Note: I wrote this awhile ago but didn't notice that it didn't post because of other replies. I just wrote another post, but I still want this in the thread too.
I don't quite understand that. If we are not misinterpreting the evidence, where are we going wrong? Not using science? I don't think so. That you claim science isn't being used does not make it so. Science, hard science, is indeed being used.
Great. Then please provide examples of repeatable tests and experiments that demonstrate a biological process which is capable of creating a liver, a lung, a pancreas, a penis, etc from other cells or living organisms.
And if the evidence exists, but we are not looking at it scientifically, does that mean it is impossible to look at that evidence scientifically, or is there some other discipline that we can use to look at the evidence, match it with prior agreed upon realities, and come to some very different conclusion?
What matters is that you follow the scientific method if you are going to label the claims you make about macroevolution as science.
If you want to change us so that we think and believe like you, you've got to do more than attack our methods.
The only methods I am attacking are the ones that are alleged to demonstrate micro+micro=macro in a scientific manner.
You're being about as clear as mud here. YOU need to explain why science wasn't involved in those findings. YOU need to explain why you accept little changes, but not big ones. YOU need to tell us what mechanism prevents evolution when every frickin' time cells duplicate or animals mate changes occur in the transferred genes. You need to be SOOOOOO specific when you say that macroevolution isn't scientific. Too, YOU need to be specific when you say we aren't being scientific when we study evolution. Where is the science faulty? Because we can't do 500,00 or million year experiments? Does that, in an of itself, invalidate the whole thing?
If the bible describes the world as you see it, why doesn't it describe the world I see? How come you can read that book, look out at the real world and see the connection, while I cannot? To me, you are consuming a tiny bit of information (the bible) and fitting it in to your reality with ease, while I am consuming a huge amount of information (science, in general, evolution, specifically, in this case) and finding very, very, very specific examples within the realm of reality the exactly match the things that science tells me. I see NO evidence that the worlds many languages came from that Babel incident, I see no geologic evidence of a worldwide flood, I see no evidence in the history of Egypt, which includes many a reported failure, of any large group of people escaping magically across a sea, I see no evidence that more than half a million people walked around in the desert for 40 years, I see no evidence of a place like Eden, I see no evidence that humans routinely lived for nearly a thousand years, and we haven't even gotten to that Jesus fella yet.
So if I (and I have) go to fossil beds and find sea going creatures, and the go to another fossil bed and find land dwelling critters, with no sea critters at all mixed in, what am I supposed to think when I read the flood story? How am I supposed to treat the scientific explanation, which matches the evidence? Why should I reject it in favor or your story, that does not match the evidence?
You tell me. Its not my job to simply get stupid and reject everything you dislike. You need to tell me why doing such a thing wouldn't be insane. And just a warning. You're not likely to change my mind by responding with less than 50 words.