RE: Creation vs. Evolution
March 27, 2009 at 1:23 pm
(This post was last modified: March 27, 2009 at 1:31 pm by Amanda.)
(from darwinian)
It seems to me quite odd that someone can accept micro evolution but then stop short of macro evolution. Macro evolution is simply the culmination of many micro evolutionary steps.
It's a bit like accepting that a few rain drops can create a puddle but then refusing to believe that many puddles can create a lake.
(me)
Maybe, Darwinian. But until that's proven, it's not fact. The only thing that has been observed is micro/adaptation. So until your Macro can be proven, we refuse to accept the idea that a bunch of puddles made your lake.
(Adrian)
Can you name any theories that have been published in scientific literature as fact.
(Me)
Yep. One example is how long after it was a proven fact that cells were exremely complex, and even our best machines can't duplicate the mpst simple cell we find, it was still put in text books as a fact saying that cells were simple.
THEORY is ok to put in a textbook. And that theory can later be proven wrong. But what is unexceptable is when THEORY is put in textbooks AS A FACT. It should be clear that it is only a theory. ANd NEVER should information be put into it when it has been proven wrong already. ESPECIALLY when it's stated as fact.
(Adrian)
Have you any evidence to back up your assertion that the odds of this happening are "a billion to one".
(Me)
I'm sure if I looked, there would be TONS of proof, yes. I have heard that on scientific vids, and read it places as well. If you would like, I can get you some references. But since it has already been disproven, I won't take the time now, since as far as I can see, we were right about that.
It seems to me quite odd that someone can accept micro evolution but then stop short of macro evolution. Macro evolution is simply the culmination of many micro evolutionary steps.
It's a bit like accepting that a few rain drops can create a puddle but then refusing to believe that many puddles can create a lake.
(me)
Maybe, Darwinian. But until that's proven, it's not fact. The only thing that has been observed is micro/adaptation. So until your Macro can be proven, we refuse to accept the idea that a bunch of puddles made your lake.
(Adrian)
Can you name any theories that have been published in scientific literature as fact.
(Me)
Yep. One example is how long after it was a proven fact that cells were exremely complex, and even our best machines can't duplicate the mpst simple cell we find, it was still put in text books as a fact saying that cells were simple.
THEORY is ok to put in a textbook. And that theory can later be proven wrong. But what is unexceptable is when THEORY is put in textbooks AS A FACT. It should be clear that it is only a theory. ANd NEVER should information be put into it when it has been proven wrong already. ESPECIALLY when it's stated as fact.
(Adrian)
Have you any evidence to back up your assertion that the odds of this happening are "a billion to one".
(Me)
I'm sure if I looked, there would be TONS of proof, yes. I have heard that on scientific vids, and read it places as well. If you would like, I can get you some references. But since it has already been disproven, I won't take the time now, since as far as I can see, we were right about that.
