16 Mar '06 13:34>
Originally posted by amannionI made no such claim. Should I add “putting words in people’s mouth's” to your already impressive repertoire?
Ah but of course creationism is eminently observable?
Originally posted by Conrau KIts a logical consequence of microevolution.
Macroevolution doesn't need to be observed (the old inductive argument fallacy). Its a logical consequence of microevolution. Just to let you know, evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution had pervaded philosophies before Darwin ever noticed mass extinction and proliferation. What becomes controversial is when we apply the theory of evolution to the pas ...[text shortened]... then macro).
A creationist is a moron if he denies macroevolution but not microevolution.,
Originally posted by amannionIt's a special talent. It does not require thought. Just (... not even?) a willing audience. 😉
You're right, but unfortunately the creationists have been entirely successful in creating (!) a debate where there should've been none.
Originally posted by scottishinnzOkay then, what about things which happen at the very small scale then? There is heaps of evidence of DNA transfer between microbes of different species - it's real easy to do - done it myself in fact.
Genetic barrier? Ha!
Okay then, what about things which happen at the very small scale then? There is heaps of evidence of DNA transfer between microbes of different species - it's real easy to do - done it myself in fact.
You point out that there is no evidence that what you guys call macroevolution, the rest of us call evolution, the muatation In 150 years of looking, no-one has ever been able to disprove Mr. Darwins ideas.
Originally posted by dj2beckerDNA transfer between microbes.
[b]Okay then, what about things which happen at the very small scale then? There is heaps of evidence of DNA transfer between microbes of different species - it's real easy to do - done it myself in fact.
Is this not evidence of intelligent design? Besides, you are surely using some form of intellgence to do this are you not? Besides, you have not ...[text shortened]... ever been able to disprove Mr. Darwins ideas.[/b]
What???
You should get out more.[/b]
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe micro/macro distinction is well accepted even in evolutionary circles.
Genetic barrier? Ha!
Okay then, what about things which happen at the very small scale then? There is heaps of evidence of DNA transfer between microbes of different species - it's real easy to do - done it myself in fact.
You point out that there is no evidence that what you guys call macroevolution, the rest of us call evolution, the muatation In 150 years of looking, no-one has ever been able to disprove Mr. Darwins ideas.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat jaundiced, baseless assertions. Religion and more specifically theology may be axiomatically unprovable by the natural sciences, but it still follows reason and logic like all the rest of the philosophies. You're making those sweeping statements again; I hope you realise they are quite damaging on your reputation as a reputable master debater.
Religion is not reasonable or logical, it is based on faith.
I am not aware of science requiring "observable" proof by your definition of the word. In fact that would invalidate almost all science. No one has ever really "observed" gravity, quarks, electrons, atoms, stars etc etc etc, or proved thier existance. However I claim to have observed evolutio ...[text shortened]... orous, methodical, and verifiable. Proof is for us mathematicians not scientists in general.
Originally posted by HalitoseScience is the religion of the 21st century......
What jaundiced, baseless assertions. Religion and more specifically theology may be axiomatically unprovable by the natural sciences, but it still follows reason and logic like all the rest of the philosophies. You're making those sweeping statements again; I hope you realise they are quite damaging on your reputation as a reputable master debater.
Scie ...[text shortened]... be proven, tested or verified and have the scientific community accept it? This is ludicrous.
Originally posted by amannionSo we've travelled faster than the speed of light and come back from that journey with less personal time passing than the time that passed on planet Earth?!!!
Not sure what you're question is here.
Eisntein's theory has been tested and proved a hundred times over ... and more.
Originally posted by Vladamir no1Wow, is that what you think the special theory of relativity is? That's one small aspect of a much larger theory.
So we've travelled faster than the speed of light and come back from that journey with less personal time passing than the time that passed on planet Earth?!!!
Wow there's me thinking we've only been to the moon 😉
Originally posted by amannionI stand corrected and more knowledgeable 🙂 Thx
Wow, is that what you think the special theory of relativity is? That's one small aspect of a much larger theory.
Just to correct you, what you're talking about doesn't rely on travlleing faster than light, which of course we couldn't do, but instead simply relies on travelling faster than everyone else - which we could and have done.
Some experiments wit ...[text shortened]... ke time has slowed down for it.
It's not hard to prove or demonstrate, as is much science.