Evolution?

No one was stating religion is science either. It is not based on evidence or observation...it is based on faith. Now if you look at the other sciences, such as physics, and chemistry, etc. They have no problem working with religion. In fact, you can look at it as it being the deciphering of what a God might have thought up to govern this universe. No one has been trying to prove creationism, because most people realize it CANNOT be proven scientifically. It is a faith, and they stick to that. Their job however, is to show all the flaws and problems with evolution, and that is what they do. They also have very many valid arguments and ideas that the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY decides to ignore. Once again, no one stated or treated religion like a science. It is different of course. Your scientific theory of evolution however contradicts the main points of many religions and so obviously those people are not going to easily believe in it. Now sometimes they are wrong..and science prevails..but this time is doesn't seem as such.

You say you didn't say people were unintelligent? Well..it sure seems that comments questioning whether a scientist can be trusted if he believes in creationsim sure sounds something like it. You also said that people who don't believe in evolution are misinformed, or uneducated about the subject. I don't think that is the case at all. I think I have carried on this argument with you for pages now without feeling lost myself..and I haven't taken one class on evolution etc. I do HONESTLY think that you believe that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is lacking something compared to evolutionists...maybe not intelligence..but something..and that is wrong. It may not be a scientific theory (creationism) but it is an alternative to a flawed and dangerous theory..and I see no illogical reasoning in that.

You say that it was religious people who were against the heliocentric idea. That is very true...the church and religious things have been the cause of a lot of bad things...but a HUGE amount of good that far surpasses that. Now...if you look at today and compare evolutionists to that previous church you will see many similarities. One is that anyone who questions evolution within the scientific community either loses his job, is ridiculed, has his education and credentials checked, etc. Sounds like persecution to me? Next we have the evidece that supports your theory. As much as you would like to think I am being stubborn and not wanting to accept evidence that isn't the case. I feel the opposite. That that evidence is wrong and I have reasons why. Now if I am correct,which I feel I am and there are many scientific ideas to back that up, then your evolutionists are beleiving in something VERY strongly (like fact) without their being evidence to support it. Now that is exactly what faith is. I can support this because if you look back to when evolution was first accepted, and the fossil record was much less complete and things were more primitive they STILL believed just as strongly in their theory as they do now. It hasn't gotten any stronger! It has been the same forever (aside from when the scientific community first accepted it) which obviously shows if any evidence was important, it isn't making a difference in how much or little "faith" an evolutionist has in his/her theory.

I want to also state again since you said that I blindly went into believing what I did that I used to believe in evolution fully. That I would have come into this thread and looked up info to support your side. Now what would you have done had that been the case? Patted me on the back and said "good job". I would have been using your websites, etc etc with just as little knowledge about evolution, and without looking at any of the flaws. You would have supported me. Well I was on the evolutionary side and I now feel it isn't such a great theory to put my beliefs in. I FOUND those flaws and I decided NOT to support it to the extent which I had. So I WAS on the other side, the side in which I would have been supported by you here simply because I argued your side. Well now I am arguing the other side, and I am using what scientists HAVE said...REAL scientists. Of course you will never believe that a REAL scientist could not believe in evolution. I'm just showing that you say I am just jumping on one side simply because I am against you. You wouldn't say the same had I done it for your side.

