1. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Insanity at Masada
    tinyurl.com/mw7txe34
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    15 Apr '05 15:39
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    [b]The word 'fact' is used by different people to mean different things. You may disagree with how others use the word, but that doesn't make them wrong. Whether the TOE is a fact or not depends on how you define the word. If someone else defines the word differently but in a reasonable way, then they are not wrong to call the TOE a fact.

    So e ...[text shortened]... to be faulty you can change your definition to suit yourself so that it remains "fact" to you?[/b]
    Oops, accidentally recced your post!

    I don't use the word 'fact' very often exactly because of this lack of clarity. Don't accuse me of manipulating the vagueness of the word please unless you can point to examples in which I did so.
  2. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Insanity at Masada
    tinyurl.com/mw7txe34
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    15 Apr '05 15:48
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    [b]Some aspects of evolution - microevolution - are as proven as anything can be.

    If you define "evolution" as microevolution, I agree. If you define "evolution" as macroevolution, I disagree. I think it is important for you to realise that when I talk about "evolution" I am talking about macroevolution. Microevolution and macroevolution have ...[text shortened]... distinct specialisations indicating they were all created at the same time."








    [/b]
    I clearly refer to microevolution as an aspect of evolution. How can microevolution be an aspect of microevolution? I only said microevolution was proved.

    Microevolution and macroevolution have a lot to do with one another. Macroevolution is at least partially an extrapolation of microevolution taken over long periods of time.

    Many times people talk about the evidence for "evolution" and then they are actually refering to microevolution, which actually has nothing to do with macroevolution.

    However I very clearly referred to the evidence for macroevolution. I disagree that direct evidence for macroevolution can be found only in paleontology. It's also found in observations of mitochondria and analyses of genomes for example.


    A scientist by the name Richard Goldschmidt...indicating they were all created at the same time.

    Plagiarized from

    http://www.markehrlich.com/authors/DJKwib04increation.html

    If you do that again in this thread I will stop answering you. Write your own posts, dj2.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree