To the evolution deniers

[Speedwell]

I agree however, our atheist friends don't and use 'science' to say God does not exist. All for fallacious reasons of course.

They take the materialism approach (mostly) that our origins have to come from what we can only observe---nature (as if such is deified) or what 'nature' has left for us to discover.

When as Christians, we know "In the beginning (time) God (Creator) created the Heavens (space) and the earth (matter).

Correct. But I see no reason, biblical or otherwise, to believe that He did it 6000 years ago in six calendar days. Further, I see no reason to believe that a scientific discovery of adequate natural causes for any natural object or phenomenon rules out direct divine creative involvement. Moreover, I suspect this will also turn out to be true for the emergence of life from non-living matter and other natural phenomena which science cannot now explain.

I also suspect that much of the creationists' complaint about how "atheists" use science to deny God is based on really nothing more than people using science to "say" that biblical creationism is bunk. Not the same thing at all

 

[Ophiolite]

Which this 'something' would be what exactly?

It is pretty much the same something you mention in post #128, where you say:
"At some point something must come from nothing, or an uncreated Creator must be in the equation." Perhaps, since you brought it up first, you have a more intimate knowledge of its character.

Then refering to the appearance of the Creator.

Appeared out of where?

I have no idea. He's your Creator.

More to the point, it is not relevant. I was simply demonstrating that you had presented a false dichotomy. It's probably just me, but I often find people who posit false dichotomies are prone to simplify and misinterpret important concepts. I'm keeping an open mind in your case. For the moment.

 

[Ophiolite]

Further, I see no reason to believe that a scientific discovery of adequate natural causes for any natural object or phenomenon rules out direct divine creative involvement.

This is moving off-topic, but I am always conscious of the fact that science has not always followed methodological naturalism. And, perhaps, we may find it appropriate to change this in future.

I do not share your confidence that all phenomena will be found to have natural explanations. Probably, but if we assume up front - following our methodological naturalism - that there will be no divine intervention, then we are less likely to spot it if it occurs. Recall that I speak as an agnostic, though in regard to the Christian God I am a confirmed atheist.

In a similar fashion I am seriously annoyed by Intelligent Design, since it effectively eliminates the possibility of looking for any evidence of intelligent design. e.g. intervention in terrestrial evolution by alien entities.

If this is something anyone wishes to pursue we should start a new thread, not further disrupt this one.

 

[USincognito]

It doesn't. Nor do I. I believe they all probably are. I believe it is all devolving, not evolving. It doesn't get better. It gets worse.

I believe ancient man, out of the womb, was superior to modern man.

You can believe anything you want. Whether your beliefs have any validity or not is another question.

 

[USincognito]

And the model keeps changing.

When I think of evolution theory and all the changes that must be made as new discoveries are made, I'm reminded of Ptolomy.

Something else I think about when people mention evolution theory is my old 2001 Chrysler 300m. Imagine some race of beings coming to our planet a couple of million years from now, long after mankind is extinct or has left the planet a Mars-like hulk. They find my car perfectly preserved in ice or many layers of rock, etc.

Now, imagine they find a 2001 Dodge Neon from the same year, but catastrophies have placed it in a layer of rock they determine to be a million years older. As they look at the makeup of both cars, they notice that they share the same, exact door handle (they do). When analyzing the qualities of the cars and the suggested age of each, they deduce that the 300m evolved from the Neon. And to further complicate things, they later find a 2001 dodge intrepid and announce they have found the missing link!

Except what really happened was this:

1. Both cars were designed for human occupants.
2. Both cars were designed to be effectively useful for humans to transport humans and some of their stuff.
3. Both were designed for the same road conditions and environment.
4. Both were designed by the same company with the same general goals.
5. The company believed in efficiency of production and economy, and saw no reason to design two separate door handles when one design and manufacturing process was sufficient.

i.e. the similarites between species do not prove evolution. They prove design.

"They're trying to find themselves an audience. Their deductions need applause." --- Peter Gabriel (The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway - Genesis)

Whenever cars start reproducing by passing along genetic material to offspring, you might begin to have an analogy.