I didn't destroy my argument. What I was showing is that if you don't consider certain people scientists..or reputable in explaining evolution..then you have to admit that they don't know what they are talking about when they teach evolution because they aren't REAL scientists. I use that because many people have said they disagree with evolution....people who DO understand it..and who are REAL scientists...yet every time they do, they are questioned as to whether or not they are reputable. So...if they are NOT reputable..and can't be listened to...then the other's who share those same credentials and qualifications must also not be listened to. What I am showing is that it is a double standard. You are allowed to have any credentials...education and be trusted fully if you teach that evolution is correct. But if that same scientist or teacher/professor changed his mind..he would instantly NOT be a REAL scientist or reputable source anymore. Just because the majority of the scientific community supports something doesn't mean that it is true. A minority can be correct as well..and the amount of scientists who DON'T agree with evolution is growing. Take your Darwin for example. If you think his theory is so correct...then you must imagine what it was like for him. Here he is..with the "truth" and the MAJORITY of the scientific community doesn't agree with him. The same with those with the heliocentric views. Before that minority of scientists came up with that new idea...most did not question it. That doesn't mean that the minority is wrong. You treat the minority though....as many evolutionists do, as if they are not able to be a REAL scientist and question evolution at the same time..and that is just totally false. It isn't even if they believe in creationism or not...it is ANYONE who disagrees with evolution.

You keep coming back and saying my site is wrong. It isn't whatsoever! How did you come to the conclusion that person wasn't a scientist? You said it was "incrediably" erroneous? Maybe by YOUR standards..because you disagree...but when I look back on it I find much of that info elsewhere. If you are referring to some spelling mistakes, etc...I don't think that should disqualify a page from being an argument against something. Not to mention, much of what is listed I found elsewhere..and many of the arguments he stated that evolutionists use etc...actually came up in our talk...and on the internet. Everytime I go back and read that site..I find the language and ideas are just as suitable as any brought up on your websites.

I'm not JUST talking about Social Darwinism, and not JUST Hitler. Many dictators can be accused of the same. I am also not BLAMING evolution for them...as a reason why it should be thrown out. It is more the fact that ideas have consequences. Of course Hitler was crazy..and I highly doubt that evolution was his driving force...but it was essential. You want to say that you can blame Christianity because he was a Christian? Well..lets see..what does Christianity teach? Love, Kindness, Forgiveness, Mercy, Faith, Moral values, etc. Now...does any of what Hitler did match those teachings? I think not! Now..as I said I am not BLAMING evolution...but this does have a role to play in his ideas. Evolution teaches..that organisms evolve...and change..and that we evolved from lesser life forms into more complex ones (so you don't get too upset..I know that isn't the "definition", but it is part). Well...can you see how that leads to someone such as Hitler..who DID believe in evolution and was a supporter of Darwin showing that Germans were a superior race...better than the Jews and blacks, and handicaps etc? I mean..can you see the connection? How can Christianity be a backing for it? Shouldn't all the handicapped people be weeded out because they are unable to survive etc? Whether that is true or not, evolution was a basis for their twisted beliefs. Stalin had the same ideals, and Mao from China. It is NOT about BLAMING the idea of evolution for those atrocities, because there are plenty of people who believe in evolution and wouldn't do anything like that, and disagree with it as much as I do. But had the idea of evolution not existed it wouldn't have been a backing for those things. No one stated that the the actual theory was immoral, it is what ideas come from it, what can be applied, etc. Can you take gravity and apply it with new ideas that lead to it supporting something like the holocaust? Not at all, but you can with evolution. Gravity, physics, and chemistry CANNOT be blamed because they are merely workings. No ideas can come from them off which those acts could be based. Those attackers didn't say "Well, see gravity shows that things are pulled toward the center of the Earth..and chemistry shows blah blah blah" and then use that to support and justify their attacks. However Hitler DID use evolution and its conclusions and ideas to support his acts.

I can make a very long list of all the great things religion in general has done for the world and people. Can you name one positive thing that the idea of evolution has backed or done for us?

All I see is that many dictators supported it,and many bad ideas (even here in the US like the sterilization of people etc), as well as the idea of genocide supported by it. I see it ensuring that no man must answer to a higher power..and thus there is no reason to uphold those moral values.

~Kiva

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Only-now No one was stating religion is science either. It is not based on evidence or observation...it is based on faith. Now if you look at the other sciences, such as physics, and chemistry, etc. They have no problem working with religion. In fact, you can look at it as it being the deciphering of what a God might have thought up to govern this universe. No one has been trying to prove creationism, because most people realize it CANNOT be proven scientifically. It is a faith, and they stick to that. Their job however, is to show all the flaws and problems with evolution, and that is what they do.

