Just some notes, ikester7579:
The Biblical creation supports:
1) Mutation.
2) Micro-evolution.
3) Speciation.
This is all a part of kind creation. If a bird changes, but still remains in the "bird" kind, it is not deviating from the reproduction commandments that God gave during His creation of all life upon this planet.
Good, then we are agreed about evolution (the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation) always occurring within species (and hence being microevolution), and we are
also in agreement about descent from common ancestors (dogs will always be descended from dogs, speciation always occurs within the same "kind" as it is the division of a parent population into two or more daughter populations.
We may disagree over how far back you can go and how many original common ancestors were involved, but we are in agreement about the process from that point forward.
It does not how ever support macro-evolution of species becoming another total different life form.
We are also in agreement about this too: biological evolutionists (the ones actually involved in the science of evolution) due not support a species evolving into "another total different life form" ... leaving aside for the nonce the question of how different is different ...
It may surprise (though it shouldn't) some people to find that evolution does not claim that, for example, there was a single dinosaur species one generation and birds the next.
And this process cannot be observed either. And never will be. Why? How can one observe a process that is claimed to take millions of years?
Seeing as we both agree that this "process" does not occur, why would we expect to observe it?
What we both expect to occur is:
1) Mutation.
2) Micro-evolution.
3) Speciation.
And not only should we expect to see this, we actually do. Frequently. Every organism has mutations, DNA they did not inherit from their parent, and every generation of every species shows changes in hereditary traits in their populations from the previous generation. There are also several instances of speciation that have been recorded, not surprisingly these are a bit more rare than just plain old evolution within a species, as it usually takes some other mechanism to cause reproductive isolation, and a few generations of reproductive isolation to qualify, but it happens.
This of course raises the questions of when\how do "total differences" occur, which raises the question of what you mean by "total differences" and
ultimately this gets down to the question of what qualifies as "enough difference" to satisfy a creationist that "macroevolution" has occurred. Evolutionary scientists are satisfied that "macroevolution" has occurred when speciation has occurred: there is "enough difference" for reproductive isolation to be maintained.
Part of the problem is what is "different enough" - can it be quantified?
Are a kangaroo and a rabbit different enough? Both are vegetarians with large hind feet that jump away from predators ...
What about
sugar gliders and flying squirrels?
Yet strangely the kangaroo and the sugar glider share more common genes, than either with rabbits or flying squirrels, and rabbits and flying squirrels share more common genes that either with kangaroos or sugar gliders. Curiously the fossil record also shows common ancestors between kangaroo and sugar glider and between rabbit and flying squirrel than between these two groups (marsupials and placental mammals).
This is one example among many of "convergent evolution" ... all of which shows that "difference" is not a good measure of diversity.
The problem with this way of thinking is that you make it sound as if someone who believes in something has to totally believe everything that is said. Which makes all said ideas and theories unfalsifiable.
ummmmm ... not really: the
concepts and theories can still be falsified, it's just that this fact isn't
recognized by the person who "totally believes" the concept/theory/whatever ... and this process is known by the term cognitive dissonance (where the falsification evidence is rejected ... along with anyone associated with it ... in order to maintain the (total) belief).
The other part is that you have a conflict in who you will allow your master of direction to be.
Exactly: cognitive dissonance. Which will it be, reality or belief?
Example: Creation and evolution are opposites.
Example version #2: Creation and evolution are not opposites, but two parts of the same process.
So when it comes to the conflict between the two, you have to decide who is lying, and who is telling the truth.
Yes, when it comes down to a conflict between one concept and another, the question comes down to how you validate truth, what do you use to test what is a lie and what is the truth.
Which by the way, make both beliefs combined into a oxymoron that makes no sense.
A rather obvious signal that there is something wrong with the precepts. If the logical structure is valid and the conclusion is a contradiction, then one (or more) of the precepts is false.
In this case we see that version #2 does not result in this contradiction, therefore it is a more likely valid precept than the other version.
So logic can be used as one test of validity. An ancient band (Aristotle and the Greeks?) went large on this approach. Can you think of others?
Enjoy.
