****Take, for example, the word “species.” It is a totally arbitrary definition, where the line between species is usually drawn at the ability to successfully interbreed. So we consider a horse and a donkey are two different species, because their offspring — a mule — cannot reproduce.****
Since most species are asexual, I reject this definition of species. Although you are right about one thing. It is totally arbitrary and changes between disciplines...entomologists will call just about anything a new species.
****But to your point here: micro-evolution verses macro-evolution. Scientists say there is no difference — that macro-evolution is nothing more than micro-evolution continued on and on for millions of generations.****
They have to say that because they have no evidence of macroevolution other than forensically putting their interpretation on fossils that can just as easily be(and in fact are) intrepreted differently. Worldview constitutes interpretation and I’ll say that is the case on my side of the argument as well. The evidence matches what scripture tells me about “created kinds”. As I’ve said before, I believe scripture to be inerrant.
****To me this all seems obvious. Why not to you?****
I fail to see your argument here. My paradigm would explain this just as well as yours....as with your DNA argument, it is not proof either way.
****Finally, on “removing God from the equasion,” I’ve said before, by definition that’s what science is and does. And it has been that way since ancient times.****
That’s a false statement. Notice I didn’t call you a liar. Go back and research this and you’ll find that you are mistaken.
I’m glad to see that you’ve put away the rancor and at least are discussing these subjects rationally. I appeal to you to look at some of these constructs from a standpoint of logic rather than taking the word of the science orthodoxy. You might be surprised at the conclusions you come to.
schaef21:"That’s a false statement. Notice I didn’t call you a liar. Go back and research this and you’ll find that you are mistaken."
In the past, a scientist like Newton would assign to God elements of his theory that he could not otherwise explain. Then the next scientist would come along, and explain that process without reference to God. But this second scientist might decide that some other process could only be assigned to God, which then a third scientist explains naturally...
And so it has been for centuries now. That is the progress of science -- pushing "God" further and further away from our understanding of physical nature.
Today, centuries later, scientists assume that God is NOT part of nature in any scientific sense. And indeed, it would now take some overwhelmingly strong evidence to convince them otherwise.
But, imho, in all this time God's handiwork has been clear for ANYONE to see, regardless of what the scientists say.