CHISTIANS PLEASE EXPLAIN

[pocaracas]

Micro evolution happens within a specie (wolves, horses) and that is everywhere to see - in contrast to macro evolution which supposedly creates completely new species but lacking transitional fossils and it being observed today.

Oh, this is precious.
"lacking transitional fossils", huh? What were those that Esq linked a few posts back?
"Oh, you're missing the transitions between all those he posted", am I right? -.-'

The process of fossilization is rare... of all the hundreds of millions of people who have lived on this planet, how many naturally fossilized humans have been found? (let's not count mummies and other forms of proper burials).

Of the bajillions of insects that inhabit this planet... how many fossils have been found?

The rarity of fossilization means that you only get a few snapshots of past life... it's not a moving picture... but hard working paleontologists are trying to make it look like stop-motion and that's what we, laypeople, have today.
You want Live action at 200fps, but reality can only provide rock figures at 10fps.
Your requirement is shown to be ludicrous, but you still press on. Go lunacy!

Jeffrey Schwartz, a Leading evolutionist, has recently stated it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.

So even the fruit fly remains a fruit fly, my friend, despite variations.

Aye, and what we call human remains an ape, despite variations.

But I am sure that no argument will convince you. The best we can do (as the evolution debate has been going on for many years - not only between interested laymen, but between highly qualified individuals - on both sides of the issue) is to assess information as objectively as possible.

Faith removes that objectivity, and seems to be introducing a few extra requirements that seem impossible to fulfill.
Go faith!

I do not understand all the technical jargon, but fortunately there are chaps that understand it well enough to explain it in layman's terms and what I do understand is that the matter is all but settled.
So from my point of view, there is sufficient evidence to logically hold onto a position that does not accept evolution.

So you have fossils dated from a certain period in time.
Then you have fossils from a later period. These second ones are similar to the first ones, but with a few noticeable changes.

Then you have other fossils from a yet later period displaying again a few noticeable changes. These are now substantially different from the first ones that had been found, but they still share some features.

Then you get a time after which you get no more of these fossils which are similar to the original ones. Instead, you see fossils considerably different.

The dinosaurs became extinct and mammals started filling in the niches.

The fossils from these first mammals look like the fossils from mammals existing when there were dinosaurs.

The fossils from a few millions of years later look different, larger, more diverse.
Even later, you can distinguish animals similar to those existent today, elephants, horses, wolves, felines, apes, marsupials...
Earlier fossils show the small adaptations in each of these groups until you arrive at today's diversity.

This was an extremely simplified overview of the fossil record. I hope even you managed to keep up. If you require further information, then you need to be schooled on the proper jargon, and remove the label of "layman" to yourself.
You may refute the dating technique, but it always carries an error bar, even if your layman versions don't. This error bar tells you how wrong the measurement may be... some error bars are larger than others, and some methods are found to be inadequate to dating some materials, but people use them nonetheless, leading to the impression of a wrong measurement. Cross checks are always required.
Now, please, do not assume that your layman views are correct, just because some dishonest creationist fed you with a few biased interpretations of actual science.

Even if I could convince you that Christianity agrees more with what we observe than being an atheist that believes in evolution, it will be of no avail. Real Christianity is about realising how bad our lives really look (morally) and in need of forgiveness, turn to the One that promises forgiveness of all the bad stuff me and you have done.

Not you, nor anyone else will ever succeed in convincing me of such a thing.

But yes, it's good that you know to put christianity where it belongs, in your mind. Bottle it up there and keep it to yourself.
The "one that promises forgiveness" seems to be a product of a similar mind and he should have kept it bottled up as well... sadly, he released it on the world, and now we have to type and type and type on these forums, just to try and shine some sanity into the world.

Came to think of it after somebody commented on the great number of different "interpretations" of the Bible - all claiming to be right. It just struck me that atheism is similar - its approach to the Bible is based on a specific interpretation of it and more particularly the approach that "it is wrong"’ or a myth.

I approach the bible the same way I approach the Qur'an, the vedas, or the Mayan calendar... or, for that matter, Feynman Lectures on Physics
Skeptic.
If the contents match with my perception of reality, then they get a free pass... if they don't, then they get the boot.
The bible tends to get the boot more often than not...

Perhaps it's my perception of reality that's wrong?
Perhaps my mind is not in tune with the cosmic creator entity.
Perhaps you're the one with the wrong perception, huh?