Actually, I didn't say it can't be defined. That's your misrepresentation. What I said was that it may not exist because it isn't observed; but I understand why you need to start moving those goalposts around.
Macro-evolution may not exist because it isn't observed. You simply assume that it exists in your mind and force all evidence through the interpretation of that mental filter. It's completely a mental construct. That's what you refuse to admit.
"And this is a "scientific law" of ID-Creationism, according to GourmetDan, is that about right?"
There are no scientific laws specifically for creationism and another set for naturalism. There are only scientific laws. One of the requirements for a scientific law is that it be *observable*. Macro-evolution is not observable and is therefore not a scientific law.
"And yet, if real scientists tell us that "macro-evolution" is nothing more than "micro-evoloution" over the long term, Dan will insist that is necessarily false, because, even though he can't define what "macro-evoloution," is; he is certain by the laws of ID-Creationism, it's not that, right?"
What 'real scientists' are telling you is that 'macro-evolution' is not observed but is assumed to exist because it is assumed to be 'micro-evolution' over unobserved time-frames. That doesn't mean that they don't believe it, they do. We just don't observe it, therefore it fails the test of being observable. You are confusing science and belief.
"Right."
Keep trying. You may attain that firm grasp of the obvious that you seek before we're done.
[[Macro-evolution may not exist because it isn’t observed. You simply assume that it exists in your mind and force all evidence through the interpretation of that mental filter. It’s completely a mental construct. That’s what you refuse to admit.]]
Precisely- that about sums this whole issue up- Yet what I find funny (well, not funny really) is that those folks accuse creationists and ID’ists of ‘appealing to the supernatural’ yet the whole mythical process of macroevolution is a process of supernatural biological origins- a process which violates key scientific principles such as biological, mathematical, chemical and natural laws, and we’re not talking just simple minor, moot examples of violations which ‘might beat hte incredible overwhelming odds against it’ we’re talking about major violations trillions of times- Either nature is supernatural, or it’s the luckiest entity around- and I do mean entity IF it somehow was able to overcome these staggering odds against it- for ONLY an intelligence is capable of defeating hte very laws that govern life, and to which ALL life is subject- without exception!
Dan- have you read the thread called ‘life’s irreducible structures’? It talks about hte metainformaiton that I’ve mentioned several times in this thread, and it explains how there is a system of metainformation that MUST exist BEFORE any lower information can be changed- this metainfo is species specific, and simply throwing noise at it (ie: inserting non species specific info which falls outside the species specific parameters which maintain species fitness into the mix- for which the species specific metainfo isn’t equipted to handle,) would destroy the intricate balance and function of the species- not lead to new organs and systems as claiemd by macroevolutionists.
Anyway- it’s a very interesting thread, and probably the most important ID concept to come out in a long while- more important than Behe’s few examples of singular IC systems- it also shows why dirty chemicals found in nature can NOT for chemically pure systems as foudn in life- but we’re to beleive I guess that nature- once again- ignored scientific realities, and somehow, by gosh by golly, purified the chemicals found in nature, and created not only pure biological life, but also the higher metainfo REQUIRED to conduct life’s irredubile structures BEFORE it created these amazing chemically pure cells with it’s magic, scientific law ignoring, wand of ‘creation’
Dan, Dan, I said I thought you were a smart guy, and now you're determined to prove me wrong! What am I going to do with you?
Here you've completely twisted your argument around backwards, claiming now that I'm the one defending macro-evolution and you are the one denying it!
Such nonsense. Remember, remember, we were talking about evolution being a walk, step by step across the country. Each step you could call "micro-evolution," and the journey from one coast to the other you might call "macro-evolution."
But you insisted that's a false metaphor. You said the true analogy would be trying to jump up to the moon -- macro-evolution. The process of jumping can never get you to the moon, you said.
So I asked you to define precisely which step is it, in our walk across country, which you think constitutes "jumping for the moon." In other words, where is it that "micro-" becomes "macro-" evolution?
So I ask again, focus on the question. See if you can give it a straightforward answer.