The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution

Not exactly true. Senses are limited. A scanning electron microscope, for example, can make up for what the eye lacks. An athiest also does not require their personal presence for understanding a particular topic, evidence of others work is also good. True, but this does not impact reality. A resposible person would investigate the particular topic before rejecting anything. This applies to anyone, not just athiests. Incorrect. Based on my experience all athiests I have met do not base their "belief" for or against Big Bang on atheism, its based upon evidence. This would be an example of rejecting reality in support of a religious belief.

I am not an athiest. I just happen to agree with evidence, hence I can relate. Lack of evidence to support your religious belief suggests to me that your reality needs some tinkering.

The divisions between Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution are arbitrary? If you think that its merely 'convenience' that shows the need to make these divisions you need to do a lot more reading. Physics, chemisty, and biology really are different! Many different topics are "part of the same chain", this does not mean that one can lump them into one topic. The boundaries between physics, chemistry, and biology are real; even if they do interact. agreed And it still does. Dont worry, we still call speculation - hypothesis. I would not call that watering it down. If 'evolve' actually meant 'improve' then nothing could be said to evolve in the TOE. If it did have a different meaning when Darwin wrote his book, a better understanding of the process of evolution has shown that idea to be incorrect. 'Change' is a better word. One is still free to use the word 'improve', it works as one method of evolution that the TOE does not do. How so? Are you suggesting he did not imagine the exactly what the animals would have looked like until they had been discovered? Or are you suggesting something else? I believe it is important for both sides to understand what is the accepted definition by todays scientists. To rely on definitions or used in the past (say 150 years ago) is not a good way to approach science. Many subjects use similar or same words yet have totally different meanings. Its important to understand the subject in question and know how the people in that field utilize the words in question.

I just want to add to Percy's comment. If I missed it earlier in the thread I am sorry, but I wonder what you think Darwin expected on the discovery of the first "transitional form". What was this creature supposed to have and not have?

Nice work, the ghost of poor wording rises up to bite my nose. Did you read further in the thead where I was corrected and then posted my withdawl of the claim and revised my statement?Here it is for you, no need to go looking for it: Message 47I will stand by this if you have any further questions. I also stand by my use of the word fact, just in case you are wondering. Like reading further before attempting a smear campaign? Just a suggestion. Carry on.

No, I don't mean there is no support for macroevolution. I mean that there is no Theory of Macroevolution, and claims that it exists are simply assertions from ignorance. Your likely right, I try to make my posts as clear as possible. I don't see how. There is no Theory of Macroevolution so anyone who claims that there is would be wrong. Macroevolution is an observation not a theory. I should hope so, but its not a 'concept' its an observation. I am really not sure what you mean. I can't think of any examples. Totally possible, you make it sound devious however, so I hope for more information.

Now we reach the meat of the debate. This is the part where you say there are no transitional fossils because we have not seen a half eye or partial leg? But invalid in the scientific usage of the term theory. One could also quibble that it has not been presented as such in the scientific field. Capitals nor no. Don't fret if its valid to call it a theory, its not called a theory. Yes, observation is indeed needed to call it an observation. We are circling the transitional fossils arent we? Good idea. Take me only for what I say, we could debate my motives on another thread. The Theory of Macroevolution is a made up term unsupported by evidence or even a decent quote box. I am not pretending the issue doesn't exist, only assuring you that the theory does not exist. Perhaps you could show me where scientists have talked about the Theory of Macroevolution? When you said "I hope you shall not be numbered among the practitioners" I did not get the impression that the group you spoke of was highly regarded. A "common practice to pretend" certainly does imply devious intent, as such I would not include myself in such a group. Perhaps you could identify the group in question and show examples of common practices of pretending?

I should hope not. The only claims I have read in that regard are creationists claiming the evolutionists believe dogs give birth to cats or whales or other such nonsense. I hate to put words in someones mouth but when Iceage mentioned Chaucer and early english literature he was not talking about the morning newspaper. You didnt abuse the term theory.Remember: Found HereNo harm, no foul.