And of course you miss the point entirely. Something is not real because it
is obvious to any fool; it is real because its produces physical effects
that we can test and measure. Some phenomena can be tested and measured as
they occur; others can only be known by the traces they leave behind, but
since these traces are themselves the result of physical effects they can be
tested and measured.
Macroevolution (in the sense you mean it) has left behind enough traces that
we can be sure it is real. It is also producing physical effects that we
can see as they happen.
>
>...even if there are things about
>them we can't yet explain. Evolution is something that we've neither seen
>nor can we explain. Here is where the Evolutionist demonstrates his
>dishonesty again by insisting that we can see Evolution (his birth changed
>the allele frequencies of his species), even though he knows that I'm
>talking about macro-evolution, specifically, the indefinite increase in the
>complexity of life over time.
>
That is not macroevolution; macroevolution is the appearance of species and
higher taxa, which includes the development of new structures, even new body
plans. In order to do this, however, at some point it still boils down to
allele frequency changes being filtered by natural selection. Hence
macroevolution is microevolution involving greater changes over longer
periods of time. We can see this happening in nature, we can reproduce it
in the laboratory and we have evidence that it has happened continuously in
the past.
>
>> >Except that any perusal of the archive of this listserv, plus the
>> >scientific literature, would prove them {creationists} wrong.
>>
>> I disagree with that as well. Both sides are able to claim that the other
>> twists evidence to fit with their respective hypotheses. I think if you
>> look through many discussions of this topic, some observations are used
>> by both sides against the other, depending on interpretations of what the
>> observation could imply.
>
>Yet another point of dishonest debate by Evolutionists. The "scientific
>literature" means "peer reviewed" means that any interpretation not in
>accord with Evolution is censored.
>
Please provide evidence of even one case in which this is true. Especially
since one argument used frequently by creationists on this listserv is to
report information that they read about in scientific literature that
supposedly contradicts evolution.
>
>Even if the Evolutionist wants to lie
>and insist that Creationist views aren't censored, it's still nothing but
>an appeal to authority.
>
Not really, because we are not saying that evolution is true because some
scientist says it is; we are saying it is true because the evidence reported
by these scientists demonstrates that it is.
Kevin L. O'Brien