Recent content by savedbyjesus

Thank you for trying to at least address the problem. This is my area of research and I will debate this all my life or until it is throughly falsified. It has become clear that there is no one here to actually debate this with so I will vacate. I wish you all the best in your future...

Sad, no quotes to find on google so debate stops, shame. My challenge is still there please falsify it? Kind regards, Paul

Evolution claims no such thing it is blind. Please show me empirical evidence of evolution by natural selection of kingdom changes without postulating from variation? Kind regards, Paul

Sorry I forgot you were the authority on what constitutes better design and you know everything there is to know about design and all from some random mutations inside your head :-) Ok lets see you come up with something better made from tiny bags (please don't take this literal) of goo ...

Right, you completely missed the point with the dog skeletons so please forget it. I would like you to falsify the irreducible complexity of hair. I predict if you take away any system in the chain such as dermal papilla, the sebaceous gland or arrector pili you have no...

Hmm interesting so your saying if a white person does not which to reproduce with a black person a form of speciation has occurred? The only reason I put the dog example in the questions above was to point out if we were being intellectually honest we would group and sort them and...

Well the people voted him in twice :confused:

So by that logic I would say if we have that much trouble defining creatures we have full access to how much more difficult trying to form relationships from bones alone? Also if we based modern species on skeletons alone it would seriously reduce the number of species none to us. Do you think...

Yes it predicts design for a specific habitat. Also we have similar creatures alive today living in probably similar shallow water areas, what does it prove? Kind regards, Paul

So it's open to interpretation? There is no definitive answer this is a fish and this is not? Regards, Paul

That is what I want to find out. Kind regards, Paul

Of course the question is hard and I cannot answer it now. That is why we study? By the same token by looking at a fossil skeketon at what point is it classified as a fish and not some other creature? Kind regards, Paul

Maybe because Darwinan evolution has had 150 years of time to become established? Like all science it's a progression. Regards, Paul

New feature. Regards, Paul

Is that a rhetorical question? If not then I would postulate: Modern animals could be done with direct observation and DNA analysis. Dealing with the past we would have to study what we have fossils. I would look at a modern fish skeleton and compare it to the oldest fossil...