs: One is the above mentioned more efficient beak. The second might be a chick with superior eyesight and night vision. If both chicks survive, it's entirely possible for a branch to happen. One genetic path vs the other.

 

This is how Humans vs Chimpanzees came to be. Millions of years ago, the common human/chimp ancestor split into two different paths (In all likelihood, they actually split into many multiple paths - some of which were dead ends, and the rest became the collective Hominid family of species).

 

Your "logic" is a simple misunderstanding and lack of education on science and on the evidence of evolution. Perhaps you should take some biology classes on evolution to help broaden your flawed understanding? It might help you acknowledge the vast mountain of completely unavoidable facts that prove evolution exists.

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, stconquest said:

 

@Misanthrope  Why so harsh to @roboplex22?  I know why he is involved in church (projecting, but w/e):  It has to do with communing and tradition. 

It also has to do with the Catholic Church aiding and abetting rapist pedophiles that call themselves "priests"

[Albatross]

17 hours ago, colonelsofcorn said:

If you think Jesus fulfilled all Old Testament law, then there is absolutely no law found in the Bible. Jesus fulfilled certain laws, which is why all things aren't still practiced. Homosexuality is not biblically sanctioned and that's where I stand on that issue.

No, Jesus just fulfilled the (old) Law before him and all that concerned him. There is no room for argument of otherwise according to what the Bible actually says. He says it countless times, never that some things he fulfilled and others he didn't. The whole point of Jesus Christ was that he came to Earth to fulfil the Old Law so that we were not condemned or bound to it as we once were.

 

(Please see my other posts (1 & 2) for more on this.)

 

The Bible does not condemn homosexuality. The problem here is that you, and many others, are confusing the condemnation of an act he hates between all people ("sexual immorality" the Bible often calls it) as an condemnation of certain people because they love someone different—which I have shown and proven is not only wrong by context of surrounding text (or at such time) but wrong by source text too. Even if we are to somehow believe and twist the words used into "God/Bible condemns homosexuals" (taking away the real problem—immoral sex) how does it make sense that we ignore the same words and the same condemnations towards straights in the Bible who engaged in unnatural sex?

 

Are you are going to let your interpretation/wishes of the Bible push you into saying the Bible condemns something it actually doesn't? Perhaps you should say "this is what I believe the Bible means" instead of saying "The Bible says this/supports this hate" if the content you are referring to does not, in fact, say anything like it. Otherwise you are hardening the hearts of others against God.

 

15 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Is not only not sanctioned is explicitly forbidden. And not that I want to incite an in war here though I am genuinely curious: How do you deal with Christians that say "Oh well Jesus didn't forbid it, the old testament is only for Jewish people" which is an argument I've heard from Christians countless of times, even on this thread (I think).

I don't see where being gay/homosexual is explicitly forbidden? You mean the sex? Because it says nothing about being gay...

[colonelsofcorn]

Thing is, we weren't around to know if these animals actually weren't as they are in the present day anyways. We don't know for a fact that chickens, humans, geese, llamas, etc. were not the same exact animals long ago. We were not around then to know that they had changed into new kinds, that they had evolved on a large scale. Yes, they evolve bit by bit, but this doesn't necessarily lead to large scale changes - you'd have to observe it happen to know - and without a starting point millions of years ago, we can't observe it. 

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, colonelsofcorn said:

Thing is, we weren't around to know if these animals actually weren't as they are in the present day anyways. We don't know for a fact that chickens, humans, geese, llamas, etc. were not the same exact animals long ago. We were not around then to know that they had changed into new kinds, that they had evolved on a large scale. Yes, they evolve bit by bit, but this doesn't necessarily lead to large scale changes - you'd have to observe it happen to know - and without a starting point millions of years ago, we can't observe it. 

Oh... you're one of those people who uses the "you weren't there!" strawman arguments. Look, we've already given you literally dozens of pages worth of scientific papers/articles that all explicitly tell you that you're wrong, your ideas are wrong, and you literally have no idea how evolution works.

 

If you can't be bothered to read the research and facts we link you, then there's literally no point in you ever discussing anything with anyone ever again, since it seems you don't actually listen to logic and apply reasoning. If you did, you would have understood that the logical thing is to educate oneself when confronted by ignorance.

