Originally posted by Conrau KMuch better to say evolution is a valid scientific Theory.
Ok, Ok, my conclusion was bogus (in the most liberal sense). However, macroevolution does not need to be observed it can be inferred. From the available evidence (i.e. fossils) we can make [flimsy-semi-plausible] inferences about a species development. There is however, no biological reaon why macro-evolution is impossible. This is what I meant by "evolution is true".
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by aardvarkhome1 so called "macro evolution" is observed in the fossil record.
1 so called "macro evolution" is observed in the fossil record.
2 nothing to do with toe
Please enjoy your religion but don't confuse your religion's foundation myths with reality
The fossil record is interpreted from the premise that macro-evolution did take place. Circular reasoning at best.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd how do you know we arent anyway?
No, why do you conclude that? And how do you know we arent anyway? (Can I take your terrible grammer to mean that english is not your mother tongue?)
As you have made the claim that we are evolving , the burden of proof is yours.
Originally posted by Conrau KPlease stop wasting your time arguing against theists who are creationists. Anyone who can't accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution and prefers to interpret literally what is obviously a mythical Genesis story (however spiritually relevant it might be) is not likely to listen to reason anyway. Notice how easily you use the word theist when I guess you really mean creationist. There are plenty of theists out there who don't have a problem with evolution and don't have to bamboozle their way out of anything.
😵
I think it might take a while for the theists to bamboozle their way out of this one.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by knightmeisterAs long as don't somehow think that your theory is a fact and somehow disproves Creation.
Please stop wasting your time arguing against theists who are creationists. Anyone who can't accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution and prefers to interpret literally what is obviously a mythical Genesis story (however spiritually relevant it might be) is not likely to listen to reason anyway. Notice how easily you use the word theist when I gu ...[text shortened]... ho don't have a problem with evolution and don't have to bamboozle their way out of anything.
It is simply a preferd belief, disguised as Science, which cannot be demonstrated in the lab or reproduced as anything 'Scientific' should be.
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerThank goodness that you disagree. If you agreed with me, it would create self-doubt.
I would totally agree with you if you would put an 'un' before the 'informed' and a 'macro' before 'evolution'. 😉
On matters of religion and science, if you've typed a single informed post, I missed it.
BTW, literalists and fundamentalists, as well as members of your cult, are not among those generally recognized by the term "informed."
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
2 edits
Originally posted by WulebgrI'm so happy for you that you are among the 'informed'.
Thank goodness that you disagree. If you agreed with me, it would create self-doubt.
On matters of religion and science, if you've typed a single informed post, I missed it.
BTW, literalists and fundamentalists, as well as members of your cult, are not among those generally recognized by the term "informed."
Just a pity that you never seem to show the 'uninformed' the right way.
Btw: Were you referring to the Bible cult?