“Actually, it takes very little "qualification in the sciences" to totally refute naturalistic macro-evolution.”
Since you start off with a clear distinction between macro- and micro-evolution, i’m guessing you’re totally wrong.
“The process has never once been observed to occur in recorded human history,”
And this is part of a refutation? Seriuously?
“it breaks numerous "laws" of nature,”
If scientific laws made evolution impossible, they’d also make reproduction impossible. No babies in the evolution-free world.
“and it is essentially based on circular reasoning and irrational conclusions.”
Have you had ANY science since grade school?
“Indeed, it requires more "faith" to believe in evolution than any other theory of origins!”
Straight-up creationist talking point, and total lie.
“Why shouldn't evangelical apologists be qualified to argue against it?”
Because they don’t have a fucking clue what they’re talking about. See above. ANY of the above.
Here’s one clue. If something HAPPENS, and we KNOW it happens, and there’s a ‘law’ in science that says it can’t, then the law is, at best, incomplete. Maybe wrong.
But that’s okay, since WE made the laws. Not like we found them written in stone after a lightning strike.
You didn’t refute macro-evolution, you didn’t even demonstrate that you understand the theory you’re trying to reject.
