Mark & Juanita writes:

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 18:18:54 GMT, "Steve Peterson"
wrote:


Just as a point of clarification; very few people argue nor disagree with
the theory of microevolution within species.

Just a point of clarification.

Creationisis DID argue on the theory of micro-evolution until someone
pointed them to thousands of real examples where evolution occured.
First that just claimed it was "variations, and not a new species."
That's until someone pointed out a case where a new species occured.

Now the term is "macro-evolution" where macro consists of "A length of
time too long for humans to measure." Therefore - because no examples
exist, it's easy to argue that it doesn't exist.

What I've seen as arguments
regarding the evolution of new species seem to be stretching the definition
of "new species" quite broadly. The poster who argued that predictions
within the fossil record using the horse as an example serve to point that
out. The horse is still a horse and not a cow nor something between a
horse and a cow or between a piece of primordial slime and a horse.

Complete and udder nonsense. There are hundreds of differences between
cows and horses, and I am sure a 2-year-old can tell you dozens of
them. Try reading about the evolution of the horse.


Frankly, the issue of evolutionary theory is somewhat premature if modern
cosmology cannot adequately identify the origin of the universe without
violating the laws of logic and causality.

Nonsense. One might as well use that argument for electricity and gravity.

I can see it now.

"Use of electricity is premature because we don't understand how the
Universe was created."


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.