 

[redleghunter]

Correct. But I see no reason, biblical or otherwise, to believe that He did it 6000 years ago in six calendar days. Further, I see no reason to believe that a scientific discovery of adequate natural causes for any natural object or phenomenon rules out direct divine creative involvement. Moreover, I suspect this will also turn out to be true for the emergence of life from non-living matter and other natural phenomena which science cannot now explain.

I also suspect that much of the creationists' complaint about how "atheists" use science to deny God is based on really nothing more than people using science to "say" that biblical creationism is bunk. Not the same thing at all

Ah an open mind. I mean that. Quite refreshing on these threads. God Bless!

 

[redleghunter]

It is pretty much the same something you mention in post #128, where you say:
"At some point something must come from nothing, or an uncreated Creator must be in the equation." Perhaps, since you brought it up first, you have a more intimate knowledge of its character.

Then refering to the appearance of the Creator.I have no idea. He's your Creator.

More to the point, it is not relevant. I was simply demonstrating that you had presented a false dichotomy. It's probably just me, but I often find people who posit false dichotomies are prone to simplify and misinterpret important concepts. I'm keeping an open mind in your case. For the moment.

I understand clearly your responses, however you claimed a false dichotomy. Yet you answered me in the same binary fashion....

 

[Ophiolite]

I understand clearly your responses, however you claimed a false dichotomy. Yet you answered me in the same binary fashion....

It is not clear which of my responses you are referring to, but your claim is nonsense in each case.

In the original post I provided additional possibilities to your exclusive two.

In my subsequent reply to you I addressed two points, since you had asked two questions. That may be a binary fashion, it is not a dichotomy.but I often find people who posit false dichotomies are prone to simplify and misinterpret important concepts.

Perhaps you mean this comment of mine. "but I often find people who posit false dichotomies are prone to simplify and misinterpret important concepts." There is no false dichotomy here.

• simplify and misinterpret are not options, but a single combination.
• No alternative to this is offered, yet there are several

So what are you waffling about?

 

[redleghunter]

It is not clear which of my responses you are referring to, but your claim is nonsense in each case.

In the original post I provided additional possibilities to your exclusive two.

In my subsequent reply to you I addressed two points, since you had asked two questions. That may be a binary fashion, it is not a dichotomy.but I often find people who posit false dichotomies are prone to simplify and misinterpret important concepts.

Perhaps you mean this comment of mine. "but I often find people who posit false dichotomies are prone to simplify and misinterpret important concepts." There is no false dichotomy here.

• simplify and misinterpret are not options, but a single combination.
• No alternative to this is offered, yet there are several

So what are you waffling about?

Let me clarify. You claimed I posted a false dichotomy. However if claiming so you must put forth a valid third option. You did not. You just used my Creator statement and claimed there could have been a different creator. That's the same argument I used but you just repackaged it.

The only alternative to my post would be the universe always was with no beginning. However, there is nothing in support of that other than assertion.

 

[Ophiolite]

Let me clarify. You claimed I posted a false dichotomy. However if claiming so you must put forth a valid third option. You did not. You just used my Creator statement and claimed there could have been a different creator. That's the same argument I used but you just repackaged it.

The only alternative to my post would be the universe always was with no beginning. However, there is nothing in support of that other than assertion.

I gave you the last option as my first example.
"Something" may always have been in existence that was not an uncreated Creator.

I did not quote your example of "something appearing from nothing", but it is obviously a second example.

I also did not quote your instance of an uncreated creator. In all references I have seen in Christian literature the Creator is said to be eternal. This would constitute a third example.

I added a version of an uncreated Creator who had not been present throughout eternity. That was a fourth example.
A Creator may have "appeared" and subsequently set about creating.

I finished with a fifth example
Life in the universe may have evolved to a point it had the power to go back to the beginning and "start the ball rolling".

 

[redleghunter]

I gave you the last option as my first example.
"Something" may always have been in existence that was not an uncreated Creator.

I did not quote your example of "something appearing from nothing", but it is obviously a second example.

I also did not quote your instance of an uncreated creator. In all references I have seen in Christian literature the Creator is said to be eternal. This would constitute a third example.

I added a version of an uncreated Creator who had not been present throughout eternity. That was a fourth example.
A Creator may have "appeared" and subsequently set about creating.

I finished with a fifth example
Life in the universe may have evolved to a point it had the power to go back to the beginning and "start the ball rolling".

Is your something subject to their own creation or operates out of it?

 

[pitabread]

New information would be in the form of a completely new arrangement of the nucleotides in a way that did not previously exist in any of the population which produce some new or visibly changed trait.

What does "completely new arrangement" mean though? I ask, because DNA mutations are based on replication of prior sequences. And while something like a single nucleotide substitution can have a dramatic effect on gene function, the sequence itself may be still similar to the sequence that came prior.

I've seen people reject this as being an example of a novel mutation, because it's not something that results in a radically different sequence in their minds. That's why when you say "completely new arrangement", my spidey sense starts tingling. As I said, I've been down this road before and can sense when the deck is being stacked.

Beneficial information is an arrangement of the nucleotides into a code which produces a trait which aids rather than hinders the organisms survival.

This one is a bit trickier to define. Sequences themselves after all are neither beneficial or harmful, but rather it's the expression of the sequence that may or may not impact the survival of the organism. And that impact may be highly dependent on environment and selection pressures that may be present.

A perfect example would be something like glyphosate resistance in plants. The use of glyphosate as a pesticide has resulted in the emergence or identification of particular strains of plants which exhibit resistance to it, which appears in part at least to be the result of novel mutations in those strains. (For example, Pro-106-Ser mutation and EPSPS overexpression acting together simultaneously in glyphosate-resistant goosegrass ( Eleusine indica )).

In absence of the pesticide, such a mutation may not be inherently beneficial, but in the presence glyphosate clearly aids survival in comparison to non-resistant strains.

Observed in this context means under a controlled environment in which someone observed the change happen where it is known that the trait did not exist in any of the population prior to the observation.

This seems a bit odd to me. Selective pressures are invariably a result of environment and a "controlled" environment implies one which is artificially controlled; and thus subject to artificial selection pressure. And it's all to easy to apply arbitrary selection of traits relative to artificial selection; humans have been doing this for millenia. There are already studies which are examining just this, the underlying genetic selection based on selective breeding. For example, Identification of Recently Selected Mutations Driven by Artificial Selection in Hanwoo (Korean Cattle).

In fact, this is what PsychoSarah's planned 10-year evolution experiment with triops is looking to explore.

I'm also not sure why you require that "the trait did not exist in any of the population prior to the observation". After all, we already know that mutations occur in abundance and can and do affect an organism's phenotype. And we know that selective pressures can and do effect the viability of those phenotypes relative to that pressure. Whether or a not a particular mutation is known to exist beforehand or not seems somewhat irrelevant.

That said, there are cases where specific gene mutations can be identified in a singular generation. Here is an example of that, Puppy bred to have muscular dystrophy saved by surprise mutation

Add all four and you have the type of mutation which would be required to show universal common descent aka molecules to man evolution were at least feasible. That is to say you would have to observe new and beneficial information being added to the genome (of a multi-celled organism) population through a completely random mutation.

In effect, all of this has been observed. We see novel mutations adding "information" (that is, novel sequences) to genomes of offspring. We see selective pressure acting on said genetic sequences. And the amount of controlled evolution we have undertaken is quite immense when you consider the sheer amount of selective breeding humans have subjected various biological organisms to (both plants and animals) over the years.

 

[Ophiolite]

Is your something subject to their own creation or operates out of it?

Really? I've already answered that. My something is pretty much your something.

I'm done with this nonsense. You proffered two options, I demonstrated that there were more. Therefore you presented a false dichotomy.

This is a vanishingly small point. My correction of your oversight was not intended to lead to the Spanish Inquisition. The sensible thing for you to have done would have been to say, "Good point" and we could have moved on. But instead you are trying to herd cats. Ridiculous.

Unless you post something so eloquent, erudite and unexpected that stops me in my tracks, I have nothing further to say on the matter.

 

[DogmaHunter]

All evidence used by evolutionist paleontologists to support evolution is based on similarity of some sort when boiled down.

