22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution

[pedrog]

I've seen some of the "transitional fossils," or shards and fragments of fossils, which is basically what they are.  If there were really millions of years of humans and other animals "evolving" then these "transitional fossils" would be everywhere.  Instead, the fossils found are fully developed "kinds" or species.

Evolution supporters still cant explain why these aren't found EVERYWHERE, which is what their THEORY says should occur.  Funny how they can just gloss over this extreme lack of any physical historical evidence whatsoever.

LOL. http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html

From the link:  -

Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks

Again.  This is supposed to convince me?  These so called "transitional fossil" that the scientists are getting so excited about are nothing more than a beautiful show about micro-evolution which is basically the changes that happen within a species.  This does not account for changes other than that.  Show me one solid piece of evidence that proves macro-evolution please.  Just one example of one KIND changing into another KIND.  That is all I am asking for.  It does not seem like a lot to ask does it?

Here, go and educate yourself: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

[BitChick]

I've seen some of the "transitional fossils," or shards and fragments of fossils, which is basically what they are.  If there were really millions of years of humans and other animals "evolving" then these "transitional fossils" would be everywhere.  Instead, the fossils found are fully developed "kinds" or species.

Evolution supporters still cant explain why these aren't found EVERYWHERE, which is what their THEORY says should occur.  Funny how they can just gloss over this extreme lack of any physical historical evidence whatsoever.

LOL. http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html

From the link:  -

Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks

Again.  This is supposed to convince me?  These so called "transitional fossil" that the scientists are getting so excited about are nothing more than a beautiful show about micro-evolution which is basically the changes that happen within a species.  This does not account for changes other than that.  Show me one solid piece of evidence that proves macro-evolution please.  Just one example of one KIND changing into another KIND.  That is all I am asking for.  It does not seem like a lot to ask does it?

Here, go and educate yourself: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

I can't find anything on that site that shows me an observable example of one kind changing into another.  Lot's of speculation and plenty of thoughts on the subject for sure.  From the site you sent me was this quote

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read.

 

But since we are throwing websites around, here is one with plenty of evidence and scientific reasons why evolution is not viable if you want to educate yourself.  http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/education

[pedrog]

I've seen some of the "transitional fossils," or shards and fragments of fossils, which is basically what they are.  If there were really millions of years of humans and other animals "evolving" then these "transitional fossils" would be everywhere.  Instead, the fossils found are fully developed "kinds" or species.

Evolution supporters still cant explain why these aren't found EVERYWHERE, which is what their THEORY says should occur.  Funny how they can just gloss over this extreme lack of any physical historical evidence whatsoever.

LOL. http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html

From the link:  -

Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks

Again.  This is supposed to convince me?  These so called "transitional fossil" that the scientists are getting so excited about are nothing more than a beautiful show about micro-evolution which is basically the changes that happen within a species.  This does not account for changes other than that.  Show me one solid piece of evidence that proves macro-evolution please.  Just one example of one KIND changing into another KIND.  That is all I am asking for.  It does not seem like a lot to ask does it?

Here, go and educate yourself: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

I can't find anything on that site that shows me an observable example of one kind changing into another.  Lot's of speculation and plenty of thoughts on the subject for sure.  From the site you sent me was this quote

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read.

 

But since we are throwing websites around, here is one with plenty of evidence and scientific reasons why evolution is not viable if you want to educate yourself.  http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/education

Seriously? Is ignorance really bliss?

Answers in Genesis is propaganda, religious propaganda to be precise.

[BitChick]

From the link:  Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks

You mean the article explicitly mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohlinia and that isn't a fossil?

Again.  This is supposed to convince me?  These so called "transitional fossil" that the scientists are getting so excited about are nothing more than a beautiful show about micro-evolution which is basically the changes that happen within a species.  This does not account for changes other than that.  Show me one solid piece of evidence that proves macro-evolution please.  Just one example of one KIND changing into another KIND.  That is all I am asking for.  It does not seem like a lot to ask does it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Is that plenty enough fossils for you?

From the wikipedia page

There is little fossil evidence for the divergence of the gorilla, chimpanzee and hominin lineages

So no.  

[BitChick]

I've seen some of the "transitional fossils," or shards and fragments of fossils, which is basically what they are.  If there were really millions of years of humans and other animals "evolving" then these "transitional fossils" would be everywhere.  Instead, the fossils found are fully developed "kinds" or species.

