Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[downbeatplumb]

Ah..macro eveolution....so thats the same thing as saying a walk to the tiny mart 4 blocks away is completely possible (and god inspired), but to walk one mile to the grocery store is completely absurd (god damned!)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Here is the thing. You go on and on and accuse me of being ignorant and you don't even know the difference between micro and macro evolution. Seems like I know more than you do, doesn't it.

Refutation of 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

Apparently Rhythm doesn't know the difference either because he thinks his garden proves evolution. Sigh.

Darwin made a great discovery. That species change to adapt to their environment. What he did from there was make a giant leap of speculation to say that because species adapt to their environment, that those adaptations would lead to new species, and therefore, that all life has a common ancestor. Since it wasn't something that could be observed, what was supposed to prove his theory would be evidence from the fossil record. There was only one problem with that:

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

The total lack of transitional fossils was a complete embarrassment to Darwin. The excuse made was that because the record was so poor, more time was needed to unearth the fossils. Here we are 150 years later, and those transitional forms have failed to materialize. The fossil record is composed mainly of gaps. It also defies all the predictions of gradualism. All the major body types appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion without any discernable evolutionary history, and they appeared highly diversified.

You do know that there are a vast number of transitional fossils dont you?

https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index....al_fossils

You do know that evolutionary history is preserved in the genes dont you?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16...ution.html

You do know that creatures that predate the cambrian explosion were soft bodied and didnt fossilise well so you are asking a lot to find these things dont you?

But some really really old fossils have been found and you know what they were single celled and simple not all the 'types' were around them.

http://news.discovery.com/space/microfos...10821.html

Its almost as though complex life evolved from simpler forms isnt it.

All the major phyla, classes, orders etc were there at the beginning. Species appear suddenly in stasis and leave just as suddenly. The fact is, Macroevolution is not science, it has never been observed nor can it be tested. It is a just-so story which does not fit observation. It would have been thrown into the dustbin long ago excepting that it has become a religion to its adherants.

'macroevolution' is an invention by creationists to try to jemmy the fact of evolution into their religion. Ther is no micro or macro evoltion just evolution.
Animals don't suddenly change, but there are small changes and branching off, driven by environmental or social pressures, over a vast period of time that leads to bigger changes and eventually speciation occurs when one branch can't breed successfully with the other branch because the changes are too great.

I hope you display more brainpower than this in our debate. If you attempt to use the debate as device to mock Christianity instead giving it your best shot, I will quit the debate immediately.

Touchy little fucker arent you?