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.
Why wouldn't a common creator used shared features?
We don't live in the ocean...so i wouldn't expect God to have created us with fins and gills....so I wouldn't expect to see people with fins and gills...would you?
Birds have hollow bones, Bats do not. Why didn't a common creator use shared features? Birds have beaks and no teeth, bats have teeth and no beaks. Why didn't a common creator use shared features? Birds have feathers, Bats have fur. Why didn't a common creator use shared features?
Why are fur, teeth, mammary glands and live birth always found together in one set of flying creatures, while beaks, eggs, hollow bones, and hunting for baby food found in the other?
There is an evolutionary answer . . . for this pattern. There is no creation theory to explain this pattern.
Why would a common creator force those shared features into a nested hierarchy? That's the question I keep asking, and you refuse to answer.
Why wouldn't God give feathers to bats, or three middle ear bones to birds? What was stopping God from mixing features from birds and mammals?
Why did God create one way in one species and not the other as with some? Why does a potter make a bowl with handles and another without? Why is one bowl made from clay and the other from wood..or metal?
...because God made a bat, not a bird. Duh.
You still haven't explained why God could or could not have used nested hierarchy. All I have read is your opinion.Bowls don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Life does.
Out of the trillions of possible patterns of shared features, why did God choose the only one that would match what we would expect to see from evolution?
Why not a species with a combination of bat and bird features?
We find species with a mixture of human and ape features, a mixture of mammal and reptile features, a mixture of dinosaur and bird features, so why not mammal and bird?
Why did God create one way in one species and not the other as with some? Why does a potter make a bowl with handles and another without? Why is one bowl made from clay and the other from wood..or metal?
That's not really a fair argument. You're taking observations found in nature concerning similarities, then building a hypothesis around them. Which is fair according to the scientific method.Bowls don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Life does.
Out of the trillions of possible patterns of shared features, why did God choose the only one that would match what we would expect to see from evolution?
That's not really a fair argument. You're taking observations found in nature concerning similarities, then building a hypothesis around them. Which is fair according to the scientific method.
But, then, when another hypothesis for the same similarities shows up, you say it can't be possible, because the similarities fit your hypothesis and your hypothesis leaves no room for creation.
The crux is not the evidence, it's the assumptions.
Why must I explain why God created things similar in order to have a valid hypothesis? Would it only make sense to have a creator if everything were 100% different? People don't do that. Artists are recognized by their similarities in their works. Their works may be different, but their styles are apparent.But you are not advancing your hypothesis very effectively. You hypothesize a creator could arbitrarily mimic a nested hierarchy . . . .
but with no reason for the creator to do that. Without a reason, we are left with the creator making random assignments of characteristics, and we don't observe random assignments of characteristics. Therefore the Creator did it hypothesis fails.
With no reason for a Creator to mimic a nested hierarchy, we don't have a hypothesis. Come up with a reason for that behavior on the part of the Creator. Then you have a hypothesis. Without it, you have no hypothesis.
Of course, there is one possibility that preserves a Creator. And that would be that the Creator actually used the process of common descent with variation (AKA evolution) as the method of creation. In that case, the observed pattern of nested hierarchy comes automatically and by necessity from the means of creation. You might try adopting that explanation.
\\Why must I explain why God created things similar in order to have a valid hypothesis? Would it only make sense to have a creator if everything were 100% different? People don't do that. Artists are recognized by their similarities in their works. Their works may be different, but their styles are apparent.
First of all, God created us in His image. He likes to create, and He created us to create. He separated us apart from every other living thing.\\
Firstly, God isn't 'people', so that argument fails right off the gate. God isn't supposed to think like people do, so why would he be subject to the same tendencies we have? Why would he share out limits?
Secondly, people DO do that. Artists change up their style all the time. They can use different materials, focus on different subjects, and completely re-inevent themselves. For instance, this:
This
And this
were made by the same person. If I hadn't just told you that, would you have any way of figuring it out? Can you see any similarity in the style?
That's not really a fair argument. You're taking observations found in nature concerning similarities, then building a hypothesis around them. Which is fair according to the scientific method.
But, then, when another hypothesis for the same similarities shows up, you say it can't be possible, because the similarities fit your hypothesis and your hypothesis leaves no room for creation.
The crux is not the evidence, it's the assumptions.
You still haven't explained why God could or could not have used nested hierarchy. All I have read is your opinion.
Because God didn't create that KIND of animal.
Why would God have to create that KIND of animal?
First of all, God created us in His image. He likes to create, and He created us to create. He separated us apart from every other living thing.
On the surface, these paintings look nothing alike. They are different in pretty much every visible aspect. Yet, they were created by the same artist. Why? We don't know. But they were made unique for a reason.
First of all, God created us in His image. He likes to create, and He created us to create. He separated us apart from every other living thing.
On the surface, these paintings look nothing alike. They are different in pretty much every visible aspect. Yet, they were created by the same artist. Why? We don't know. But they were made unique for a reason.
On a deeper level, there are also many similarities. For instance, each used paint. Each is on a canvas. The brush strokes would be similar. Etc. So, the artist is in fact a painter who uses canvas.
Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, would suggest these paintings miraculously evolved over billions of years from a primitive oil and painted themselves.
So, since it's obvious these paintings were created, why question the rest 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?