(December 5, 2011 at 2:26 pm)lucent Wrote: You obviously don't know what macroevolution is if you think it is a "fundy concept". That just shows further shows your ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
And my post is original, because I lifted it off myself. I didn't steal anything, those are my own words.
Did you read the article? Biologists have not used this terminology for over 60 years. Posting that a scientist use the term in 1927 is only a statement of fact, not a statement of modern relevance.
If you wish for me to extend modern relevance to Christianity, then you MUST extend modern relevancy to Biology... and by bringing up "macro evolution" you are saying "You will discuss modern Christianity with me, but I will insist that Biology be discussed era 1940's"
This is why they use "allele frequencies" now. If you actually withheld your judgements and read this material, and let the evidence determine the answer, then you would understand the basic mechanism of Natural selection.
By suggesting that "micro evolution" works, but not "macro evolution" is the same as saying "Evolution is a fact". It is also the same as saying "Sure, a person can walk a mile, but walking 100 miles is impossible" or "Sure, someone can change a little bit, but all of those little changes do not make big changes to someone over a long length of time. that person is still basically the same"
Now, I am sure you feel all superior and everyothing, flaunting your pre made words here and there, but nothing you are doing or saying is convincing me.
If you want to convince me, then get your work published in a scientific publication, and let it run the gauntlet. If your science holds up and it passes the gauntlet, then, and ONLY then, will I take you as anything more than just a troll.
