Comment: I don't have a problem with the way I've already ...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Now without definitions we (see in situ)

I don't have a problem with the way I've already ...

I don't have a problem with the way I've already generally defined it. Species is a more specific classification than what the bible would call 'kinds'. The bible doesn't go into detail on biological classification, so at some point I would be making judgements just like everyone else, subject to disagreement, debate, and presuppositional biases. The definition of species isn't entirely consistent with a macro-evolutionary world view, which is why we have things like this: To avoid a double standard, you ought to provide a definition of species which doesn't conflict with your world view. Also, you might as well explain abiogenesis, since the non-theistic worldview's evolution couldn't get started without it. It might be helpful if you would also account for the preconditions of intelligibility.

I've only ever seen examples of micro-evolution with the eye. One guy at my university went on a very intricate rant full of facts in an attempt to show how the changes seen in an eye proved macro-evolution, and when the teacher asked if his examples were of micro or macro evolution, he paused and had to admit they were micro. It was as if all of his pomp was deflated with a single question.

But really this is probably not the best thread for this topic. I don't want our discussion to take it over. If you want more discussion on this topic, you could e-mail me or something. I think you haven't responded to some of our other discussion, so we could pick that up as well if you wish.