Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

The science will come. We start from what we know and we expect the needed scientific explanations to follow.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

and Well, are you just starting or is there decades of work to review?It's odd that after decades there doesn't seem to be coherent work to review and discuss. We get the zany pronouncements of the likes of Hovind that other creationists disavow and we get the half formed fuzzy suggestions of others.I go to AIG and ICR (which I have been, mistakenly perhaps as the major sources of creationist research and views) and see things which are, at best, misleading used to support their ideas. I note that no one can go to AIG or ICR and point out the place where they answer the fundamental point of the correlations threads about dating.We wait a year and no one shows up here who is wiling and able to debate the issue of the correlations.What has been going on in these decades?

We're just starting with the "body plan" idea MJ introduced, which is where the dogs and cats came in. There are plenty of other things to study.

And that is exactly why you are doomed to fail.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That is my point. You have to assume a bunch of things, but there is no reason to believe any of those things are true (and many to believe that they aren't). This is not how science works. But that may be how religious dogma works. Easy to conclude that we may be talking about religious dogma, but we certaily are not talking about a new scientific development.

Well, if you are going to talk to creationists there is no point in wasting your breath telling us our premises don't meet with your approval. We know they don't. But they are the basis for everything we put together, and it does hold together quite coherently and logically. That in itself ought to be some validation of it. But it doesn't matter. What you call religious dogma is simply truth and science can certainly be built on truth.Cheers.

The problem is that most creationists (not you) want their tripe to be taught in schools as science. So it certainly is necessary for your premises to meet with the approval of real science.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Well, our PREMISES will never meet with scientific approval of course, given the prejudices against the Bible. That's why we're looking to establish some of their outworkings as science. There's really no point in continuing to bring that up on this forum, though, where we're just a bunch of amateurs who like to think about the concepts, hoping they'll get grounded in science sometime in the future, not expecting scientific approval any time soon.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So the short time --- "just starting" is in reference to the discussions here.The "decades" is to the research done by creationists outside of here.Right?But you aren't using any of that research? You are going to start all over here?

There is no scientific prejudice against the Bible, that I know of. If anything, there is a bias toward it, in that it is considered more important than other ancient texts.There isn't any idolatry toward the Bible either, at least among scientists.Edited by nwr, : better title

Uh, just where in that post nwr are cats mentioned?

There's a big difference between "prejudice against" the Bible and a refusal to work on the assumption that Genesis is literally accurate.

I see this thread was started like 3 days ago and its already up to 17 pages. That's incredible.I haven't gone through the entire thread, but from what I've seen, it seems to be the age old argument on micro and macro and what does it all mean, what is a 'kind', there are no examples of macro, people keep using micro to explain macro, and so on and so forth.Why not settle the matter quickly by presenting some actual evidence? There is no evidence that can be given in support of Noah's Ark. The only thing that can be done is to provide feasibility studies, which are all fine and good, but neither present all variables, and neither does it support or defend evolution or creationism. But, it should be abundantly obvious that if macroevolution is merely a magnification of microevolution, the evidence should be plain to see -- so much so that our arguing about it should be trivial.Instead of the usual harangue and instead of the usual hyperbolic sentiments, such as but not limited to, "There are millions of transitional forms," would somebody provide for the board a legitimate piece of evidence of a macroevolutionary event of speciation?

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Anything goes in order to get where you want. I wouldn't call that coherent and logical Now you are just begging the question.

The problem is that nobody has given an acceptable definition of what macroevolution is supposed to mean yet. You have to do that before you go aroud asking for a good example of one