CHRISTIANS: If you believe that "macro" evolution can be disproven by the scientific method...?

Question

what does that make you?

Answer 1

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted . Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#what


To answer your question, simply put, to believe that macro evolution can be disproven by scientific methods would make me stupid.


Hi handsome, it is me.

Answer 2

It would make you a scientist, actually. This doesn't relate to Christianity, but to thinking. Evolution of any sort can be disproven by the scientific method, if sufficient evidence were to accumulate against it.

Of course, there *is* no evidence against it, but if such existed then it could be disproven by the scientific method. That's science: it works from evidence, not dogma.

Now, if you had asked "If you believe that macroevolution *has* been disproven by the scientific method, what does that make you?", the answer would be "uneducated."

Answer 3

That frequently relies upon on how one defines "evolution". Even devoid of counting such utilization with the aid of fact the "evolution of the universe" or "social evolution", evolutionists the two tend to equivocate with the term evolution, at times which consists of common uncomplicated descent as element of the definition, different circumstances not. or pretending that speciation immediately proves common uncomplicated descent. If one restricts the definition to "substitute with modification", then many YECs might agree that evolution isn't outdoors the area of observable technological awareness. even nonetheless, if one broadens the definition to incorporate "molecule to guy" evolution, then it rather is annoying to be attentive to how every person, creationist or not, ought to fail to agree. @ So Uncivilized: "evolution and abiogenesis are separate" at the same time as technically real, abiogenesis is the main many times used naturalistic rationalization for a manner the cells that later have been meant to adapt first arose. "No real Scotsman" The "no real Scotsman" fallacy is a case of fake analogy whilst utilized to any perception, which consists of Christianity, considering the fact that one can not go with one's nationality such as you possibly can go with one's perception. as an occasion, somebody claiming to be an atheist that went around proclaiming his or her love for God does not be a real atheist. "Jesus commonly used parables" definite, yet parables have a definite style.

Answer 4

i don't think that i quit understand your Q. ... I do believe that micro evolution could have happened and probably did. Scientifically macro evolution does not really work in my eyes. I guess you could call me a creationist.... i don't know, i am not to big on special names! :]

Answer 5

Delusional.

Answer 6

Macro evolution has been disproven. We are what we are....Christians.... and your foolish non-belief has no impact on our faith.... It just makes us sad.. Come to Christ

Answer 7

Macro evolution disproved by microscopic minds...

This I gotta see....

Answer 8

what the macro you talking about, I'd still want to know who put it there.

Answer 9

Dorks.

Answer 10

I cant be proven right, because noboy has witnessed "macro evo.."