Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,132
- 7,451
- 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.
What if an asteroid strikes earth, stirs up dust, and lowers the temperature 50 degrees for a couple of decades?
IDer's are those who support the concept that intelligent design is demonstrable in living things. They have no well-formulated theory or any evidence of this, and confine themselves to attempting to show that evolution by random variation and selection is incompetent to account for the variety of living creatures we see around us.Who are IDer's?
That's none of my business.Nobody believes that.
And yet you've never given a single shred of evidence that shows that you don't hate science,
It shows that evolution isn't automatic.... What the heck does that have to do with what I wrote?!
I suppose it's difficult to prove that they are wrong.IDer's are those who support the concept that intelligent design is demonstrable in living things. They have no well-formulated theory or any evidence of this, and confine themselves to attempting to show that evolution by random variation and selection is incompetent to account for the variety of living creatures we see around us.
It shows that evolution isn't automatic.
I suppose it's difficult to prove that they are wrong.
You would have difficulty convincing me.Not really.
You would have difficulty convincing me.
Are you satisfied with an answer described purely in terms of anatomy and function thereof?
If so, we'll leave it at that. (Although, I'm not sure how this is explicitly a 'creationist' explanation since arguably one could make the same explanation regardless of dolphin/shark origins.)
Sure they do. Or rather, replication with change combined with a selection process creates new information all the time. In fact, you'd be dead if replication with change followed by selection didn't create new information.Replication and change do not account for the creation of new information.
I'm satisfied with being correct on the point you choose to pretend miss, you not being truthful in your arguments. But clearly, you get it now.
What I "get" from this thread is that creationism is limited to describing observable anatomy and function thereof, but not much else.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
"Honestly"? Now that's a good one.
All can recommend is you reread if you lost track.
There's no real question the the code can be altered to the benefit of the host and ultimately to populations at large. Common ancestry and natural selection is a viable, sometimes even obvious explanation, just not an explanation for natural history going all the way back to a single common ancestor. That assumption is an impossible burden of proof. If your convinced of natural selection and the naturalistic assumptions that go with it nessacarily you should own that.Sure they do. Or rather, replication with change combined with a selection process creates new information all the time. In fact, you'd be dead if replication with change followed by selection didn't create new information.
You claimed that the creationist explanation involves a dolphin using its tail to communicate via slapping (presumably requiring a horizontal tail to do so). And that sharks don't engage in this type of communication.
To which my response is that the creationist explanation then seems to be in regards to describing differences in function between the respective anatomical designs.
Is there anything further you have to add to this?
I stated my views on the matter earlier in this thread: hereThere's no real question the the code can be altered to the benefit of the host and ultimately to populations at large. Common ancestry and natural selection is a viable, sometimes even obvious explanation, just not an explanation for natural history going all the way back to a single common ancestor. That assumption is an impossible burden of proof. If your convinced of natural selection and the naturalistic assumptions that go with it nessacarily you should own that.
You didn't read back far enough.
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?