if you claim that because macro-evolution is unobservable in one generation, and that is basis for not believing in it, you might as well believe World War I didnt happen, because chances are you didnt observe that either. you didnt observe Napolean Bonaparte, so he must not have existed. and besides, observe...?
This is what known as the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Red HerringÃ¢â‚¬Â logical fallacy; in that Bennedict is attempting to divert attention from the crux of an argument by introduction of an irrelevant detail, so as to derail the thread.
HereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the facts:
Macro-evolution has NEVER been observed in ANY generation.
Neither Napoleon Bonaparte nor WWI is applicable, because MANT-MANY reliable Ã¢â‚¬Å“eyewitnessÃ¢â‚¬Â sources have verified the validity of both.
if you base your belief on what you can personally observe, when have you observed God creating any plant or animal? creationism is unobservable with NO evidence, macro-evolution is unobservable with LOTS of evidence.
This is what is known as a Ã¢â‚¬Å“non sequiturÃ¢â‚¬Â because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. And that is (based on BennedictÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s line of arguementation) , because you have not observed God creating any plant or animal, macro-evolution must therefore be true; or your faith is great because you believe in God, and yet give me (Bennedict in this case) a hard time about my faith in macro-evolution, since I have not observed it either.
The above is either another attempt to divert from the thread, or just shoddy reasoning. First
Ã¢â‚¬â€œ As I stated earlier; Macroevolution has never been observed. Therefore you first line of argument fails.Second
Ã¢â‚¬â€œ There are MANY reliable eyewitnesses to the Life, Ministry, Miracles, death, burial and resurrection and further ministry of one Jesus (The Christ). That, plus the Life, Ministry, Miracles and death of his apostles, the Many-Many lines of argument (such as the Teleological Argument, the Ontological Argument, the Cosmological Argument etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦), the many laws and principles of unexplainable origins (for atheistic argumentation) such as the Laws of Logic, Laws of Mathematics (etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) that greatly support a Designer/Creator, and fly in the face of atheistic evolutionary philosophy. Therefore your second line of argumentation fails.Third
Ã¢â‚¬â€œ YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve overlooked your own faith in macroevolution, while attacking the theistÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s faith in a Designer/Creator. Therefore your third line of argumentation fails; because no theist denies their faith in their God; only the so-called Ã¢â‚¬Å“a-theistÃ¢â‚¬Â denies their faith in order to make their argument.