Evolution vs creationism

I will start by clearing a few things up. Firstly, I never meant the links I posted to be arguments. I posted them in case you were interested in looking at them.mostly though, it was for the people who are looking at this debate, if they were interested. I also posted the one about ethics because I wasn't ( and still am not) going to debate morality in this debate because it is irrelevant. This is not the consequences of evolution, it's about is evolution real. AIDS is real. AIDS has consequences. But the CONSEQUENCES of AIDS and whether or not AIDS exists are two separate disscussions. In the same way, the existence of evolution and the "moral consequences" of evolution are seperate issues. Although, I certainly would recommend reading that book I linked you. It's free, and not very long. This debate is NOT about atheism. It is possible to believe in a god and evolution. Take kenneth miller, a molecular biologist who is also a devout Roman Catholic, and opponent of intelligent design. You completely discount the possibility that there was an "intelligent designer" that used evolution. The fact of evolution does not mean there is no God. I will not adress points that pertain to morality or the existence of God. You can take that as the signature of my agreement, but I don't care. They have no relevancy to this debate. Now, lets look at your points shall we? As I understand it, you have two main points against evolution. One is time scale, and the other is that macro evolution has no concrete proof. You state basically( if I'm not mistaken, and please tell me if I am) that 4.5 billion years is not long enough to account for the diversity of life, or at least something of that ilk. My simple rebuttal to that largely consists of: where do you get this information? Is it just an opinion? Because opinions have no place in science. An argument from personal Incredulity is not a valid argument. The evidence shows that 4.5 billion years is enough time. It's quite a long time actually. Once conditions on the earth improved, natural selection took over because conditions were improved for life to flourish. Now in regards to macro evolution. There are many misconceptions about this topic. For example: 1.) Crockoducks. I'm sure you've heard creationists talk about this, about how no one has ever found a half crocodile half duck hybrid. Well of course not. Because if we did, then evolution as we know it would be false. Nobody that understands evolution would say anything like this. I'll give you and example. Modern horses are descended from Hyracotherium, a species that existed about 50 million years ago. This creature didn't one day say " you know what? I'm going to change into a bigger mammal named a horse" and started to change over successive generations until now we have the various breeds of modern horses. It was by the process of natural selection. The taller bulkier specimens were favored over the smaller traditional hyracotherium, and the smaller ones were weeded out until finally we have the modern horse. Natural selection has no direction. 2.) Macroevolution has never been observed, or so creationists say. The reality is Macroevolution had been observed multiple times. It's just harder to observe than microevolution, primarily because it takes longer. When studies are brought up such as the fruit fly one you brought up, creationists usually say that studies like that don't count because they are still flies, or fish, or salamanders or what have you. Well... Yes. Evolution would be wrong if anything else were the case. Creationists demand that the offspring be so different from their parents that they don't even appear related. " I've been a farmer my whole life, and I've never seen a cow give birth to a sheep!". What's funny is that the theory of evolution has beer stated that one "kind" of animal could turn into another " kind". Unless, that is you ignore everything that happens in between. Here are some examples of Macroevolution( links below) :Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization. Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis http://www.talkorigins.org... Thank you for accepting! Looking forward to more!