[besson3c]

Evolutionists don't even have transitional fossils!

YouTube - Special Investigation - Evolution

[turtle777]

I have reliable facts opinions that some here in the PWL are still developing from monkeys into humans.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

I don't trust arguments created in MS Paint.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I don't trust arguments created in MS Paint.

Why not. It's so easy, even a gecko can do it.

-t

[besson3c]

Despite the poor quality of the video, the arguments in there resemble some of the real world debates we have all had about anything we care about (be it evolution/creationism or anything else) to a pretty eerie extent!

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Despite the poor quality of the video, the arguments in there resemble some of the real world debates we have all had about anything we care about (be it evolution/creationism or anything else) to a pretty eerie extent!

Sorry, proponents of ID believe in evolution and accepted universal time scales. Your cartoon is a total fail.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Sorry, proponents of ID believe in evolution and accepted universal time scales. Your cartoon is a total fail.

Some do. Most in my experience fudge on it and arbitrarily believe in some evolution but not other evolution and aren't too sure about the reliability of current scientific time scales.

[besson3c]

The cartoon is brilliant because it incorporates just about every known debate tactic:

- repetition
- refusal to acknowledge and address counter argument
- filibustering
- ridiculous metaphors
- leading questions/statements
- exploitation of concessions that are provided
- sarcasm/mockery

about the only technique we don't see here is Googling some random source that agrees with your predetermined belief.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Why is the God Clique all worried over the fact that we evolved from monkeys? I hate to tell you folks but we all came from fish first. Human embryos have gills at first that later form into the middle ear (for walking on land). You can see that under a microscope, not baby Jesus.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

gills at first that later form into the middle ear (for walking on land).

This doesn't apply to me.

I use my feet to walk on land.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

This doesn't apply to me.

I use my feet to walk on land.

-t

Very slowly... Have you thought about getting yourself a Jazzy?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The cartoon is brilliant because it incorporates just about every known debate tactic:

- repetition
- refusal to acknowledge and address counter argument
- filibustering
- ridiculous metaphors
- leading questions/statements
- exploitation of concessions that are provided
- sarcasm/mockery

about the only technique we don't see here is Googling some random source that agrees with your predetermined belief.

The cartoon is pathetic because it is all just a big fat straw-man. If it wasn't blatant enough, he's even doing the voice-over for both parts with the same voice. It's a classic tell of a weak debater that he can't address his opponent directly, so he has to resort to dummying up an easy target to take out his frustrations on. This video detracts from the quality of general discourse.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The cartoon is pathetic because it is all just a big fat straw-man. If it wasn't blatant enough, he's even doing the voice-over for both parts with the same voice. It's a classic tell of a weak debater that he can't address his opponent directly, so he has to resort to dummying up an easy target to take out his frustrations on. This video detracts from the quality of general discourse.

Comon, you've never encountered somebody who debated like both parties on *any* subject matter?

I don't really care much about the actual points made in this specific debate, I just thought the way the debate was carried out was a clever exaggeration of how many real-life "debates" go.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Comon, you've never encountered somebody who debated like both parties on *any* subject matter?.

Your mama.

-t

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Some do. Most in my experience fudge on it and arbitrarily believe in some evolution but not other evolution and aren't too sure about the reliability of current scientific time scales.

Scientists can't agree on the time scale of the Cambrian period either. We can debate religion or we can debate the science. I'd rather debate the science. Let's not use a minority literalist view of creation and attribute it as being part of the Intelligent Design debate.

[Eriamjh]

Even though I believe in evolution, I've always like this:
"If man evolved from monkeys and apes, then why do we still have monkeys and apes?"

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

Even though I believe in evolution, I've always like this:
"If man evolved from monkeys and apes, then why do we still have monkeys and apes?"

Why would you like that? It's such a weird question.

[TheoCryst]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

Even though I believe in evolution, I've always like this:
"If man evolved from monkeys and apes, then why do we still have monkeys and apes?"

Ugh, I've had to answer that question so many times, from so many people... *sigh*

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

Even though I believe in evolution, I've always like this:
"If man evolved from monkeys and apes, then why do we still have monkeys and apes?"