Evolution supporters still cant explain why these aren't found EVERYWHERE, which is what their THEORY says should occur.  Funny how they can just gloss over this extreme lack of any physical historical evidence whatsoever.

LOL. http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html

From the link:  -

Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks

Again.  This is supposed to convince me?  These so called "transitional fossil" that the scientists are getting so excited about are nothing more than a beautiful show about micro-evolution which is basically the changes that happen within a species.  This does not account for changes other than that.  Show me one solid piece of evidence that proves macro-evolution please.  Just one example of one KIND changing into another KIND.  That is all I am asking for.  It does not seem like a lot to ask does it?

Here, go and educate yourself: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

I can't find anything on that site that shows me an observable example of one kind changing into another.  Lot's of speculation and plenty of thoughts on the subject for sure.  From the site you sent me was this quote

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read.

 

But since we are throwing websites around, here is one with plenty of evidence and scientific reasons why evolution is not viable if you want to educate yourself.  http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/education

Seriously? Is ignorance really bliss?

Answers in Genesis is propaganda, religious propaganda to be precise.

OK.  Forget the AIG site then. Can anyone give me one clear and precise example of a fossil in the fossil record that shows one KIND changing into another KIND?   I don't want any websites with speculation about how it might have happened (such as Wikipedia and Berkley sites)  

Why is there no fossils in our record at all that show this?  Because there are none.  I would think that if it was a valid theory there would at least be ONE!?

And if anyone sends me fossils of how a species has changed within a species that just isn't good enough.  Creationist believe in mico-evoluation AKA "adaptation" because it is observable and provable.

[pedrog]

OK.  Forget the AIG site then. Can anyone give me one clear and precise example of a fossil in the fossil record that shows one KIND changing into another KIND?   I don't want any websites with speculation about how it might have happened (such as Wikipedia and Berkley sites)  

Why is there no fossils in our record at all that show this?  Because there are none.  I would think that if it was a valid theory there would at least be ONE!?

And if anyone sends me fossils of how a species has changed within a species that just isn't good enough.  Creationist believe in mico-evoluation AKA "adaptation" because it is observable and provable.

If you can't grasp simple stuff like the age of the earth or the age of the Universe, you can't expect to understand that.

You can start by learning how fossils are formed.

And by the way there are no "kinds", there is some debate on how to define a species and one doesn't need to be a supergenius to understand.

[BitChick]

OK.  Forget the AIG site then. Can anyone give me one clear and precise example of a fossil in the fossil record that shows one KIND changing into another KIND?   I don't want any websites with speculation about how it might have happened (such as Wikipedia and Berkley sites)  

Why is there no fossils in our record at all that show this?  Because there are none.  I would think that if it was a valid theory there would at least be ONE!?

And if anyone sends me fossils of how a species has changed within a species that just isn't good enough.  Creationist believe in mico-evoluation AKA "adaptation" because it is observable and provable.

If you can't grasp simple stuff like the age of the earth or the age of the Universe, you can't expect to understand that.

You can start by learning how fossils are formed.

And by the way there are no "kinds", there is some debate on how to define a species and one doesn't need to be a supergenius to understand.

I am totally open to any of these theories.  I am even open to the idea that there are no "kinds" as you say.  But I, unlike what is being taught as "science'' in our schools today, stick with the scientific method which requires some tests be put to theories.  

Can a dog mate with a cat?  Why not?  Why do kinds stay within their own kinds?  Why did we not evolve so that we could have cat/dog/human mixes?  If there are no "kinds" as you say then what caused the amazing order and structure within species that we see all around us and how would that just happen by chance?

[pedrog]

OK.  Forget the AIG site then. Can anyone give me one clear and precise example of a fossil in the fossil record that shows one KIND changing into another KIND?   I don't want any websites with speculation about how it might have happened (such as Wikipedia and Berkley sites)  

Why is there no fossils in our record at all that show this?  Because there are none.  I would think that if it was a valid theory there would at least be ONE!?

And if anyone sends me fossils of how a species has changed within a species that just isn't good enough.  Creationist believe in mico-evoluation AKA "adaptation" because it is observable and provable.

If you can't grasp simple stuff like the age of the earth or the age of the Universe, you can't expect to understand that.

