Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 69:
Line 69: + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true? (view source)
Revision as of 19:42, May 2, 2007
, 19:42, May 2, 2007No, which is why they never bother giving any evidence for it
Not necessarily directly, but there are very similar grammatical structures and even entire words that are similar between the three languages (English, Latin, German)
Not necessarily directly, but there are very similar grammatical structures and even entire words that are similar between the three languages (English, Latin, German)
[[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 15:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)]]
[[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 15:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)]]
==No==
There is a theory of macroevolution, even though its own proponents deny it. Macroevolution is the theory that [[natural selection]] will create new species out of mutations, gene splicing errors and other natural phenemona, '''without''' any need for supernatural intervention.
The refusal to own up to the existence of the theory is the first suspicious thing (like Satan worshippers denying they worship Satan). The second suspicious thing is the use of all kinds of tricky '''illustrations''' and descriptions, instead of offering to show evidence.
Both are earmarks of [[Pseudoscience]].
On the other hand, it is for only a matter of religious faith to deny the theory. I certainly can't prove it's false, any more than its proponents can prove it's true. It's their faith against mine. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)