troodon said:
dad, I said assuming evolution is correct.
But this says nothing.
You see, if you are going to demonstrate why a theory is incorrect you have to see why it doesn't fit the evidence...
My theories fit evidence, and I don't have to scramble like a spider trying to force and mutilate the simple evidence we actually do have.
in order to do that you have to assume that it is correct and then see if there are any factual or logical problems that it brings up.
One that comes to mind is that it is at odds with a simple reading of God's word. Another is that there is no proof, just covorting evos, trying to glue whatever pops up into their old bag of tricks.
That's part of the scientific method. You take the hypothesis, you assume (in your mind) that it's true, and then you see what predictions it mandates.
OK, I assume the split is true, and see in my mind a nice cambrian out of eden created creature, and wow that it mandates a creator. Is that all?
You then test those predictions.
This rules yours out. All they do here is play, 'where to stick it'.
In this example, if you assume evolution to be correct, then for the reasons I outlined in my previous thread you would predict animals to have existed that look like they could be in 2 or more modern phyla.
I'd go back and check your work here.
This is exactly what this fossil is, ergo this fossil actually validates a prediction of evolutionary theory.
I guess every time they have no clue whatsoever, and play a stick it where it feels good game, this fulfills their predictions? So what? It is still less than nothing. No wonder that at the end of this so called reason. lies a non existant granny!
No, I am not. If Creationism took over in the scientific community would biologists stop classifying organisms?
Ha. Jesus will take over, and yes, the survivors, if any will not play such games.
Anatomy and defining characteristics.
According to who-Garp? His opinions and others may differ, as to what defines what.
How does that explain what did and didn't go extinct after the Fall?
Well, that has exactly what to do with this hitherto unknown critter?
It's the excuse Creationists use to try and explain away homology
"
Richard Owen (1848) introduced the term
homology to refer to structural similarities among organisms.
To Owen, these similarities
indicated that organisms were created following a common
plan or archetype. That is, although each species is unique, the plans for each might share many features, just as the design plans for a Honda Civic and a Honda Prelude might be similar. "
What about it? They were created, so what?
