Dinosaurs on Mars?

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. No. I won't bother bolding anything, I'll just repeat for you, for at LEAST the second time, that you have absolutely no idea what the definitions of 'fact' and 'theory' are. And that is a HUGE impediment to your understanding and the furthering of your point.

[/ QUOTE ]


Please show me where I misused the word fact in my post.

Are you telling me Micro Evolution is not fact?

Seriously?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is going to be a 2-part pwning so be patient.

[ QUOTE ]

Once again, micro evolution can be testable and demonstrable.

Macro is not.


Micro Evolution is demonstrated every single time someone creates a new breed of chicken, or new type of corn. Genetic engineering itself is forced micro evolution.

I'm going to stop posting in this thread now. My statements are becoming repetitive, as are your "rebuttals".

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


Bold much?






[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to leave now.

I'll be honest... I really don't care enough to try and argue with you anymore. I don't feel like re-typing everything I've said on the subject elsewhere to fit the context of this thread. If you want, you can go look at my posts in OOT in the "scientific poll" thread.

[/ QUOTE ]


Context, my friend. Context.

I said that after something like 3 hours of constant posts back and forth. I was at the office at the time and did in fact leave. Nice try though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, that was part 1 of the pwning. Now, part 2.

Where did I ever say anything about leaving SMP? By 'here' I simply meant this thread. Context, man. You've posted in a grand total of two threads in SMP, and both times you've fallen back on the escape route of threatening (and following through, so far) to leave the thread and not post anymore.

Satisfied?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. No. I won't bother bolding anything, I'll just repeat for you, for at LEAST the second time, that you have absolutely no idea what the definitions of 'fact' and 'theory' are. And that is a HUGE impediment to your understanding and the furthering of your point.

[/ QUOTE ]


Please show me where I misused the word fact in my post.

Are you telling me Micro Evolution is not fact?

Seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'm not sure. Microevolution with a capital M? Of course not, its a theory. Microevolution with a small m is a fact, yes. Ditto macroevolution and Macroevolution.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. No. I won't bother bolding anything, I'll just repeat for you, for at LEAST the second time, that you have absolutely no idea what the definitions of 'fact' and 'theory' are. And that is a HUGE impediment to your understanding and the furthering of your point.

[/ QUOTE ]


Please show me where I misused the word fact in my post.

Are you telling me Micro Evolution is not fact?

Seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'm not sure. Microevolution with a capital M? Of course not, its a theory. Microevolution with a small m is a fact, yes. Ditto macroevolution and Macroevolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here it is:


I have nothing more to say to you here. The onlookers can make up their own minds about your inconsequencial rebuttals.




How about that Brachiosaurus?

Still no one has an explanation?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. No. I won't bother bolding anything, I'll just repeat for you, for at LEAST the second time, that you have absolutely no idea what the definitions of 'fact' and 'theory' are. And that is a HUGE impediment to your understanding and the furthering of your point.

[/ QUOTE ]


Please show me where I misused the word fact in my post.

Are you telling me Micro Evolution is not fact?

Seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'm not sure. Microevolution with a capital M? Of course not, its a theory. Microevolution with a small m is a fact, yes. Ditto macroevolution and Macroevolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here it is:


I have nothing more to say to you here. The onlookers can make up their own minds about your inconsequencial rebuttals.




How about that Brachiosaurus?

Still no one has an explanation?

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is one thing I want you to take away from this, it is an understanding of the difference between a theory and a fact. Can you please make at least one more post to assure me that you do, in fact, understand the distinction? And why claiming they should only be teaching facts and not theories in schools is a ludicrous position?


EDIT: And I can't help but take one more shot at you. For yet another time today, you've made a post that consists of almost nothing but "What about X? Can't anyone explain X?" as if this was some fell blow. You did it with the Inuits, you did it with carbon dating, I pointed out why this is a dishonest tactic, you MADE FUN OF ME for pointing that out, and then you continue to do it. Its pretty hilarious, to me at least. We'll have to let the 'onlookers' (LOL, I'm sure this is a well-attended gladitorial fight, here) decide on that one too, I guess.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. No. I won't bother bolding anything, I'll just repeat for you, for at LEAST the second time, that you have absolutely no idea what the definitions of 'fact' and 'theory' are. And that is a HUGE impediment to your understanding and the furthering of your point.

