First, let's get our definitions straight:

MACRO-Evolution is what we normally think of as Evolution, i.e., Transitions from one species to another. Life began with single-celled organism, and progressed over long periods of time to the many and varied species we have now.

MICRO-Evolution is change WITHIN a species. The best example of this is the common canine. We know beyond a doubt that all modern dogs descended from a common ancestor because we were actually the agent of the changes from one breed to another. So we already know that this type of Evolution occurs. Of course with Micro-Evolution, the resulting off-spring are still the same species, thus micro has nothing to do with the great debate about Evolution vs. Creation or ID.

Now, about the "eye and brain argument." The human eye does not disprove Macro-evolution, but it surely is one of the greatest bits of evidence against it. Not because "the eye is so complex, only God could have made it" though. It (along with the brain, birds' wings, and even a single cell) argues strongly against Macro-Evolution because the concept of Transitional Forms is incompatible with Natural Selection. Thus, Macro-Evolution argues against itself.

Natural Selection says that as changes and mutations occur, the critter with the best chance of survival will eventually "win out" over the critters without the mutation. Transitional Forms are things like the Missing Link- critters that are still in the process of transitioning from one form to another (still haven't found one, BTW).

The reason these two ideas are incompatible is illustrated easily with just a little common sense. What good is half a wing? Or an eye which is not fully functional? Or a flipper-like leg (or leg-like Flipper)? Let's say a species of fish were to gradually change into some sort of land-dwelling species. Well, that species would have to go through many stages to get from fins to legs. Even Evolutionists agree with that. But what about all those Transitional forms in between the fish and the land-dweller? The whole idea is that the transitional form is superior to the original critter, right? Picture what a fish would look like as its fins gradually changed to legs. Would any of those fin/leg combos be more likely to survive over a fish with fins that work perfectly? The transitional form would be far less likely to survive. So if species evolve over time into new species, they can't have done it through transitional forms. The same holds true for wings. If an animal starts out with arms or paws which work just fine, is it an "improvement" to have a partial wing instead? Nope- the new critter would have much less of a chance for survival.

We know that Natural Selection is true- We can look around us at nature and easily see that more viable animals repopulate better than sickly or mutated ones. And if Natural Selection is true, then it disproves any Transitional Forms by its very nature. So, Macro-Evolution is not only a provably false theory, it doesn't even make rational sense. What happened was that Darwin saw Micro-Evolution and Natural Selection happening, and mistakenly theorized that this was how life developed. It was a brilliant idea for its time, but a clever theory is not necessarily a fact.

Evolution also goes against the law of Entropy which states that ordered systems tend to break down over time. Evolution flies in the face of this proven Law of science by stating that chaotic systems tend to become more ordered and complex over time. This simply is not true.

Just because Evolution isn't true doesn't necessarily mean that a god created everything, or that there even is a creator. But from a scientific standpoint, Evolutionists are being dishonest because they are afraid that if they let go of their pet theory, they will be admitting defeat to the Creationists. But they should come up with a theory based on science, not speculation.

I hate repeating myself...but if you think you can *believe* in micro evolution and dismiss macro because there isn't evidence for it..well you dont know much about evolution to begin with.Its an argument i hear all the time and its utterly ridiculous.

Originally posted by Solomons
I hate repeating myself...but if you think you can *believe* in micro evolution and dismiss macro because there isn't evidence for it..well you dont know much about evolution to begin with.Its an argument i hear all the time and its utterly ridiculous.

Yea, yea, I know, they are both the same, right? Except we can only observe one of them, because the other supposedly takes too long, or the evidence provided is debated within Science as well.

Believe me that's not my only argument about the theory. Read the OP and respond to that. Let's stay on topic. Respond to the OP and we'll see what I know about it.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

“You ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day" Yeah, looks like He rushed it.”

-Bill Hicks

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I just find that this theory doesn't do a great job of explaining things ie; the eye, brain, etc. Although to hear some people's belief in the theory you'd think IT was a religion, they have no problem with faith.

People don't challenge the idea of evolution, or think it at all wrong because it is the backbone of biology, it's so fundamental to the science that it makes sense of everything. For area's of unknowns, people give ToE the benefit of the doubt. A lot of what we do know wouldn't make sense without it.

Originally posted by Welfhard

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I just find that this theory doesn't do a great job of explaining things ie; the eye, brain, etc. Although to hear some people's belief in the theory you'd think IT was a religion, they have no problem with faith.

People don't challenge the idea of evolution, or think it at all wrong because it is the backbone of biology, it's so fundamental to the science that it makes sense of everything. For area's of unknowns, people give ToE the benefit of the doubt. A lot of what we do know wouldn't make sense without it.

In Science you are supposed to support the theory with facts, not the other way around. Which is what you are describing.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
In Science you are supposed to support the theory with facts, not the other way around. Which is what you are describing.

No, that's creation, starting with the conclusion; God did it. Evolution was devised by observing nature to reach a conclusion.