Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Is English Your First Language... I Am Just Wondering.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Phillip Martin on September 17, 2002 22:41:31 UTC

"Macro-evolution is the theory that is not provable."

Why do you think that?

"Micro often gets confused and mixed in with macro in order to try and prove macro-evolutionary changes."

What makes you think that?

"When one realizes that there are in reality 6 different definitions for the word evolution and they all describe very different ideas, then some of the confusion settles and we can truly see that micro-evolution does exist in everyday life (butterflies, birth deformities) but macro-evolution is still, an idea."

Upon what do you base those thoughts?

Phillip Martin

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins