F
Free Thinker™ A.R.T.
Guest
OK, forget the fact that macro evolution is just hundreds of micro evolutions piled up.
Creationists claim that we can prove micro evolution, just not macro evolution.
But we can prove macro evolution as well, so what is the point?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
(I know the source is Wikipedia, but it has it's sources at the bottom, but they don't have all the pretty pictures showing the "macroevolution" from one species to another.
Besides, if your argument is so good, it shouldn't matter what my source is)
So why is micor vs. macro still an argument? The only real argument I can still accept from creationists is "the devil did it", or "God did it to test our faith".
Any other argument that involves denying scientific evidence is lying, pure and simple.
I don't see how anyone can look at the "Fish to Tetrapods" section and still disbelieve in "macroevolution"
Creationists claim that we can prove micro evolution, just not macro evolution.
But we can prove macro evolution as well, so what is the point?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
(I know the source is Wikipedia, but it has it's sources at the bottom, but they don't have all the pretty pictures showing the "macroevolution" from one species to another.
Besides, if your argument is so good, it shouldn't matter what my source is)
So why is micor vs. macro still an argument? The only real argument I can still accept from creationists is "the devil did it", or "God did it to test our faith".
Any other argument that involves denying scientific evidence is lying, pure and simple.
I don't see how anyone can look at the "Fish to Tetrapods" section and still disbelieve in "macroevolution"