Thanks for fixing the quotes, Spinner198.
Whether it be a 'religious term' or not, it doesn't really matter as long as the meaning of said terms are understood, and the meaning of macro-evolution is understood quite well to be the grander form of 'evolution' that refers to organisms changing into new species rather than changing within a species.
"Grander form of 'evolution'"? If you understood even one iota
of evolution, you'd see why that phrase is idiotic.
I'm already addressing the "species changed into new species" thing in another thread, so I'll leave that unanswered here.
I just so happen to have one here. Granted, this was a time ago that I got it and it is a relatively basic biology book.
The title is "Campbell Biology: Concepts and Connections (seventh edition)". It was being used at sinclair community college and the authors are Jane B. Reece, Martha R. Taylor, Eric J. Simon and Jean L. Dickley. It has a section entitled "Mechanisms of Macro-evolution" and seems to define Macro-evolution as "The major events in the history of life on earth". This textbook must be rejected by the scientific community at large if it uses such a term though, and I have no idea why a college would use it if they knew the word macro-evolution appeared in it.
Surprisingly enough, they seem to be legit. Retracted.
It seems that the guy who initially 'coined' the terms macroevolution and microevolution was Yuri Filipchenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Filipchenko) who was an entomologist that believed in evolution. Perhaps you should do your homework before making statements like that
I had never heard of the terms being used by scientists except when speaking to creationists who used the terms themselves.
Also, evolution is not something you can "believe in". It's something you accept
, like gravity, the shape of the Earth, germs, and so on.
So you are refuting his understanding of evolution with your own? You seem to just be saying "He's wrong" and leaving it at that.
I told you how he could verify evolution. How is that "just saying 'He's wrong'" and leaving it at that?
He doesn't understand evolution, therefore he is ridiculous.
He is ridiculous, therefore he must not understand evolution.
Calling someone ridiculous without any grounds besides "He's wrong" is not a way to refute a claim or argument.
Strawman. All I said was that, if he was ridiculous, I would feel compelled to treat him as such. Nowhere did I say what you claim I said.
Seems like ad hominem. Claiming that since he doesn't worship the almighty evolution as much as you, that he must be a lunatic? That since he questions evolutionary claims for the purpose of clarity and understanding, that must make him a lunatic?
Triple strawman and a lie.
1 - I do not "worship" evolution
, nor do I believe it to be "almighty"
. This goes for all scientific facts and theories that have ever or will ever been found or created. Even my own hypotheses, should they be "promoted" to full-blown theories, are not almighty or worship-worthy. Even if we developed a "theory of everything", it'd still just be a theory. Beautiful beyond our brains' capacity to comprehend it, mind you, if it turned out to be true, but a theory nonetheless.
2 - I never said that, because he didn't accept evolution, he must be a lunatic.
He is a lunatic because he believes he can disprove something that's so outside his area of expertise, it'd be like a philosopher trying to build a space shuttle.
3 - He doesn't question evolution for the purpose of clarity and understanding.
He questions it in a poor attempt to discredit it. He has failed, just like every attempt to discredit evolution since the fact was first confirmed and the theory was created.