Personal insults aside, it doesn't matter how you typed it, you are hiding behind the idea that you can admit to micro-evolution yet still deny evolutionary theory. It's nothing more than moving the goalpost via special pleading. You say there is no evidence for evolution, and upon being presented with evidence you can't deny, you simply say it doesn't count. It's not a particularly convincing bit of sophistry.
You've merely restated my words. The terms do not indicate that we are talking about different mechanisms or processes, they indicate the scope. The distinction is in scale, not concept. But lets not pretend either of us are making original points or arguments. The micro vs macro misconception is well documented on the net. You are simply hiding behind a well debunked argument, refuted countless times. It's just one example of how deniers argue against a caricature of evolution than actual evolutionary theory.
Again, simply another creationist talking point, refuted a thousand times. Evolution is defined as the adaptation of a population of organisms to its natural environment, and this does not necessarily require the information of the genome to increase. It can as easily decrease. Gene duplication is the most obvious example of a mechanism which can lead to increase. But in short, individuals do not evolve, populations do. You are confusing genome with gene pool.
Not necessarily. A pervert can still be good at math. However, I will agree that it can be a factor, and depending on the particular moral failing, it may even be reasonable grounds for suspicion. Yet, my point was that it is not a reliable heuristic that can be used for testing. All hypotheses should be given the strictest of doubt regardless if the author is a sinner or a saint. That doubt is then resolved via the examination by qualified peers of the methodology and conclusions, by constructing tests designed to let reality falsify the hypothesis, and by demanding reproduction and quantification of uncertainty. If the theory has a high degree of accuracy, it can be further strengthened through application, meaning we can apply it to reality and gain some sort of control over nature. That is the process used to judge the accuracy of a scientific model, and nowhere does it involve the examination of morals.
Really, the concept is as silly as a teacher giving a student a C- on a math test, even though every question was answered correctly, because they found out the student had sex out of wedlock.
But hey, on the bright side, in just a few short responses you've allowed me to check off multiple boxes on my bingo card.
View attachment 3594233
