Creationist child abusers close doors

PostmodernProphet said:
that's your stock retort when you forget what the fuck you said....


and therein lies your problem.....you can't see the forest for the Tree......
Click to expand...

Your lame attempts at a pithy response don't cover the fact that the source and a 100 others state that you are wrong. Macroevolution explains the variety of beetles.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
I've given you my definition a half a dozen times in as many threads.....you just don't bother to read them.....when you pretend that humans and crustaceans have a common ancestor you are engaging in macro-evolution.....you think they are branches of the same sequoia.....
Click to expand...

You have not. Define macroevolution.
 
Professor Baxter said:
You used it in a sentence. Define it.
Click to expand...

lol....you want a postmodernist to "define" something?.....if you can't figure out what I am describing from that sentence you aren't worth debating with......macro-evolution = "pretending that humans and crustaceans have a common ancestor".......claiming we've descended from pond scum.......claiming that peanuts and sea gulls are related......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol....you want a postmodernist to "define" something?.....if you can't figure out what I am describing from that sentence you aren't worth debating with......macro-evolution = "pretending that humans and crustaceans have a common ancestor".......claiming we've descended from pond scum.......claiming that peanuts and sea gulls are related......
Click to expand...

Then quit trolling my threads, chickenshit.

Macroecolution is evolution above the level of species. Macroevolution explains the variety of beetles, insects, animals and life. There is no real distinction between variation of species and other more inclusive groupings. You don't want to offer a definition of macroevolution because it will force you to make a silly distinction about kinds or some other creationist grouping that does not exist.
 
Professor Baxter said:
There is no real distinction between variation of species and other more inclusive groupings.
Click to expand...

there is no real distinction between saying peanuts are related to peas and saying peanuts are related to peacocks?......

ttar_peas_03_v_launch.jpg
220px-Arachis_hypogaea_-_K%C3%B6hler%E2%80%93s_Medizinal-Pflanzen-163.jpg
images
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
there is no real distinction between saying peanuts are related to peas and saying peanuts are related to peacocks?......
Click to expand...

That is not what I said, but since you can't answer the question honestly you are left to your usual dishonest chickenshit tactics. Define macroevolution, microevolution and how they differ?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
macro-evolution is saying peanuts are related to peacocks
micro-evolution is saying peanuts are related to peas.....

they differ in that one is obvious, the other is fantasy....
Click to expand...

No, that isn't a valid definition. Macroevolution and microevolution are not speech acts. It does not describe "saying" this or that. They are an arbitrary way in which we have subdivided evolution. A valid definition would be to describe the division. Since you are too chickenshit to answer honestly, I will try to convert your comments into something sensible.

You seem to be implying that...
Macroevolution is evolution above the level of kingdom; and microevolution is anything below it? Is that your weak kneed argument? You want proof of evolution that crosses that line but accept all that happens below it? Previous arguments indicate something else, but you are likely feeling a bit bruised, beaten and ashamed so you are being exceptionally cowardly.
 
Last edited:
No, the words do not describe speech acts. The words distinguish between evolution below and above the level of species. It's all evolution though.
 
Professor Baxter said:
No, the words do not describe speech acts.
Click to expand...

lol....you mean because sometimes they are written?.....they are used to distinguish......by human beings analyzing and studying.....even "evolution" is a speech act.......if I walk down the street I can see a car....I can see a cloud......I can see a cat.....I may even see a cat having kittens.......I cannot see an evolution......it is a word applied to something that cannot be seen......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol....you mean because sometimes they are written?.....they are used to distinguish......by human beings analyzing and studying.....even "evolution" is a speech act.......if I walk down the street I can see a car....I can see a cloud......I can see a cat.....I may even see a cat having kittens.......I cannot see an evolution......it is a word applied to something that cannot be seen......
Click to expand...

You are such an idiot. You were claiming that the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution was all about a statement being made. It's as if you were claiming each is an ism.

You have used the word to describe a distinction in evolution above and below certain degrees of variation. That is how it is commonly used. You refuse to define that degree of variation because you are an intellectual coward and know that your distinctinction is nonsense. The only distinction that makes any sense is in gene pools or species.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top