16 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarChanging your mind is a virtue. It means that you take evidence seriously. It means you can allow yourself to be changed by someone else's mind-set. It means that you treat debate as a learning exercise.
Why is changing a point of view always a good thing.
It seems that you are on here just to lecture, not to learn. What's the point?
16 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassI guess most people back then didn't consider how life came into being. Perhaps they were a bunch of simpletons.
Darwin did it.
16 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassCould be true, or is true?
Maybe.
Or... or.... or...
they understood that the theory of evolution could be true regardless of life's origins?
You like to walk that line, then retreat back. You are like the North Vietnamese hiding out in Cambodia.
16 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarYour a teacher?
Could be true, or is true?
You like to walk that line, then retreat back. You are like the North Vietnamese hiding out in Cambodia.
16 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarDarwin's evidence in the 1830's focused on and documented patterns that connect and distinguish species from each other, variation and inheritance and unique animal features in specific environments. Evolution was the mechanism that explained the patterns.
Could be true, or is true?
You like to walk that line, then retreat back. You are like the North Vietnamese hiding out in Cambodia.
That was before Lucy or genetics or molecular biology, of course, all lines of evidence which further support the theory. As far as I know no other mechanism that explains the observed patterns has been tested so thoroughly. All the other theories that were being batted around at the time seem to be more or less refuted and/or incorporated into evolution.
17 Oct 17
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelYour means it belongs to me.
Your a teacher?
You are is you're.
There, a free lesson from a teacher.
17 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassSo you are saying Darwin never saw macro evolution.
Darwin's evidence in the 1830's focused on and documented patterns that connect and distinguish species from each other, variation and inheritance and unique animal features in specific environments. Evolution was the mechanism that explained the patterns.
That was before Lucy or genetics or molecular biology, of course, all lines of evidence which fur ...[text shortened]... ng batted around at the time seem to be more or less refuted and/or incorporated into evolution.
Perhaps you could produce an example of abiogenesis, or are we to accept it by faith.
17 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarWe are not accepting anything by faith. Macroevolution occurs, by definition, over long periods of time. Longer than recorded history.
So you are saying Darwin never saw macro evolution.
Perhaps you could produce an example of abiogenesis, or are we to accept it by faith.
We are, however, agreed that you do not need to physically see something happening to know that it happened.(i.e. dead squirrel) Nor do we need to see it in real time to provide a reasonable, evidence-based theory for how it happened. It's not faith, but not fact either. It's science!
17 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarJudging from your above English so bad I don't know what you are talking about and I bet nobody else does, you would make a very bad English teacher. + You explained to me nothing.
I don't know, I was explain to you why a reduced form of a rational is not exactly the same as the original.
17 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassMacroevolution occurs, by definition.
We are not accepting anything by faith. Macroevolution occurs, by definition, over long periods of time. Longer than recorded history.
We are, however, agreed that you do not need to physically see something happening to know that it happened.(i.e. dead squirrel) Nor do we need to see it in real time to provide a reasonable, evidence-based theory for how it happened. It's not faith, but not fact either. It's science!
As long as you take things by definition, there is not questioning it.
You take it as fact, by definition without actually seeing it happen. You accept it by faith.