Well, evolution (macro) seems far more fantastic (fantasy-like) then almost anything (except maybe Ã¢â‚¬Å“something from nothingÃ¢â‚¬Â, Ã¢â‚¬Å“life from non-lifeÃ¢â‚¬Â, Ã¢â‚¬Å“intelligence from non-intelligenceÃ¢â‚¬Â etceteraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) since there is absolutely no evidence for it
I still dont see your difference between macro and micro.
I really donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think you are having a problem with the definitions of macro and micro, nor the differences between the twoÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ So, below are generally accepted and succinct definitions of the two:
Limited change - Ã¢â‚¬Å“minor change within a species or small group of organisms, usually within a short period of timeÃ¢â‚¬Â
Theorized large scale evolution - evolution theorized to occur over a long period of time, producing major changes in species and other taxonomic groups creating NEW species.
Now, if you wish, you can attempt to equivocate between the two; or attempt a conversion by definition. But I wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t necessarily recommend it.
How big does the change have to be before you would consider it to be macro?
I understand the seemingly silly something from nothing point though as far as i understand the big bang theory it actually started with matter simply compressed together.
Well, since there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support macroevolution; and since all the pseudo-evidence is presupposed, assumed and/or Ã¢â‚¬Ëœa prioriÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, I would have to say that actual and factual empirical evidence would be a start.
I know, it is silly, isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t itÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Which begs the question from the rest of your statement: Since we know from all the empirical science, logic and rationale extant that; Nonbeing Cannot Cause Being i.e. Ã¢â‚¬Å“from nothing, nothing comesÃ¢â‚¬Â (Non-B > B ), every contingent being/phenomena is dependent upon a necessary being/phenomena (Non-B > B ), and every contingent being Is caused by a necessary being (Bn → Bc ); FROM WHERE did the Ã¢â‚¬Å“matter simply compressed togetherÃ¢â‚¬Â come?
And to put more of a chink in your statement; how can Ã¢â‚¬Å“matterÃ¢â‚¬Â be Ã¢â‚¬Å“simply compressed togetherÃ¢â‚¬Â? Have you ever seen or experienced (empirically) Ã¢â‚¬Å“matter simply compressed togetherÃ¢â‚¬Â? Further, how is any of that simple?
What, then, seems more of a fantasy?
As far as Ã¢â‚¬Å“someone suddenly created every complex thing on the universeÃ¢â‚¬Â you say? Even that doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t compare the wild imagination that put together Ã¢â‚¬Å“something from nothingÃ¢â‚¬Â, Ã¢â‚¬Å“life from non-lifeÃ¢â‚¬Â, Ã¢â‚¬Å“intelligence from non-intelligenceÃ¢â‚¬Â etceteraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ LetÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s try this:
In terms of life from non-life I'm not too well learned in abiogenesis, however if you think about life simply being chemical reactions then it doesnt seem as unlikely. I realize I havent explained my point well and I'll be happy to clarify if you like though I feel we are getting of course.
Again, how is any of that Ã¢â‚¬Å“simpleÃ¢â‚¬Â? Further, can you provide actual empirical evidence for Ã¢â‚¬Å“life simply being chemical reactionsÃ¢â‚¬Â, and then provide empirically (factual evidence for) those Ã¢â‚¬Å“simple chemicalsÃ¢â‚¬Â causing life from non-life? Or are you Ã¢â‚¬Å“simplyÃ¢â‚¬Â thinking about it?
Clarification of this would be nice. But, keep in mind; all youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve provided thus far is Ã¢â‚¬Å“beliefÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“faithÃ¢â‚¬Â statements. And that is seemingly odd for a materialistic atheist.
What, then, seems more of a fantasy?
That Ã¢â‚¬Å“nothingÃ¢â‚¬Â suddenly created every complex thing on the universe.
That Ã¢â‚¬Å“non-lifeÃ¢â‚¬Â suddenly created all the complex life on Earth.
That Ã¢â‚¬Å“non-intelligenceÃ¢â‚¬Â created all the intelligence in the human being.
Now those are miracles.
Just to clarify, do you mean nothing suddenly created everything complex or over time?
No, I mean Ã¢â‚¬Å“nothingÃ¢â‚¬Â creating anything at all! Further, since science cannot provide for anything that is not complex, then complexity is automatically implied, and the Ã¢â‚¬Å“over timeÃ¢â‚¬Â axiom promulgated, is an assumption on your part.
Non life I touched on above.
Actually, no, you did not; you simply asked a question that begged more questions that youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll have a hard time answering; Ã¢â‚¬Å“if you think about life simply being chemical reactionsÃ¢â‚¬ÂÃ¢â‚¬Â¦
What do you class as intelligence?
The ability to think and learn - The ability to learn facts and skills and apply them, especially when this ability is highly developed.
Therefore, what you do classify as empirically evidence of intelligence coming from non-intelligence?
Also I feel created is the wrong word, evolution states that intelligence gradually evolved.
Which of the following follow from your statement above:
1. Intransitive verb to seem to yourself to be in a particular physical or emotional state.
2. Intransitive verb to cause a particular physical or emotional sensation.
3. Transitive verb to perceive something using the sense of touch.
4. Transitive verb to test or examine something by touching it.
From what do you base then, your assertion that the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“createdÃ¢â‚¬Â is the wrong word?
Keeping in mindÃ¢â‚¬Â¦
1. Transitive verb to bring something into existence.
2. Transitive verb to result in something or make something happen.
Further, evolution doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Ã¢â‚¬Å“state anything'Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ Evolutionary scientists make claims. Can you back up your assertions with actual empirical facts?
So, once more... What, then, seems more of a fantasy?