Matt Matthew Matthew John Paul Herbert Ruth Gregory Christian Thoughts?? Im sure some of my other friends might have some input or ideas, but I just woke up and cant think of anyone else off the top of my head. (Please dont hesitate to respond or reply). I did not continue to pursue my advanced interest in science after getting married and having Kylee. That doesnt mean I dont enjoy learning or getting into a discussion about it. Even in high school, I was a supporter of micro evolution. The evidence in nature (not to mention the advances and vast information learned and discovered in labs), greatly supports these theories and hypotheses. I dont have enough background to really get into a fact based debate on all of this. But, if microevolution exist, can be proven, and can be synthesized; then how can macroevolution be SO much different? Or that difficult to find or prove? Most people with basic science knowledge even understand molecular change. Even if youre talking about something as simple as temperature applied to water (liquid, steam, and ice). Surely there has to be SOMETHING that has been theorized and tested to prove macroevolution, to support the scientific communitys overwhelming persistence of the existence of Darwinism, right?
Posted on: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 19:23:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015