-- 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.
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.