This argument doesn't work unless you can show that there is no reason for common structures in organisms to exist apart from a common ancestor. It would make sense for God to design creatures with similar structures because if all animals were very different then that would point to polytheism.
It would make sense for God to design creatures with similar structures because if all animals were very different then that would point to polytheism.
This argument doesn't work unless you can show that there is no reason for common structures in organisms to exist apart from a common ancestor. It would make sense for God to design creatures with similar structures because if all animals were very different then that would point to polytheism.
I was specifically asking Subduction Zone (I was quoting him/her in the post)
Yes, They were well thought out and rather thorough so there was not much point in posting the same thing again.Then let's find out. Subduction Zone said that he and others have answered those questions, so I assume he means that he thinks my answers are good answers. But let's ask him.
@Subduction Zone, do you agree with the answers I gave regarding the definitions of evolution, natural selection, et al?
Yes, They were well thought out and rather thorough so there was not much point in posting the same thing again.
EDIT: I had to go back and check. I rated them with a "like" when I saw them. I don't know if one can see when someone rated something after the fact, but that like has been there almost since you posted them. If I disagreed the odds are almost zero that I would have given it that rating.
I agree that multiverses are a speculative possibility, i.e. not against the laws of physics as they currently stand. But whether there would be an infinite number of universes in them or not is moot - and depends, to some degree, on the particular multiverse hypothesis you're considering.
However, as I already said, even in an infinite multiverse where the most improbable events happen in an infinite number of universes, there will still be vastly more universes where they don't happen; relative probabilities don't change just because the context is infinite.
Spiders are not tetrapods.who said so? some creatures have more than 2 limbs you know (a spider for instance).
There are no self replicating watches. Your argument fails from the beginning.see my signature link for why design is batter explanation than a natural process.
who said so? some creatures have more than 2 limbs you know (a spider for instance).
I only made two points in that post - which of them are you unsure about?im not sure if i understood all of your points (again: my english probably) but ok.
Essential traits in a science denier.Yes, insects, spiders, octopuses... have different numbers of limbs, but dragons are not portrayed as these sorts of things.
I guess you're consistent. You don't know what evolution predicts, and you don't know what evolution doesn't predict.
I didn't ignore them, I mostly agree with them, but I was asking you to make sure we're on the same page.And others answered that question and I added to those answers. Why did you ignore those answers?