Quote# 119650

Shakes, I know a number of evolutionary scientists, both non-Christian and Christian, and talking with them they all say that whilst there is some evidence, none of it comes anywhere close to being definitive.  They tend to use the legal term - circumstantial - to describe it.  As for the idea of 'evolution in general' as opposed to 'evolution in particular', there is plenty of evidence for microevolution, but very little concrete evidence for macroevolution.  Most of the latter is conjecture, and sometimes contradictory.

Hope, Religion and Ethics 13 Comments [6/10/2016 3:19:51 AM]
Fundie Index: 14
Submitted By: Nearly Sane

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom



Oh, for the love of! Saying microevolution is possible but macroevolution isn't is the equivalent of saying it's possible to walk ten steps, but impossible to repeat that until you've walked five hundred steps.

I know I'm not the first to say it, but it doesn't make it any less true.

6/10/2016 3:33:19 AM



I know a number of evolutionary scientists

No, you don't.

6/10/2016 4:06:37 AM

Thinking Allowed

You're lying Hope about the part of you knowing scientists.

6/10/2016 4:35:14 AM

nuspirit

"I know a number of evolutionary scientists, both non-Christian and Christian"

Not actually true.

"They tend to use the legal term - circumstantial - to describe it."

Even less, if possible, true.

6/10/2016 4:45:29 AM

Malingspann

Hope: "I hope someone will fall for this!"

6/10/2016 5:04:57 AM

Doubting Thomas

I don't suppose you could name a few of these scientists, could you? You know, so we can go ask them ourselves.

6/10/2016 5:13:34 AM

Mister Spak

" there is plenty of evidence for microevolution, but very little concrete evidence for macroevolution. "

Since there is no definition of the difference between the two, evolution once again is the only theory standing. Not that creationism is a theory in the first place.

6/10/2016 7:26:19 AM

Kanna

And? And? This little clip misses the conclusion of that thought, doesn't it? If the conclusion is that we scientists have a lot more work to do, fine and dandy. If the conclusion is that we should abandon what we do know, you are seriously wrong. If the conclusion is that therefore goddidit, you are off your rocker.

As for that micro - macro quibble, remember that many a mickle makes a muckle.

6/10/2016 7:47:09 AM

Creedence Leonore Gielgud

>there is plenty of evidence for microevolution, but very little concrete evidence for macroevolution.

What mechanism(s) demonstrably exist, which prevents micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution, and where exactly is the line that distinguishes the two?

6/10/2016 9:40:48 AM

Alencon

"I know a number of evolutionary scientists, both non-Christian and Christian..."

No you don't because "macro-evolution" is simply evolution at the species level. If you know of any biological limitation on "micro-evolution," then you're aware of something that no one else knows about.

6/10/2016 9:50:11 AM

Senomaros

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that everything in here is a lie.

6/10/2016 2:33:07 PM

Old Viking

Did the scientists snicker as they spoke?

6/10/2016 4:08:18 PM

Admiral Nopants

So in other words you don't listen to your friends when they try to explain it to you, either.

6/10/2016 5:52:22 PM

1 | top: comments page