---

I was under the impression that the "job" of a Christian was to be a good Christian, follow God's will, and spread his words...not to argue that a well-supported scientifc theory is false...when it doesn't even contradict with their religion unless they believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis (which not all Christians do).

Quote:

---

They also have very many valid arguments and ideas that the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY decides to ignore. Once again, no one stated or treated religion like a science. It is different of course. Your scientific theory of evolution however contradicts the main points of many religions and so obviously those people are not going to easily believe in it. Now sometimes they are wrong..and science prevails..but this time is doesn't seem as such.

---

I've never heard a valid (as in not based on faulty assumptions or incorrect information) scientific argument against evolution. The scientific community is not out to prove evolution right...they're out to find the answers. A good scientist is just as happy to have his theory disproven, because then he's learned something. If there really were valid scientific arguments out there, why would the scientific community ignore them? I don't understand this conspiracy mindset so many people seem to have about how the scientifc community is trying to cover up evidence against evolution.

Quote:

---

You say you didn't say people were unintelligent? Well..it sure seems that comments questioning whether a scientist can be trusted if he believes in creationsim sure sounds something like it. You also said that people who don't believe in evolution are misinformed, or uneducated about the subject. I don't think that is the case at all. I think I have carried on this argument with you for pages now without feeling lost myself..and I haven't taken one class on evolution etc. I do HONESTLY think that you believe that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is lacking something compared to evolutionists...maybe not intelligence..but something..and that is wrong. It may not be a scientific theory (creationism) but it is an alternative to a flawed and dangerous theory..and I see no illogical reasoning in that.

---

Good job twisting my words around. :) I did not say I feel Creationists are intelligent or cannot be trusted. I simply said that it's important to see whether or not someone actually understands what they are talking about when they make claims about something. I believe what I specifically said was that in my experience, anyone no believing in evolution either doesn't know very much about it or are misinformed about some basic facts. This is not my questioning their intelligence, it's simply my questioning what they're basing their assumptions on. The fact that the source you provided me with to argue against evolution makes some very basic mistakes in discussing the topic supports my argument.

Quote:

---

You say that it was religious people who were against the heliocentric idea. That is very true...the church and religious things have been the cause of a lot of bad things...but a HUGE amount of good that far surpasses that. Now...if you look at today and compare evolutionists to that previous church you will see many similarities. One is that anyone who questions evolution within the scientific community either loses his job, is ridiculed, has his education and credentials checked, etc. Sounds like persecution to me?

---

Have a source that states a scientist presenting a valid scientific argument against evolution lost his job and was ridiculed?

Quote:

---

Next we have the evidece that supports your theory. As much as you would like to think I am being stubborn and not wanting to accept evidence that isn't the case. I feel the opposite. That that evidence is wrong and I have reasons why. Now if I am correct,which I feel I am and there are many scientific ideas to back that up, then your evolutionists are beleiving in something VERY strongly (like fact) without their being evidence to support it. Now that is exactly what faith is. I can support this because if you look back to when evolution was first accepted, and the fossil record was much less complete and things were more primitive they STILL believed just as strongly in their theory as they do now.

---

You're kidding, right? When Darwin first published The Origin of Species, he was widely ridiculed. As the evidence for it increases, support by people increases, but the scientific community as a whole originally considered evolution to be rather absurd because it contradicted everything that was previously believed about the origins of life. Eventually, as more evidence showed up, they could no longer deny the truth.

Quote:

---

I want to also state again since you said that I blindly went into believing what I did that I used to believe in evolution fully. That I would have come into this thread and looked up info to support your side. Now what would you have done had that been the case? Patted me on the back and said "good job". I would have been using your websites, etc etc with just as little knowledge about evolution, and without looking at any of the flaws. You would have supported me.

