how is macro-evolution reproducible?
While I believe in evolution, I cannot claim to be as well-versed in the science as PH or others, so the short answer is "I don't know". But I will offer two observations.
1) Evolutionary Theory proposes a hypothesis which can be pursued scientifically. In other words, while it may not yet have been observed, it is something that could be observed, along with a discipline to get to that point. The Theory of Evolution, as it exists today, may yet be disproved, but it is science that will do so, not Theology.
2) Has anyone ever observed an Ice Age? What about the giant crater in Arizona? What caused it? How do we know that aliens didn't go out into the desert with bulldozers and create it? Did anyone see it formed? These comments aren't meant as an attack upon you, just an (admittedly ridiculous) example of how lack of proof doesn't equate to proof of falsehood. Evolution continues to be studied for this very reason, and questions such as yours should continue to be asked. But if someone purports to disprove a theory based on lack of evidence, then the argument is lost before it begins.
I'd like to add one thing, a little off-topic. I honestly believe that the biggest problem facing our country today is the complete breakdown of communication between people who share opposing views. I lament the fact that too often political disagreements become screaming matches. It has always existed to some extent, but it seems that in the last few years, it has risen to a level such that people can't even talk any more. I was having an interesting debate with a new poster the other day regarding the concept of Hate Crimes. While it was obvious that he didn't share traditionally conservative viewpoints in this area, he wasn't disruptive or rude and even politely asked to be allowed to continue the discussion in peace. However, there were a few posters so threatened by his mere existence that they pinged a mod and got him banned. If one is so threatened by someone who argues against him, is it perhaps because of the weakness of his own argument? Food for thought...
Well, have to go do some chores. Hopefully we can continue this. Have a great day.
The second paragraph was interesting, I liked this statement. lack of proof doesn't equate to proof of falsehood. This is true, but the opposite is also true, lack of proof does not equate to it having to be the only solution. What is that old saying in politics, tell a lie long enough and loud enough and people will begin to believe it? I am not saying that evo is a lie, but just pointing out that there are some who will attempt to drill it into our/me/my (IDer's) heads that marco-evolutionary biology is written in stone, 100% drop dead true.
Observable and repeatable testing is hard to do when significant amounts of time are needs. Reminds me of the dripping tar through a funnel test that has been going on since the early 70's. And that is only about 30 years. Time is the biggest stumbling block for and against evolution and/or ID. We can't stop it, repeat it, change it, slow it down, reverse it, or go back in it and there fore creates the problems it does.
the complete breakdown of communication between people who share opposing views. We agree on this 100%, I think that is what got us chatting and talking. Wether it is politics, science, society, etc. people have taken to the idea that it is their way or the highway. It's too bad. Democrats call republicans Nazi's, racists, etc. In turn democrats are called socialists, liberals, etc. and that is the last thing that is heard on either side. After that it's just pure flaming. They say you should never talk about politics, religion and sex in social situations. I think that is because people do not want honest discourse about them. My religion is called intolerant, by the same people who call for tolerance! Talk about a position of relativism, where their feet are firmly planted in midair. But this boils down to the fact that people have a hard time explaining why they believe what they believe. You hear it every day. When the question is asked, why do you feel that way, it usually starts of with "because I feel..." And that is the problem IMO. Feelings are fine, but that is not a point to argue from, it should be a reinforcement to, the facts. People don't get that, understand that, or care about that because they just know how they feel. All too sad.
That last part parlayed into my comments on your last sentence, If one is so threatened by someone who argues against him, is it perhaps because of the weakness of his own argument? Once threatened, the ability to anything but lash out is lost. That is why you see so many DUmmies getting into hissy-fit, to them their truth is that Bush and Co. are evil. The reason is that is how they feel, and then they can't argue it rationally so they revert to childish behavior. Just an example, but you get the idea, it permeates our society in every way. Work, school, social circles, chat rooms, etc. For a different view of the same thing, jump onto the illegal immigration threads. They are actually worse that the ID/evo list. No kidding.
Ponder this, if you could make me read one or two books regarding this subject, in support of your side of the argument, which two would they be?