Quote:
Originally Posted by Concerto
Orly? Macro-evolution, of course. Where has any such mechanism been observed or measured to the barest minimum extent of connecting reproductively incompatible populations by lineal descent? Note this involves a twofold criterion: 1) observation of a mechanism connecting reproductively incompatible populations by lineal descent and 2) demonstration that the mechanism observed is indeed capable of being extended to produce effects comparable to those claimed for "evolution".
It does not tell "us" anything of the sort. It may tell some people that, but for it to tell science the same thing requires observations and measurements of a demonstrably sufficient set of causes to make the claimed process happen. Such does not exist. Macro-evolution is long on handwavy claims and extremely short on actual science. What it does legitimately have observations and evidence for is micro-evolution, which the evolutionary illusionists try to pass off as extrapolatable to macro-evolution, again with negligible basis in observation and measurement.
Some people have that faith. Others notice the lack of observation and measurement backing it up. Macro-evolution is one of the predominant myths of our age, not a science, for the above-mentioned reasons. Religion, mostly a dire necessity on the part of the materialist metaphysical faith, has more to do with affirming the evolution of species than denying it.
Macro evolution can actually be reasonably argued based on extrapolating micro evolution. When we have a mechanism we understand (micro evolution) and the large timeframe neccesary to have macro evolution, you have to explain what will magically stop micro evolution from happening.
You are simply asserting that it will, and claiming that puts the burden of evidence on the scientist to explain how it keeps going; that is not true.
Let me explain by an analogy why your way of arguing does not work.
Let us say I want to explain to you how a rifle works, and you agree that the burning of gun powder in a rifles explosion chamber (or whatever else its called), can move a bullet.
You now argue that even though the method of propelling the bullet works, it can never move the bullet more than 100 yards.
I show you the math that explains that the bullet leaving the barrel has enough kinetic energy to fly say, 8000 yards.
I have in this example already explained how the bullet flies more than 100 yards, and since you are the one who claims a magical barrier at this point, it is on you to explain what that barrier is and how it works.
That was a lot of text, especially considering, that the validity of the theory of evolution does not even matter.
You are trying to inject as false parameter with it. It is not the theory of evolution that is the evidence of the possibility of life arising elsewhere in the universe.
It is the existence of life itself.
If you do not agree that the observation of event A proves that event A CAN take place, I don’t know how we can move forward.
You would be defending a very strange position indeed if you take that stance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concerto
Which is also a point in contention. Some say they don't know the existence of God to be a meaningful possibility. Others think differently. We already knew that.
You are making my argument here.
Yes there are plenty of people who THINK gods existence is a meaningful possibility they do not have any concrete evidence backing up that claim though.
My whole claim ITT is, that a conclusion based on hard evidence is more reliable, that a conclusion based on naked assertion.
I don’t see how this can even be disputed.