Festeringbob wrote: your use of the relevant terms in such a manner indicates you know next to nothing about creationism and evolution, google fu both before trying to raise an argument

or the fact that I did not want to come off as a strong Biblical creationist(which I am) and a former supporter and arguer of macro-evolution(which I was). I was merely being polite.

wilhud9,

Welcome to thus forum. Do not be scared off but the sheer mass of knowledge that resides here, but rather absorb every word and think long and hard about what we tell you. We have no motivation to mislead or lie. If one of us makes a mistake in our information others will offer correction, and such is the nature of the peer review system.

No part of any creation myth holds water. I am one that is a earth history nut. Nothing in the fossil record even remotely suggests that a creation event took place. The first fossils we find are billions of years old and fairly simple. Over a steady rate of time we find more and more complex creatures in this record. We have transitional fossils that not only support the ToE but show the pathways of emerging morphologies and increases in complexity. At no point do we find temporal oddities wherein entire families, such as mammals, are found out of place.

Then there's all the genetic data which shows how macro events in the long chain of evolutionary development have come to be. I'm very limited in my education in this area so I'll leave that for the more learned among us.

If you accept that macro-evolutionary events happen, and have been observed, there is room to talk.

What do we need to provide you in order for you to accept this is so?

RS

willhud9 wrote:...or the fact that I did not want to come off as a strong Biblical creationist(which I am) and a former supporter and arguer of macro-evolution(which I was). I was merely being polite.

Since you declare that you USED to support and argue for 'macro-evolution' (I prefer just plain 'evolution'), and now you are a 'strong Biblical creationist'... that makes me think that you've never even HAD a clear concept of what (biological) 'evolution', OR the 'Theory of Evolution' actually IS. Perhaps you would be so kind to briefly explain... in a nutshell... this 'macro-evolution' that you used to support, and argue for. I'm thinking that perhaps you were arguing for the LFJ™ (Liars For Jesus) CARTOON version of 'evolution', which is REALLY stupid. The LFJs™ say "... atheists (scientists)(atheistic scientists)(intellectuals)(evolutionists)(Darwinists) think (claim)(theorize)(believe) that...", followed by absurd nonsense about creatures being transformed, or giving birth to another kind of creature, or some such rot. And their gullible God-bot constituency believes them.

So, please... tell us. What is it that you USED to support and argue for... but now, you don't. And PLEASE don't say 'macro-evolution', because that's pretty-much a useless and meaningless term. Try to be a little specific.

willhud9 wrote:or the fact that I did not want to come off as a strong Biblical creationist(which I am)

So, you wanted to appear to be something you're not? Or more accurately, you wanted not to appear to be what you are?

Why do you feel the need to be dishonest about your real beliefs?

willhud9 wrote:and a former supporter and arguer of macro-evolution(which I was)

I've seen a lot of creationists claim to be former supporters of evolution. I've never seen one who actually was. How would I know whether they had been? Because they display such ignorance about evolution. You can't "support" and "argue" something you don't understand.

My suspicion is that you're not telling the truth and you have never actually been a supporter of "macro-evolution". If you're telling the truth, my second suspicion is that you believed it after a fashion without having ever understood it.

If you truly did understand it and came to accept creationism anyway, you'll be the first creationist I've ever seen who did.

willhud9 wrote:

Festeringbob wrote: your use of the relevant terms in such a manner indicates you know next to nothing about creationism and evolution, google fu both before trying to raise an argument

or the fact that I did not want to come off as a strong Biblical creationist(which I am) and a former supporter and arguer of macro-evolution(which I was). I was merely being polite.

in fact, to be perfectly honest, I don't think that many of us care about that. The thing is, you are polite and don't threaten hell fire so alot of us (at least I will) be returning the favor. Nice break however. Many on here also (me included) used to be young earth creationists. I hate to admit it but I used to think that kent hovind was a genius (although I was in the 7th grade at the time)

So, where did our friendly creationist go? i was preparing to be enlightened about 'macro-evolution'.

So, where did our friendly creationist go? i was preparing to be enlightened about 'macro-evolution'.

Rapture?

I hope he stays.