Not surprisingly, getting immature responses from atheists.
Not surprisingly, getting immature responses from atheists.
+1 yebo, muchas gracias.
They can go believe it somewhere other than the science section.
Most of us are on dynamic IPs strikes me as a bad idea. I can't stand it when I visit Wikipedia and it tells me it is very angry with me for performing troll edits on it's articles. Has happened a few times.
First set of posts in this thread and the idiocy was extreme and insulting. I'm guessing the sockpuppet of some childish member wanting to fsck with everyone.
Well said. I hope this doesn't become a habit. I certainly don't want a post and member duration limit imposed on this section too.
Actually, in this section, it would make more sense to me. Very few posters actually want to post science here. I'm all for herding the down-with-evolution folks to PD.
That's it purpose isn't it?So in other words, make it even more of a dumping ground for this kind of silliness?
It is pure arrogance to simply assert the issue of micro vs macro evolution is not a complex issue. Of course it is.
Oh Odin here we go again with the definitions.
Oh Odin here we go again with the definitions.
Um, Techne is arguing that Swa should reconsider his position, no?Oh Odin here we go again with the definitions.
Oh Odin here we go again with the definitions.
Well there you go then. Take a big look in the mirror to see who brought what you call "religious crap" into this discussion. If you want to report stuff report your own freakin' posts and that of your fellow religious nutters. What's so bloody hard about that to understand? The atheists are fueling religious discussion so if you don't want it just STFU yourselves. Or as I said ignore it like a sane rational person would do but stop treating your "science" like a damn holy cow.
Fine then, we are in agreement it's unproven. Hence possibly and even probably untrue.
Never had a problem with that. Theories are just theories, not necessarily truth. Nothing hard about that to understand at all.
Luckily they're not being indoctrinated that unproven **** must be the truth. Go logic go!
The fossil record IS NOT proof. Read what your own bloody experts say. The fossil record is just compatible with evolution like it is with special creation. So if THAT is your big proof for evolution it's just as much proof for creation. And if Dawkins claims evolution is fact and I presume he's not just talking about mutation but also the ToE then he's making unscientific claims. Rather than some religious dogma read what the real visionaries of science have to say. Just in case you are confused they are ALL firm believers in evolution but they don't claim that it's fact or proven because they know it's not and that any such claims are unscientific.
Here you discredit yourself completely. There's no such thing as a "quote mine." It doesn't exist. Get it? Good. Now with that out of the way you're probably confusing it with quoting out of context. Learn what that means and you'll see your allegations are all imaginary.
You mean it's not true or you don't believe it's true? It's not clear if you think those two examples are good ones as you put them at the bottom. You should read up on the species problem. Also the "nylon" eating bacteria is not universally regarded as a good example of macro- or even micro-evolution. You are welcome to discuss these in another thread though as I don't want this one drifting too far please.
Not what I am expecting. The fact of the matter is that even the slow changes observed is more and more regarded as not being enough to account for the diversity of life. And yes even in 4 billion years that's why some biologists like Gould postulated punctuated equilibrium.
No references needed. I've proven the point that there is a difference not whether there's an issue or not.
Geriatrix, the way these religious idiot are acting you can't blame people for being so hostile. More than anything else it's these acts of ridicule against people with other beliefs than them instead of providing evidence for the claim that convinced me it's a lie. Nobody is trying to force their beliefs on you so that's an unfair criticism to make. Indeed atheists are the ones forcing their beliefs on us and our children so I would expect some hostility as not only natural but warranted.
My position is that there's a difference between the two. Seems to agree with that and even that it's not a simple issue but a complex one. It's discussed at length between scientists.
Sign up with Google