Macroevolution examples

[Hardcore Newbie]

You're just a using your degree to bully me . "look , I have a degree. That' means I'm wrong and you're right."

"Look, I read the Bible, that means I'm right and you're wrong"

paraphrased, of course.

[Sun Is Shining]

You know what's even easier to disprove than creationism? Christianity. SO much evidence that contradicts how the bible was truly written, where it came from...Blah.

[natureisawesome]

[QUOTE
Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
You're just a using your degree to bully me . "look , I have a degree. That' means I'm wrong and you're right."

harcore newbie:

"Look, I read the Bible, that means I'm right and you're wrong"[/QUOTE]

I have never used that arguement. I don't use the bible as evidence just because it's a book. I use the bible because it can be verified by, historical, archaeogical, spiritual, scientifica, astronimical, and other types of evidence.

sun is shining:

You know what's even easier to disprove than creationism? Christianity. SO much evidence that contradicts how the bible was truly written, where it came from...Blah.

You know how many times I've heard this? People say this all the time and give absolutely no evidence to back it up. It's just one of those ideas that people have been indoctrinated with like "nobody's perfect". Prove it. Christians give lots of evidence for creation, for the validity of the gospel and the torah and nobody heeds hardly a word, and then non believers come along and show you some old bones and a some fictional book saying that Jesus had sex with mary magdeline and some french girl is the holy grail and the whole world bows down.

[Hardcore Newbie]

I have never used that arguement. I don't use the bible as evidence just because it's a book. I use the bible because it can be verified by, historical, archaeogical, spiritual, scientifica, astronimical, and other types of evidence.

Just as he uses the knowledge acquired from his studies to back up his points. again, just because some of the bible check out in history, it doesn't make every part of the book true. I refuse to use a book that uses talking donkeys and snakes/serpents as evidence.

[Delta9 UK]

Damn, I had to work away for a few weeks and couldn't revisit this thread so its a shame that Nature was banned before I could go over his other points.

I think this issue is important - less as a matter of faith or "who's right and wrong" - but more an issue of our future, culture and society in the face of bronze age mythology.

[TryptamineScape]

to be entirely honest delta9...I don't think you have to worry about the future...there's too many people who will believe tangible evidence over raving madmen. If I were a hardcore Christian, or one of those Creationists...after reading this entire post I'd be re-thinking my stance here. I think the future, as far as our origin is concerned will be ok. I'm more worried about the views Cannabis will have.

[crystalmage]

Evolution is a scientific theory - it is falsifiable, makes predictions, and yes I can happily prove it to be true - beyond doubt. Where would you like me to start? Microevolution or Macroevolution? Transitional fossils or Endogenous retroviruses?

Non scientists arguing about science is a recipe for disaster

If antirealism were correct, and nothing can meaningfully be said to exist unless it is observed by a conscious human being, then most of our commonsense beliefs and the most of science itself - such as the sciences of cosmology (to do with the Big Bang theory of the origins of the universe) and evolutionary theory (to do with the origins of the human species) - would have to be rejected.

Sciences that have to do with pre-human states of the universe would have to be rejected as false or even nonsensical.

-Ray Bradley
Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, Simon Fraser University

"The hope that new experiments will lead us back to objective events in time and space is about as well-founded as the hope of discovering the end of the world in the unexplored regions of the Antarctic."

Heisenberg
Nobel Prize Physics 1932
This award is administered by the Nobel Foundation and widely regarded as the most prestigious award that a scientist can receive in Physics.
Max Planck Medal 1933
The Max Planck medal is an award for extraordinary achievements in theoretical physics

Please cite the scientific journal that published the results of the scientific experiment that renders all of "QUANTUM THEORY" false because quantum theory renders your evidence nonsensical and it supescedes.

[crystalmage]

Please note that the prior post is not in support of creationism.