Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Different standards of proof?

The one is a philosophy – a pursuit bound more to reason and logic rather than observation; the other requires rigorous, methodical and verifiable (observable) proof.

Originally posted by Halitose
The one is a philosophy – a pursuit bound more to reason and logic rather than observation; the other requires rigorous, methodical and verifiable (observable) proof.

Was Aristotle a scientist or a philosopher?

I found an article about popular misconceptions about science, some of which it seems you share with me. Hope you find this useful:

http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Insert crazy ranting including pseudoscience and an attempt to show that microevolution is possible but macroevolution is completely ludicrous.

Consider The Guttersnipes and revise 😞

Originally posted by Halitose
Macroevolution isn’t completely ludicrous; it merely lacks observable proof.

I'm thinking you might be in a great position to be a posterboy for the ludicrosity of evolution, period 😴

Originally posted by widget
I'm thinking you might be in a great position to be a posterboy for the ludicrosity of evolution, period 😴

Luv' ya too, wedgie. 😛

Originally posted by Halitose
Gibberish? Bigot. 😛🙁

You're callig me a bigot?
That's got to be the funniest thing I've ever been called.
Shall I call you the pot or the kettle?

Originally posted by Halitose
Macroevolution isn’t completely ludicrous; it merely lacks observable proof.

Ah but of course creationism is eminently observable?

Originally posted by Halitose
Macroevolution isn’t completely ludicrous; it merely lacks observable proof.

Macroevolution doesn't need to be observed (the old inductive argument fallacy). Its a logical consequence of microevolution. Just to let you know, evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution had pervaded philosophies before Darwin ever noticed mass extinction and proliferation. What becomes controversial is when we apply the theory of evolution to the past and try to determine a species ancestor. However, we know that continuing in this condition of life, man will evolve (both micro and then macro).

A creationist is a moron if he denies macroevolution but not microevolution.,

Originally posted by Conrau K
Macroevolution doesn't need to be observed (the old inductive argument fallacy). Its a logical consequence of microevolution. Just to let you know, evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution had pervaded philosophies before Darwin ever noticed mass extinction and proliferation. What becomes controversial is when we apply the theory of evolution to the pas ...[text shortened]... then macro).

A creationist is a moron if he denies macroevolution but not microevolution.,

Macrocosms and microcosms are inextricably linked in reciprocity, one creating the over and the other creating the one.........

Originally posted by Halitose
Strawman and a fallacy of definition; you present microevolutional evidence and suggest it being proof of macroevolution. The virus mutated into a virus, which will mutate into another virus. There is no evidence of the genetic barrier being broken and it mutating into an essentially living (and non-viral) organism such as a bacterium.

Btw, a virus requires an already advanced DNA/RNA duplication system to be able to reproduce.

Genetic barrier? Ha!

Okay then, what about things which happen at the very small scale then? There is heaps of evidence of DNA transfer between microbes of different species - it's real easy to do - done it myself in fact.

You point out that there is no evidence that what you guys call macroevolution, the rest of us call evolution, the muatation of one species into another. First I'd say this is absurd. Archaeopteryx is a fine example, so is 'Lucy'. Also, I'm going to use one of your own arguments. No evidence of something happening is not evidence that it didn't happen. Evolution can be tested - a single bunny rabbit in the pre-Cambrian strata will show it to be false. In 150 years of looking, no-one has ever been able to disprove Mr. Darwins ideas.

Originally posted by Halitose
The one is a philosophy – a pursuit bound more to reason and logic rather than observation; the other requires rigorous, methodical and verifiable (observable) proof.

Sorry, I thought that said PhD on my degree cert - Doctor of Philosophy. Science is all philosophy in the absence of proof that the world exists.

I see little reason or logic abound in theology, though.

Originally posted by Conrau K
A creationist is a moron 😵

Sometimes the real trick in convoluted debate is knowing when to stop and count your gains 🙄

Originally posted by widget
Sometimes the real trick in convoluted debate is knowing when to stop and count your gains 🙄

You're right, but unfortunately the creationists have been entirely successful in creating (!) a debate where there should've been none.

Originally posted by Halitose
The one is a philosophy – a pursuit bound more to reason and logic rather than observation; the other requires rigorous, methodical and verifiable (observable) proof.

Religion is not reasonable or logical, it is based on faith.

I am not aware of science requiring "observable" proof by your definition of the word. In fact that would invalidate almost all science. No one has ever really "observed" gravity, quarks, electrons, atoms, stars etc etc etc, or proved thier existance. However I claim to have observed evolution by my definition of the word and I believe the evidence to be rigorous, methodical, and verifiable. Proof is for us mathematicians not scientists in general.

Originally posted by amannion
You're callig me a bigot?
That's got to be the funniest thing I've ever been called.
Shall I call you the pot or the kettle?

Bigots are people who are prejudiced and use words such as "gibberish" and other ad hominems to describe anything from a certain population/intellectual group. I have personally refrained from using sweeping statements on you evolutionists, but I guess I shouldn't expect any reciprocation.

BTW, my comment was meant in jest, so I'm glad you found it funny -- whatever makes you happy.