OzSpen,

You are a sick man.

You believe God is all-caring, all-knowing and all-powerful.

Your religious view of the world tells you that God brings illness into people's lives to test them but he is all-knowing and does not need to test people because he already knows the result.

And why would he inflict illness on people if he is all-caring and he has the capacity to prevent illness because he is all powerful.

God didn't send the Wuhan Bat Soup Virus. It was some Chinese slob who wanted to eat a bat.

God has no place in science and philosophy. He only exists in your twisted mind that conjures up the forces of the supernatural and an ideology of salvation that gives people a false hope that they will live beyond death.

Please, just don't do any more damage to your position by saying that you are something like a member of the infamous Pells Angels or Hells Angels or whatever.

OzSpen: You ask "Can macroevolution of animal to human being be observed today?"

Well, if you did observe that then guess what- You've just FALSIFIED evolution. That is, you've just shown that evolution does not account for all the observations that have been made.

"Why would this observation show evolution to be false" you may be wondering? That's because the theory of evolution implies that the macroevolution of an animal to a human WOULD NOT be able to be observed today. In the theory of evolution one existing species DOES NOT evolve into another already existing species on another branch of a phylogenetic tree, rather one species may evolve into into a NEW species while the original ancestor species may or may not still exist.

So if ever you found evidence of a say a modern fish species evolving into a modern reptile or even chimpanezes into a humans within a human life time then you have just disproven evolution. But do you know what would be most interesting if you did observe this and thus demolish the theory of evolution. All of the world's biologists would celebrate! So why would they be delighted that the foundational theory of a whole branch of science they have extreme confidence in was shown to be wrong? Because that is the very purpose of science; for science to work people are required to question/attack its theories with real world observations. Scientists deliberately try to prove their theories wrong because this is exactly how science progresses. For example, if I asked you to name a famous physicist you might mention the likes of Einstein or Schrödinger. These sciencists are famous because they proposed new theories that replaced old very well established ones. Science doesn't hold its claims to be absolute truths! They are not sacrosanct statements that are to be protected from curious inquiry (unlike religions which in many cases will even kill people who question the validity of their claims)

Also, you ask if macro-evolution has been observed. Well 10 seconds with an internet search engine can answer this: eg. http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/speciation.php

Many people don't accept the theory of evolution because it conflicts
with their religious beliefs. Judaism, Christianity,
and a number of other religions teach that God
is the sole guiding force in the universe.

According to the Bible, God is the Creator, Sustainer, and Ultimate
End of all things. The wide variety of forms
of life is interpreted as a reflection of His love and inspiration. The Bible also states
that human beings were created in the image of God and thus were
elevated above all other forms of life.

Some people find it difficult to reconcile
these views with the concept that life on earth
has evolved through natural processes.
Some people also feel that the evolutionary theory conflicts
with the Bible's teachings regarding the
reality of sin and redemption from sin. They believe that sin tends to become mere
imperfection if humans are seen to be in the process of evolving
from a lower state, and thus the Gospel of redemption from the guilt of sin tends to lose meaning.

However,, many people accept the basic principles of evolution
within the framework of their religious beliefs. For example,
some Biblical scholars interpret the story of the Creation as a
symbolic, rather than literal account of the origin of human
beings and other living things.

They do not find this symbolic interpretation
incompatible with the findings of evolutionary
biologists. For many people the idea that
human beings evolved from lower forms of life does not
diminish the uniqueness of human capabilities and the accomplishments of human civilisations.

Foxy,

That's nice but what's your point?

Mr O,

My point is that if we listen to each other's perspectives
perhaps we just may open up a dialogue of discussion.
And even learn something. That doesn't mean that we have
to agree with each other - but it never hurts to listne
to another's point of view with an open mind.

Often times we say things and afterwards we think -
"Gee, maybe I shouldn't have said that, or maybe I should
have said it differently."

We can all work a little on our presentation. I'm sure
you'll agree.

Evolution is not an issue to my faith in God. Nor does God making everything mean that they couldn't have evolved later. As part of God's plan. Some might even think of people in that way. A work in progress that God isn't done with. However here are several issues within evolution that go unanswered

1) The world is so complex and not falling apart. Contrasted to 2) the ideas of entropy and the stark lack of life in space. 3) Then there is the depth of any species. From their anatomy, to their movements and innate abilities, to the interconnected workings of their body. This is not by chance. Things don't just move from single cells to complex organisms. The given answer in evolution is that these things happen. It's become that the term becomes a copout when faced with drastic unexplained changes. Somehow things changed and adapted.

Perhaps there are better answers out there. Perhaps there aren't any other answers that have more evidence. But with evolution there are some big holes in it, and at this time, I no longer buy it. I'd rather hear someone say they don't know, then to copout and say things evolved without knowing how or why. The assumption assumes evolution is the only answer.

To think there are faults in evolution however means your uneducated instead of meaning you've thought it through. Therefore evolution becomes a buzz word to insert into any theory that has change or adaptation in it's assessment. Making puberty is a form of evolution. One issue with any theory of evolution is that it's a hyped up term and the rest of the theory can be accepted because of evolution written in the theory's jargon. This has gone to the point of a conman's game. Look at the theory without evolution as it's term of choice and instead use the terms adapt, change, grow, mature, learn. If the theory still has merit when it doesn't borrow the hype of evolution then it might be a good theory. If not, let it fall on the rocks.