Save for all that fossil evidence, genetic evidence, corroborating evidence in short-lived creatures.
Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I put all the independent pieces together properly and that's what is shown on the box."
All "scientific fact" is the creation of man. There is nothing privledged about our physical models. Indeed, it's certain that our current models of electricity, gravity, and nutrition are incomplete and probably deeply flawed models.
Of course it is! Except when we observe physical processes, we're not starting with the question "Does this even exist?" but "Ok, we KNOW this exists, but how does this work?". The difference between the two is very distinct, and both are subject to man's interpretation.
Read this carefully: ----
Physics takes existing observable processes and deconstructs them so we can understand them better. Macro-Evolution is the attempt to take processes and make them add up (or construct) into a larger process that we don't even know exists - you would agree that we've never observed Macro-Evolution since there's not enough time. To further my physics example, they just spent several billion on the Large Hadron Collider in an attempt to further deconstruct the nature of our world (notably, finding a Higgs boson).
Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I put all the independent pieces together properly and that's what is shown on the box."
"Like all of the rest of science, where this process is good enough!"
Why isn't it good enough here?
Of course it is! Except when we observe physical processes, we're not starting with the question "Does this even exist?" but "Ok, we KNOW this exists, but how the heck does this work?". The difference between the two is very distinct.
There is no difference between observations of these kinds. Our senses are so incredibly flawed and unreliable, as are our minds, that there is basically no difference when it comes to science.
The attempt to prove Macro-Evolution is the attempt to prove that it even exists (or Does man's linkage of these independent processes indeed = MacroEvolution?).
It's funny that you say this. 8-10 years ago, the micro-vs-macro-evolution argument was called "irreducible complexity", and the scale was much smaller than what you're holding to now. "How could complex things like flagellum" evolve? Well science has gone and shown that not only is it possible, it's not hard at all.
So, your camp was forced to _move the goalposts_ and say, "Well that level of complexity is okay, but now this level of complexity up here is totally unproven!" And when we show you macro-evolution you'll just move the goalposts again. Because it keeps happening over and over.
When we attempt to understand physics and other inherent universal processes, we already know they exist...
Except that even a casual understanding of science in history would tell you this statement is grossly false. Heliocentricity comes to mind.
And while we're busy debating all this proof and you're picking tiny holes in a remarkably well-researched theory that has risen to prominence as the "unifying theory of biology", where does ID start offering complex studies? Your life-origin of choice has basically nothing behind it save, "My bible tells me so, it's certainly possible, and I don't really believe your evidence to the contrary." You cannot base a theory on negative statements and the Bible.
Your position is intellectually bankrupt, your arguments presented thus far are literally over 5 years old and well-debunked, the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, and your pathological avoidance of the fundamental inconsistencies you're proposing in being an anti-evolutionist are plain as day to anyone without a religious axe to grind.
We're really getting nowhere, but I'm curious to know one last thing. Since you seem to be speaking as an ambassador for the scientific community, which one of these processes would have a more solid foundation in fact and truth?
1. An empirically observable process that, by its very nature, is known to exist.
2. An unobservable process, where the very condition of existence is unknown.
There's a huge difference in the science of deconstructing what is known to exist (the empirical) versus trying to construct the unknown. One is based in solid fact and the extremely powerful truth of existence, the other is just a pitiful shot in the dark and based on faith that (1) man has the intelligence and capability to put things together properly (2) it even exists.
Are you not going to answer my question then? Or do you genuinely not know the answer?
Your position is intellectually bankrupt, your arguments presented thus far are literally over 5 years old and well-debunked, the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, and your pathological avoidance of the fundamental inconsistencies you're proposing in being an anti-evolutionist are plain as day to anyone without a religious axe to grind.
If you're going to be summarily and swiftly dismissive under the premises that I'm just another "anti-evolutionist" religious type, then proceed to insult me and try to question the validity of my argument by saying I'm someone with an "axe to grind", then you will at least acknowledge that the very science we are debating certainly deserves its massive dose of skepticism from even science itself, not just religious individuals.
Thanks for the link, it's all so obvious now! How can you ever go wrong when you're the one who gets to define both the end result and then fill in the means of getting there?
Of course the evidence will always point to the end result, because you're the one who made up the damn end result in the first place! Evidence can always be twisted and shaped to fit your view when you're the one who gets to define what the picture looks like.
This isn't about whether the evidence points to the picture, it's about whether or not we even have the right picture in mind. It's pretty clear that since the end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action, it is a contrivance of man of which it's existence is still unknown.
The end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action.
Neither can God.
I do feel bad for you, kirse. 10 years ago I went through the same dilemma, debate and denial. If you want to be rational, you have to learn the evidence. If you learn the evidence and you apply rational, even-handed criterion to the subject, the conclusion that evolution exists and at least partly explains our modern world is undeniably apparent.
You literally have no rational leg to stand on. Your argument that the conclusion was made up and the data forced to fit it is so obviously false that it's almost laughable (few theories are as rigorously opposed as evolution has been, if there were any significant holes the scientific community would tear it apart).