You can start by learning how fossils are formed.

And by the way there are no "kinds", there is some debate on how to define a species and one doesn't need to be a supergenius to understand.

I am totally open to any of these theories.  I am even open to the idea that there are no "kinds" as you say.  But I, unlike what is being taught as "science'' in our schools today, stick with the scientific method which requires some tests be put to theories.  

Can a dog mate with a cat?  Why not?  Why do kinds stay within their own kinds?  Why did we not evolve so that we could have cat/dog/human mixes?  If there are no "kinds" as you say then what caused the amazing order and structure within species that we see all around us and how would that just happen by chance?

Wow!

I have a 13 year old niece that's way more educated than you!

If you can't understand the basic concept of species or "why a dog can't mate with a cat" your school system/parents/educators/society/whatever has failed you.

[cp1]

I think if you asked a bunch of 6 year olds to write down questions you'd get the same ones.  Did these people even attend High School?

[BitChick]

OK.  Forget the AIG site then. Can anyone give me one clear and precise example of a fossil in the fossil record that shows one KIND changing into another KIND?   I don't want any websites with speculation about how it might have happened (such as Wikipedia and Berkley sites)  

Why is there no fossils in our record at all that show this?  Because there are none.  I would think that if it was a valid theory there would at least be ONE!?

And if anyone sends me fossils of how a species has changed within a species that just isn't good enough.  Creationist believe in mico-evoluation AKA "adaptation" because it is observable and provable.

If you can't grasp simple stuff like the age of the earth or the age of the Universe, you can't expect to understand that.

You can start by learning how fossils are formed.

And by the way there are no "kinds", there is some debate on how to define a species and one doesn't need to be a supergenius to understand.

I am totally open to any of these theories.  I am even open to the idea that there are no "kinds" as you say.  But I, unlike what is being taught as "science'' in our schools today, stick with the scientific method which requires some tests be put to theories.  

Can a dog mate with a cat?  Why not?  Why do kinds stay within their own kinds?  Why did we not evolve so that we could have cat/dog/human mixes?  If there are no "kinds" as you say then what caused the amazing order and structure within species that we see all around us and how would that just happen by chance?

Wow!

I have a 13 year old niece that's way more educated than you!

If you can't understand the basic concept of species or "why a dog can't mate with a cat" your school system/parents/educators/society/whatever has failed you.

My point was that they can't.  Because there are strict scientific rules and order within kids/ How can one kind evolve into another kind if they mammals cannot mate with each other?  That was the point I was trying to make.

Even 2 year olds understand that dogs are dogs, cats are cats and fish are fish.  Where is the proof of one kind changing into another in our fossil record?

[James222]

Creationism and evolution can coexist.

Yes. Some people beleive god created the big bang. A world that just "appeared" doesn't seem right to me. I beleive in got but no religion.

[FalconFly]

Don't know why, but these religious robots always make for the best jokes... Possibly because they really just don't get it and are absolutely authentic in that way

There just seem to be humans that are capable of progressively analyzing & understanding their environment - and there's the ones that can't (or don't want to).
I guess this has always been that way and is unlikely to change. Understanding complexity doesn't come by itself, it requires alot of effort and brainpower, so some opt for cheap easy options to find comfort or other irrational reasons.
One could easily live with that - my only concern there is the ratio of rational vs. irrational humans (nicely put), there's definitely room for improvement.

As the doctor would say :
I'm sorry, but there's no pill against stupid...

It's not "politically correct", but the lazy, the stupid and the irrationals have always been easy targets for religious infection. Harvesting & converting (= brainwashing) the sheeple has always been the prime task of clergymen. Limited effort by a small number of people, is successful allows for an entire army of autonomous but controlled drones = power & control. Business as usual amongst humans...

[pedrog]

Creationism and evolution can coexist.

Yes. Some people beleive god created the big bang. A world that just "appeared" doesn't seem right to me. I beleive in got but no religion.

The concept of the Prime Mover is very different from creationism, creationism is Christian propaganda or some type of American Christians propaganda, the Prime Mover is a philosophical hypothesis for the beginning of the universe, it has nothing to do with gods or creationism.

