This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. this is a more philosophical or evolutionary question but.

User Info: PokemonExpert44

PokemonExpert44
2 months ago#31
PurpleLizard posted...
enigma777 posted...

I was still able to find ways to support my arguments


I'm honestly going to have to dispute this. If this were true, the scientific community would no longer believe in evolution. Can you name one such way?


Evolution = myth
I might just 6-0 you in Pokemon. Watch out for my awesome teams.

User Info: enigma777

enigma777
2 months ago#32
PurpleLizard posted...
enigma777 posted...

I was still able to find ways to support my arguments


I'm honestly going to have to dispute this. If this were true, the scientific community would no longer believe in evolution. Can you name one such way?


Given that it was 14 years ago and my career field isn't related to natural sciences, I'll have to refresh my memory and get back to you on that. I can say that my main issue was with macroevolution, while microevolution is easily observed, but this arguably makes the issue more old vs young earth.
Proverbs 26:4
(edited 2 months ago)

User Info: zinformant

zinformant
2 months ago#33
Of course, it's difficult to observe events that happen on time scales longer than our lifetimes. That does not, however, mean that they do not occur. This is similarly faced in cosmological sciences all the time. Look at a star and infer its place in stellar evolution, or discern the geologic (minimally, impact) history of a planetary satellite. We apply the same principles to life on Earth.
Is it naive to dream of a world without war?
zinformant posted...
Of course, it's difficult to observe events that happen on time scales longer than our lifetimes. That does not, however, mean that they do not occur. This is similarly faced in cosmological sciences all the time. Look at a star and infer its place in stellar evolution, or discern the geologic (minimally, impact) history of a planetary satellite. We apply the same principles to life on Earth.


lol/10
I might just 6-0 you in Pokemon. Watch out for my awesome teams.

User Info: PurpleLizard

PurpleLizard
1 month ago#35
enigma777 posted...
PurpleLizard posted...
enigma777 posted...

I was still able to find ways to support my arguments


I'm honestly going to have to dispute this. If this were true, the scientific community would no longer believe in evolution. Can you name one such way?


Given that it was 14 years ago and my career field isn't related to natural sciences, I'll have to refresh my memory and get back to you on that. I can say that my main issue was with macroevolution, while microevolution is easily observed, but this arguably makes the issue more old vs young earth.


To a scientist, this is like saying "I can accept 1 + 1 = 2, but my problem is with saying that 100 + 100 = 200."
1994-0244-1993

User Info: Shablagoo

Shablagoo
1 month ago#36
kozlo100 posted...
the_hedonist posted...
We may have some good evolutionary history for running, kozlo.


We do, but I think that's more recent than our break from the Pan family.

But yea, that's one of my favorite tidbits of our evolutionary design. We basically run our prey to death because we can run farther than most any other creature.

Terrifying to picture it from the hunted’s perspective.
Sigful user.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. this is a more philosophical or evolutionary question but.