Look, its great that you think that those very similar and non-dramatic "drawings" prove something. Obviously you have strongly held beliefs, a person of conviction. There is nothing wrong with that. I too have strongly held beliefs and am a person of conviction. There will be no proof of macro-evolution found as there is none. Many scientists admit to this flaw and are trying to figure out ways to get around it. It is becoming so well known that Darwin's theory is very flawed that we are now seeing a push to include alternative theories. Intelligent design is one and it has a lot of backing in the science field.
Well, the bottom one is a fairly early reptile. It has a multipart lower jaw bone. Its teeth show almost no differentiation. (No molars, incisors, etc.) The top end of the series has two early mammals. The multipart jaw bones before your eyes have become a single jaw bone and three ear bones. The teeth have become the familiar mammalian pattern. That you think that doesn't mean anything probably means you should stay out of science class unless you want to enroll as a student.
Obviously you have strongly held beliefs, a person of conviction. There is nothing wrong with that.
No, I am reasoning from a sizeable preponderance of evidence. There's nothing wrong with that. That's the way to do most things.
I too have strongly held beliefs and am a person of conviction.
There can be something wrong with that. In particular, you are absolutely evidence-proof.
There will be no proof of macro-evolution found as there is none.
You seem to be willing to define away any such you are presented. It is unreasonable to demand evidence which you will always throw out on any possible excuse or no excuse.
Many scientists admit to this flaw and are trying to figure out ways to get around it.
The evidence I have presented to you is accepted by science. They see it. YOU are trying to get round it.
It is becoming so well known that Darwin's theory is very flawed that we are now seeing a push to include alternative theories.
That push is coming from creationists who want to get creationism into the schools despite various separation clause rulings.
Intelligent design is one and it has a lot of backing in the science field.
It doesn't have a shred of scientific backing or standing.
"My faith as a child was ruined. I was being told two different things by people I felt were telling the truth.See, that is the reason I give the evidence for both sides without suggesting that they are mutually exclusive. (I home school)
"There will be no proof of macro-evolution found as there is none."But what if there ever is such evidence that even you can no longer deny? I already see very strong evidence - I started off as a skeptic arguing against it, but the more I saw and the more I fact-checked the claims against it... If my children see it as I do, I don't want that to impact their future decisions or convictions about spiritual matters.
"Micro-evolution should be taught... Macro-evolution can be presented as a theory ... and Intelligent design can be presented as another alternative theory. Being taught that way leaves the choice up to the kids, to get them thinking and making up their own minds and not having there is no God shoved down their throats.I agree that that's basically the best way - it's what I do at home. ID doesn't technically qualify as a Science, but I see nothing wrong and everything right about simply explaining that there is a debate about limits of evolution and giving the case for irreducible complexity.