Todays findings is the monkey, right, I haven't looked it up yet but I want to ask you are the fossils actually confirmed by the scientific community as a whole? OR did the press pick up the story because of the exciting hypothesis and then by faith people took it as fact shortly after? There have been tons of blunders through out the centuries.

LOL, Macro- evolution may have been invented by Creationist BUT it is just a word that says, "I reject a part of what you propose and accept part of it too." Think of it as a Line Item veto. It just says, "That the data shows this but it does not show that." If I accept GOOD science and reject BAD science (Being "harder to prove") does that mean that I hate science? I think it is unreasonable to say that they are one in the same especially when scientist do use it and athiest scientist who challenge Creationist and ID's also use the term.

as I was just informed above the Theory of Evolution has many parts so how absurd would it be to say that you have to take all of it or none of it at all?

The idea that you can't separate Micro from Macro is just absurd and irrational. It is just language trick. Whether you want them seperated or not it is not up to you language is bigger than you.

Let us stop the madness- what is this proof that you state. Give me 7 examples of your PROOF of MACRO.

USA - Evolution

I can give you two recent ones off the top of my head:

Blue Moon Butterfly evolving: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm

Wall Lizard evolution: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html  (Hyperlinking broken =/)

The fact that we have even managed to observe these changes within a human lifespan is impressive.

I would also like to address your comment about random chance not giving rise to more complex life.  I assume you are referring to the statistical proof that as time goes on, everything trends towards becoming less complex.  This has been mathematically proven many times, and in a few billion years, will be proven again.  However, you have conveniently left out the fact that this is a non-linear progression, and there are bound to be spikes and dips in the complexity curve; a la Chaos Theory.  So while it is true that eventually the universe will revert to its simplest form, along the way the theory allows for increases/decreases in complexity. Hence our puny existance.

I don't really understand your argument for not believing in Macro evolution.  If you agree that it occurs on a smaller scale, and you understand how genetics work, wouldn't it give rise to macro evolution?  A lot of the anti-evolution posts here seem to be fueled by a lack of scientific understanding, or by people who focus on half of a theory without fully comprehending the rest.

Huh, science makes blunders? It seems to me that science looks for the truth and when it finds something worng they come clean and carry on the search. Not blunders, the search for the truth. Whan was the last time religious people admitted the mistakes they have made and carried on the search for truth? I know Christians who still think the earth is 6000 years old despite all that pesky evidence showing it is FAR older and that a flood wiped out everything except 8 people, which would have killed every plant on earth so the herbivore animals could not survive.

Here is you seven examples of what you would call macro-evolution... read this, 26 examples including... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Evidence of reptiles evolving into mammals

Evidence of human evolution from primates

Evidence that whales are evolved from land mammals

Vestigial tails, a left over gene from an older species

Snakes showing reptilian legs during early development... another leftover from an earlier species

The full evolution of paramecium (ehich co-incidently destroys slimebeasts bacteria arguements)

A whole heap of fossil records showing full evolution

Heck I can think of dozens of examples not on that site.

Now, Can you proove to me that god exists with seven examples.. Not just any god I mean your god specifically...

WAIT

Before we continue STOP marginizing me by calling me religious and yourself a scientist. YOU have me labeled and are not talking to me but to every person that you think I am. IF you are going to be prejudice I have no need to continue.

When I said science makes blunders all I meant was exactly what you said- is it wrong for me to say I want more evidence before accepting a new hypothesis? Or theory?

As to religious people correcting there blunders they have and do. Just like with the scientist do evolution, religious people have debates over creation all of the time.

Also there is a difference between Creationist and Intelligent Designers; just like their is a difference between Christians and Jews; and Macro and Micro Evolution. Stop lumping things together because if we cannot agree on the "terms" or speak the same language their is no point in continuing.

You may not like Creationist and you may not know what an Intelligent Designer believes but maybe you should know the difference before you lump them together?

Also can you be more specific?

I could say, "Evidence that King Kong is the Supreme Ruler of my Left Nostril and that would mean anything."

Or a lawyer could go to court and say, "Jury! I have Evidence that this woman killed Justin Timberlake!" The jury would not take his word for it he/she would need to be more specifc. They would ask, "What evidence."

A creationist could say, "Evidence that God created the Universe." And it wouldn't mean anything until they showed you what they believed.

Just give me one of your examples and we will take it from there. Be more specific, please.

OK OK fine, let's settle down a bit. I agree this is getting heated. I appologise.

The evidence is very positive for evolution, I gave you the seven examples you wanted, I could have given more easily. But I have never heard many examples that are trustworthy for a creator, especially a specific one. And I know what an intelligent design is, the belief that life was created by an designer and that natural selection is not what occurs. But a lot of evidence exists for natural selection, this thread has seen dozens of examples IMO.

Also, sorry if I labelled you incorrectly, I can understand that is a very horrible thing to do, I wouldn't like it myself, Ididn't know. I thought you were a creationist not an intelligent design theoligist based on some of your posts

OK, you didn't click the link I gave did you, that explains more.

Evidence of reptiles evolving into mammals

http://www.bobpickett.org/evolution_of_mammals.htm

Bit long to post here, but it explains where the orgins of mammals lie, it has a lot of strong proof.

Evidence of human evolution from primates

http://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg

This is an image of homind skulls in sequential order

Evidence that whales are evolved from land mammals

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html

"Another, slightly more recent form, called Ambulocetus, was an amphibious animal. Its forelimbs were equipped with fingers and small hooves. The hind feet of Ambulocetus, however, were clearly adapted for swimming. Functional analysis of its skeleton shows that it could get around effectively on land and could swim by pushing back with its hind feet and undulating its tail, as otters do today."

Vestigial tails, a left over gene from an older species

Feel that bone just above your bum that supports macro evolution. It's like a small unfunctional tail, it is a leftover feature of earlier primate days. Pretty convincing proof that we were once more primitive primates.

Snakes showing reptilian legs during early development... another leftover from an earlier species

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000317051940.htm

"Washington, D.C. -- Appearing like the punchline to an evolutionary riddle, a new fossil snake with legs has emerged from 95 million year-old deposits near Jerusalem. Its sedimentary surroundings suggest a seafaring lifestyle for this ancient reptile, but its advanced anatomy could overturn a current theory about the marine origin of snakes."

The full evolution of paramecium (ehich co-incidently destroys slimebeasts bacteria arguements)

http://www.cns.fr/externe/English/Actualites/Presse/011106.html

again to long to post

A whole heap of fossil records showing full evolution

Yeah, just go on the net and look, there are many.

I've been specific for most and it's obvious for the others. So can I have my seven now?

Its cool I'm not mad I just wanted to be clear on the terms-

give me a couple of days and I will use the examples given.

That's a lot to look at I will give it a good looking over the week and get back to you.

In the mean time have a good day.