- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
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.
Is there a way to tell?Ah, so the polar bear might share an ancestor with the black bear but not the grasshopper. Might it share an ancestor with a red panda?
Bear and walrus? Ha. You claim they came from one anther?What does that even mean? Did the polar bear and walrus come from the same created kind? You refuse--refuse!-- to answer.
The trick is not long paragraphs, but having some meaning in them.Wow, what do you expect to accomplish with such word salad?
Do you realize that I wrote to you in paragraphs? The paragraphs, when taken as a whole, express a concept. But you dive in and break everything into tweet size chunks, and then use each chunk as a chance to sound off on something you have said many times before and we have always acknowledged that you said it. So what do you want people to do? Repeat the entire concept of your position in every sentence? If I utter a sentence that does not echo back every thing you ever said, then will you respond by just repeating things you said before? How does that move anything forward?
Get better ones?But that is how things go in The Self Replicating Argument Watch thread. We just keep watching the same arguments replicate over and over again.
Which part of 'your dates are totally wrong, and religious twaddle' do you have a hard time getting?If there is anybody following this, please notice that there was a point in the paragraphs I wrote, a point that was totally lost when Dad broke things into tiny bites.
You totally ignored the question. Again, there are fossils that date from 65 million years ago to 1 million years ago, but the eohippus all appear at about 55 million years ago. Why is that? Your answer makes no attempt to address the question.
We were looking at the series of horse fossils with time, from eohippus to mesohippus to miohippus, etc., and I was asking you why you think they consistently appear in that order. And it seemed to be you were saying that it was just luck that all the eohippus went in one layer, all the mesohippus in another, etc. But now you are back to nature somehow selecting only eohippus fossils when the layer that dates to 55 million years was layed down, and nature somehow selecting only mesohippus fossil in a later layer, and nature somehow selecting only a different kind of fossil in the next layer. So you seem to be back to nature constantly changing which fossils it selects. That makes no sense.
And please don't repeat that you think it was quicker than that--we already know you think that. My question is about the order.
Wait, now you suggest that maybe eohippus evolved into something like mesohippus which evolved into something like miohippus? That was my point all along. Now you are saying that I might be right?
Is there a way to tell if you think the polar bear and red panda might be the same kind? Unfortunately no, because you refuse to answer the question.Is there a way to tell?
No, the bear and walrus came from the same ancestor, not from each other.Bear and walrus? Ha. You claim they came from one anther?
Yes, Yes, yes!Get better ones?
The trick is not long paragraphs, but having some meaning in them.
I don't get the part that, although I have shouted from the rooftops that we differ on the length of the Cenozoic, and that I am addressing something else here, you still keep repeating that we differ on the length of the Cenozoic as though I have not yet acknowledged it. I acknowledge what you say.Which part of 'your dates are totally wrong, and religious twaddle' do you have a hard time getting?
I don't have to prove anything about the flagellum's evolution to show the logical error. Heck, even if the flagellum were the product of design, the logical error is still the same.
how exactly? if all motors are the product of design then a flagellum need a designer too. so where is the logical error here? unless you can prove that a motor (flagellum) can evolve naturally. in this case it will be indeed a logical error.
its like asking me to show that all cars are designed.First, show that all motors are designed.
its like asking me to show that all cars are designed.
how exactly? if all motors are the product of design then a flagellum need a designer too. so where is the logical error here? unless you can prove that a motor (flagellum) can evolve naturally. in this case it will be indeed a logical error.
-_- no, because flagella are not motors. Any resemblance some people might see between a flagella and a motor like in a car is extremely superficial and neglects accounting for the extremely different chemistry of the two.how exactly? if all motors are the product of design then a flagellum need a designer too.
Your logical error is acting as if flagella and motors like those in cars are the same thing, when they have more differences than similarities. It's the same as saying that since tortillas are created by humans that means parrots are also created by humans; it's a nonsense statement of claiming that since one thing is created, another entirely unrelated thing must also be created.so where is the logical error here? unless you can prove that a motor (flagellum) can evolve naturally. in this case it will be indeed a logical error.
But I just proved that, logically, the flagellum is man made.The existence of the flagellum.
...in a factory out of metal.But I just proved that, logically, the flagellum is man made.
how exactly? if all motors are the product of design then a flagellum need a designer too. so where is the logical error here? unless you can prove that a motor (flagellum) can evolve naturally. in this case it will be indeed a logical error.
so you believe that a motor can evolve naturally but a car cant?No it isnt.
In other words, you cant.
since an indian in any way he want this is a logical er ror. so you believe that a motor can evolve naturally then?if all Indians I have seen are walking single file, then all Indians need to walk single file too. so where is the logical error here? Can you find it?
so you believe that a motor can evolve naturally but a car cant?
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?