[BitChick]

Don't know why, but these religious robots always make for the best jokes... Possibly because they really just don't get it and are absolutely authentic in that way

There just seem to be humans that are capable of progressively analyzing & understanding their environment - and there's the ones that can't. I guess this has always been that way and is unlikely to change.
One could easily live with that - my only concern there is the ratio of intelligent vs. not-quite-so (nicely put), there's definitely has room for improvement.

As the doctor would say :
I'm sorry, but there's no pill against stupid...

But who are really the robots?

Although I could be considered a "Jesus Freak" I try really hard to see all sides, study all religions and understand where people are coming from.

However, this is not the case for my point of view.  I get laughed at, ridiculed called "stupid" etc.

And still no one has shown me the one thing I have been asking for over, and over and over again.  Just ONE observable example of a KIND changing into another KIND.  Where is it?  If that can't be produced then who has really been brainwashed?  What is the truth really?  Maybe the entire culture has just decided to go along with what is now taught as good "science" when in reality it is faith in something without any proof at all.

[FalconFly]

Don't know why, but these religious robots always make for the best jokes... Possibly because they really just don't get it and are absolutely authentic in that way

There just seem to be humans that are capable of progressively analyzing & understanding their environment - and there's the ones that can't. I guess this has always been that way and is unlikely to change.
One could easily live with that - my only concern there is the ratio of intelligent vs. not-quite-so (nicely put), there's definitely has room for improvement.

As the doctor would say :
I'm sorry, but there's no pill against stupid...

But who are really the robots?

Although I could be considered a "Jesus Freak" I try really hard to see all sides, study all religions and understand where people are coming from.

However, this is not the case for my point of view.  I get laughed at, ridiculed called "stupid" etc.

And still no one has shown me the one thing I have been asking for over, and over and over again.  Just ONE observable example of a KIND changing into another KIND.  Where is it?  If that can't be produced then who has really been brainwashed?  What is the truth really?  Maybe the entire culture has just decided to go along with what is now taught as good "science" when in reality it is faith in something without any proof at all.

I don't quite get that... Look no further than the human genome itself and its recorded evolution (in scenarios of mixed populations as well as scenarios of long times of isolation due to climate or geography).
Pretty self-evident.
Not sure how much these tests cost nowadays, but you can get your evolutionary "mix" analyzed by common genetic laboratories within a short time, naturally limited by today's available technology and scientific knowledge.

Also, many don't seem to be aware what little genetic evolution is required to result in rather drastic differences. It takes only 1% generic difference to have two entirely different (genetically/mating incompatible species) that just share similarities upon closer inspection. It's the difference between a small ape and a fully developed human. Add 1% more difference (more advanced genome than ours) and one can only speculate what kind of massive intelligence potential such a lifeform could have compared to us. Take it a step further and allow for a full 10% difference in advanced genome, these levels would simply be way beyond our current comprehension. Einstein, Hawking, Tesla and alikes would be like mentally handicapped cockroaches compared to that.

The issue with the fossils is that those are eons old, an extremely high percentage was destroyed by the environmental changes/erosion etc. over time, and that relatively few scientists are actively looking for them around the world - and this only since a very short time in human evolution (I don't have an exact figure but I reckon it's something like 150-250 years roundabout).
It's a common occurence that discoveries are rather random finds i.e. during construction, not long ago these finds were simply ignored (due to general lack of education) and they ended up being discarded/structures built upon or ended up completely disregarded in landfills. Who knows if our ancestors even had an eye for these things at all, probably not.
Additionally, it takes very specific conditions to create and preserve a fossil from an otherwise bio-degradable/erosive/consumable material that otherwise is left to its environment and other lifeforms to "work on", hence they are extremely rare especially for land-based ones.

Likely the best spots would be in beneath the sediments of our today's oceans, having the best chances of being untouched and not exposed to atmospheric erosion since a long time - but such efforts/possibilities are still very new, limited by technology and very expensive. I don't think I'll live to see the day our very own planet is actually being systematically searched for fossils/artifacts i.e. by affordable robots or anything like that (they'd have to dig/scan a mile deep on land as well as beneath the oceans).

To me what is happening today (even with all our technology) is something I like to compare to i.e. a Mars Exploration Rover. Despite being a milestone achievement, it merely scratches the surface on a few isolated spots and digs a few inches deep, not more. That leaves far more than 99.999999% of the remaining possible finds absolutely undetected. Basically right now this is all we have done, in 200 years on this planet. Technically speaking, we barely have investigated our own planet yet and know only tiny bits so far (just enough to once a while take a 2nd look and keep doing it at an oozingly slow pace with extremely limited efforts).