[/ QUOTE ]


Please show me where I misused the word fact in my post.

Are you telling me Micro Evolution is not fact?

Seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'm not sure. Microevolution with a capital M? Of course not, its a theory. Microevolution with a small m is a fact, yes. Ditto macroevolution and Macroevolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here it is:


I have nothing more to say to you here. The onlookers can make up their own minds about your inconsequencial rebuttals.




How about that Brachiosaurus?

Still no one has an explanation?

[/ QUOTE ]

How did that tiny brain drive that great big dinosaur? How did it get that big without much protein (being an herbivore)?

My neck gets tired after standing up for too long... how on earth did a brachiosaur do it? Furthermore, how do those giraffes do it?

I think vhawk is in med school. Even HE can't answer these simple questions.

Giraffes don't really exist.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. No. I won't bother bolding anything, I'll just repeat for you, for at LEAST the second time, that you have absolutely no idea what the definitions of 'fact' and 'theory' are. And that is a HUGE impediment to your understanding and the furthering of your point.

[/ QUOTE ]


Please show me where I misused the word fact in my post.

Are you telling me Micro Evolution is not fact?

Seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'm not sure. Microevolution with a capital M? Of course not, its a theory. Microevolution with a small m is a fact, yes. Ditto macroevolution and Macroevolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here it is:


I have nothing more to say to you here. The onlookers can make up their own minds about your inconsequencial rebuttals.




How about that Brachiosaurus?

Still no one has an explanation?

[/ QUOTE ]

How did that tiny brain drive that great big dinosaur? How did it get that big without much protein (being an herbivore)?

My neck gets tired after standing up for too long... how on earth did a brachiosaur do it? Furthermore, how do those giraffes do it?

I think vhawk is in med school. Even HE can't answer these simple questions.

Giraffes don't really exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Also, neuroanatomy doesn't exist either. And biochemistry only, like, 78% exists.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I am merely pointing out that YOUR beliefs are nothing more than government funded religious indoctrination. Belief in Cosmic/Organic/Chemical/Macro Evolution was, is, and will remain to be a religion. Sadly, you clever little people are suceeding in passing your beliefs off as something more than that by hitching a ride on the coat tails of micro evolution which is undisputed fact. This is what I have a problem with.


[/ QUOTE ]
I was taught evolution in school pretty much along the lines of "We see small changes occurring through a variety of flaws in the DNA copying process and we see natural selection operating. This results in organisms changing very slowly over time. We have a theory that this gradual change is enough to account for the plethora of different species we observe in nature. It's the best theory we have so far so we operate as if it was true."

What's wrong with that? We initially teach newtonian physics as true as well (even though we are very sure it isnt a correct model of the world). Once people delve further into physics, they encounter revised models which get closer and closer to how we think the world actually is. At the very forefront of physics there are a whole bunch of competing theories and nobody is very sure of which ones (if any) are actually right.

Evolution is the same. There are legitimate problems with explaining every facet of biology using the theory of evolution. That is normal with scientific theories - the experts will argue about the details. In the meantime, it's the best we have, so it's what we teach to kids. There are no other sciences where we wait til all the details are worked out before teaching it to children and presenting it as fact. Why should we hold evolution to such a high standard?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
How about that Brachiosaurus?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no paleontologist, but the fact that the brachiosaurus had tiny nostrils obviously proves that they did not exist.

I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE...WTF?!?!

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
I was taught evolution in school pretty much along the lines of "We see small changes occurring through a variety of flaws in the DNA copying process and we see natural selection operating. This results in organisms changing very slowly over time. We have a theory that this gradual change is enough to account for the plethora of different species we observe in nature. It's the best theory we have so far so we operate as if it was true."

What's wrong with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't mention the Lord Jesus Christ even once.