Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Belief in Micro, But not Macro?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="mulimulix" data-source="post: 56146200" data-attributes="member: 261200"><p>So what you are saying is that if something cannot be observed, it cannot be proven?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Of course there is a huge difference in the above example, but that doesn't mean it never happened; they are both founded upon the same principle. The principle is that an organism obtains a mutation which benefits is, and over time, the species obtains that mutation. When reptiles evolved to have feathers, they could cope better with cooler temperatures as the Earth cooled, and so on...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Microbiology isn't really that old. It only began in the second half of the 19th century, and it's not like we've observed every species of virus under the microscope; not even close. Out of the viruses we have observed, there have been significant changes in them which have been very beneficial to the species, even in recent times. The problem with this argument is that there is no fine line in when a mutated species becomes a new species. If humans were to evolve in a few thousand years to have a third arm (as a loose example), does this mean we should not be labeled homo-sapien?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mulimulix, post: 56146200, member: 261200"] So what you are saying is that if something cannot be observed, it cannot be proven? Of course there is a huge difference in the above example, but that doesn't mean it never happened; they are both founded upon the same principle. The principle is that an organism obtains a mutation which benefits is, and over time, the species obtains that mutation. When reptiles evolved to have feathers, they could cope better with cooler temperatures as the Earth cooled, and so on... Microbiology isn't really that old. It only began in the second half of the 19th century, and it's not like we've observed every species of virus under the microscope; not even close. Out of the viruses we have observed, there have been significant changes in them which have been very beneficial to the species, even in recent times. The problem with this argument is that there is no fine line in when a mutated species becomes a new species. If humans were to evolve in a few thousand years to have a third arm (as a loose example), does this mean we should not be labeled homo-sapien? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Belief in Micro, But not Macro?
Top
Bottom