How many of you creationists...

[driewerf]

There is evidence for microevolution, yes.

Macroevolution is another thing altogether.

I'm an example of microevolution because I microevolved from my parents; but that's where it ends.

But I did not macroevolve from apes.

As individuals don't evolve, but populations do, we can classify this as a true statement.
Which doen't mean that macro evolution didn't happen. And that there is plenty of evidence for it. Each of us carries this evidence with him or her, as a fused cromosome II, and multiple ERV's.

 

[Astrid]

It's actually not impossible, as they do exist. For example, are you familiar with Todd C. Wood? Consider the following statements:

"The Truth About Evolution," Todd's Blog, September 30, 2009:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. ...

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution.​

"The Nature of Idolatry," Todd's Blog, November 03, 2009:

After many years in this debate, I've come to the uncomfortable conclusion that we creationists have made an idol of our own arguments. I don't say this lightly or flippantly either. This is a deadly serious problem, and the conservative wing of Christianity desperately needs to address it. ...

I greatly fear that our faith in Christ has been replaced with an idolatry of apologetics. I fear we've stopped believing in Christ and started believing in arguments about Christ (or the Bible or creation or what have you). ...

Don't believe me? Try telling a creationist that there is evidence for evolution. Watch how tenaciously they'll argue against you. They might even try to insult you, maybe call you bipolar or just plain ignorant. They'll certainly question your creationist "credentials." Only an evolutionist would say there's evidence for evolution! I've even been told that I'm going to lead people away from faith in Christ by my position on evolution. Imagine that. What kind of world is this where telling the truth about something would lead someone away from faith? The only way that could possibly be true is if our faith is actually wrong, which it isn't.​

Another scientist, a Dr. K Wise, PhD paleontology,
puts it more succinctly:

".....even if all the evidence io the universe turns against
Yec, I will still be yec, as that is what the bible seems to
say.,'

Both of these men disregard all evidence in favour
of their feelings.

One might feel quite ill if confronted by
a kangaroo court,capital crime you did not
commit, with prosecutor, judge and jury
who are going to determine guilt or innocence
based on their politics,religion, beliefs, feelings,
personal choices.

It's nice that he recognizes the stupidity of
creationist arguments,and the evidence for ToE,
though we notice he only says that
there's lots of evidence, saving plenty of wriggle
room for contrary evidence, but neglects to say
there isn't any.

It reasonay honest of him to openly admit
his intellectual dishonesty, though he cannot
bring himself to do so directly, so it's rather
Ike the honesty of a bank robber who
indirectly admits he took money.

Regard the wiki entry on intellectual honesty.
First bullet point.

- one's person beliefs or politics do not interfere with the pursuit of truth.

Notice too, he ends his generally
rational piece with assuming a
confusion, which is also intellectually
dishonest.
Your example is of the very definition
of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which doesn't mean that macro evolution didn't happen.

Only on paper.

 

[driewerf]

Only on paper.

Nope. In the real world, from generation to generation. It's written in our DNA.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's written in our DNA.

Does our DNA tell us that land animals came before whales?

If so, our DNA is lying to us, and macroevolution is perpetuating that lie -- on paper.