thinkabit,

<<"Can you look at anything today and say evolution did this, because of a change within our lifetime?" : Yes! Evolution has been observed in the lab multiple times! Google it for details.>>

I was raised on a sugar cane farm where there were examples of micro-evolution of one variety to another. Can macroevolution of animal to human being be observed today?

There are around 100,000 known fossil species. Only a small number of cases have convincing morphological sequences of change. Perhaps the horse is the best example, but it didn't involve a great amount of change.

The changes in the elephant may not even represent phylogenetic sequences at all.

My examination of the macro-evolutionary evidence concludes: There is a significant lack of direct evidence for major evolutionary transformation in the fossil record.

While Charles Darwin was attempting to show the public in his day the validity of evolution by natural selection, privately he admitted his doubts over evolution's capacity to generate very complicated adaptations or 'organs of extreme perfection'.

In a letter to his friend, Asa Gray, an American biologist, that was written in 1861 (only 2 years after the publication of 'The Origin of Species', he admitted this doubt, 'The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder', http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2701.xml

He also wrote that the view of natural selection producing the eye 'seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree', http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1859/1859-186-c-1861.html

Please tell me where macro-evolution has been observed in the laboratory many times.

(see Charles Darwin 1860. In letter to Asa Gray in 'Life and Letters of Charles Darwin [1888] 3 vols, ed F Darwin, John Murray, London, vol 2, p 273)

To thinkabit.

The idea that evolution is predictive is news to me. As is evolution used in any medical sense. To the best of my knowledge evolution is an after the fact explanation with no predictive measures. My issue with this I also mentioned in my response to the article about God and the Covid virus. That the explanation that the virus could be an act from God, that is a very good possibility, but going past that to say why He would give us this virus is a whole other issue.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20871#368073

In the same way evolution explains that generations of species change through evolutionary means. Going so far as to say one species turned into another, or branched into two or more other modern species. It's an interesting explanation, but nothing more. And unfortunately it's an explanation that is over used and largely unable to be tested for it's merits and flaws. The overuse of evolution as a buzz word in modern day theories puts evolution in a skeptical view in my opinion.

If on the other hand evolution can be a practical thing to help develop cures, or can be used in a predictive nature, then I'll have to reexamine my conclusions of it thus far. As of now though I'd need more information to see if the conclusions of being practical and predictive hold up.

(Continued)

(Continued)

That said you asked why the need for evolution to be seen in our lifetime, and questioned my faith in the same time. The reason is because evolution isn't being tested as a reasonable explanation, but is instead tacked on as the only explanation, and often times even adopted into unrelated theories. Evolution as a theory needs to be able to be tested so as to say when it doesn't apply as a reasonable explanation. Though I should have clarified. This doesn't have to happen in our present lifetime, only that an evolutionary change be observed within someone's lifetime. Thanks for the search for changes seen in our lifetime. Found an article about bacteria. Will have to consider it further.

As for my faith. I have my own observations, and I am aware of many other people's experiences and what they've said about their lives and how God has been in them. The thing is that Christianity and God hold merit observed around the world by many many different people. God is not a theory, or just something because of how I view the world. He's real and can surprise you when He acts or when He answers a prayer. Faith in God is stronger then evolution, because it is observable.

To Steele.

My criticisms of both you and Opinion, are accurate, and neither of you have pointed out that I'm wrong in my assessment. Opinion with his mission statement to all Christians is lazy and puts blinders on him to not look, not consider, not see for himself, even when more information is presented to him. It's an accurate criticism. The same goes for my criticisms of you as well. They have been accurate. As for generalizing the term anti-Christian swarm. I explained where I was getting that term. And considering it is a behavior here on OLO regarding any religious (and especially Christian) topic to derail the topic into a pro Christian anti Christian dialogue, then that term is also accurate. It is not applied to anyone who disagrees with me, or anyone who isn't a Christian.

I can just see OzSpen and Not_Now.Soon standing on the street corner holding a sign 'THE END IS NIGH' and calling out "Converts! converts! God needs more converts! Don't wait for salvation, sign up here."

It's all so predictable.

Dear NNS,

You opined;

“My criticisms of both you and Opinion, are accurate, and neither of you have pointed out that I'm wrong in my assessment.”

Then the same goes for my criticism of your response as twaddle. You certainly haven't pointed that I was wrong in my assessment. Why then were you offended by it and called it a lack of respect?

Something something goose and gander.

Mr Opinion,

<<I can just see OzSpen and Not_Now.Soon standing on the street corner holding a sign 'THE END IS NIGH' and calling out "Converts! converts! God needs more converts! Don't wait for salvation, sign up here.">>

This is another one of your Straw Man fallacies. With this fallacy you gave the impression to OLO posters that you refuted the argument about salvation and Jesus' Second Coming by presenting an argument that I DID NOT present. When you do this you are attacking a straw man. It's your fake understanding of what I didn't say.

Let's get back to the emphasis of my article. How could the absolutely good God send or allow disasters such as Covid-19?

+ Psalm 86:5 states that 'You, Lord, are forgiving and good, abounding in love to all who call to you.

+ When Adam & Eve fell into sin, all of nature was cursed. That affects what happens in our world today. When the Israelites were trying to escape Egypt (Exodus 7-11) and the wicked Pharaoh refused to let them go, God sent plagues. He did it at the time of Noah by sending a world-wide flood where God caused the storm in the ocean.

We need to see God in natural disasters, including Covid-19. What is he trying to say to rebellious Aussies who are kicking Him out of their lives?