Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes of course we know what it means, just as we know what 'domestic flights' means. We also know what 'International flights' means. What it doesn't mean is that domestic flights cannot become international flights if they just fly far enough. Apart from that, there is no difference. Micro, given time, can become macro. And please save us all the usual 'nobody has seen it happen' argument.
It takes time.
Evidence of what happened means that nobody actually has to see it happen in real time to prove it.
The evidence of the Cetan sequence proves it.
Yes of course we know what it means, just as we know what 'domestic flights' means. We also know what 'International flights' means. What it doesn't mean is that domestic flights cannot become international flights if they just fly far enough. Apart from that, there is no difference. Micro, given time, can become macro. And please save us all the usual 'nobody has seen it happen' argument.
It takes time.
Evidence of what happened means that nobody actually has to see it happen in real time to prove it.
The evidence of the Cetan sequence proves it.
Well if you know what it means and they obviously mean something different why do you say the mean the same?
Mensgay said that scientist don't use those terms all I did was point out that they do and there is a meaning to them.
No, ID wouldn't go over well on the science forum, but you could take your argument against evolution there without bringing ID and religion into it. You'd lose, but you could still argue about it.
If you want to discuss Intelligent Design, perhaps the Philosophy forum would be suitable.
Philosophy Is Essential to the Intelligent Design Debate
I have, and it confirms that there is clear, uneqivocal evidence for both microevolution and macroevolution, even if those are somewhat arbitrary distinctions along a (very long) continuum. This overrides your personal opinion that macro has not been proven. That is assuming you were actually referring to "macro" in this post, and not disagreeing with Marco Polo...
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
And by the way I am not against evolution (micro) but I disagree with marco.
Just because micro is and has been proven does not mean micro proves marco and yet I am told all the time that it does.
You are told that all the time because it is established fact. As Transponder has explained, and the link explains in more detail....
Microevolution + 3.8 Billion Years = Macroevolution
Last edited by HeelaMonster; 03-24-2019 at 09:35 AM..
Reason: ETA: apologies if this oversteps the limitations on science. I will stop now!
I have, and it confirms that there is clear, uneqivocal evidence for both microevolution and macroevolution, even if those are somewhat arbitrary distinctions along a (very long) continuum. This overrides your personal opinion that macro has not been proven. That is assuming you were actually referring to "macro" in this post, and not disagreeing with Marco Polo...
You are told that all the time because it is established fact. As Transponder has explained, and the link explains in more detail....
Microevolution + 3.8 Billion Years = Macroevolution
That has nothing to do with my reply to mensguy. I know how the theory goes.
Thanks Mike, but is it philosophy? ID advocates say it science, evolutionists say it religion so what I want to know is which is it between the two.
If it is considered religion I want to know why I can't express it under the religious forum.
So far the mods have refused to answer this simple question.
There in a bit of a pickle here.
I have answered this, and as usual you just ignored it. So once again.
ID is religion pretending to not be religion while pretending to be science. So to talk about ID, you have to present both the pretend and the misrepresented science. And to talk about the misrepresented science is talking about science, which is not allowed here.
And to demonstrate why ID fails, we need to discuss science, which is not allowed here. So you would be posting and none could answer. And if you want to do that, there are dedicated ID forums to do just that.
And as you are arguing in ignorance that it is science, then it is not allowed here by our own argument.
After a request to stop talking about science and get the thread back on topic, we've had a couple of dozen more off topic posts. This is the Religion and Spirituality forum, and the topic of this thread is When will people realize ya can't put an Infinite Spirit under a microscope to prove It exists? Lol
If you can't leave Science for the Science forum and stay on topic, well close this thread. Note: None of you are under any obligation to reply to an off topic post.
Your last accusation is hardly coherent. I suggest you go take a cold beer and tell yourself that it doesn't hurt your Faith to admit that you have no decent evidence - indeed it makes Faith more pure. What hurts the benefits that faith brings, is to lie and slander, which is what the Creationists you quote from are doing.
What I find both sad and hillarious at the same time - is that even possible? - is listening to Christians attempting to prove their FAITH with both junk science and non-credible evidence.
I miss the "good ol' days" when religion really WAS about faith - which meant that trying to prove God with lousy science was a waste of time. You're just supposed to believe, and that's all that mattered.
Now you have small armies of people trying to prove their faith with empiricism - which is just - I dunno - silly? I mean, how can it be a faith and a science at the same time? If these two words have a diametric opposite, then faith and science are the answer.
It's like something you would see on an analogy test:
Faith is to science as desert is to ocean ... or something like that.
Believers will continously try to tell science that god and faith cannot be tested for or explained using the scientific method and therefore has no business trying to answer theological or metaphysical questions. But, in the same way believers frequently invade the Atheist and Agnostics forum, they will invade science and try to prove their faith by ... what now? Wait ... wait ... you guessed it. They try to prove it with science.
They think that when believers try to use science to prove faith, somehow it's completely different than when science does it.
That has nothing to do with my reply to mensguy. I know how the theory goes.
Quite clearly, you don't, since I explained it once and you still didn't understand.
That is just the theory; you clearly don't know anything about the evidence for it, or the debates about it, other than what you culled from Creationist sites. And clearly, you do not want to know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Thanks Mike, but is it philosophy? ID advocates say it science, evolutionists say it religion so what I want to know is which is it between the two.
If it is considered religion I want to know why I can't express it under the religious forum.
So far the mods have refused to answer this simple question.
There in a bit of a pickle here.
I would say that it IS religion - the Dover decision makes it pretty clear that it is. But refuting the Creationist position (whether that is using non -science, bad science or wrong science) requires Science. And that's where the Mods step in.
As to philosophy..that is not science, but is merely trying to find ways of discrediting science. We have had enough of this with Mystic. I doubt that Mike or Vic. or any other Philosophic fiddler will do any better than he did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Well if you know what it means and they obviously mean something different why do you say the mean the same?
Mensgay said that scientist don't use those terms all I did was point out that they do and there is a meaning to them.
I already explained. The top of the ladder means one thing; the bottom of the ladder means something else. The ladder is still one ladder. Air flight within a country is different from airline light without. They are still airline dlight. No difference.
Evolution within species (micro) and so far as to earn a different species name (Macro) are different, but all part of the same thing (evolution). The only difference is time.
Now this should be a clear claim to understand, and you may try to argue that there IS a difference (genetic - as some do) but I advise you not to pretend that you don't understand that these different terms are really part of the same thing, or you will become a laughing -stock.
I certainly got the feedback that biologists don't care to talk of macro and micro as it is unhelpful and misleading, even if it can't be misused by creationists to imply a biological distinction that isn't there. But they know what the terms mean, which is not necessarily what creationists think it means. They think it is some completely different biological processes, which are separated by a Genetic barrier (there is none) that means that one cannot become the other over time.
Both claims are demonstrably untrue. And this is relatively sound objections to evolution, even though wrong. The unsound ones think evolution is dogs interbreeding with cats. Total and wilful ignorance. I'm sure you will do better than that.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-24-2019 at 12:35 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
we know what it means, just as we know what 'domestic flights' means. We also know what 'International flights' means. What it doesn't mean is that domestic flights cannot become international flights if they just fly far enough. Apart from that, there is no difference. Micro, given time, can become macro. And please save us all the usual 'nobody has seen it happen' argument. 