In 200 more years, we might not have any more apes left

Anyhow, the question makes as little sense as these:
If man was created by god, then why is there still a god?
If trees grew out of seeds, then why are there still seeds?
If OS X evolved from UNIX, then why is there still UNIX?

Kenneth from 30 Rock said it best: If my great-grandpa was a monkey, then why was he killed by a monkey?

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In 200 more years, we might not have any more apes left

At the rate we are going there wont be any apes, elephants, lions, tigers, tuna, rhinos to name just a few in way less than 200 years, try 10-15 years.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The cartoon is brilliant because it incorporates just about every known debate tactic:

- repetition
- refusal to acknowledge and address counter argument
- filibustering
- ridiculous metaphors
- leading questions/statements
- exploitation of concessions that are provided
- sarcasm/mockery

about the only technique we don't see here is Googling some random source that agrees with your predetermined belief.

You mean you didn't Google that cartoon? And the thrust of the cartoon was antithetical to your beliefs?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

You mean you didn't Google that cartoon? And the thrust of the cartoon was antithetical to your beliefs?

Add this to my list:

- Attempt to make argument about the person making the argument rather than the argument itself

[CollinG3G4]

In my experience, most people that claim to be against evolution have been indoctrinated into the concept. Once you explain it to them in terms of populations, genetics, and sequence homology, the idea of change over time becomes much less intimidating. Of course, it's always difficult to have a conversation with a person that has only read one book in their entire life.

[turtle777]

I know many people who believe in evolution, and they fit the "one book" category perfectly. Ignorance can be found on both sides.

-t

[besson3c]

You cannot argue matters of faith with rationalism, period. This does not mean that faith is irrational, but that the supernatural cannot be explained or proven via rational thought and rational explanation.

[CollinG3G4]

Why argue about it then? The idea of life evolving adds depth and complexity to the idea of a creator. It’s much more interesting and profound than “on the x day this happened.”

No?

[besson3c]

Why argue about what? I'm not sure I'm getting your question Collin...

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by CollinG3G4 

ng. Of course, it's always difficult to have a conversation with a person that has only read one book in their entire life.

Especially when that book is fiction and not based on proven facts.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Why is the God Clique all worried over the fact that we evolved from monkeys? I hate to tell you folks but we all came from fish first. Human embryos have gills at first that later form into the middle ear (for walking on land). You can see that under a microscope, not baby Jesus.

*UPDATE: The theory of recapitulation has been debunked since what... the early 1900's? Those "gills" are called pharyngeal pouches or more appropriately, flexion folds. These folds are the result of a sharply downturned head during fetal development and have absolutely nothing to do with any respiratory function whatsoever. They eventually form the inner ears, cheeks, parathyroid, and thymus. How much are we paying per student in the US public school system again?

Tell ya what though, make a fist. Now look at the profile of your fist paying particularly close attention to your index finger. LOOK THERE! GILL SLITS!!!

So... there you have it. You've found Jesus after all!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I know many people who believe in evolution, and they fit the "one book" category perfectly. Ignorance can be found on both sides.

-t

No doubt about it.

[Big Mac]

As ebuddy points out, biological recapitulation has been thoroughly debunked.

Macroevolution is a myth - and apparently a very seductive and comforting myth for the atheistic camp; they will defy all logic to continue supporting it. I tire of debating evolution here because we've been on that road many times and those who swear by the Church of Darwin close themselves off to the possibility of objective discussion or examination of any alternative. It appears that many Darwinists cling to that centuries old godless superstition because even contemplating any alternative to it brings one inevitable conclusion to the fore: There is supreme intelligence in the design of the universe, the earth and the life that inhabits it.

Despite decades of lab experimentation under the most ideal hypothetical conditions, scientists have utterly failed to create life from inorganic components. (And yes before you say it I know that evolution is separate for origin of life questions, but it's definitely related). Despite all sorts of fanciful claims about transitional forms we see that species abruptly come into the fossil record fully formed. Critical examination of Darwinist claims about transitional forms of ancient fossils show that what is being observed instead is variations within established kinds, many of which went extinct (and others which were thought to be extinct but have recently been found alive and unmodified after supposed millions of years).