---

Had you been using the same sort of scientifically flawed arguments in support of evolution, I'd be contradicting you, regardless of whose side you were on. I said you were blindly clinging to these views because you decided all of evolution must be false simply because this website said so, without bothering to cross-check this site against reliable scientific sources. I already pointed out a massive number of the flaws with that site, I notice you didn't have much comment on that.

Quote:

---

You are allowed to have any credentials...education and be trusted fully if you teach that evolution is correct. But if that same scientist or teacher/professor changed his mind..he would instantly NOT be a REAL scientist or reputable source anymore. Just because the majority of the scientific community supports something doesn't mean that it is true.

---

Teachers arr required to teach the scientific ideas accepted as true by the scientific community. Assuming they are simply passing on the information provided by the scientific community, then what they are saying can be considered reputable. If they're deciding for themselves, without the proper background, that the current status quo of what is considered scientifically correct is in fact wrong, and begin teaching that in their classroom, of course they are going to be questioned. Science teachers don't make up what they teach. They're not supposed to. They're supposed to teach what is already out there.

Quote:

---

You keep coming back and saying my site is wrong. It isn't whatsoever! How did you come to the conclusion that person wasn't a scientist? You said it was "incrediably" erroneous? Maybe by YOUR standards..because you disagree...but when I look back on it I find much of that info elsewhere.

---

Did you read my long post where I went bit-by-bit and pointed out all the specific problems in the first several sections of that website? I was not just referring to spelling mistakes (actually what I said about that particular instance was improper word usage, which is far more severe, they're using the wrong terms to describe what they're talking about). It was not just erroneous by MY standards...the things I found problematic are errors and misunderstandings about basic scientific principles.

Quote:

---

I'm not JUST talking about Social Darwinism, and not JUST Hitler. Many dictators can be accused of the same. I am also not BLAMING evolution for them...as a reason why it should be thrown out. It is more the fact that ideas have consequences.

---

Of course ideas have consequences. That's a given for anything. But what are you arguing? That evolution should not be taught in schools because it spreads evil ideas? What was the point of even mentioning Social Darwinism (which is really NOT the same thing as evolution at all)?

Quote:

---

You want to say that you can blame Christianity because he was a Christian? Well..lets see..what does Christianity teach? Love, Kindness, Forgiveness, Mercy, Faith, Moral values, etc. Now...does any of what Hitler did match those teachings? I think not!

---

You completely missed my point. My point was that evil things have been done using the ideas of Chrisitanity, but we obviously shouldn't say, "Christianity ought to be never taught to anyone because people might take those ideas and twist them and do terrible things with them!" I was making an analogy. You can clearly see the absurdity of the comparison using Christianity, now look at what you're saying about the social impact of evolution.

Continued...

Quote:

---

Evolution teaches..that organisms evolve...and change..and that we evolved from lesser life forms into more complex ones (so you don't get too upset..I know that isn't the "definition", but it is part).

---

That's incorrect. Evolution does not mandate that things become better. Or that things become more complex. That's a misconception. It only states that things may change over time to become more well-adapted to their environment as a result of natural selection. They are only "better" based on current evironmental standards.

Quote:

---

It is NOT about BLAMING the idea of evolution for those atrocities, because there are plenty of people who believe in evolution and wouldn't do anything like that, and disagree with it as much as I do. But had the idea of evolution not existed it wouldn't have been a backing for those things.

---

Sure, and had the idea of religion never existed, there never would have been any sacrifices performed in the name of God.

Once again, I ask, what's your point? Why even bring this up if you're claiming you're not trying to use this as a statement against evolution?

Quote:

---

Can you name one positive thing that the idea of evolution has backed or done for us?

---

Evolution is not a moral philosophy. It's a principle of biology. Can you name one positive thing that photosynthesis has done for us?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Only-now
I see it ensuring that no man must answer to a higher power..and thus there is no reason to uphold those moral values.

