Replies

Just as tiny little sand particles make up a beach, lots of tiny "micro-evolutions" make up a so-called "macro-evolution." Do you deny sand makes a beach? Of course not.

the "micro/macro" semantic nonsense is another tool of creationists who have been confronted with too much evidence to completely write off. Another recent invention of the gang who spins these tales.

I just have to repost this just for you:

Well, yeah, but... I mean, if there is Micro-evolution, then there MUST be Macro-evolution. At least, that's what my biology teacher said. And he seems pretty smart.

He said this God stuff is for stupid people.

</sarcasm>

Micro- and macro- evolution are as different (actually more so) than the wind blowing the sand into the shape of a rudimentary teepee and the wind blowing the sand into a fully functioning Boeing 777.

They are only similar in that the same word is embedded in them. Kind of like "COMputer and COMmute."

Evolution within species is a scientifically reproducible reality.

Evolution between species is not.

Evolution as Cosmology has become dogma – a secular religion.

Observing micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution. Man has learned to fly – I guess that means we evolved from birds(or flying insects or bats or Rocky the flying squirrel) – if not, there is more to change than a single evolution cosmological theory. Evolution within a species makes scientific sense and is scientifically verifiable – this is not the case for macro-evolution.

Like I said, evolution as cosmology has become dogma and the adherents of this dogma often have very closed minds. Many orthodox evolutionists and evangelical atheists think that accepting the reality that there are problems with evolution as a complete cosmological theory means they have to accept there is a god – this is not correct and is pretty much a phobia.

Evolution as cosmology is theory – it could be true and it could be false. It has plenty of problems. The “big bang” was a turd in the punch bowl of the cosmological evolution party – a singular event that created the universe does not work in a cosmological evolution theory – unless you say “a miracle happen” then evolution took over (to be honest, that is the same theory those that believe in God hold: a miracle happened then the laws of nature were created). Exposing problems in one theory NEVER supports another competing theory (many orthodox evolutionist just don’t get this).

I choose to believe evolution is a piece in the puzzle – not the entire puzzle. There is more to this picture than currently meets the eye and I am not going to pretend theory is fact. For some strange reason, thinking like this makes orthodox evolutionists and evangelical atheists very uncomfortable.

Another Point: You can not go into a truly intellectual debate with predetermined assumptions but evangelical atheists and orthodox evolutionists do just that. When debating cosmology these people assume there is no God therefore they build their side of the debate on a fallacious foundation. There is no scientific proof that God does not exist just as there currently is no real scientific proof that God does exist. When one assumes God does not exist – they are in error right out of the gate (and this does not prove God exists either)

Disclaimer: I am currently agnostic. I am not truly convinced there is a God but I am not ignorant enough to assume there is not a God. I also believe it is possible the intelligence that might hold the universe together has little in common with man’s concept of God.