| IvorEvilen said: The fact that people actually believe in macro evolution boggles my mind more than anything else I have encounted in life. Not trying to offend anyone, but it's how I see it. It's not that I'm uninformed or anything either. I have seen the facts, and it just sounds like it came from a crackpot. Just because it is a "scientific" theory doesn't suddenly make it more credible than other theories. Nature is way too diverse and complex. I swear, once something gets labeled as science, it gets this added untouchable credibility to it that is incredibly biased and illogical. Oh well, I don't want to get dragged into an argument, so I should probably just avoid this thread. |
A. Macro and micro evolution are exactly the same mechanism, but to a different scale. What exactly made you think micro evolution was acceptable, but macro evolution comes from a "crackpot", when it's exactly the same thing? For my further argument read my rebuttals to Dsister.
B. You have shown that you do not understand the scientific process at all. A scientific theory is not the same as the common use of the word theory. When the term theory is used in science it means that it is the best explanation of an aspect of nature from the available evidence. A scientific theory has to be substantiated by facts drawn from evidence and it has to be falsifiable so the theory can become better refined, or even disproven (but to disprove a scientific theory you have to account for the evidence the theory is built on, which for both micro and macroevolution is a lot). In other words, a scientific theory is more or less fact.
C. The fact that you have said a scientific theory is untouchable is baffling to me to be quite frank. Scientific theories are constantly changing to adapt to the evidence available.
