I wanted to come here today to throw something you all's way. I have been debating for about 2 weeks now an ex christian, evolutionist on facebook. We have gone back and forth, but whenever I put up a response which I think is fullproof and provides evidence for Creation, he comes back with other information as well as sidetracked info. Here's the last post he made:
"Okay, I finally feel like responding There's a lot to respond to.
Macroevolution has been documented, as I noted in my previous comments. The only way we can directly observe this is to use life forms whose life spans are short enough to pragmatically allow the collection of data from many generations, namely insects and microbes. It is impossible to demonstrate this for plants and animals that live for any longer than these, because the data would take too long (centuries, millenia, etc.) to allocate a useful pattern. That is why the fossil record speaks with such clarity. (more on this later)
I have looked and looked for this example of Galapagos finch (the species you did not name) and the 4% change in beak sizes. I could find nothing online. Maybe you could point me to the reference. Regardless, the finch's lifespan - around 15 years - shows that the time frame of observation that you noted, 1970-1990, is wildly insufficient to draw any conclusions whatsoever. Further, a currently living generation does not change - it is their offspring which change. Since whoever conducted this research had enough time to observe two, maybe three generations at best, I cannot see how even observation of a change of 4% - and back again - is even possible, especially between seasons. It sounds like someone who understands nothing about evolution made up another wild story against evolution, which is much more common in creationist circles than is believable.
RE: The fossil record, it is very important to understand that what is contained in the fossil record is such a tiny fraction of the history of life on earth. What is preserved had to have died in a place with elements that can preserve the animal's remains, and that is highly uncommon for mobile, land-based life. There's a crack ton of sedimentary layers, listing in delightful detail the stages of evolution that occurred in the ocean, because crap settled on top of crap (for lack of better terms) and there has not been much disturbance, as far as percent ratio of ocean floor is concerned. For land-based life, what we have in the fossil record, we are lucky to have.
This is why it is perfectly reasonable to take pieces of the grand puzzle and, though some of it has gaps the size of the grand canyon, make conclusions about the processes of evolution. There are also fossil records which have generations of similar species that hung out in the same area over time. So much evidence! The clusters you see is where plants and animals were in a place that happened to have elements which preserved fossils, for example a volcanic area, one prone to sediment cycles like clay or mud, tree sap, or other viscous substances.
You kind of jumped around near the end, no longer talking about evolution, but rather the origin of life. There are many scientific hypotheses regarding that, but the most widely accepted one has not been the "primordial soup" for quite a long time. It's an oceanic theme, complete with a love affair with a volcanic vent. It has much more to do with chemistry and physics than I can explain coherently. I can say, though, that life arose from organic materials, which are much more prevalent in the cosmos than you might imagine
I will grant you the difference between church sheep hypocrites and talking/walking Christians... however, even they tend to quietly discriminate and tend to not defend the rights of non-believers or those of other faiths, which in most cases is the most destructive path to take. Some of my most trusted friends are Christians involved in the liberty movement. The key is not the faith, but rather the understanding of and respect for natural rights, and in that there is peace.
I, and those guys on this video "The Atheist Experience," have yet to come across testable evidence in support of creationism. I honestly do not think it is possible, as you would basically need to prove magic. Your questions, my friend, have answers - but the great thing about science is that the questions never end! I'll send you some useful videos if you're interested."
You can probably infer some of the things I brought up from his response. I'm not arguing out of pride but out of a desire to defend God's word. I just don't know if saying anything else to him will do anything, I feel like he's ignoring the facts. But I guess he feels that way about me. What do you guys think about his post?