"If it isn't observable and verifiable, it isn't scientific, by definition."
This is my whole point. Macroevolution isn't observable and verifiable, it isn't scientific, by definition.
"We have direct evidence showing microevolution. (white/black moths, adapting bacteria)"
I know. As we have gone through many time, MICROevolution has nothing to do with MACROevolution.
"We have evidence to show that we are related to other life in a fundamental way (suggesting relation.)"
Suggesting? Is that scientific evidence?
"We have vestigial body parts, that serve little or no purpose, that function well in other animals. (appendix, wisdom teeth, tailbone, male nipples)"
We went through this too. All these have a purpose. The appendix is in the lymphatic system, the wisdom teeth help if you don't have to have them pulled out, the tailbone has many uses including sitting, bowel and labor movments, ans supporting internal organs. And male nipples are a source of sexual stimuli.
"We see that the fossil record is striated, with more complex animals near the top of the earth, and increasingly simple ones near the bottom."
Not really. Remember that Cambrian explosion? The fossil record has much evidence for creation, and many evolutionist are abandoning it.
"Evolution is the theory that strings all these observations together, and you say it's unscientific?"
Strings what? Strings the fact that it isn't observable, that you have a terribly poor fossil record, that microevolution (which has nothing to do with macroevolution) is true, that we are 'suggested' to be realted to other animals, that there is no such thing as a vestigal organ, and that the Cambrian explosion points to creation. String those together and you have.....
evolution! The evidence does not fit.
"Do you believe continental drift takes place, Sam? Do you believe the moon drifts closer and further away from the earth in cyclical patterns throughout the eons? Why? We can't observe it in our lifetimes."
And I do not believe these to be a fact. There is much debate today over continental drift.
"What we have is genetic, fossil, and physiological evidence to suggest that such evolution does take place."
No you don't.
"What we have is observational evidence (the bending of light around seemingly empty space) to suggest that they exist."
That is the point. You have observational evidence. Macroevolution does not.
Me: "You do not know how life arose from non-living material, but you have faith it does.
Me: "You do not know how the universe started, but you have faith that it does."
You: "This is another issue entirely. Evolutionary theory says nothing about the origin of life or the origin of the universe. Evolution does not exclude God."
The theory of evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of the universe? Wouldn't that be a HUGE piece of the puzzle missing? I mean, you are making this huge theory, but it has no begining? And I think evolution should be able to acount for where life came from. Come on, you are obviously showing your pre-bias right now. 'We don't know how the universe started, but it did. And we don't know how life arose, but it did.' See what I am saying! It is based on faith!
Boy, I think those kung-fu fists might start flying!! KC2GWX 73's