Is it possible that macro hasn't been observed because it can take hundreds of thousands or millions of years? Is the scale of macro so large that we simply could never observe it in a human lifetime?
Notice, though, that you are admitting Macro is unobservable. Once one admits this, then, by definition, one is no longer doing Operational Science where one deals with testable, repeatable events. The beginning of the Universe is a singular event that hasn't happened before. The Origin of Life is a singular event that only happened once. The origin of Man only happened once, as well. These events are not repeatable. Therefore, when one opines about these events, they are doing more of a Forensic Science. At this point, the Creationist and the Evolutionist are in the same boat. They're both looking at what they can see (Dinosaur bones, Rocks, etc...) and trying to piece together what happened in the past. Just like a Forensic Scientist at a crime scene.
Furthermore, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shows that Time is deleterious and works against order. Entropy is observable and unavoidable.
If macro doesn't exist, how did all of today's species get placed on earth? Hand of God?
All the variations found within all the Species on the Earth were found within the information (DNA) of the original Species. There were much less animals on the Earth at the beginning. As time progressed and animals mated, the variations became expressed. God likes variety and programmed that variety into the original DNA molecules so that Life could diversify (within their species - i.e Kind begets Kind) and multiply.
Once placed in a mother's womb, life takes off and expands exponentially. In just a few weeks, the body is formed and the heart starts to beat.
Life is, indeed, amazing. This ability to multiply and grow screams of a Master Programmers touch. The amount of molecular engineering occurring on the microscopic level is truly astounding. So much so, that no amount of wind, rain and randomness (throw in as much Time as you want, too) will get you the results we see today under our microscopes. Darwin's microscope couldn't peer into the simple cell in order to view the exquisite engineering masterpiece that he called "simple." The cell is anything but simple. We have inordinate complexity right from the rip. DNA is extremely complex. The inner workings of the cell are extremely complex. But they both need each other to "survive." You cant have one, without the other. There is no gradual path to the existence of a functioning cell. You need both the DNA and the Cell that surrounds it to be preset at the same time. And any experiment (Miller/Urey Experiment) attempting to prove that Life could've arose by itself only shows that a Mind (Miller and Urey) was required to get it started. I digress.
Moving a few genes around can definitely change a person. It's basically high speed evolution
Don't forget, though, that these "changes" aren't happening all by themselves, at random, over massive amounts of time. There are intelligent minds behind the experiments. And they are making these "moves" with purpose (something utterly repulsive to Darwinian Evolution). Therefore, this would be an argument for Intelligent Design, not Darwinian Evolution which states there was no Mind involved at all.
u/1Markseeker I am so glad I asked some open ended questions to you and the board. I absolutely love to hear this sort of feedback and truly appreciate it.
One of the things that sets this community apart from so many others is the collection of minds with the ability to discern.
If readers here do not believe they are good at discerning or are surrounded by people that don't discern well, one of the best ways to develop a discerning mind is to ask open ended questions, seek opposing points of view, and, keeping an open mind, consider all perspectives.
If doctors around the world would have practiced this methodology, millions of lives would have been saved the last two years. It's an important ability to strengthen and protect.
I hope readers here take the same delight that I have in reading all these responses.
The alien seeding theory is just an attempt to remove God from the equation while still acknowledging intelligence being required for the creation/existence of life. It is intelligent design, but rejection of God. It also is pointless because you can still ask the question "who created the aliens?" It just kicks the can down the road. It's turtles all the way down.
All good questions.
Notice, though, that you are admitting Macro is unobservable. Once one admits this, then, by definition, one is no longer doing Operational Science where one deals with testable, repeatable events. The beginning of the Universe is a singular event that hasn't happened before. The Origin of Life is a singular event that only happened once. The origin of Man only happened once, as well. These events are not repeatable. Therefore, when one opines about these events, they are doing more of a Forensic Science. At this point, the Creationist and the Evolutionist are in the same boat. They're both looking at what they can see (Dinosaur bones, Rocks, etc...) and trying to piece together what happened in the past. Just like a Forensic Scientist at a crime scene.
Furthermore, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shows that Time is deleterious and works against order. Entropy is observable and unavoidable.
All the variations found within all the Species on the Earth were found within the information (DNA) of the original Species. There were much less animals on the Earth at the beginning. As time progressed and animals mated, the variations became expressed. God likes variety and programmed that variety into the original DNA molecules so that Life could diversify (within their species - i.e Kind begets Kind) and multiply.
Life is, indeed, amazing. This ability to multiply and grow screams of a Master Programmers touch. The amount of molecular engineering occurring on the microscopic level is truly astounding. So much so, that no amount of wind, rain and randomness (throw in as much Time as you want, too) will get you the results we see today under our microscopes. Darwin's microscope couldn't peer into the simple cell in order to view the exquisite engineering masterpiece that he called "simple." The cell is anything but simple. We have inordinate complexity right from the rip. DNA is extremely complex. The inner workings of the cell are extremely complex. But they both need each other to "survive." You cant have one, without the other. There is no gradual path to the existence of a functioning cell. You need both the DNA and the Cell that surrounds it to be preset at the same time. And any experiment (Miller/Urey Experiment) attempting to prove that Life could've arose by itself only shows that a Mind (Miller and Urey) was required to get it started. I digress.
Don't forget, though, that these "changes" aren't happening all by themselves, at random, over massive amounts of time. There are intelligent minds behind the experiments. And they are making these "moves" with purpose (something utterly repulsive to Darwinian Evolution). Therefore, this would be an argument for Intelligent Design, not Darwinian Evolution which states there was no Mind involved at all.
Just a few precursory thoughts for ya...
u/1Markseeker I am so glad I asked some open ended questions to you and the board. I absolutely love to hear this sort of feedback and truly appreciate it.
One of the things that sets this community apart from so many others is the collection of minds with the ability to discern.
If readers here do not believe they are good at discerning or are surrounded by people that don't discern well, one of the best ways to develop a discerning mind is to ask open ended questions, seek opposing points of view, and, keeping an open mind, consider all perspectives.
If doctors around the world would have practiced this methodology, millions of lives would have been saved the last two years. It's an important ability to strengthen and protect.
I hope readers here take the same delight that I have in reading all these responses.
Thank you one and all. 👏🏻
My pleasure!
The feeling is mutual
Be funny if an alien species were to laugh at our "laws of thermodynamics."
Man, talk about a forum/discussion slide.
Aliens = Fallen Angels
Interdimensional Beings
Man, talk about a CIA created distraction.
Aliens = foreign agents
Why stories of alien sightings started post WWII? = Operation Paperclip
If Aliens exist and "seeded" our Planet (which I think is another fairy tale), then Darwinian Evolution is false.
The alien seeding theory is just an attempt to remove God from the equation while still acknowledging intelligence being required for the creation/existence of life. It is intelligent design, but rejection of God. It also is pointless because you can still ask the question "who created the aliens?" It just kicks the can down the road. It's turtles all the way down.
Bingo! Well said.