The makers of the cards have already done that. They are called suits!
That would be 4 gruops based on similarities, not differences.
Upvote
0
The makers of the cards have already done that. They are called suits!
That would be 4 gruops based on similarities, not differences.
The difference is that there are different suit diagrams on all the cards that result in 4 suits of cards. Now you know!
If there are different suit diagrams on all the cards then you would have 52 separate cards, correct? The reality is that some of the cards have the SAME suit diagrams on them, and you are grouping the cards based on the fact that they SHARE this same suit despite the differences elsewhere on the cards. You are organizing groups based on similarities, not based on differences. If you organized cards based on differences then you would have 52 separate cards since every card is different.
The challenge is to organize cards based on differences, not similarities. I admit that it can't be done, but creationists insist that they group things based on differences. I am trying to show the folley of that claim.
Creationists group on similarities as well as differences eg why a fish is not a whale, why a human should not be classified as an ape.
All three are vertebrates, however, just as the 3 of clubs, 4 of clubs, and 5 of clubs are all clubs. They are still in the same group because of the features they share. Having different numbers on each of the cards does not exclude them from being in the same group, so how could differences between vertebrate species exclude them from also being in the same group?
All three are vertebrates, however, just as the 3 of clubs, 4 of clubs, and 5 of clubs are all clubs. They are still in the same group because of the features they share. Having different numbers on each of the cards does not exclude them from being in the same group, so how could differences between vertebrate species exclude them from also being in the same group?
In a deck of cards, any card that does not have a spade, heart or club symbol on it forms a group because it is different.
There you go. It wasn't that hard with a little thought!
The resson evolutionists are unable to to distinguish between groups is because they have classified everything according to the assumption of common ancestry.
To exclude from a group is a creationist thing not based on the common ancestry of everything.
In whales your DNA, morphology or mixed results give three different lines. How can you sit there and defend this method of yours?
A wolf may be a vertebrate and a mammal but it is not a cat because felids and canids differ in forelimb scaling, which emphasizes the dual use of forelimbs for locomotion and prey capture in felids.
A bird is not a dinosaur or specifically a theropod despite them both being vertebrates because a bird has a reversed hallux and theropods do not, unless evolutionists invent them out of thin air.
Of course the best proof that I am correct about no ancestry across family ranks generally, and you are not, is that your bird, whale and carnivore nested hierarchies are a mess. Also, DNA, what you rely mostly on, contradicts morphology which is all you have in fossils.
Why do all of the not-spades, not-hearts, and not-clubs go into a group together instead of into separate groups themselves?
Because the deck of cards is an arbitrary group that has been placed together under a false assumption that vertebrates and smaller subsets such as mammals also evolved only once.
Therefore, one can have a large set as a group, eg all the species that have eyes and are vertebrates which merely describes their skeletal system and are placental mammals that describes their reproductive system but are separated and different by a hallmark trait or suite of traits that is different from the rest, while still requiring a backbone to get around and still giving birth a certain way. eg whales have no legs and tetrapods do not have a blow hole.
Hence a group can be constructed by both similarities as well as differences that may exclude them from the larger group. Don't you get taught this stuff at school anymore?
That is why a diamond can be identified out of a group of other cards by exclusion.
I think it is much more reasonable to suggest the one designer reused similar great designs over than to believe that evolution just stumbled on them independently and convergently in non closely related lines as you would suggest.
eg Red blood cells and that red blooded vertebrates evolved twice independently in jawed and jawless vertebrates.
The request was for a creationist to separate cards by differences, not debate why I see what you don't see, is it by design or by common descent, which is an never ending circle. Infortunately for evolutionists your view has the most inconsistency, change and mess.
I have separated out a group based on the difference that other groups do not share, which satisfies the challenge to identify a card group based on differences.
In a deck of cards, any card that does not have a spade, heart or club symbol on it forms a group because it is different.
[/quote
Why a single group?
In a deck of cards, any card that does not have a diamond, heart or club symbol on it forms a group because it is different.
Every card is different from the others, so why don't we have 52 groups?