[General Battuta]

@GB why do you always have to be like that?

I "believe in" macroevolution, but I don't know what Battuta is trying to show with that abstract. Even the mutated bacteria were still bacteria. I'm not really used to the distinction between macro- and microevolution.

The abstract demonstrates historical contingency in microevolution. This is 'macroevolution'.

Here's a more explicit and accessible one.

I'll be forced to take any further argument as a sign of tragic under-education. ...

Just because I don't believe everything the scientists tell us does not mean that I am under educated.  

(By the way no hard feelings. I just like to debate with people )

Go ahead and present your evidence on the topic, then. As a starter, you can disprove founder effect, genetic drift, and population bottlenecks as sources of speciation (citations from a peer reviewed source would be ideal, but not strictly necessary for a friendly debate). For an applied case, you can explain how life on Earth adapted to breathe toxic, highly lethal oxygen without 'macroevolution.'

Alternatively, I would accept a hypothetical construction of the family tree of the Hyracotherium and all its descendants that explains how they can be genetically related without having evolved and speciated.

Go on, get to it!

[babylon5comlink]

One word: Creationism

Babylon5comlink watches this thread go boom in his face

[General Battuta]

One word: Creationism

Babylon5comlink watches this thread go boom in his face

Go back 6 posts!

[Spicious]

Just because I don't believe everything the scientists tell us does not mean that I am under educated. 

That you believe there's some global cabal of scientists all working towards imprinting their unified world view on everyone else is a clear indication of under education or maybe just non-factual education.

[Herra Tohtori]

I just like to debate with people

It's not a debate if you just make statements that have absolute truth value to you.

Example:

"I believe in tooth fairies." statement that tooth fairies exist; there's no way to prove or disprove this claim
"Okay, I accept that you believe in tooth fairies."

"I believe tooth fairies are responsible for taking away old teeth and making new ones grow." statement that tooth fairies are responsible for something that has a well documented scientific and medical records, x-ray imagery and other data to support a contrary position
"I disagree, tooth fairies have nothing to do with it, the teeth grow from tooth buds embedded in the jaw bones. They develope and emerge as the individual grows. Here's an X-Ray image where you can see the tooth buds in varying degrees of maturation."

"Well yeah but that X-Ray image doesn't disprove that tooth fairies aren't responsible. I still believe in tooth fairies and that they are responsible for tooth change."
"...right."

Debate involves an intellectual process of defending your position with logical arguments, and also putting your own position to test of counter-arguments.

Example:

"Is it possible that my hypothesis regarding tooth fairies could actually be factually incorrect? Is there any evidence that supports my theory other than stories my mother told me when I was a wee lad?"

[Hero_Swe]

Ahh, my favorite macro..

[babylon5comlink]

I dunno, having a pet 3-foot long dragonfly sounds pretty cool tbh.  

Until it decapitates you

how about a giant chicken as a pet

[karajorma]

Ahh, my favorite macro..

In B4 Hero_Swe gets 3 days off for telling me how to do my job.

Wait, in AFTER Hero_Swe gets 3 days off for telling me how to do my job.

Just because I don't believe everything the scientists tell us does not mean that I am under educated. 

The fact that you know nothing about the subject but yet state an opinion shows you are under-educated. An educated person has learned not to give an opinion on things he knows nothing about.

[Mars]

how about a giant chicken as a pet

Hey, that's my home city!!!  

[jdjtcagle]

It's impossible for creationism to be true science because it is not objective. It is considered pseudo-science. Since you attempt to piece together evidence to explain a preconceived idea.

[Turambar]

It's impossible for creationism to be true science because it is not objective. It is considered pseudo-science. Since you attempt to piece together evidence to explain a preconceived idea.

Pseudoscience?  It's a fairy tale.

[jdjtcagle]

It's impossible for creationism to be true science because it is not objective. It is considered pseudo-science. Since you attempt to piece together evidence to explain a preconceived idea.

Pseudoscience?  It's a fairy tale.

http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html

[Turambar]

yeah, but you said "creationism," not "creation science" or "intelligent design"

Creationism is a fairytale, creation science and intelligent design are fairy tales wrapped up in bad science to fool people.

[jdjtcagle]

Ahh... I see. Same thing to me.

[Aardwolf]

pseudo-science

"a pretended or mistaken science," 1844, from pseudo- (q.v.) + science.

pseudo-

comb. form meaning "false, feigned, erroneous," from Gk. pseudo-, comb. form of pseudes "false," or pseudos "falsehood," both from pseudein "to deceive."




(from www.etymonline.com)

[iamzack]

pseudoscience still doesn't pertain to fairy tales and myths in general. you can't call greek mythology a pseudoscience, can you? creation science is the pseudoscience trying to prove a creation myth is true.

[Aardwolf]

When they try to pass it off as science, it does!

[iamzack]

whatever, you're still kinda wrong but it's just semantics.

[Solatar]

Let's agree it's not true and be friends. 

[Scotty]

Whatever gave you the impression we were capable of that?