Umm, well yes it does, sometimes. It’s called 'inductive reasoning. You know, like Sherlock Holmes used.
What the fuck is a proto thought?
Are you claiming that thought [always] proceeds action? As a principle it’s arguable; it’s my observation that action is often instinctive. Now take Donald Trump for example. Are you going to seriously claim that his cerebral cortex even works a lot of the time? If there was such a thing, I’d argue his reptilian brain stem was usually in charge. But there isn’t so I won’t.
Perhaps have a go at using more common words for a bit. You might seem less of a pretentious dill.
“Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as the derivation of general principles from specific observations (arguing from specific to general), although there are many inductive arguments that do not have that form.[[3]]”(Inductive reasoning - Wikipedia)
What you should know is that EVOLUTION has nothing what so ever to do with the existence or non-existence of a God. There is no such thing as micro or macro. There is change over time. No species has ever given birth to anything outside its own species. What you should know is that sometimes it is better to be quiet and let people think you are an idiot instead of opening your mouth and proving it.
That is a classic mistake may theists make, assuming that if one genius was very correct on one fact, that genius is correct on everything else. Einstein was not perfect, he made some classic blunders. Same with Darwin and Aristotle, to name just a few.
As far as evolution, one major difference between macro and micro is time. Given enough time and a changing environment, micro builds up to macro events.
Not just theists . It’s a common logical fallacy, ‘argument from authority’. EG Common among atheists seems to be the belief that evolutionary biology professor Richard Dawkins is top of his field and a competent philosopher.
He has been incorrectly described as both and has not corrected either description as far as I know.
No we shouldn’t at all, especially when all the evidence shows that they’re the same thing and part of the same process, just on a different timescale.
Though I do love it when creationists who can’t demonstrate a single shred of objective evidence for their creation myth, deny all the evidence validated by science globally for over 160 years, based on nothing but their own closed minded bias.
How many scientific facts, apart from evolution, do you deny, and how many of those don’t contradict any part of your superstitious religious beliefs?
When I meet a creationist who doesn’t dodge that question, and gives an honest answer, i will have met my first honest creationist.
In the mean time, i shall continue to roll my eyes as they deny facts, and make the most breathtakingly asinine assertions about basic scientific facts, like claiming evolution is just a theory. One assumes then they lend no credence to other scientific theories such as germ, gravity and relativity.
No indeed, anymore than Latin speaking parents gave birth to Spanish or French speaking children, yet it’s an objective fact the latter languages evolved from the former.
Time and small slow changes result in much larger changes. The longer the timescales the greater the change.
Once again, I have a brace of posts over on the old version of the forums, clearing up numerous misconceptions about speciation that are apposite to bring here. Unfortunately, they will need heavy editing to reprise here because of the woefully short post size limit.
From memory, the only argument I can recall being used by apologists here is some variation of intelligent design. That stubborn insistence in using an argument debunked centuries ago clearly reflects the paucity of thought and intellectual dishonesty of such folks.
–I DO remember a recent visitor here claiming there’s a lot of evidence for the existence of Jesus. Literally true; what there is not is contemporary or credible evidence…
Ah, it appears I’ve already brought one of those posts here already, though I had to split it across three posts in its incarnation here, and the second post is the part that covers some subtle but insidious misconceptions about speciation.
