Anyway I'll start going.
But, what I find as odd here is that in your above submission, you are attempting to misrepresent what I have always said, and always maintained, AND have said within the context of our conversation by attempting the standard spurious tactic of Ã¢â‚¬Å“conversion by definitionÃ¢â‚¬Â (i.e. equivocation). The following Ã¢â‚¬Å“ACTUAL QUOTESÃ¢â‚¬Â is the line of discussion that led up to your fallacious reply:
I wasnt deliberately trying to misrepresent you. I thought we agreed that macroevolution was microevolution/adaptation( which we agree on) over time. So when you call macro time plus prayer then it sounded like you were calling adaptation prayer. My apologies.
First and foremost, listing Ã¢â‚¬Å“main pointsÃ¢â‚¬Â has absolutely nothing to do with providing Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“FactsÃ¢â‚¬Â; it is simply making more assumed statements, and pretending that they will be accepted as facts.
Secondly, if youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d like to attempt to provide the Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“FactsÃ¢â‚¬Â that show how these Ã¢â‚¬Å“main pointsÃ¢â‚¬Â factually prove Ã¢â‚¬Å“Macro evolutionsÃ¢â‚¬Â, by all means, do so. And as you do, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll expose the assumptions and presuppositions built into your assertions.
Further, I realize that this is what you were taught at university, but I also submit that the Ã¢â‚¬Å“critical thinkerÃ¢â‚¬Â doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t merely Ã¢â‚¬Å“acceptÃ¢â‚¬Â what they are taught, but are determinant in reconciling those lessons with the Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“FactsÃ¢â‚¬Â of reality. And from that point will either validate or refute as assumptive, said teachings.
1st. I never meant to list those main points simply as fact, my intention was for you to choose one and we go through them one by one.
2nd. I will never claim things to be fact. I think the only time i did so was when i mentioned Evolution was accepted as fact which i'm happy to retract.
3rd. Im actually still at high school. I somewhat thanked you before about your point here. I never really thought about it but i haven't actually delved into the evidence myself. I'v generally accepted what my teachers taught me but haven't gone into individual examples.
First Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Are you implying that ALL atomic theory (or that atomic theory in its entirety) is FACTUAL? If so, please provide your facts and evidences that ALL atomic theory is FACTUAL!
Second Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Are you assuming that I HAVE to accept atomic theory in order for you to provide the actual Ã¢â‚¬Å“FactsÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“EvidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â to support your assertions? You do see the fallacy in your logic here, do you not?
Third Ã¢â‚¬â€œ I apologize if I misinterpreted your assertion on the space between atoms.
Fourth Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Explain (using FACTS and EVIDENCE) as to how ALL of the atoms in the universe have enough Ã¢â‚¬Å“spaceÃ¢â‚¬Â between the nucleus and electrons of said atoms to squeeze together in order to contain the entire universe in that space; and to do so under the auspices that the universe had to expand from a point smaller than that of say Ã¢â‚¬Å“a period in this pageÃ¢â‚¬Â, as the big bang assumes.
Fifth Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Use Atomic Theory via Ã¢â‚¬Å“FactsÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“EvidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â in your explanation of number four above.
Sixth Ã¢â‚¬â€œ And do so without being Ã¢â‚¬Å“hypotheticalÃ¢â‚¬Â, otherwise itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s an hypothesis!
Seventh Ã¢â‚¬â€œ I wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even throw the Ã¢â‚¬Å“origins of the atomsÃ¢â‚¬Â question monkey wrench into your hypothesis.
I believe the main experiment in determining the atoms structure was with Ernest Rutherford alpha particles at the gold screen . When most particles were shown to pass straight through Rutherford reasoned that the atom must be made of mostly empty space.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Materialistic EvolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â has no Ã¢â‚¬Å“FactualÃ¢â‚¬Â evidence to contradict the complexity in EVERYTHING around us; thusly rendering materialistic evolution as further and further away from logical and scientific verifiability, and closer and closer to a faith filled worldview that requires dogmatic zeal to defend.
Interesting, what matches materialism with evolution? And why would evolution contradict the complexity in the world.