Drake

So a white person and a black person having a mulato offspring is evolution? No.

Interbreeding animals such as dogs is not evidence for evolution. There are no new features created, instead it's an amalgamation of the features of the two types of dogs being interbred.

Strangely enough, they're still dogs. They're not some new species. You don't find interbreding birds and dogs producing offspring. So you have a group of dogs that wouldn't naturally breed and you force them to interbreed and it produces an offspring. That's not evidence for evolution anymore than a black and white human being interbreeding. They both belong to the same species. They produce a human being. How on earth does this show that a single cell evolved into man?

There are even instances where the type of dog created is unable to reproduce. A process of de-evolution rather than evolution. Evolution is supposed to be a natural process, not one in which man has intervened.

Look, you've already conceded that macroevolution is a belief. It does not have hard evidence to support it. My position is that man was always man, horses were always horses and so forth. Their is more evidence to support my position than there is to support Evolution or Creationism. Although there are clearly three lines of thinking, the vast majority of the world chooses between the latter, Evolution or Creationism. My position is just as valid as those two.

I hope that you at least read about the so called 29+ evidences for macroevolution that you linked to. I read it and there is no new information there. You can sum up everything written there as "we believe things evolved from each other because they show genetic relatedness". In other words their are similarities at the genetic level between living creatures. Big deal. That means nothing. If you take that to mean we evolved from cells go ahead. That's not evidence for it.

It's not suprising to me that you and others hold fast to the belief in evolution. You've been inculcated with it since primary school, not by religious quacks, but by learned people. I was too. However, the theory rests upon a faulty or shaky premise so I can easily attack it. I'm not saying it's incorrect, I'm saying there is no evidence for it at this time. That's the plain truth. I've shown this to you in this very thread time and time again. You have yet to show otherwise. You cannot, because current knowledge simply doesn't lend itself to supporting it. Science is wonderful. We must be sure to make a distinction between actual science and scientific belief. That's all I've done here.