Every six months or so the media announces it's found a transitional hominid, and previously established evolutionary theories of human development are suddenly discarded in favor of new findings. But in truth what they're finding with these claims are various forms of apes, not anything resembling humans. Color me unimpressed. Meanwhile, scientists used to fork Neanderthals off from humans and claim they were completely separate until very recent genetic research recognized that they were simply humans with some unique characteristics, who were part of human societies and likely (definitely?) intermarried with other humans.

I pity Darwinists. Evolution within broad categories of species does occur, but macroevolution of life from lower to "higher" life forms is absurd and would be something even Darwin would reject were he alive to have knowledge of genetics. The amount of ordered, precise genetic coding that's necessary to produce a distinct life form is so incredibly vast that there is no plausible mechanism for random mutations and selection to accomplish it blindly, no matter what geological timescale you believe in. In a sense SWG is right in doubting evolution could be responsible for life in all its complexities, but for the wrong reason. He doubts that we could have evolved so fast, but in truth no matter how much time you throw at the problem, Darwinism cannot account for the origins of life given what we know about it today. In fact, increasing the time scale makes works against the Darwinist for at least two important reasons: 1) The fossil record rejects the Gradualism approach of believing life evolved slowly - it shows life springs on to the scene complete and in rapid bursts (see the alternative Darwinist explanation of Punctuated Equilibrium); 2) vast time scales make it much less likely that unique life could successfully evolve and stick around long enough before being wiped out by changes in environment and mass extinction events.

Those who believe in Darwinism as an account of life on earth are either ignorant or willfully obtuse. Our existence is not a happy accident. The funny thing is, if I thought Darwinism were credible I could easily accept it within my religious framework; it would just require me to accept a more remote and less active Creator (with a more passive interpretation of Genesis), a god more like Plato's First Mover. But I see that the universe and the world as it is reflect G-d's active and direct hand, which I know would be clear to me even if I did not belong to the people who received his direct textbook for life at Sinai.

[downinflames68]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You cannot argue matters of faith with rationalism, period. This does not mean that faith is irrational,.

Uh, yeah it does.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by downinflames68 

Uh, yeah it does.

I'm going to take a bite of the apple but reserve the right to take a second.
The Origin of Species, as articulated by the Neo Darwinists, is a hotly debated subject.
I'm making an assumption here that those here arguing the irrationality of faith, by implication denying a possible intelligent agent, are on faith believe, life on this planet was naturally and originally organized in in a pool of pond scum, from which all higher orders of life evolved.

[Orion27]

I'm getting hungry for a Big Mac!

[Big Mac]

As for besson's claim that one cannot discuss faith rationally, I don't see basis for such a preposition. If your claim is that any recognition of the supernatural or faith automatically means rational debate is precluded, then I suppose you can believe that. But I counter that it takes far more faith to believe in the absurdities of Darwinism than it does to recognize an intelligent source of the universe and life.

Back when the "enlightened" view of the Greek and Roman world was that the earth has and will always exist eternally, Judaism was teaching that the universe and the world were created. Until the 20th Century scientists believed the universe was preexisting and static, but then it was discovered that the universe was expanding and that there was a point at which it began, again confirming the ancient Jewish view. Science currently holds that the earth and all it contains were originally star matter, and that at a certain point in the "creation" of the earth's materials the raw materials themselves became the building blocks for everything else and new creation of previous star material ended. Judaism (and Christianity) recognize the end of that creation period as the seventh day. Now, I recently read about a period right after the Big Bang during which a hyper expansion occurred, and scientists have hypothesized that at this point the material of the universe was in a liquid-like state. Genesis confirms that there was liquid involved in the creation of both the heavens and the earth. And as for the age of the universe and earth, Judaism teaches that the world was created fully formed and therefore "old." If you consider that possibility, it would effectively mean that the earth could be geologically old but in truth a recent production - as if G-d pressed the Fast Forward button to get creation to the point at which He wanted it for His purposes. An old earth recently created sounds contradictory based on physical laws that govern creation as we know them, but certainly an all powerful Creator would not be bound by nature during the supernatural "week" that brought everything into being.

