Posts: 1994
	Threads: 161
	Joined: August 17, 2010
	
Reputation: 
29
	 
 
	
		
		
		RE: Macroevolution 
		May 7, 2011 at 7:57 am 
		
	 
	
		The only difference between micro and macro-evolution is time.
	
	
	
undefined
        
	
		
	
 
 
	
	
	
		
	Posts: 69247
	Threads: 3759
	Joined: August 2, 2009
	
Reputation: 
258
	 
 
	
		
		
		RE: Macroevolution 
		May 7, 2011 at 11:23 am 
		
	 
	
		G-C is still demanding to see a Crocoduck.
Nuance is lost on xtians.
	
	
	
        
	
		
	
 
 
	
	
	
		
	Posts: 1091
	Threads: 18
	Joined: January 26, 2010
	
Reputation: 
13
	 
 
	
		
		
		RE: Macroevolution 
		May 7, 2011 at 12:22 pm 
		
	 
	
		Afterall, evolution is the only game in town...
	
	
	
        
	
		
	
 
 
	
	
	
		
	Posts: 69247
	Threads: 3759
	Joined: August 2, 2009
	
Reputation: 
258
	 
 
	
		
		
		RE: Macroevolution 
		May 7, 2011 at 12:33 pm 
		
	 
	
		Well...when compared to your fucking god playing in the dirt, yeah.  It is.
	
	
	
        
	
		
	
 
 
	
	
	
		
	Posts: 3872
	Threads: 39
	Joined: August 25, 2008
	
Reputation: 
43
	 
 
	
		
		
		RE: Macroevolution 
		May 7, 2011 at 1:00 pm 
		
	 
	
		 (May 7, 2011 at 2:13 am)Minimalist Wrote:  No.  As usual you have no fucking clue what the point is.
He completely missed it didn't he?
I swear he's doing this intentionally!
	
 
	
	
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan 
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
        
	
		
	
 
 
	
	
	
		
	Posts: 14
	Threads: 1
	Joined: May 7, 2011
	
Reputation: 
0
	 
 
	
		
		
		RE: Macroevolution 
		May 8, 2011 at 2:44 pm 
		
	 
	
		It's not supposed to be an exact analogy, Godschild. It attempts to demonstrate that repeated instances of microevolution eventually add up to macroevolution, along with a few other more nuanced points which I doubt you'd understand. Your argument is akin to saying that our theory of motion is incorrect because it's always the same matter. All you're doing is demonstrating your lack of intelligence.