Micro-Evolution will not undergo Macro-Evolution

On Evolution I do believe in speciation of an organism but not in the sense that it can occur outside its genome. The possibility of speciation by means of evolutionary mechanisms (i.e. natural selection and genetic mutation)is true however this does not mean that macro-evolution per se has occured because it is agreed that a very long time is needed for this ensue. One classic example claimed to be a macro-evolution proof is the genus Raphanobrassica which itself is contains all of the various artificial hybrids bred from the species of the plant genera Raphanus (radishes), and Brassica(cabbages, kale, brusselsprouts, kohlrabi). We must stay on the facts that we have. Macro-ecolution is explicitly an educated guess (i.e. hypothesis ) which is scientific per se on the grounds that biological evolution is deemed to be elavating in a superb change over time which is not always the case because natural selection includes maladaptive population by natural selection. What we need to be honest of is that it is not necessecary to conclude macro-evolution as the answer to science's very limited source of information which is posteriori knowledge and is specifically empiricism. Guess what? macro-evolution is an a prori knowledge and so is my opponent's argument on its possibility given his example of time-chance scenario. I consider that 1) this argument of empirical nature of science as an irrefutable point of macro-evolution as a possible but not necessary given its scanty proof in any field of scientific research( in fact, up-to-date there is no, not even a one biological mechanism that is known to add (extra) genes(i.e. information) into a genome to procure macro-evolution that is scientifically accurate research both in nature and in the lab!!! ) and that 2) the Scriptures are par excellence on this. On God Moreover, my opponent is showing God to be more psychopathic by the moment: God creates murderers for the express purpose of murder, so he may sadistically punish them? What? I never said that God creates evil people. People are evil by their very nature—what theologians calls the result of the original sin (Romans 3:10) and the proof of this is laid on the Bible itself: Not a single person on earth is always good and never sins. ( Ecclesiastes 7:20) If a scientist created mice to torture and kill other mice, so he later could torture those mice (behind close doors, of course, so it won't deter other mice from torturing and killing), we would call that scientist a monster, abhorrent, and a plethora of other words. I concur! Based on your own words, that scientist you are talking about created a mice that is programmed to torture and kill other mice. This is very devilish. Indeed, we would call that scientist a monster, abhorrent, and a plethora of other words. Are we immoral by making lives easier for ourselves? Is technological advancement a sin? It must be, according to my opponent's case. The answer to both of these questions are no. I never implied in my response those accusations. What I said is that the punishment given to Adam and Eve was for their own sake, that is, for their own survival which is good. This includes the possibility of science and technology based on the reality of the post-fall. The Bible Prophecies Ezekiel 26:3 verse says that "many nations" will be against Tyre. Babylon, Alexander the Great, and the Muslim crusaders are commonly cited as fulfillment. I will argue later that it is unnecessary to bring the Muslim crusaders into the picture and that Alexander's actions sufficiently fulfilled the prophecy. Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon was the first of the nations to come against Tyre. Alexander's forces were put together from a coalition of Greek city-states. Each of these was an independent entity and acted as a nation unto itself. Alexander's father, Philip II, unified (by military force) these city-states and the regions of Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece proper under his rule - giving Alexander the unified front he needed to go forth and conquer. Nevertheless, this was a coalition composed of many nations - and thus fulfills the prophecy. What then of "built no more"? Previously I followed the appeals that went as far as using Mulsim Crusaders as fulfillment, but I now see than as unnecessary. It is here where I now bring in specific insights learned from observation of ancient use of hyperbole, especially in oracles of war. Consider first this statement from Ramesses III: I slew the Denyon in their islands, while the Tjekker and Philistines were made ashes. The Sherden and the Washesh of the sea were made non-existent, captured all together and brought on captivity to Egypt like the sands of the shore. Ramesses speaks of the Sherden and Washesh being "made non-existent" but then goes on to say that they were captured. Is this contradictory? Of course not. The "made non-existent" part is manifestly "trash talk". In the Victory Stele of Merneptah, we also see trash talk like, "Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized, Yanoam made nonexistent..." Clearly literal descriptions (conquered, seized) are mixed with clearly metaphorical ones (made non-existent), and that is what I now argue we have here. The threat to be "built no more" is trash talk like that of Ramesses speaking of his non-existent, captured people. In fact, Ezekiel goes on a skein of what we now regard as "trash talk" in the next several verses: 15 Thus saith the Lord GOD to Tyrus; Shall not the isles shake at the sound of thy fall, when the wounded cry, when the slaughter is made in the midst of thee? 16 Then all the princes of the sea shall come down from their thrones, and lay away their robes, and put off their broidered garments: they shall clothe themselves with trembling; they shall sit upon the ground, and shall tremble at every moment, and be astonished at thee. 17 And they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and say to thee, How art thou destroyed, that wast inhabited of seafaring men, the renowned city, which wast strong in the sea, she and her inhabitants, which cause their terror to be on all that haunt it! 18 Now shall the isles tremble in the day of thy fall; yea, the isles that are in the sea shall be troubled at thy departure. 19 For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee; 20 When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living; 21 I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord GOD. Islands shaking and trembling at the sound of a fall, the princes descending from their thrones and sitting in dust (signifying actually the fear of other nations over Tyre's conquest); the figures of desolation and of water flowing over, and descent into a dungeon -- all of these bespeak ancient "trash talk" and threats like that of turning Edom's streams into pitch (Is. 34:9). Therefore there is no need for my previous arguments with respect to the identities of the ancient and modern cities, or never "finding" the city again. Ezekiel does not predict a permanent destruction but uses the ancient metaphors of war to describe the seriousness of Tyre's predicament. On the Miracle The Bible proves the miracles by being inerrant NOT VISE VERSA :)Hence, my opponent's argument is null and void. SOURCES: http://evolution.berkeley.edu...http://evolutionwiki.org... http://www.tektonics.org...http://www.theskepticsguide.org... http://www.faithfacts.org...