~Kiva

---

That belongs in philosophy, not science.


The "Idea" of evolution has made people think, and I'd call that positive.

I will be honest with you. I don't even have an interest in discussing this anymore. There are a couple reasons for that. One..we keep having these same misunderstandings...and I keep having to repeat things..or clarify..or you do, etc. It is kind of annoying. Secondly...this won't go anywhere. Were you ever against evolution? I am now..but I wasn't always. If we keep having this talk it is going to end up the same way as all the other arguments across the net..with no progress.

You don't seem to understand that I think evolution is supported by the scientific community..not because there is a lot of evidence..but for other reasons. I believe that many people who support it don't understand it. I don't trust your journals and essays..because I feel that they are not actually the truth. That is why I don't cross examine them.

It is like this: Pretend we are back in time. Everyone thinks that the Sun circles the Earth...even science. I however...don't believe that. I think it is the other way around...and I have people who support me. So..I talk about it...and then someone such as yourself..who believes that the Sun does circle the Earth tells me I need to check my finding against the scientific journals. Would that clear things up? No..because those journals are wrong...they are flawed and that is the very idea I am fighting against. Do you understand now..how I am not someone who instantly thought evolution was wrong without checking the "facts"? I don't trust those "facts". I did read those same things...I have now...and I look them up and I find that there are flaws. I find that people are ridiculed, insulted, and pretty much everything else because they question that theory. There is NOTHING WRONG with questioning...or being on the opposite side..but the scientific community actually PUNISHES that...not disagrees with it..but PUNISHES it.

I don't think you have been on both sides. I don't think you looked at both sides equally. You wanted to believe evolution..learned it..and THEN looked at the other side. So..instead of me arguing anymore what others have written..and you doing the same. Why don't you go out..and pretend you are me? Pretend you don't believe in evolution..and start searching for info. Go to your sites..and read the info without the mindset that it is right. Question it...AGAIN if necessary and see what you find? It would make this all the better if I knew someone else would actually question it. I have been an evolutionist..and I disagree with it now. You have only been an evolutionist it seems. If you really want to get the best you can at disproving those who argue against you..look at their side of the argument. I would like to see what you think when you pretend you believe the opposite of what you do.

I believe you are looking at things the wrong way...and that is a reason why I don't want to have this discussion. Not because you believe in evolution and all..but I think we are arguing on different levels. In fact I think that even the evolution you are arguing is different from what I am..and I think that over time that is what has been conjured up to rope in more events as evidence.

We can't discuss things that are on two different levels...etc. I am not going to refute ANYTHING you said. I am not going to post on this thread anymore simply because I don't want to. It is tiring arguing..lose or win. I don't think we can properly have a discussion about this in the right way. Now..what came of this is nothing. You still think you are correct..and I still think I am. I don't think many people have an interest in this. I want to refute and argue a lot of what you said. Half of what we are arguing about is how we said something, what we meant, etc etc.

I just challenge you to go out..for ONE day...and pretend you don't think evolution is correct. Not that you believe in creation..but that you just don't think evolution is right. Go to some of your websites...the ones that support evolution and post this sentence. "I don't think evolution is right, I think something else happened to get us here". Just make that your first post..and see how people respond. Look up info against evolution...just for one day. I just want to see what you find..what you think, etc. If you enjoy science so much..and only believe the facts etc...then you would like this little experiment. Of course if you do do it..you have to pretend you are someone else..I mean..if you have an account make a new one. Maybe I shall go do it and see what reactions I get.

Anyways..I just wanted to say that I don't have a lot of interest in this topic anymore. It is going no where..and I think we are arguing different things on different levels..that then lead to misunderstandings that then take longer to explain. It isn't enjoyable to me. This "backing out" can be taken however you like. Maybe one day I shall come back and talk to you about it again.

