Is Atheism Unscientific?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by th.w.heller, Oct 15, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wizard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    that's not what i said. learn to read.

    rigorously define "microevolution" and "macroevolution" for me.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Then what did you say?

    What purpose could stating the obvious have? You can not possibily be imply that you don't know.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wizard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    there is no proof that "microevolution" can lead to "macroevolution" because that is logically implied. there is no room for proof in this situation, as there is no proof that 1+1=2

    so you can't give me rigorous definitions of those two words?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    We have not observed all of evolution. Natural selection has been observed. It is a theory, which states that all life evolved from a single-celled organism. And a very good theory at that
     
  8. wizard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    what do you mean by this?

    no, that's the theory of common descent.
     
  9. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Implication is irrelevant.
    Logic never uses implication.

    "Can't" means "incapacity" or inability, Obviously, I'm capable The question is why I should and you don't want to. I don't do juvenile dares.
     
  10. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    We do not know for sure that common descent is true or 'fact' as you put it

    Is common descent not a part of evolutionary theory?
     
  11. wizard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    uh, yeah it does

    obviously i have a purpose for asking you. but if you're scared you'll make a mistake, then it's your choice to look stupid.
     
  12. wizard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    i guess we're talking about two different things. when i talk about evolution, i mean the observation that species change over time given a change in their environment.
     
  13. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    I do not enagage in Juvenile Dares in these discussions.
    Your preception of me is extraneous and superflous. I see you as no authority. You are certainly nothing I would ever choose to subject myself too blindly. Better to appear stupid and than to be foolish enough to walk into a trap. I have no reason to trust you what so ever.
     
  14. wizard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    lol, lay off the "advanced vocabulary" if you don't have the brains to go with it. there is no real difference between micro and macroevolution. you do not understand what evolution is, and you shouldn't be debating about its validity.
     
  15. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    I'm not the one that got overruled by an evolutionist (see above)
     
  16. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    Fair enough, I took from Swivels post that he was talking about evolution as a whole. I still disagree with saying evolution is not a theory but that natural selection is a theory which explains evolution.

    Natural selection should be a law and is even more solid than evolution, since, not only is it observed as part of evolution, it simply must happen in all circumstances (i.e. it is impossble to deny that natural selection will happen)
     
  17. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    I do think Natural Selection should be a law. I do not know why that progress has not been made.
     
  18. wizard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    show me where i was overruled and explain why.

    you're just digging yourself a deeper grave, kid.
     
  19. wizard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    yeah, i don't understand that either :/
     
  20. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    The common descent to a single organism isn't part of the evolutionary theory. To my knowledge it is quite disputed. That is what I believe is the schism between you and John. That is more about abiogenesis.
     
  21. wizard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    i never said it wasn't a part of the evolutionary theory, nor do i care. the assignment of ideas that have so much relation with each other under one name doesn't interest me, nor do i find it a particularly important issue. there was no dispute
     
  22. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    I didn't say you did.
    I wouldn't say there is no dispute. If memory serves there is disagreement between you and John on observed evolution.
     
  23. wizard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    no there isn't, though we're getting pretty off topic, so i'm not going to respond to a response to this post if there is one
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page