Micro/Macro what's it all about?

[xianghua]

There is little, if anything, that we can prove outside of mathematics. But this doesn't mean we can't know anything. The justification and evidence supporting the fact of evolution, and the general arguments supporting the theory explaining it, are such that I can only doubt this knowledge by going to extreme measures, such as supposing that I am a brain in a vat.

sorry but we cant prove that we are related to banana. this is a belief. not a fact.

 

[Yttrium]

sorry but we cant prove that we are related to banana. this is a belief. not a fact.

That's a theory. Let's keep our terms straight.

 

[essentialsaltes]

sorry but we cant prove that we are related to banana. this is a belief. not a fact.

We can't prove we're not brains in vats. But I don't expect us to spend much time worrying over it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bumped for Jimmy D:

Do you think coyotes and domestic dogs both belonged on the Ark?

 

[Jimmy D]

Bumped for Jimmy D:

Sorry AV, I must have missed that one.

According to the text, which is all we have, I'd say yes.... "You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures" doesn't mean some of the living creatures does it?

 

[xianghua]

That's a theory. Let's keep our terms straight.

ok. but its again involve a belief.

 

[xianghua]

We can't prove we're not brains in vats.

why not? you can look at the mirror.

 

[Yttrium]

ok. but its again involve a belief.

Do you believe that theories are beliefs, or is that your theory?

 

[essentialsaltes]

why not? you can look at the mirror.

 

[xianghua]

Do you believe that theories are beliefs, or is that your theory?

they base on belief. yes. this is why it called theory and not a fact. earth is a round- a fact. a molecule can evolve into a robot- a belief.

 

[tas8831]

sure. why not?

So you accept speciation.

So much for your ark.

 

[tas8831]

sir the taxonomy of the animal is literally not classified as equestrian, it's something else.

"Equestrian" is a sport (sort of). Is the science word you are looking for "Equid"?

wikipedia plainly states all the genra of animals, when you look them up, it will tell you in the right hand side, all the taxonomy of an animal. It's quite usefull.

Cool insight -

"Eohippus is an extinct genus of small equid ungulates. The only species is E. angustidens, which was long considered a species of Hyracotherium. Its remains have been identified in North America and date to the Early Eocene (Ypresian) stage."

Wow, you are totally right about Wikipedia. You should use it some time.

If I missed something in your post that you absolutely need me to adress, post it again. For lack of time, I can't adress all your post.

You didn't really address any of it, but the fact that you think "equestrian" is a relevant term in evolutionary biology and taxonomy tells me all I need to know.

 

[Yttrium]

they base on belief. yes. this is why it called theory and not a fact. earth is a round- a fact. a molecule can evolve into a robot- a belief.

So in your opinion, we can never say "I think that's likely". We must either say "I believe this is true because it is a fact" or "I believe this is true on faith" or "I have no clue".

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON
You'll observe that this thread is a lot smaller today.
Adhominems and goads are thread killers.
A lot of pruning of diseased strands was needed to save the thread.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[tas8831]

ok. but its again involve a belief.

So you think a theory is a 'belief.'
And you think a self-replicating robot penguin disproves evolution, even though there is no such thing and even if there was, it would not be a living thing.

Are you actually just a bot of some kind?

 

[tas8831]

they base on belief. yes. this is why it called theory and not a fact. earth is a round- a fact. a molecule can evolve into a robot- a belief.

Like most of the silliness you post, that is just about backwards...

 

[createdtoworship]

This implicitly assumes that morphological changes via evolution are both constant and continuous. We already know this isn't the case and there is in fact discordance between changes between genotype and phenotype.

Basically, it sounds like you're setting up a strawman version of biology and then declaring evolution false because reality doesn't confirm to that strawman.

There are no facts presented in this post as I have posted in mine. Just attacking my viewpoint does not disqualify it. Taxonomy has a natural barrier to evolution this is why evolutionist have moved the goal posts and decided to use phylogeny instead.

 

[HitchSlap]

Just checking in... have the creos figured out that macro is just micro + time, yet? Or are they still on about croccoducks?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just checking in... have the creos figured out that macro is just micro + time, yet?

No.

Or are they still on about croccoducks?

Different genuses.

 

[HitchSlap]

No.Different genuses.

See there, you did learn something!