This isn't about whether the evidence points to the end result, it's about whether or not we even have the right end result in mind.
This is exactly 180 degrees from reality. If the evidence points to a specific conclusion and that evidence can be replicated by diverse, neutral, competent observers the conclusion is true regardless of if we like it or not. Science isn't about picking a result then gathering data to support it, although if you hang out with the ID crowd I can see why you might get that impression.
If you want an example we can look again to heliocentricity. It was not a popular viewpoint, but the data forced people to accept that position, despite the fact that it went against all the contemporary common sense and religious belief (and despite the fact that it's difficult to observe contrary evidence without a lot of bookkeeping and some optics).
P.S. I didn't answer your question earlier because I've already answered a very similar question in debates dozens of times. Your crowd really needs a revised playbook, because you can basically google ever question as presented and get a powerful rebuttal to your every potential argument.
The end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action.
Neither can God.
Don't feel bad for me, because I am just as happy putting my faith in the existence of God (an entity that cannot be empirically observed), as you are putting your faith in the existence of Macro-Evolution (another process that cannot be empirically observed).
As soon as Macro-Evolution is empirically observed, then I will accept it as fact.
But for now, it's apparent we agree that it's simply a matter of where we're assigning our faith, I'm more content believing that the correct picture/end result is that these complex systems had a designer.
I feel bad for you because you've been programmed to be so radically inconsistent. You act like evolution was made up just to weaken the theistic position, but it wasn't. The model of evolution emerged from a host of speciation models that existed, ranging from "God made it that way 500 years ago" to complex and absurdly complex secular models involving generative forces.
History is full of examples where a model emerged from lots of separate data and turned out to be correct. Another great example is Atoms. For a long time, people thought that an atomic model of matter wasn't science because you couldn't directly observe such tiny things. Turns out that was wrong. Then along comes quantum mechanics, and now we're on even more bizarre and even thinner ice trying to map out effects which observation actually destroys.
And yet we're making progress, just like we have in Biology. The ONLY difference that is relevant to our discussion between quantum mechanics and evolutionary theory is that your holy text has something to say about one and not the other.
You're deliberately throwing out the evidence because you don't like the conclusion. You're making a special exception for Evolution that no other scientific theory has to make it through just because your religion tells you to.
As soon as Macro-Evolution is empirically observed, then I will accept it as fact.
No you won't. When I was younger I had heated debates that ended with, "As soon as we can see evidence of flagellum evoling I will accept [evolution] as fact." They didn't, and you won't. You will move the goalpost, draw new false dichotomies, and struggle to preserve your world-view.
But for now, it's apparent we agree that it's simply a matter of where we're assigning our faith
Quite the opposite. You have decided to have faith, and I reject that notion. Evolution is a useful model for biology, nothing more. If we can provide a better model with excellent evidence involving invisible winged greyhounds, I think that'd be way more entertaining.
You've admitted your position is based in faith, and that's why all the logic, evidence, and reason that I can muster cannot unseat your position. Logic, evidence and reason can only act on rational people, and your faith is–at its core–inherently irrational.
-- History is full of examples where a model emerged from lots of separate data and turned out to be correct.
History is also full of even more examples of models that have turned out to be incorrect. Historical examples of validity have no bearing on the independent validity of Macro-Evolution. And you're trying to lecture me on basic logic and rationality?
-- You're deliberately throwing out the evidence because you don't like the conclusion.
Right, and you do the exact same thing when you take evidence that indicates complex functioning systems have a designer and simply throw it out the window in favor of your own model. This argument goes nowhere on both sides.
-- You will move the goalpost
No, I won't move the goalpost, because the goalpost is clearly defined as the empirical observability of Macro-Evolution, in the same way that heliocentricity was proven by its empirical observability. There is nothing farther you can go than empirically observing a fully new type of life come from one another. Again, stop trying to extrapolate your historical experiences with others into an independent case. I will be firmly convinced once I see a creature (a fish?) evolve into a cat or some other creature.
-- You have decided to have faith, and I reject that notion.
Tell me then, how do you bridge the gap of believing that something exists when in fact it cannot be empirically observed? However you may label it, the belief in anything that cannot be empirically observed is never fully grounded in rationality, but an intuitive feeling that it is the truth.
Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I put all the independent pieces together properly and that's what is shown on the box."
All "scientific fact" is the creation of man. There is nothing privledged about our physical models. Indeed, it's certain that our current models of electricity, gravity, and nutrition are incomplete and probably deeply flawed models.
Of course it is! Except when we observe physical processes, we're not starting with the question "Does this even exist?" but "Ok, we KNOW this exists, but how does this work?". The difference between the two is very distinct, and both are subject to man's interpretation.
Read this carefully: ----
Physics takes existing observable processes and deconstructs them so we can understand them better. Macro-Evolution is the attempt to take processes and make them add up (or construct) into a larger process that we don't even know exists - you would agree that we've never observed Macro-Evolution since there's not enough time. To further my physics example, they just spent several billion on the Large Hadron Collider in an attempt to further deconstruct the nature of our world (notably, finding a Higgs boson).
----.