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.
'Tis a book I am reading, and I can hardly put it better myself.
That they have similarites and perhaps developments is obvious, that design (that we are told to ignore) is present is a no brainer, that NS dunnit is an unsubstantiated extrapolation and does not fit the evidence.So why is that inappropriate? They did evolve over millions of years to maximize efficiency, which is why their solutions are worth considering.
The star distances are measured using red shift, applied mathematics and physics. Evolution is extrapolated from the assumption that micro-evolution = macro-evolution.And similarly for the other examples. Sure, there's an element of "gee whiz" here, but that's par for the course in popular descriptions of science. Articles about astronomy often make some comment about how astoundingly far away stars are. What idealogical axe are they trying to sharpen there?
Only if you consider GOD DID IT as "non-cogent."It's also less impressive considering we still don't have a cogent creationist explanation for the question in the OP.
Theological/religious considerations are not generally part of the philosophical argument, at least not properly.That's also true of my car's grinding sound and of my hematuria. It's still not an explanation for either.
That doesn't follow at all from the premise that a creator designed everything, not without making lots of assumptions about the creator's goals and methods. Now, if you want to restrict consideration to the Christian God as creator, well, then your prediction still seems not to follow. A recurring theme in the Bible is that the ways of the Creator are beyond our understanding.
Only if you consider GOD DID IT as non-cogent.
Most of the time ... if not all the time ... they already know what a Christian is going to say.
I took chemistry and physics in high school, geology in college. I enjoy astronomy. I took several psychology courses in college, if you call that science.Just curious have you ever read any scientific literature? Maybe an article or two, journal paper, book, textbook?
Or maybe they put on a facade of peace.A false peace ... yes.
Perfect peace? no.
Isaiah 26:3 Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.
Well, I don't replace the Lord with any of them, no.Auto mechanics, the stock market and the electric light bulb are also not seeking a perfect existence. You don't believe in any of those either, I take it?
And evolution does?It's not an explanation, because it doesn't actually explain anything.
No argument there.Or maybe they put on a facade of peace.
And evolution does?
Fins go either up-and-down or side-to-side because, a long time ago, both actions were programmed separately?
So they split into two groups and went their own ways?
Life gets better after we repent of our sin, because we avoid the trouble sin brings into our lives.Life does not improve after repentance. That only changes our standing with God.
Life gets better after we repent of our sin, because we avoid the trouble sin brings into our lives.
Just a suggestion:
Has it got something to do with the nature of reproduction practice? Fish lays eggs, which are fertilised remotely or externally, whereas Mammals engage and fertilise internally. A vertical tail would make the mammalian activity a bit awkward.
There are another more interesting questions than that:
Why should there only one species with exponentially growth in knowledge which is called humans , where the others species absolutely non.{snip}
So why hasn't the dolphin's tail evolved like the shark's?
Anyway one of the biggests problems for Darwin, the eye still challenges natural selection in this way and so Darwin was not really being honest when he said he could no find a case.
It's because of changes to the MYH-16 gene that controls jaw muscle size and changes to SRGAP2C which allowed more dendrites to form and ARHGAP11B which allowed our neocortex to grow in size. There are still many questions, but the basic changes in our brain are pretty well understood at this point.
I have never seen any evidence that they evolved in the manner of Neo-Darwinism (genetic mutation followed by natural selection).
And now even a longer post.
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?