Later.

~Kiva

I have looked at both sides...the difference here, is every time I contradict some statement you make, you ignore the contradiction or simply repeat it. You have yet to contradict any of the statements I have made against things like that site.

You claim I'm the one not looking at both sides...sure, you may have once believed in evolution, but that doesn't mean you're looking at both sides. You're sticking by faulty logic because...why? Because you want evolution to be wrong? Because you just aren't reading the things that say otherwise?

I'm just confused as to why you claim you are so convinced evolution is flawed, yet aren't able to reply to the points I make which contradict the ones you're providing. I gave point-by-point contradictions of your arguments against evolution. You have yet to provide a response to those or provide me with another argument against it. It seems like any time I make a statement refuting one of yours, you just drop that part of the conversation and try something new.

But if you wish to step out of this debate, that's fine. I agree, this isn't going anywhere...

I am not ignoring your contradictions. I didn't reply to the ones in the last post before I left for a while because I grew uninterested while away. I had not intention of refuting them...but someone made a post about something else and now we are having this discussion. I think we did a good deal of going back and forth with each other's ideas. So...I don't think you can say I haven't challenged any of your facts at all (as in bringing up my side against them).

I have looked at both sides. I'm not unintelligent. I am very intelligent I believe...but why then would I just overlook all the evidence? It is because I honestly feel it is wrong..and I have my reasons for that. I said many a time my point here was not even to disprove evolution...it was to show it shouldnt be trusted. So...it isn't that I have a faith to support...it is that I am convinced that evolution is not as supported as people make it out to be. I have believed in evolution..and I wanted God to not exist..but I am on the other side...I feel evolution is wrong..and God is viable. There is nothing wrong with that. But like I said..I am not arguing evolution CANNOT be true..I am saying there are problems with it. I still believe it..and I still have science that we could argue over.

You can't say that I haven't argued against your points. Go back and read the posts. I DID do that...we STARTED arguing science back and forth. I just didn't respond to your last "point-by-point" post. I already explained why. We started arguing over other things instead after I came back. That is easy to see if you go back and read the posts. I think I have done a good job of addressing most if not all the points you made. Not proving them wrong..but answering them. I think a lot of what we were doing was misunderstanding.

In fact, I went to some other sites after my last post..and found something interesting. There were evolutionists arguing that the definition you gave me of evolution..which is supposedly the right one...was wrong. A Creationist said he believed in evolution..just not the molecule to man idea. They told him that he didn't believe in evolution then. He posted the definition you gave me..and they said that it was wrong...and not the grand scale. They said that molecule to man was part of it...yet back in our discussion, you insisted that that didn't even have to occur for evolution to be proven. I see a lot of wishy-washy-ness in all of this...and it makes it hard to argue. I mean..how can you debate something when the definition isn't even clear?

Anyways..yes, I am done. Maybe we can continue this in the future. Nice having this chat though.

~Kiva

Really? Because my definition of evolution correlates with that in the dictionary, encyclopdeia, and any science text I have ever read. Where are they getting their definitions?

You would have to ask them. I forgot which site it was one..but I searched under "Evolution Forums" on Google. I believe they like to change thier definition of evolution so that it best fits either the evidence or the argument.

~Kiva

I guess what would be a good question to re-guide discussion (and one I would like to see discussed) is "what is the value of evolution to the human race?"

I.E., if we had no knowledge of the theory/concept, would life be any different?

I mean, we can still pursue science, and genetics/biology can progress in application, without an evolutionary theory, right?

Yes, it would be vastly different. The theory of evolution lead to numerous changes in society, such as a more defined line before religion and law (Scope monkey trials) and popularizing a concept of change being inevitable over time. At this point in time, to not pursue it, we'd have to censor it. We would have to rape science.

The world would still spin if we thought it was flat. We could go about our happy little lives content with the knowledge of our planar planet, and the majority of science could continue to work its magic. We could still cure diseases, use blenders, and make plastics; except for one issue: the Earth's still not flat.

