[Phantasy]

1: "Macroevolution" is a fanciful term with no sceintific definition. Say "evolution."

That would be factually incorrect, as there is a difference between micro and macro evolution.

2: The holes in the fossil record present no difficulty for the theory of evolution

If we find it impossible to fill those gaps, how can we prove evolution to be truth? Without a record of Pluto's position yesterday, you can't prove whether it was in the predicted place or not.

But if we'd like to practice and teach our kids sloppy "science," evolution as fact is certainly the way to go.

Sure you can. Produce a scientific theory to counter evolutionary theory, and have at it. So far, though, no such theories are in evidence.

You are either in denial, or just being close-minded. Creationism has valid science backing, as does ID. You just don't want to see it, so you close your eyes and go "nuh-uh." Most people get over that before they leave elementary school.

[Clemenza]

Creationism has valid science backing, as does ID.

Where is there "scientific evidence" of a CREATOR?

(Crickets chirping)

[shuckmaster]

Creationism has valid science backing, as does ID.

Ha!

[Coyoteman]

Creationism has valid science backing

Like the stretch creationists have to make in order to contradict the results of radiocarbon and other forms of radiometric dating?

Like the convoluted ideas they have for the recent formation of the Grand Canyon?

Their ideas about the Channeled Scablands of Washington State?

It is a long and distinguished list, but there is no science there. Rather it is an attempt to validate a narrow reading of the bible in spite of science!

[Dimensio]

That would be factually incorrect, as there is a difference between micro and macro evolution.

What is the difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution. Please explain by providing an example of "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution and pointing out the distinctions.

If we find it impossible to fill those gaps, how can we prove evolution to be truth?

THEORIES IN SCIENCE ARE NEVER PROVEN

Without a record of Pluto's position yesterday, you can't prove whether it was in the predicted place or not.

Correct. Yet only a complete idiot would claim that a lack of such a record is a failing of existing equations for planetary motion.

Creationism has valid science backing, as does ID.

Please provide examples of the "scientific backing" for creationism and ID. Give specifics. Explain how a supernatural supposition such as creationism can be scientific when science by definition can only offer explainations completely constrained within the natural universe.

[orionblamblam]

> there is a difference between micro and macro evolution.

Nope. "macro" evolution is merely the result of accumulated "micro" evolution.

> Without a record of Pluto's position yesterday, you can't prove whether it was in the predicted place or not.

Nevertheless, sane people recognize that a theory that *does* explain the past by predicting the future (as both orbital dynamics and evolution do) is a better explanation that jsut throwing up ones hands and saying "well, can't be proven, so we might as well assume any goofball thing at all."

> Creationism has valid science backing

{splutter}

You owe me a keyboard.

[Tamar1973]

That would be factually incorrect, as there is a difference between micro and macro evolution.

Please read Variation, information and the created kind by Dr. Carl Wieland.

He states, "All observed biological changes involve only conservation or decay of the underlying genetic information. Thus we do not observe any sort of evolution in the sense in which the word is generally understood. For reasons of logic, practicality and strategy, it is suggested that we:

Avoid the use of the term ‘microevolution’.

Rethink our use of the whole concept of ‘variation within kind’.

Avoid taxonomic definitions of the created kind in favour of one which is overtly axiomatic."