Many of you will dismiss all of that as religious propaganda, and that's fine by me. If nothing else I'll view your Darwinism as illogical propaganda, and you'll view my religious explanation as illogical propaganda. The difference is that I studied Darwinism objectively and found it to be defective. Have you looked at the possibility of the divine objectively? The next time you're amazed by some facet of creation and you force yourself to exclaim that "this to was all by chance," I hope this conversation enters your mind.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

As ebuddy points out, biological recapitulation has been thoroughly debunked.

Macroevolution is a myth - and apparently a very seductive and comforting myth for the atheistic camp; they will defy all logic to continue supporting it. I tire of debating evolution here because we've been on that road many times and those who swear by the Church of Darwin close themselves off to the possibility of objective discussion or examination of any alternative. It appears that many Darwinists cling to that centuries old godless superstition because even contemplating any alternative to it brings one inevitable conclusion to the fore: There is supreme intelligence in the design of the universe, the earth and the life that inhabits it.

Despite decades of lab experimentation under the most ideal hypothetical conditions, scientists have utterly failed to create life from inorganic components. (And yes before you say it I know that evolution is separate for origin of life questions, but it's definitely related). Despite all sorts of fanciful claims about transitional forms we see that species abruptly come into the fossil record fully formed. Critical examination of Darwinist claims about transitional forms of ancient fossils show that what is being observed instead is variations within established kinds, many of which went extinct (and others which were thought to be extinct but have recently been found alive and unmodified after supposed millions of years).

Every six months or so the media announces it's found a transitional hominid, and previously established evolutionary theories of human development are suddenly discarded in favor of new findings. But in truth what they're finding with these claims are various forms of apes, not anything resembling humans. Color me unimpressed. Meanwhile, scientists used to fork Neanderthals off from humans and claim they were completely separate until very recent genetic research recognized that they were simply humans with some unique characteristics, who were part of human societies and likely (definitely?) intermarried with other humans.

I pity Darwinists. Evolution within broad categories of species does occur, but macroevolution of life from lower to "higher" life forms is absurd and would be something even Darwin would reject were he alive to have knowledge of genetics. The amount of ordered, precise genetic coding that's necessary to produce a distinct life form is so incredibly vast that there is no plausible mechanism for random mutations and selection to accomplish it blindly, no matter what geological timescale you believe in. In a sense SWG is right in doubting evolution could be responsible for life in all its complexities, but for the wrong reason. He doubts that we could have evolved so fast, but in truth no matter how much time you throw at the problem, Darwinism cannot account for the origins of life given what we know about it today. In fact, increasing the time scale makes works against the Darwinist for at least two important reasons: 1) The fossil record rejects the Gradualism approach of believing life evolved slowly - it shows life springs on to the scene complete and in rapid bursts (see the alternative Darwinist explanation of Punctuated Equilibrium); 2) vast time scales make it much less likely that unique life could successfully evolve and stick around long enough before being wiped out by changes in environment and mass extinction events.

Those who believe in Darwinism as an account of life on earth are either ignorant or willfully obtuse. Our existence is not a happy accident. The funny thing is, if I thought Darwinism were credible I could easily accept it within my religious framework; it would just require me to accept a more remote and less active Creator (with a more passive interpretation of Genesis), a god more like Plato's First Mover. But I see that the universe and the world as it is reflect G-d's active and direct hand, which I know would be clear to me even if I did not belong to the people who received his direct textbook for life at Sinai.

Darwinian Fundamentalism - The New York Review of Books

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

Even though I believe in evolution, I've always like this:
"If man evolved from monkeys and apes, then why do we still have monkeys and apes?"

Because they are so damn tasty.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

As for besson's claim that one cannot discuss faith rationally, I don't see basis for such a preposition. If your claim is that any recognition of the supernatural or faith automatically means rational debate is precluded, then I suppose you can believe that. But I counter that it takes far more faith to believe in the absurdities of Darwinism than it does to recognize an intelligent source of the universe and life.

But to do so is merely your opinion as well, so what is your point? The only way for you to give a "rational" argument for creationism over evolution is to use your own definition for the word "rational".

