(BondiHarry;49443)
Then let's clarify what we are talking about. The example (
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_02.html )you cite begins with a finch and ends with several other distinct groups ... OF FINCHES (and not robins or crows or any other type of bird). All this does is support micro evolution and NOT the macro sort.
They may be
called finches, but they are, by scientific standards, different
species. It says that right there in the article that you linked, if you bothered to actually read it.This is a standard creationist tactic - simply define any evolution that occurs as microevolution. Darwin's finches are an established example of one species transitioning into multiple other different species, whether you like it or not.(BondiHarry)
Evolution claims that simpler life forms develop into more complex life forms so how life originated is indeed relevant. Even a 'simple' cell is so complex that it is not possible for life as we know it to spontaneously generate.
For one, did you leave my last post? Because I
specifically addressed the point of cells "spontaneously generating." Nobody argues that. It's a straw man.Secondly, of course want to solve the problem of where life came from in the first place. Yes, abiogenesis and evolution are both theories related to life. But that doesn't mean that an attack on one is an attack on the other, just because abiogenesis came first. Think about that logic. Science doesn't understand the origin of the universe - does that mean that, because the origin of the universe came first, our failure to understand its origins undermines
everything in science? No, of course it doesn't. Similarly, just because we
don't know where the first lifeform came from, that doesn't contradict all the evidence for evolution. The evidence for evolution is incontrovertible. If it makes you feel any better, hypothesize that God created the first lifeform, and then be quiet about evolution already. I know how fond you are of the God of the Gaps.(BondiHarry)
There is a logic of sorts to macro evolution but in the end, it is nothing more than a desperate attempt to deny a creator because, if it is acknowledged there is a creator, then we actually have to consider that we may be subject to that creators laws be they physical (like gravity) or moral.
Oh, please. There are many scientists who support macroevolution that believe are religious. What do you think motivates
them? They're motivated by finding scientific truth, not denying their own religion.Also, are you honestly arguing that people argue for macroevolution because they want to believe that they aren't subject to the laws of gravity?(treeoflife)
I stand by my statement. You're the immature one who can't handle it, appearantly.
So you run around name-calling and then
I'm the immature one because I "can't handle it?" Grow up.(treeoflife)
Furthermore, he outright LIED that "those other facts" would be facts to me too.
As always, you missed the point. He was saying that, by the standards that you've presented, you should accept all other religions as fact, because they're simply faith beliefs. Of course you don't, but that simply makes your reasoning inconsistent.