The differences if evolution were never suggested may be a bit more subtle, but that concept still applied. If the theory of evolution is correct to some degree, but every single person on earth had no concept of evolution, it would continue to be correct to some degree.

I have been watching this forum with strong interest recently and would like to add a little something. Firstly I will let you know that I am a committed christian, so yes my opinion on the matter will contain a degree of bias. Obviously I believe in divine creation by God. I realise that this may not be the direction this forum intended to pursue, but bringing up the topic of evolution will automatically also bring up the alternatives, that being intelligent design. As belief in intelligent design is often difficult without belief in an intelligent designer, that being God or which ever deity a person so chooses, I have chosen to highlight my faith to you. The intent of this thread is not to disprove any ideas, but to explain why I personally believe in creation.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This is the basics of what I believe as a Christian. I believe in the literal death and resurrection of Christ, therefore I believe in a literal 6 day creation. If i were to reinterpret any aspect of the bible I would be questioning the very validity of what it is that I believe. Therefore, the overriding reason of why I believe in creation and not in evolution is because of this fact. When I talk to friends about creation, they usually find it difficult to accept, unless they already hold a belief in a divine designer/creator. If someone would like to know, I can highlight more reasons for why I am a christian, but in the context of this thread I wont take up too much more of your time.

The second reason is because I personally refuse to believe that I am as a person, just a freak of nature, as evolution would have me believe. Evolution makes us no different to the animals, but I look at humans as a race compared to animals and see no comparison. Our level of intelligence is far superior, as is obvious by seeing what we have developed, observing our way of life. Whereas the animals are still living the way they were created. The fact that humans have religions and belief in divine beings tells me that humans have a spiritual side to their thinking that animals dont experience. Therefore I believe that everything was created with an order and an intent. I realise that that order is not as perfect as it was, but at the point of creation it was perfect.

But yeh, thats me, thats what I believe. I realise that many of you wont agree with me, and fair enough, everyone is entitled to his or her own belief. I hope that I havent offended anyone with this post, as that was not my intent, please let me know if I have.

Luke

OK, perhaps to clarify a bit... what if we took to be true what we knew for sure about evolution -- microevolution (change) over time, and "discarded" as inherently flawed the more specious claim of evolutionary theory (common ancestor / macroevolution)?

Are the two intertwined to the extent that we must have all or nothing?

On the subject of value, that depends on individual perspective. Is knowledge of gravity, photosynthesis, and plate tectonics necessary for happy an comfortable surivival? Of course not. Value depends on how much you want to analyze the world around you. Some people don't like this kind of in-depth analysis, because frankly, it can get depressing and existential at times, and that's understandable. I think the value of evolutionary knowledge should be left up to each person to decide on their own.

On the subject of macroevolution vs. microevolution, yes, the two are intertwined to that extent. Because the concept of "species" is a human contruct, just as much as time. To assume that evolution simply stops under the species level assumes that nature works on human-defined terms, which is obviously not the case.

Plus, speciation has been proven. That shouldn't be in question.

I suppose common ancestory has more questions that arise, but some common ancestories are rather well-supported by fossil, observational, and genetic evidence.

I'm actually curious if scientists have ever thought about a "single origin" theory but slightly different, with multiple "origin" lifeforms. But then again, I'm less familiar with the concept of abiogenesis so I don't know how plausible multiple occurances of it are within the accepted timeframe.

Plus, the evolutionary tree as it is seems pretty sensible to me...

An additional note for those of you who remain convinced that evolution makes no sense or couldn't have happened or whatever, I'm reading a very interesting book right now called Why Darwin Matters by Michael Shermer. It was written by a former Creationist whose views changed once he began studying evolution.

It puts the theory in simple terms and provides answers to a lot of the questioms Creationists and ID-theorists usually pose.