{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/10/2015 3:38:25 PM
5
[quote]The only difference is time.[/quote]
And proof. Macro has never been observed, and only operates under the [u]presumption[/u] that micro, given time, will become macro.
English
-
Your logic: if you take a bucket and put it beneath a stream of water, there is water falling into the bucket. However, the amount of water in the bucket will never increase.
-
You don't need to observe to prove, and your argument is essentially this: "Look, we know that the leaves on trees grow back every year, but do we have any records of that happening for more than the last few thousand years? Therefore, the theory of leafal re growth is false"
-
And the evidence shown within the fossil record?
-
It fails to actually tell that there is a direct ancestry. You can look at the fossil, try to judge time, position, and similarity, but in the end, it's all just assumptions that all this comes together to equal the conclusion. Until it's actually documented, we have no proof of macro.
-
'Assumption' is a kind of buzzword in this field. It is more of a deduction, and should not be discarded due to that. For as long as causation is 'assumed' I don't think you can put down centuries of palaeontology and evolutionary science as mere guesswork, it's insulting to both the scientists' involved, and your own, intelligence.
