Karl_Magnus
Sergeant
Then you aren't French Canadian.but I pretty much live in English in my house
Then you aren't French Canadian.but I pretty much live in English in my house
I personally don't believe in macro evolution, micro-evolution is proven, so idk how you would debate against a proof on that one; this is just stupid. Why talk about this here? when the term at play "evolution" is not referring to Darwinism version. lol
I told this guy not to snort that old butter.Ah, yes. Just when I thought things couldn't get any weirder on this forum.
I should clarify I suppose. I certainly believe macro-evolution is plausible and feasible, it is just that the current model of macro-evolution is not absolute, as even richard dawkins will tell you it can not be a law, as it does not have a mathematical relationship in nature as all other scientific laws do. However, he also suggests that to consider it a mere theory is intellectually dishonest and open to dismantling by laymen, so therefore should call it a fact not quite up-to par with a law absolute truth, but not mere scientific conjecture or speculation either. With which, I have bit of an issue I think that it is capable of having a more mathematical basis in nature. However, I do not want to make this post too long, so suffice to say i should correct myself in that i agree with macro-evolution, but that i believe it is still feasible and within parameters to suggest there might be 2 origin points rather than 1 which is commonly believed that we all originated from the ocean which may be true, but could also be that there are 2 origin points rather than 1, which even some famed biologists and chemists have thought might be the case with insects for instance. There are also mathematical approaches that can be attempted to have a more concrete vision of macro-evolution.Both are proven theories, macro evolution being the older of the two, not that you can use the two terms independently and only "believe" in one. One can only argue for replacing the current theory of evolution for a better theory of evolution, not no evolution. Otherwise you pick a fight with biology, genetics, geology, medicine, chemistry and physics which all contributed many experiments to prove the theory so good luck with that.
As for the OP: Bollocks. Get some higher education, then come back.
I Started discussion to putoff word evoltion from all game.Discussing evolution on a taleworlds video game forum has to be an absolute low in ones life.
plumbum
have some from my avatar mateWhere is my popcorn when i need it?
Both are proven theories
IncorrectThis is oxymoron. A theory ceases to be a theory when it is proven. It is called a theory precisely because it hasn't been proven.
This is oxymoron. A theory ceases to be a theory when it is proven. It is called a theory precisely because it hasn't been proven.
And the self awareness of people in this thread is very comedic.
People that base their reality on religious texts that are centuries old, written with a social context that does not exist anymore, with no consideration for all knowledge that mankind has learned from that point in history until today... Please, never cease to exist, we need you to see how far we have evolved.