I posted a comment on that dire excuse for a facebook group, "we can find 1,000,000 people who don't believe in Evolution befor June". Evidently I ruffled some feathers, because some jackass named Brian has dediced to message me because of it. I've sent him one response already, to which I have received this gem.
I'm struggling to decide if I should reply at all - evidently he's not altogether there - and I think I might be being trolled a bit, but I'm also loathe to leave this hanging. Take a look at this and let me know what you think: (Things with a > are my words, quoted by him)
Help, guys. I'm left dumbfounded at this.I haven't said I don't accept Evolution. Indeed, it is the reason I asked. I seek plausible explanation. I do believe that science, done properly, is generally true; therefore, I accept the age of the universe at 14.6 billion years. Further, from my world-view, it expands the glory of God, properly understood.
>The presence of strong evidence supporting it, my own studying of the theory, the overall rationality of the theory, the flaws in the alternative, and occam's razor.
This is what I am looking for: what evidence? I am aware that you are a Brit; I understand that the Evolutionary Hypothesis is gospel there. So, what is the evidence?
>Macroevolution is the tipping point from which microevolutionary changes have reached a point at which the evolving species has deverged enough from its parent as to be unable to produce fertile offspring from it. The distinction, whilst understandable, is not radically different. If microevolution is real, macroevolution must be too.
As this is an unfounded and unproven statement, I would refer to it as faith. Indeed, it happens to be your axiom. What I am seeking is why it is a better axiom.
>The Miller-Urey experiment
Nick, seriously? You had me bending over with laughter when I read this! Indeed, the only thing that experiment proves is Intelligent Design! FFFFFFFUUUUU...
I realize that atheists slam into an insurmountable problem with the Origins of Life. This is not my issue. Evolution, however you would like to paint it, typically seeks to present a world-view independent of a Creator. I am aware that thinking Christians exist that accept some tenets of Evolution; I don't happen to be one, but I am open to examination of the evidence.
But with your assertion of rationality: it is not so just because you claim it. I was asking your sources, evidence, places to which you refer.
>Oh no, I know about the complexity of DNA. But you're suggesting it got that way as if by magic in a short while.
Where do you get this? I didn't say this. No, but you suggested it. I never said you said it verbatim.
My inference is that 1 Billion years is not nearly enough time to provide the genetic manipulation. Example: one part of the gene calls up, sometimes 10, other subsequent episodes interdependent of each other. This in turn adds to the genetic code, which could not function if any of the aforementioned episodes are malfunctioned. For this to develop and create the amazing variety of species we observe on Earth...statistically impossible. Occam doesn't even help here. Perhaps, multiverses? You have simply pushed off the design problem another step...
Further, how can information become MORE specific with time? Oh yeah, natural selection. Behe's theory sort of cripples that case at this point (i.e. irreducible complexity).
You haven't offered anything of substance. The burden of proof is still in your court.