Originally posted by six67seven
Evolutionists ...
No such thing. It's a buzzword created by proponents of creationism/intelligent design so they would have something negative to call people who
support the theory of evolution. It's as fallacious and willfully ignorant as calling people who support the theory of gravity "gravitationists".
They're both scientific theories with equal weight and any attempt to separate the theory of evolution as somehow having less evidentiary weight as
the theory of gravity, germ theory, circuit theory, etc. is simply hypocritical.
... often make the mistake of confusing or grouping the two.
The biologists who have the job of studying the systems in question are mistakenly conflating the two things and it's the inherently anti-scientific
creationist movement that's the beacon of truth on micro- and macroevolution? Yeah... no. Try again.
Microevolution is observable, like the fish adapting. Macroevolution has never been observed using science today.... EVER. You do understand
that dont you?
Are you asserting that we've never observed speciation? This is another reason why creationists insist on the fairy-tale of micro- and macroevolution
being separate processes - it allows them to move the goalposts of the argument at will. And you're showing your ignorance of how science works. We
have scads of fossil evidence showing what you claim as macroevolution. Just because that evidence isn't from last week doesn't mean it's
scientifically invalid.
I dont know how you will ever prove we all came from something that was never alive (a rock).
You're erroneously conflating abiogenesis with evolution.
It's funny because all you really have to go on is faith in your atheist scientists that they are looking at the fossils
objectively.
Atheist scientists like Ken Miller? You do realize that there's no inherent conflict between a creator and evolution, right? One describes how life
came to be, the other describes how life changes once it exists. Plenty of people, including most scientists in the United States, have reconciled
their faith and the scientific fact of evolution.
Which they aren't, because they are going out trying to prove evolution and nothing else. Their minds are made up before they even get the
grant. You can take a skull to 20 different artists and get 20 different depictions.
Ah, yes. The old "scientists are bad people" chestnut. There's nothing to be gained from what you're describing. In science, the truth will always
be known as theories based on fallacy can't stand over time. Eventually, the burden of contradicting evidence will overwhelm them and the theory will
fall. The theory of evolution has been going strong for about a century and a half and has been
strengthened by the evidence. Not weakened.
In the case of evolution, which is still a theory, truth is in the eye of the beholder. You *choose* to *believe* in this theory. It's
ok.... you can say it.... it starts with an "F" and ends in "aith". Take the leap.
This just shows your lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is. For the third time this week, I'll post this for the edification of
someone who had an inadequate science education growing up:
From the US National Academy of Sciences:
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of
some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to
alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that
living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid
plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that
they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.
And from the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly
confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of
biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory
of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
Here is a line from Talk.Origins:
"There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can."
So because there is no reason to *think* that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, then of course we must *believe* they can.
Yeah, that's called faith.
Faith - 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the
hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
Speciation or, as you would have it, macroevolution via accumulated microevolutionary changes is a fact. It has been observed. It has been verified.
If this does not meet your personal burden of proof, nothing will and we are at an impasse. Your argument is simply one from personal incredulity.
"When a man makes up his mind without evidence, no evidence disproving his opinion will change his mind." - Heinlein
