- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,181
- 52,653
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
"Correct" only in the sense that you can make it look good on paper.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"Correct" only in the sense that you can make it look good on paper.So you do acknowledge that taxonomy is correctly done?
Do you know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution?Do you deny that fatherhood tests works?
It is not a coincidence.Thinking a little bit more on what you just written here. How convenient isn't it for you to just dismiss the fact that, says, humans share milk glands, hair, diversified teeth, three ear bones, a single lower jaw bone, give life birth, placenta and hundreds of other unique (nested) characteristics with all other mammals as just a coincident?
Would you expect this similarity in fan belt to have any significant influence on the number of doors the car has? Or what radio system is installed? Or whether the windows are automatic? Because if you tell me the type of ear bones an animal has, I can tell you whether they have scales, feathers, or fur. That's the big difference here.A Ford "shares" a fan belt with a Buick and vice versa.
God having done it.How would the evidence need to be different for a true positive?
No.Would you expect this similarity in fan belt to have any significant influence on the number of doors the car has?
No.The Cadet said:Or what radio system is installed?
No.The Cadet said:Or whether the windows are automatic?
I'm impressed.The Cadet said:Because if you tell me the type of ear bones an animal has, I can tell you whether they have scales, feathers, or fur.
The big difference here is whether or not God used three different "snap on parts," or whether one ear bone fathered another ear bone, which fathered another ear bone over thousands (if not millions) of years.The Cadet said:That's the big difference here.
A Ford "shares" a fan belt with a Buick and vice versa.
Does that mean they are physically related to each other?
Can you trace a Buick back to a Ford, or a Ford back to a Buick?
Neither did God's "products."Human made products do not fall into a nested hierarchy.
I would say it is more likely that a Ford sired a Buick than it was that God created Adam from the DNA of Homo Harry.DogmaHunter said:Furthermore, cars and other such products, aren't biological organisms that self-reproduce with variation. So why you even bring this up, is some kind of mystery.
Neither did God's "products."
I would say it is more likely that a Ford sired a Buick than it was that God created Adam from the DNA of Homo Harry.
Living things can be put into nested hierarchies.Living things do fall into nested hierarchies - as we would expect if evolution is true.
Living things can be put into nested hierarchies.
There's a difference.
At the expense of repeating myself: ontological reduction.No, they factually consist of nested hierarchies.
Nah, onotological reductionism is a nice phrase, but it is a rather worthless claim on your part. You need to show evidence that it is correct. When you make a positive claim the burden of proof is upon you. Without any evidence there is no reason to believe your version of O R.At the expense of repeating myself: ontological reduction.
Ontological reduction, seen from the outside, looks like things are connected; when, in fact, they aren't.
Special documentation would therefore be required to distinguish ontological reduction from nesting.
Does nesting show man before whales, or whales before man?
(Please answer this. Then I have a verse from Genesis 1 to show you.)
It's a powerful explanation of how man and apes can have the same DNA, but not be linked.Nah, onotological reductionism is a nice phrase, but it is a rather worthless claim on your part.
Sorry, it is a weak excuse at best.It's a powerful explanation of how man and apes can have the same DNA, but not be linked.
At the expense of repeating myself: ontological reduction.
Ontological reduction, seen from the outside, looks like things are connected; when, in fact, they aren't.
Special documentation would therefore be required to distinguish ontological reduction from nesting.
Does nesting show man before whales, or whales before man?
(Please answer this. Then I have a verse from Genesis 1 to show you.)
QV please: My Snowman Challenge IIBut, at the expense of repeating myself, they factually are nested.
It is not a coincidence.
It is done by design.
And the technical term is ontological reduction.
A Ford "shares" a fan belt with a Buick and vice versa.
Does that mean they are physically related to each other?
God having done it.
The way you guys have DNA so interconnected on paper, it would take each and every genus on earth to have its own stand-alone DNA structure before you'll believe in instant creation.
At the expense of repeating myself: ontological reduction.
Ontological reduction, seen from the outside, looks like things are connected; when, in fact, they aren't.
Special documentation would therefore be required to distinguish ontological reduction from nesting.
Does nesting show man before whales, or whales before man?
(Please answer this. Then I have a verse from Genesis 1 to show you.)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?