Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,038
- 7,403
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
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.
Some things don't require 'study'.
obvious | Definition of obvious in English by Oxford Dictionaries
Except what seems obvious to you isn't obvious to everyone.
That's their problem.
No, it's definitely your problem because then the onus is on you to show evidence to support your claim.
And you and others who support creation and design have a very bad track record of doing that.
It was meant as a general statement, not limited to crevo.
Regarding creation and design, if it isn't obvious to the observer, or if they are totally immersed in evolution, little else can be done.
Some things don't require 'study'.
In fact most knowledge is attained without laborious study.
obvious | Definition of obvious in English by Oxford Dictionaries
Regarding creation and design, if it isn't obvious to the observer, or if they are totally immersed in evolution, little else can be done.
That's their problem.
Let's face it, intelligence and design are essential elements of the scientific method itself! It always starts with an idea or question by an intelligent force (the scientist or student of the method).
Abstract
The postcranial skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis from the Hadar Formation, Ethiopia, and the footprints from the Laetoli Beds of northern Tanzania, are analyzed with the goal of determining (1) the extent to which this ancient hominid practiced forms of locomotion other than terrestrial bipedality, and (2) whether or not the terrestrial bipedalism of A. afarensis was notably different from that of modern humans. It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees. Other structural features point to a mode of terrestrial bipedality that involved less extension at the hip and knee than occurs in modern humans, and only limited transfer of weight onto the medial part of the ball of the foot, but such conclusions remain more tentative than that asserting substantive arboreality. A comparison of the specimens representing smaller individuals, presumably female, to those of larger individuals, presumably male, suggests sexual differences in locomotor behavior linked to marked size dimorphism. The males were probably less arboreal and engaged more frequently in terrestrial bipedalism. In our opinion, A. afarensis from Hadar is very close to what can be called a "missing link." We speculate that earlier representatives of the A. afarensis lineage will present not a combination of arboreal and bipedal traits, but rather the anatomy of a generalized ape.
Yeah, no it kind of is.
Indeed - like no study is needed to see when a person is out of their depth and relying on the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Go back and pick up the theme.
Female hyena pseudopenis makes it obvious that no competent designer was involved in nature. Sadly, when one has an intense emotional/psychological investment in the veracity of ancient creation myths, no amount of reason or evidence will matter to them. Given the appropriate charismatic religious leader, these folks will guzzle poison in his name.
That your entirely incapable of supporting your own claims?
I don't teach reading comprehension. You either get or you don't.
Thanks for mentioning this phenomenon, it has much meaning for me after perusing several articles about it. The biology and sociology of the Spotted Hyena make perfect sense from a creationist point of view as a living metaphor for the rebellion of Lucifer.
That does not make any sense and is a very clearly and very poor ad hoc attempt at explaining away something that doesn't fit your beliefs.
Many odd natural phenomena fit my beliefs very well. If you believe in evolution this oddity is the fault of evolution, not creation. If I offered a reason why Goddidit you wouldn't understand it anyway. So go with evolution.
Oh no I get it.
You're just very bad at explaining things.
Why is it a 'fault' of evolution but not a 'fault' of creation?
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?