92
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 315:
Line 315: + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 03:44, October 2, 2007
, 03:44, October 2, 2007→Wrap up
:Evolution doesn't disprove anything, because no one has proved evolution. No one seems able even to define it. How do ''you'' define it? If someone defines it as change that can happen to a species over time, then evolution says nothing about special origin. But you just implied that evolution ''implies'' that all species derive from one, whose origin remains a mystery. Which is it?
:Evolution doesn't disprove anything, because no one has proved evolution. No one seems able even to define it. How do ''you'' define it? If someone defines it as change that can happen to a species over time, then evolution says nothing about special origin. But you just implied that evolution ''implies'' that all species derive from one, whose origin remains a mystery. Which is it?
:Also, I repudiate the charge of [[circular reasoning]]. I know about how long the [[earth]] has existed, and it's not the billions of years that would be required.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 23:42, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:Also, I repudiate the charge of [[circular reasoning]]. I know about how long the [[earth]] has existed, and it's not the billions of years that would be required.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 23:42, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
I'm sure you do "know" that. How?
Moving on, evolution is, like you said, the change over time of one species. It disproves ''special'' creation (special, meaning, each species individually), but you're quite right in that it doesn't imply abiogenesis... evolution does not speak itself to the origin of that first speck of life. Rather, it assumes it's there. So I've defined it.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 23:44, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
== "No Entry For 'Liberal' " ==
== "No Entry For 'Liberal' " ==