Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9094 total)
3 online now:
(3 visitors)
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,622 Year: 12,734/6,534 Month: 17/2,210 Week: 348/460 Day: 17/22 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..."
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 11 of 2383 (894624)
05-24-2022 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by FossilDiscovery
05-12-2022 10:45 PM


Fossildiscovery writes:
This video aims to open up discussion and to dispell myths.
‚Äč
Add to the discussion of how much we can observe microevolution versus macroevolution.
And?
I don't remember arguing as a creationist that it's important that we can't observe macro evolution now, unless I am speaking in terms of the fact that there is no reason we shouldn't see it at "inbetween" stages in extant forms like we should in the fossil record in extinct forms.
Evolution theory's theoretics would mean that we couldn't observe something that allegedly evolved THEN, right NOW. So we couldn't observe a bat evolving because it's an alleged past event.
But I do think logical reasoning PROVES that there are certain predictions based on the past observations whereby there would be no reason for those "inbetweens" to NOT be evolving now.
If convergence is something that happens all the time as evolutionists argue, why aren't there inbetweens for arms, legs, organs, eyes, wings or fins presently "on their way" to becoming things that allegedly gained those things by evolution in the past?
So this is a conspicuous absence of macro evolution. Not only if I look in the fossil record will I find no direct evidence of bat evolution or the evolution of the insect wing I will also not find any true intermediates in the living record either. Rationally speaking that gives me all the facts I need to not entertain macro evolution because of the axiom, "the greater a claim is the greater the evidence must be."
So then comparing some adapting bacteria to the size of Darwin's claims hardly fits that axiom does it? Unless you think in order to prove you are superman all you need to do is show you own a superman costume. LOL
Conclusion; put simply, the insignificant changes evolutionist argue for macro evolution being supported by micro, not matter how much they PLAY UP the examples, just don't show any evidence of macro-scale change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by FossilDiscovery, posted 05-12-2022 10:45 PM FossilDiscovery has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 05-24-2022 1:28 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 13 by Tangle, posted 05-24-2022 2:01 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 14 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-24-2022 3:23 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022