[Big Mac]

Yeah, so we differ. I think my standard makes more sense philosophically, but besson is entitled to his opinion as are you to yours.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

*UPDATE: The theory of recapitulation has been debunked since what... the early 1900's? Those "gills" are called pharyngeal pouches or more appropriately, flexion folds. These folds are the result of a sharply downturned head during fetal development and have absolutely nothing to do with any respiratory function whatsoever.

Uh huh right. Problem is i still don't see any evidence of jesus/god anywhere just whales with hand bones in their fins and snakes with tiny residual legs.

Gills on humans or not this all points towards evolution over "God made it out of clay".

And I have no idea how much you spend on education in the US as I don't live their.
Judging the the current state of the country though I am going to guess the amount isn't that high though so don't worry about your tax dollars being wasted on that, it's being put to better use to bail out banks and stuff

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

And I have no idea how much you spend on education in the US as I don't live their.

Classic.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Classic.

OMG that is so amazing and you're right a total classic. It totally has to go on a fail blog or something!

Why oh why did God make me in his image yet flawed with bad spelling and gay.
Must have been the work of the Devil or something logical like that though.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

As ebuddy points out, biological recapitulation has been thoroughly debunked.

Macroevolution is a myth - and apparently a very seductive and comforting myth for the atheistic camp; they will defy all logic to continue supporting it. I tire of debating evolution here because we've been on that road many times and those who swear by the Church of Darwin close themselves off to the possibility of objective discussion or examination of any alternative. It appears that many Darwinists cling to that centuries old godless superstition because even contemplating any alternative to it brings one inevitable conclusion to the fore: There is supreme intelligence in the design of the universe, the earth and the life that inhabits it.

Unlike most evolution debaters, I am willing to admit that most of the mountains of evidence supporting the theory can be re-interpreted to serve a "design" agenda, all except for one: ancestral chromosome fusion. In short, since the discovery of DNA, scientists have known that apes have a different number of chromosomes than humans (1 extra pair), and therefore in order for apes to be the ancestors of humans, there must at some time have been a fusion of 2 ape chromosome pairs into 1 human pair. Well they finally found it, they found that human chromosome 2 contains the relics of the extra ape chromosomal structures (centromeres and telomeres, but non-functional and in the wrong place). Human chromosome 2 is clearly the product of fusing two previous chromosomes together.

Unlike the rest of the evidence supporting evolution, this discovery cannot be "common form for common design function," and it was explicitly predicted in advance by the theory of evolution, decades before finally being discovered.

Big Mac, I have explained this to you before, and you had no answer. I don't expect you will have any answer this time either, you will simply stick your head back in the sand until the topic comes up again, hoping everyone will have forgotten your lack of an answer.

[Big Mac]

If you tried explaining that to me before, I didn't see the post because I have no recollection of you mentioning it. I'll admit I haven't heard of that claim before, so I'll have to do some research before forming an opinion. I'm working right now but I'll try to respond soon.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Macroevolution is a myth

Yes, it is. It's a term that was invented by creationists because they thought it meant something, but it doesn't even apply in any context because it doesn't make sense. There's no such thing as macroevolution. All evolution happens at the cellular level. A single change in a single gene can result in some of the most dramatic changes in a life form, or seemingly no change at all. It takes very little for a single gene to mutate, that's why no two persons (no two living entities period) are ever the same, because they mutate during development.

I've posted already links to several peer reviewed studies underlying this point, I even posted one showing examples of what you claim to be macroevolution; organisms en masse "suddenly" evolving into what we would consider a brand new species.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I tire of debating evolution here because we've been on that road many times and those who swear by the Church of Darwin close themselves off to the possibility of objective discussion or examination of any alternative.

Every time I provide evidence to support my position, you bury your head in the sand. Just as you're doing right now. We have been down this road many times, and many times I have provided evidence. Yet somehow you end up back where you started, complaining there is no evidence, etc., etc., etc.

You refuse to acknowledge any of the evidence provided. You remind of the black knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I've just cut off your arms and you're telling me I haven't, even though you're bleeding all over the place and your arm's fallen off.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

There is supreme intelligence in the design of the universe, the earth and the life that inhabits it.

