DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Actually, this would be comical.

Teacher: You see, if you drop an object from a certain height, it will fall at a constant acceleration of 9.8 m2/s, until it reaches terminal velocity.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm.....ummm...like I was saying, 9.8 m2/s.

The evolution part of the class would go like this:

Teacher: So, as you can see, all life on earth has evolved from a single common ancestor, and the 'tree of life' looks something like this.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm...ummm...like I said, common ancestor.

[/ QUOTE ]

/sigh


Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.

I don't know how much more simple this differentiation can be.

Do I have to repeat myself until you understand?

Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.


Evolution cannot! And the copout that evolutionists use to justify this is "well it happened over millions of years, we can't demonstrate it!"

Sorry, no dice.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, that isn't what you said. Stop moving goalposts. You said no theories. Gravity is a theory.

Second, LOL that evolution cannot be tested. Why do you think that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it safe to assume you are ok with 'microevolution' being taught in schools? Stuff like dog breeds, cauliflower, viruses? I want to get a feel for where we are at. Is that a type of evolution you are ok with? Its still a theory, just so you know. Do you contend that this evolution is untestable? That it isn't science?