Herepton writes:
Like most philosophers and historians, we know this is an attempt to assert yourself objective. Everyone has a worldview, starting assumptions, and an axe to grind - not a matter of opinion. You would do well to let this tactic go.
Your stereotypical and unsupportable misrepresentation of scientists is known as a straw man. It is a logical fallacy that works against you.
Herepton writes:
macroevolution: the belief that all living things evolved from previous living things and never originate from the Creator of Genesis.
Okay, that's interesting. Do you think that God continues to poof new organisms currently, or do you mean that macroevolution postulates that a Creator was NEVER involved in creation of a living organism? Keeping in mind that in science (unlike Genesis) abiogenesis and evolution are two different topics.
Herepton writes:
Darwinists have never been able to do so. They think they have but each and every example has turned out to be microevolution, like the intelligently designed beak of the finch which oscillates with the environment and weather.
That last bit is interesting, but we're already too far off-topic to follow it. You need to understand that biologists make no distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. It's all "evolution." By your definition of macroevolution, EVERY observable instance of evolution is microevolution by definition, unless it would be possible to observe and document the evolutionary history of all life (past and present) on earth {ETA: and disprove the involvement of a Creator}. This is not possible, nor would a reasonable person expect it to be so.
Herepton writes:
This is called special pleading.
I've noticed you say that a lot. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Herepton writes:
Anyone can produce an explanation. The only valid ones have evidence to back them up. But we don't need explanations to make an excuse for what we see not really meaning what we see.
We have no reason to expect the fossil record to be more complete than it is. If you think there is a reason, you should explain that and support your assertion.
Herepton writes:
We can take what we see (fossil record) and match it with textual evidence. This means we have correspondence: literary corresponding with reality = FACT.
Yes, apparently this works especially well when you systematically discard evidence that contradicts your text, eh?
Herepton writes:
Macroevolution means all species have descent from previous, synonymously referred to as "transitional" or "intermediacy".
Darwinian ToE and the synthesis says macro is a fact. Where is the massive evidence that should be prevalent if true ?
Your terms are a little iffy, but the evidence for evolution in the history of life on earth is massive. Are you aware of all the evidence? I'm not, I'm not sure that any single person could actually know all of it. I know a fair bit about the evidence for a very small group of organisms that I work with (I'm an ecologist, not an evolutionary biolgist or paleontologist). If you'd like to learn more, the literature is out there for you.
The evidence
against a Creator (the other part of your "macroevolution" definition) is not there, nor is it sought. It would be impossible to disprove a Creator, and such is neither the goal of evolutionary biology nor important for its validity.
In any case, my aim was not to derail this thread, but rather to get you to define your terms. Now that you have done so, I see that there is little need to worry myself with your arguments, which are against a series of straw men.
This message has been edited by Belfry, 01-08-2006 08:34 PM
{second edit: edited a typo im my previous edit}
This message has been edited by Belfry, 01-09-2006 02:06 PM
™ Version 4.2