I agree with you that micro-evolution is a fact. But macro-evolution is an entirely different matter. Natural selection only selects from preexisting characteristics, it doesn't actually add on additional and previously nonexistent characteristics.
We are not going to convince one another however. And BTW, the cat story was funny, but it was a bit of an oversimplification. It was also condescending to say the least. But you don't seem capable of not talking down to people (or maybe it is just me). You must be a professor, or I am I just jaded from years of crawling through the sewage of institutions of "higher learning"?
Have a good day by the way.
When one absolutely denies the existence of God, there is really no explanation for our origins other than evolution. You and I are both committed to our religions evidently.
Evolution is science, not religion. If the Theory of Evolution were scientifically proven wrong tomorrow, I'd be surprised, but excited to dive into that which replaced it. My guess is that you would find it inconceivable, tawdry or sacrilegious to consider whether there is no God or whether Christianity is false.
I guess when we are both dead we will see who was right.
Or neither of us is, or our consciousnesses will fade as our brains shut down and, therefore, we will "see" nothing...
I agree with you that micro-evolution is a fact. But macro-evolution is an entirely different matter.
No, it isn't. Macro-evolution, so called, is simply microevolution that occurred a long time ago. Nothing more.
Natural selection only selects from preexisting characteristics, it doesn't actually add on additional and previously nonexistent characteristics.
Correct, as far as it goes. But natural selection isn't the whole process. The "preexisting characteristics" arise from random changes in the genome which does generate "additional and previously nonexistent characteristics."
We are not going to convince one another however. And BTW, the cat story was funny, but it was a bit of an oversimplification. It was also condescending to say the least.
Well, certainly don't take it as an intentional insult; many of the concepts that really make up the science of evolutionary biology are actually this straightforward and even simple, in theory. (Obviously they get more complex and detailed when the actual mechanics are examined.) When creationists deny these concepts or refuse to see them, it is difficult to express the concepts in an even simpler way without it starting to approach condescension.
For example, creationists say that the Earth is only 6,000 years old; that statement is so wrong, it is difficult to explain how wrong it is without resorting to analogy: Compared to its real age, saying the Earth is 6,000 years old is the equivalent of saying that the Declaration of Independence was signed 2 1/2 hours ago, or saying that the distance between New York and San Francisco is 18 feet.
But you don't seem capable of not talking down to people (or maybe it is just me). You must be a professor, or I am I just jaded from years of crawling through the sewage of institutions of "higher learning"?
Nope, not a professor. And I am sorry if I seem like I'm talking down to you and don't take it personally, but, in my mind, life's too short to pretend that someone's ideas make sense when they really don't.
Have a good day by the way.
You, too.