Things would probably look different if mandkind didn't toss so insanely much effort & resources at typical points of self-centered human interests like war, to name just one example. In that respect, humans are still very tightly connected i.e. to territorial shimpanzee populations - and unfortunately it shows. Sometimes the motives and behavioural differences are so small, it's plain shameful.

[BitChick]

Don't know why, but these religious robots always make for the best jokes... Possibly because they really just don't get it and are absolutely authentic in that way

There just seem to be humans that are capable of progressively analyzing & understanding their environment - and there's the ones that can't. I guess this has always been that way and is unlikely to change.
One could easily live with that - my only concern there is the ratio of intelligent vs. not-quite-so (nicely put), there's definitely has room for improvement.

As the doctor would say :
I'm sorry, but there's no pill against stupid...

But who are really the robots?

Although I could be considered a "Jesus Freak" I try really hard to see all sides, study all religions and understand where people are coming from.

However, this is not the case for my point of view.  I get laughed at, ridiculed called "stupid" etc.

And still no one has shown me the one thing I have been asking for over, and over and over again.  Just ONE observable example of a KIND changing into another KIND.  Where is it?  If that can't be produced then who has really been brainwashed?  What is the truth really?  Maybe the entire culture has just decided to go along with what is now taught as good "science" when in reality it is faith in something without any proof at all.

I don't quite get that... Look no further than the human genome itself and its recorded evolution (in scenarios of mixed populations as well as scenarios of long times of isolation due to climate or geography).
Pretty self-evident.
Not sure how much these tests cost nowadays, but you can get your evolutionary "mix" analyzed by common genetic laboratories within a short time, naturally limited by today's available technology and scientific knowledge.

Also, many don't seem to be aware what little genetic evolution is required to result in rather drastic differences. It takes only 1% generic difference to have two entirely different (genetically/mating incompatible species) that just share similarities upon closer inspection. It's the difference between a small ape and a fully developed human. Add 1% more difference (more advanced genome than ours) and one can only speculate what kind of massive intelligence potential such a lifeform could have compared to us. Take it a step further and allow for a full 10% difference in advanced genome, these levels would simply be way beyond our current comprehension. Einstein, Hawking, Tesla and alikes would be like mentally handicapped cockroaches compared to that.

The issue with the fossils is that those are eons old, an extremely high percentage was destroyed by the environmental changes/erosion etc. over time, and that relatively few scientists are actively looking for them around the world - and this only since a very short time in human evolution (I don't have an exact figure but I reckon it's something like 150-250 years roundabout).
It's a common occurence that discoveries are rather random finds i.e. during construction, not long ago these finds were simply ignored (due to general lack of education) and they ended up being discarded/structures built upon or ended up completely disregarded in landfills. Who knows if our ancestors even had an eye for these things at all, probably not.
Additionally, it takes very specific conditions to create and preserve a fossil from an otherwise bio-degradable/erosive/consumable material that otherwise is left to its environment and other lifeforms to "work on", hence they are extremely rare especially for land-based ones.

Likely the best spots would be in beneath the sediments of our today's oceans, having the best chances of being untouched and not exposed to atmospheric erosion since a long time - but such efforts/possibilities are still very new, limited by technology and very expensive. I don't think I'll live to see the day our very own planet is actually being systematically searched for fossils/artifacts i.e. by affordable robots or anything like that (they'd have to dig/scan a mile deep on land as well as beneath the oceans).

To me what is happening today (even with all our technology) is something I like to compare to i.e. a Mars Exploration Rover. Despite being a milestone achievement, it merely scratches the surface on a few isolated spots and digs a few inches deep, not more. That leaves far more than 99.999999% of the remaining possible finds absolutely undetected. Basically right now this is all we have done, in 200 years on this planet. Technically speaking, we barely have investigated our own planet yet and know only tiny bits so far (just enough to once a while take a 2nd look and keep doing it at an oozingly slow pace with extremely limited efforts).

Things would probably look different if mandkind didn't toss so insanely much effort & resources at typical points of self-centered human interests like war, to name just one example. In that respect, humans are still very tightly connected i.e. to territorial shimpanzee populations - and unfortunately it shows. Sometimes the motives and behavioural differences are so small, it's plain shameful.