Show evidence that supports your theory and I'll consider it. The first thing you have to do is provide direct evidence that your supreme intelligence exists.

Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Despite decades of lab experimentation under the most ideal hypothetical conditions, scientists have utterly failed to create life from inorganic components.

Except they have. To a lesser extent, they've also created viruses from nothing. You're also completely underestimating the complexity and difficulty of such an experiment, never mind the costs associated with it.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Despite all sorts of fanciful claims about transitional forms we see that species abruptly come into the fossil record fully formed.

This doesn't even make sense.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Critical examination of Darwinist claims about transitional forms of ancient fossils show that what is being observed instead is variations within established kinds, many of which went extinct...

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Every six months or so the media announces it's found a transitional hominid, and previously established evolutionary theories of human development are suddenly discarded in favor of new findings.

Welcome to science, where people learn something new and adjust current theory to fit the new findings. Or you can remain ignorant and ignore all the new evidence and explain it as the work of the devil.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But in truth what they're finding with these claims are various forms of apes, not anything resembling humans.

There are at least three species of hominids discovered that possess physical traits of both modern humans and earlier apes. These are species that are not quite what we would call human, but not what we would call an ape. If they resembled humans, then you'd be complaining about finding variations of humans not something in between.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Evolution within broad categories of species does occur, but macroevolution of life from lower to "higher" life forms is absurd and would be something even Darwin would reject were he alive to have knowledge of genetics.

It would help your argument immensely if you knew what you were talking about even at the most basic level.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Those who believe in Darwinism as an account of life on earth are either ignorant or willfully obtuse.

Ooo, irony. Let's continue...

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Our existence is not a happy accident. The funny thing is, if I thought Darwinism were credible I could easily accept it within my religious framework; it would just require me to accept a more remote and less active Creator (with a more passive interpretation of Genesis), a god more like Plato's First Mover. But I see that the universe and the world as it is reflect G-d's active and direct hand, which I know would be clear to me even if I did not belong to the people who received his direct textbook for life at Sinai.

Maybe I can explain this to you... again. There is no reason why evolution is not a tool of your god. The way science works is that you need to provide direct evidence. God, Elohim, Jehova, Yhwh, Allah, or whatever you call it, does not factor into the explanation of the universe. Because your god is non-sequitur, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You're telling me God invented math. I'm telling you 1+1=2. Regardless if God invented math, it doesn't change that 1+1=2. You can believe that God invented math. I don't care. Believe it. Preach it. Go tell it on a mountain. I'm telling you that regardless of what you believe, it is not going to change the fact that 1+1=2.

[Chuckit]

For clarification: "Macroevolution" is a myth — perpetuated by anti-science folk. There is just evolution.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Actually scientists do use the term "macroevolution," more so in the spoken word than in published writings, which makes sense since it's not a technical term at this point. It's unclear whether they started using it before or after creationists did, but it is an irresistibly useful word for showing when you're talking/thinking about the big picture, and the word's proliferation into "the wild" is unstoppable.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Actually scientists do use the term "macroevolution," more so in the spoken word than in published writings, which makes sense since it's not a technical term at this point. It's unclear whether they started using it before or after creationists did, but it is an irresistibly useful word for showing when you're talking/thinking about the big picture, and the word's proliferation into "the wild" is unstoppable.

It's like talking about races of humans. It can be useful as a concept, but thinking of it as a real thing is dangerous.

[SpaceMonkey]

Also troubling is the idea that evolution is something to be "believed in." The theory of evolution through natural selection is a tool to improve our understanding of certain natural phenomena. It's not supposed to explain all speciation or every change in organisms. The Newtonian theory of gravity runs into trouble, too, but that doesn't diminish its usefulness in understanding a lot of what we can observe. I don't think any serious evolutionary scientists, as Big Mac put it, "believe in Darwinism as an account of life on earth." The term "Darwinism" is practically nonsensical (part of the point of my link to Stephen Jay Gould's article, above).

[Doofy]

Sorry guys, you're all wrong. The way reality actually works is set up so that both creation and evolution happened. It's sort of a Schrodinger's Cat type deal - reality shifts to the predominant observer's viewpoint.