First and foremost, it demands empirical evidence; therefore any other replies are faith-based opinion only.
Secondly, everything not empirical is exposed as equivocation.
We are, ALL of us, philosophers. Anyone who attempts to tell you differently is simply trying to sell you something.
As a naive philosopher, I can only validate one temporal coordinate through induction - now.
We are, ALL of us, creatures of naivetÃƒÂ©; as none of the creatures here are Ã¢â‚¬Å“ALL KNOWINGÃ¢â‚¬Â. But we do indeed attempt to learn, as to remain static in knowledge is to slide backward into total ignorance. Ã¢â‚¬Å“What you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t use, you eventually loseÃ¢â‚¬Â.
You can validate what YOU and others have done in the past. For example:
I had a fruit smoothie for breakfast this morning, and every morning for the last few months (sans a few mornings when I had breakfast out). This then, is proven inductively (over and over), via the sense of observation, touch, taste and smell (etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦). Further, I personally made the smoothie every morning from fresh fruit, in my blender, for both my wife and I. Therefore I have a first-hand eyewitness who can not only attest to my actions, but can also provide empirical evidence of her own, as she has experience, via the sense of observation, touch, taste and smell.
For the materialist, the Ã¢â‚¬Å“here and nowÃ¢â‚¬Â argument is nothing more than a morass that they cannot sustain logically, rationally or scientifically.
That, of course, is incorrect; as you can indeed Ã¢â‚¬Å“recite this post in a monthÃ¢â‚¬Â, and you can do so verbatim! Why; because itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll be here for you to read, and therefore youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll have the ability to repost it word-for-word.
This; these words, this post, is the entirety of the extant John Cantor. This identity, here, is effect; where the cause is question. Ask me to recite this post in a month to see if I'm still this identity; an occurrence I consider to be not possible. This post will conclude, the chains of its causality will break; the links perhaps to be added to a consideration of potential response or discarded in their entirety.
Further, as I (and others) read it, we can quote it verbatim:
See how easily it is done! Therefore it is indeed possible for you to: Further, as I (and others) read it, we can quote it verbatim:
Ask me to recite this post in a month
And you will be able to do likewise.
recite this post in a month
Therefore this post will not only continue beyond your participation, but possibly beyond mine as well. And the Ã¢â‚¬Å“chains of its causalityÃ¢â‚¬Â will be around to provide evidence of not only your participation in it, but the logically fallacious nature of your argumentation.
In no wise do I consider myself anything more than the reinforced pattern of identity built from chains of causality. Two bucks worth of chemicals. Geometry over entropy. Capital A, this atheist.
As the OP demanded Ã¢â‚¬Å“empirical evidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â for your assertions, is now incumbent upon you to provide the Ã¢â‚¬Å“empiricalÃ¢â‚¬Â evidence for Ã¢â‚¬Å“chemicals to man gradual and transitional macro-evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â. Otherwise, as the OP provides for, you are doing nothing more than prevarication.
The dogmatism will be provided by YOU, when YOU return to this thread and attempt to further defend your equivocations. Further, when you return, you will be demolishing your own proposition of Ã¢â‚¬Å“inability to continue the threadÃ¢â‚¬Â conundrum as well.
Therefore to be dogmatic would be as follows. The first cause was entropy, the first effect was geometry; and it's been clockwork ever since. But I got a surprise for ya. I'm not dogmatic. The original cause, was Love.
Many atheists have attempted to assert the same basic equivocation as you have; they have simply use different and diverse language in their endeavors. But, as youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll notice (if you are honest with yourself), that they, just as you, have totally failed to meet the OP.