Genetics actually supports intelligent design.  The complexity of humans is such that it would be mathematically impossible for a human to evolve from a monkey by chance. Even for one small thing to change in a single cell causes the cell not to function properly.  How could something so advance in it's design just happen by chance?  Logic says it is not possible.  But the universal genetic code is far too complicated for me to even understand but here is a link for those that need something more to read on the subject matter: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/the-genetic-code-proof-of-intelligent-design-t25736.html

Of course, small changes within the human race is evident.  This is adaptation or micro-evolution.  We can observe that. I want evidence that supports macro-evolution.  The evolution that everyone puts so much of their faith into.  The evolution that we all just came from a big bang and evolved from some goo in the ground.  Where is that evidence?

Whenever I have these discussions it always comes back to "It just took millions of years" or "We do not have the evidence because it happened millions of years ago."  All this speculation about millions of millions of years is just a way to find any excuse so the theory of macro-evolution can be justified.

All that said, nothing I say here would every change anyone's mind regardless.  

And I still have not seen evidence of one kind changing to another.  It is all speculation with millions of years thrown in to back it up.  That is not observable science.  It is "faith" in a belief.  

[cp1]

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean god did it.

[pedrog]

Also, many don't seem to be aware what little genetic evolution is required to result in rather drastic differences. It takes only 1% generic difference to have two entirely different (genetically/mating incompatible species) that just share similarities upon closer inspection. It's the difference between a small ape and a fully developed human. Add 1% more difference (more advanced genome than ours) and one can only speculate what kind of massive intelligence potential such a lifeform could have compared to us. Take it a step further and allow for a full 10% difference in advanced genome, these levels would simply be way beyond our current comprehension. Einstein, Hawking, Tesla and alikes would be like mentally handicapped cockroaches compared to that.

I understand what you're saying, but in evolution there's no advancement, only change and adaptation, we are not superior or more advanced than a cockroach, we are different, and our intelligence may be an evolutionary disadvantage because we have the power to extinguish ourselves and cockroaches will still be here.

Genetics actually supports intelligent design.  The complexity of humans is such that it would be mathematically impossible for a human to evolve from a monkey by chance. Even for one small thing to change in a single cell causes the cell not to function properly.  How could something so advance in it's design just happen by chance?  Logic says it is not possible.  But the universal genetic code is far too complicated for me to even understand but here is a link for those that need something more to read on the subject matter: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/the-genetic-code-proof-of-intelligent-design-t25736.html

Of course, small changes within the human race is evident.  This is adaptation or micro-evolution.  We can observe that. I want evidence that supports macro-evolution.  The evolution that everyone puts so much of their faith into.  The evolution that we all just came from a big bang and evolved from some goo in the ground.  Where is that evidence?

Whenever I have these discussions it always comes back to "It just took millions of years" or "We do not have the evidence because it happened millions of years ago."  All this speculation about millions of millions of years is just a way to find any excuse so the theory of macro-evolution can be justified.

All that said, nothing I say here would every change anyone's mind regardless.  

And I still have not seen evidence of one kind changing to another.  It is all speculation with millions of years thrown in to back it up.  That is not observable science.  It is "faith" in a belief.  

I have pointed you to some places where you can learn all you need, here's another: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/evolution-and-natural-selection

Go visit museums, go back to school, do what you need to learn if you're willing to do so, but you can't expect that in a forum thread we explain you what took us years of our lives to learn and understand, but I suspect that you don't really wanna learn because it will probably go against your particular sect of Christianity and apparently ignorance is bliss.

[BitChick]

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean god did it.

To understand something takes intelligence.  If our genetic code is so complicated that it is hard to understand then it should tell us something.  Maybe someone intelligent designed the genetic code perhaps?

[exocytosis]

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean god did it.

To understand something takes intelligence.  If our genetic code is so complicated that it is hard to understand then it should tell us something.  Maybe someone intelligent designed the genetic code perhaps?

And who designed that intelligent designer? Where did the designer come from?

You don't solve anything by postulating the existence of a god. You merely introduce a superfluous variable that, itself, needs to be explained. Nothing is explained by inserting imaginary gods/designers into the equation; the equation only becomes unnecessarily hard and is no longer backed by empirical data.

Stick with Occam's razor.