That's not it at all. The problem is that the only proof a creationist will accept is impossible to see in one lifetime, or even several. There's plenty of evidence out there, just none that a creationist can bring himself to accept.
We creationists are always assured of this evidence, but it turns out to be a bit squirmy when you try to pin it down. As you admit, there is no observation of the proposed macroevolution, since it is impossible to view.
We were assured of the fossil record, but that hasn't panned out. You yourself had to explain the lack of evidence there.
We are offered the "hopeful monster" theory, which is a theory based on a lack of evidence.
We are assured of transitional fossils, but given no firm lines of homology; they are more holy than the Pope's underwear. These transitional fossils are defined on the ultra-scientific principle of appearance, and often based on nothing more than a couple of teeth and skull fragments. (BTW, many are proven as frauds.)
We are given embryology as proof, and that too is shown to be fraud.
We are given speciation but find them all defined by the weak definition (choices to mate as opposed to ability to mate) that would make me a different species from nearly every woman I ever met.
We are given DNA evidence for random, unguided evolution and then told that DNA is a literal code with literal error correction, etc... To all experience, an indication of design.
We are told that scientists have designed simulations that prove random/natural/unguided mechanisms.
We are told that all of this (in the Darwinian context) happened after life spontaneously generated by happenstance, even though all observable evidence indicates otherwise.
And after all of this is offered, ID is derided and called pseudoscience because it makes the inference that the apparent design we see in the universe is, well, actually designed.
That's another misrepresentation of what's really happening. The experiments are designed to simulate what happens when the environment applies extreme selection pressures. Your response illustrates clearly that creationists will not accept any evidence short of direct observation in the field of their caricature of "macroevolution."
See above.
Be my guest, though I'm not sure what there is to argue about...
It's up. If history tells me anything, it's that we can find something to argue about. ;^)
Take care, bro. Hope you get smarter on your trip...
That's not it at all. The
That's not it at all. The problem is that the only proof a creationist will accept is impossible to see in one lifetime, or even several. There's plenty of evidence out there, just none that a creationist can bring himself to accept.
We creationists are always assured of this evidence, but it turns out to be a bit squirmy when you try to pin it down. As you admit, there is no observation of the proposed macroevolution, since it is impossible to view.
We were assured of the fossil record, but that hasn't panned out. You yourself had to explain the lack of evidence there.
We are offered the "hopeful monster" theory, which is a theory based on a lack of evidence.
We are assured of transitional fossils, but given no firm lines of homology; they are more holy than the Pope's underwear. These transitional fossils are defined on the ultra-scientific principle of appearance, and often based on nothing more than a couple of teeth and skull fragments. (BTW, many are proven as frauds.)
We are given embryology as proof, and that too is shown to be fraud.
We are given speciation but find them all defined by the weak definition (choices to mate as opposed to ability to mate) that would make me a different species from nearly every woman I ever met.
We are given DNA evidence for random, unguided evolution and then told that DNA is a literal code with literal error correction, etc... To all experience, an indication of design.
We are told that scientists have designed simulations that prove random/natural/unguided mechanisms.
We are told that all of this (in the Darwinian context) happened after life spontaneously generated by happenstance, even though all observable evidence indicates otherwise.
And after all of this is offered, ID is derided and called pseudoscience because it makes the inference that the apparent design we see in the universe is, well, actually designed.
That's another misrepresentation of what's really happening. The experiments are designed to simulate what happens when the environment applies extreme selection pressures. Your response illustrates clearly that creationists will not accept any evidence short of direct observation in the field of their caricature of "macroevolution."
See above.
Be my guest, though I'm not sure what there is to argue about...
It's up. If history tells me anything, it's that we can find something to argue about. ;^)
Take care, bro. Hope you get smarter on your trip...