203
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 81:
Line 81: + +
Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true? (view source)
Revision as of 21:28, February 24, 2008
, 21:28, February 24, 2008→No
::::::'''Counter''': Except ''they'' have empirical evidence that is sufficient to explain. Where's yours? (Keep in mind that supernatural revelations are anecdotal evidence. Sorry). Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence, so it's actually their reason against your faith. [[User:Cthx]]
::::::'''Counter''': Except ''they'' have empirical evidence that is sufficient to explain. Where's yours? (Keep in mind that supernatural revelations are anecdotal evidence. Sorry). Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence, so it's actually their reason against your faith. [[User:Cthx]]
::::::'''Comment''': The reason that the 'proponents' of macroevolution do not own up to this theory is, in fact, because they are NOT proponents of this theory. It is actually CREATIONISTS who refer to this as 'macroevolution'. The 'proponents' of this theory simply lump both 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution' under one term - 'evolution'. The reason for this is quite simple - creationists admit that 'microevolution' occurs, as it has been proven to happen. Evolutionists say that 'macroevolution' is 'microevolution' continuing to happen for an extremely long time, so why use two different terms for the same thing? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:28, 24 February 2008 (EST)