|
Get that stick out of your ass rkzenrage.
Science is built on fact, we do not have proof that macroevolution exists even though it is logical that it should. We can not say as fact that they are the same even though we know they are because we haven't proven it yet. If you don't have proof, it can not be a fact, very simple concept. We then split it up to show that parts of evolution are fact while others logically should be fact even though it hasn't been proven yet.
It is just like long and short distance running, is there a difference? No, they are both running. We distinguish the two for simplicity reasons.
We need it for this reason:
"I just ran 100 meters"
"Can you run 1 million meters?"
"Ughh....if given enough time I'm sure I could"
"How do you know if you've never done it""
"Because if I can run 100 meters so I can logically run 1 million meters since they are the same thing but just a longer distance"
"Do you know for a fact?"
"No, because I've never done it"
Science can not allow us to say it is fact that I can run 1 million meters until I have actually done it. We have not seen macroevolution so we can not say it is a fact.
|