You said creation was magic. If you want to say Evolution is magic, I shall ask you to stand by your claim that creation is also magic. Either that or admit that evolution is actually science.
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.
You said creation was magic. If you want to say Evolution is magic, I shall ask you to stand by your claim that creation is also magic. Either that or admit that evolution is actually science.By "magic" I mean miracles. Either way it's not a scientific explanation ... which doesn't bother me at all.
Creation is miracles.You said creation was magic. If you want to say Evolution is magic, I shall ask you to stand by your claim that creation is also magic. Either that or admit that evolution is actually science.
I was talking to a creationist who appeared to have an honest claim about creation, not you.Creation is miracles.
Gee, I wonder why they call it an "elephant shrew" if it looks nothing like an elephant.You said genetics should match morphology. The sengi looks (morphology) so much like a shrew it was called "elephant shrew", but genetically it is closer to elephants and manatees than shrew. Please explain how that happened using your model.
Strictly speaking, creation is miracles, which to a atheist seems like magic and superstition ... which is why I referred to creation as "magic".You said creation was magic. If you want to say Evolution is magic, I shall ask you to stand by your claim that creation is also magic. Either that or admit that evolution is actually science.
...Buzzard3 ...genetic evidence... you know the drill by now.Gee, I wonder why they call it an "elephant shrew" if it looks nothing like an elephant.
I think an hypothesis that can't be tested qualifies as junk science, and it seems to me that there's a lot of that going on in the cult of evolution.Creation is miracles.
Evolution is science -- junk science.
...patterns of genetic similarities.I think an hypothesis that can't be tested qualifies as junk science, and it seems to me that there's a lot of that going on in the cult of evolution.
Yes, thanks for the reminder....Buzzard3 ...genetic evidence... you know the drill by now.Buzzard3 said:Gee, I wonder why they call it an "elephant shrew" if it looks nothing like an elephant.
I really don't know enough about his views on evolution to comment.These ideas sound contradictory. Given that a precursor would be identified by cladistic patterns. What do you mean?
Thanks all the same, but I read the whole essay several years ago.Quotes from essays, very impressive. Which creationist website did you find that on? Curious - as I know you never read the whole essay, would you like to? Gould was a great author. I saw him giv
Yes, thanks for the reminder.
Care to explain your point?The poster in post#900 said the sengi
Is genetically closer to elephants than shrew, which makes perfect sense bcoz it's also called an "elephant shrew".
Sorry, but an elephant, and elephant shrew and an elephant seal look EXACTLY THE SAME to me.Please keep it in mind next time you make a claim about there being no evidence for evolutionary relatedness.
Care to explain your point?
it has a cute little trunk:
View attachment 315289
This guy also has a trunk and is called an elephant seal, yet is not more related to elephants than other seals.
View attachment 315290
The Tasmanian tiger isn't more similar to a tiger than any other Australian mammal.
A marsupial mouse isn't more related to a mouse than to other marsupials.
I really don't know enough about his views about evolution to comment.
I noticed you used evolution's favourite word - "if". Darwinism is IF-science.Hardy archaea can reproduce every 20 minutes or so. Let's say every hour. That is 8,760,000,000 'generations' in 1 million years. If an organism can only reproduce 2 a year, that is 2,000,000 generations - each generation experiencing the changes in their genomes that introduce diversity.
Big deal. The fact of the matter is, there's a massive evolutionary gap between the organisms that suddenly appeared during the Cambrian explosion and the organisms that preceded it.Evidence shows that by the Cambrian, of course, we had multicellular eukaryotes and such already.
What a pity all those scientists who were/are surprised by the Cambrian explosion don't possess the rich and in-depth understanding of the history of the world and science that you do.Given your rich and in-depth understanding of the history of the world and science, tell me how long it should have taken to generate the diversity preserved for us in the Burgess Shale and other sites during and prior tot he Cambrian 'explosion.'
Scrutiny is a damned nuisance!Proponents of ID and YECism often tend not to know the views of the people they quote. Of course the authors of these books themselves never clarify on their own views, lest they allow themselves to be opened up to more scrutiny. As long as they can sell books and give an appearance of being credible, that's all they need.
It doesn't, it looks like a shrew. Please explain.Gee, I wonder why they call it an "elephant shrew" if it looks nothing like an elephant.
I suspect your text choice is representing humour or sarcasm... but your implications are unclear.Sorry, but an elephant, and elephant shrew and an elephant seal look EXACTLY THE SAME to me.
Puzzling and mysterious do not equal impossible.I noticed you used evolution's favourite word - "if". Darwinism is IF-science.
Big deal. The fact of the matter is, there's a massive evolutionary gap between the organisms that suddenly appeared during the Cambrian explosion and the organisms that preceded it.
What a pity all those scientists who were/are surprised by the Cambrian explosion don't possess the rich and in-depth understanding of the history of the world and science that you do.
Take Gould for example, who said,
“The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.”
Evidently he wasn't as smart or as well-educated as you.
Can you tell me more about this "branching pattern" in genetics, please?And once again you are ignoring genetic evidence.
The pattern of genetic similarities indicates a branching pattern of family relationships.
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?