 

I can tell you there are many things I am ignorant about, but I am willing to learn about whatever those areas are, and if I am presented with information and fact that proves I am wrong about something, I am more than willing to learn from that and see how I was wrong. Are you willing to do the same? Because it sure doesn't seem like it from this thread.

[colonelsofcorn]

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Oh... you're one of those people who uses the "you weren't there!" strawman arguments. Look, we've already given you literally dozens of pages worth of scientific papers/articles that all explicitly tell you that you're wrong, your ideas are wrong, and you literally have no idea how evolution works.

 

If you can't be bothered to read the research and facts we link you, then there's literally no point in you ever discussing anything with anyone ever again, since it seems you don't actually listen to logic and apply reasoning. If you did, you would have understood that the logical thing is to educate oneself when confronted by ignorance.

 

I can tell you there are many things I am ignorant about, but I am willing to learn about whatever those areas are, and if I am presented with information and fact that proves I am wrong about something, I am more than willing to learn from that and see how I was wrong. Are you willing to do the same? Because it sure doesn't seem like it from this thread.

Trust me, if someone can find evidence that reasonably conforms to the scientific method, I'm all game. 

[othertomperson]

How is it that the default religion on the planet at this point, the religion which a man cannot become President of the most powerful country unless they follow it, a religion that has automatic positions in the UK House of Lords, a religion that makes a point of pride of persecuting homosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders, women, black people; still has such a victim complex as to claim to feel marginalised? Ever since Constantine the world has belonged to you. Stop feeding others to the lions for your own vanity.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, colonelsofcorn said:

Trust me, if someone can find evidence that reasonably conforms to the scientific method, I'm all game. 

Oh. Great!

 

So you read through all 20+ articles that @Misanthrope linked to you earlier?

 

So you agree that Evolution is correct, and you now see that you were incorrect in your earlier statements?

 

I mean, after all, that's the logical conclusion from your statement.

[Albatross]

3 minutes ago, colonelsofcorn said:

Trust me, if someone can find evidence that reasonably conforms to the scientific method, I'm all game. 

What do you accept as "reasonable"?

[bob345]

31 minutes ago, colonelsofcorn said:

Trust me, if someone can find evidence that reasonably conforms to the scientific method, I'm all game. 

Im sure "reasonable" just means "as long as it doesn't contradict my religion". Like others have said, there is already a plethora of information out there but i guess that's is not enough is it. Willingly choosing to be ignorant is all on you and does not change the reality of the matter. Not even for yourself.

[Bhav]

7 hours ago, SamStrecker said:

So your telling me hitler just randomly killed 20 million people because he felt like it. Oh no it was because it was their religion. Doesn't matter if the leader has no religion they still did what they did because of religion.

And btw Hitler was a Chrisrian.

[Bhav]

47 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

How is it that the default religion on the planet at this point, the religion which a man cannot become President of the most powerful country unless they follow it, a religion that has automatic positions in the UK House of Lords, a religion that makes a point of pride of persecuting homosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders, women, black people; still has such a victim complex as to claim to feel marginalised? Ever since Constantine the world has belonged to you. Stop feeding others to the lions for your own vanity.

Because you know, my feelings of attraction towards Linus = hatred of Christianity.

[MrDynamicMan]

10 hours ago, colonelsofcorn said:

The scientific method states observation is how you establish a scientific law or theory. However, with something you absolutly cannot observe, there's no way you can intelligently call evolution scientific. 

So we call the Bullshit now or later? Evolution has been observed, in modern day gala pages finches. There's was one island species that scientists had observed the population of. Gradually, over a couple years, the population began to diverge. The beaks were either abnormally large or abnormally small. The larger beaded finches had evolved like that to Crack nuts, while the smaller beaks were more adept at fishing out grubs from bark. You're gonna counter with "buts that's micro evolution, that doesn't prove macro evolution!" Thing is, there is no difference. A "Macro evolution" is simply a large enough accumulation of micro evolutions so that the two populations of a species can no longer breed and become separate species.