That is just wrong. The evidence for evolution is not based on "mere similarity". And frankly I'm getting tired of having to repeat this on this forum.

Mere "similarity" will not cut it. Evolution theory predicts very specific things concerning "similarity". Most important of which would be the pattern of similarities. The pattern of the distribution of traits, genetic markers, genes, etc.

But like the defense attorney, we creationists raise the point that similarity is expected between life forms had they all had a common creator.

But not the pattern of similarities that evolution theory predicts AND which we actually observe in nature.

Having said that, in the end... all you have are baseless assertions. In context of evolution, it can be easily EXPLAINED and DEMONSTRATED exactly why such a pattern of similarity is expected.

Creationists can not do this. They can't even show that this supposed designer actually exists. They can not account for the pattern of similarities that we observe. They can not account for the geographic distribution of species. They can not account for the fact that the observed pattern of similarities is found in multiple independent lines of evidence: comparative genetics, comparative anatomy, etc.

In evolution however.... not only can it account for this pattern, it actually predicts this pattern. It naturally flows from the process. If the process happens, then exactly that pattern inevitably would emerge.

And it its exactly that pattern that we observe in nature.

Creationism can not account for this. At all.

What that means is that any argument based on similarity is polysemic and useless in this debate. IT MUST BE THROWN OUT of the debate.

No. Instead, YOU must learn that it's not about mere similarities, but about the pattern of similarities and how they are distributed among species.

Because for personal reasons most dismiss the notion of a creator as a possibility before they even address the issue.

Just about all christian, muslim and jewish biologists, paleontologists and geneticists will tell you that that is absolute nonsense.

Let me ask you, who wins a race "with only one competitor?"

Here's your mistake.

The race is already over. Evolution (not as "the only competitor") won the race some 200 years ago.

Do most of the worlds scientists agree with the current winner? Absolutely. But are you willing to take an honest look at why this is?

I already did. And the reason is that all the evidence fits evolution theory and none of the evidence fits creationist ideas (in whatever incarnation).

The answer is surprisingly a spiritual answer not a scientific one. Jesus told us that wide is the path that leads to destruction and many are on that path. He said straight is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to eternal life and few are there who find it. What He was telling us is that the majority of the world will not accept spiritual truths. If one is forced to admit that there is a creator then one is forced to wrestle with his or her own spirituality. It is the same reason that a criminal cannot find a cop while he is attempting a crime. He doesn't want to find a cop and will do every thing in his power to avoid encountering one. When he does run into a cop he makes up outlandish excuses for the evidence against him. "Those are not my drugs officer...these aren't even my pants..." "There is no creator, highly specified life must have formed itself."

We are discussing scientific topics and I am not interested in your religious preaching.
I don't care what the bible said or what jesus said or what captain kirk said.

We are talking about observable reality. And if observable reality contradicts "what jesus said", then it's not reality that is wrong.

But when you examine each specimen more closely you discover there are crazy jumps in size and changes in other parts of their structure that are huge changes.

1. this is a creature on it's way from land mammal to sea dwelling mammal... obviously it's not only the blowhole that's changing.
2. get real, you did not examine these specimen (and no, looking at pictures does not count as "examining them")
3. I dare say that actual paleontologists etc who actually examine these specimen, are a tiny bit more qualified then you, to do so

Again if you have not other explanation for these creatures existence besides evolution then they absolutely have to be related.

False. Just because a certain theory is currently the only valid game in town, does not mean that it is correct. And no self-respecting scientist will say otherwise.

But if you believe there is just even a possibility they are the product of special creation by one creator then the similar features are explained in the same way a car manufacturer makes many similar features within their different models of automobiles.

Utterly, utterly false.

Not a SINGLE product line of ANY manufacturer, exhibits a pattern of similarities that is expected, nay required, from an evolutionary process. Not a single one.

Nobody creates products with nested hierarchies. Because it is wastefull, energy consuming and BAD DESIGN from an engineering perspective.

Well if you are asking within the frame work of the analogy they already existed as an allel within the human gene-pool.

No. I'm asking within the frame of reality.
As a matter of fact, this stuff doesn't even hold up within creationist nonsense.

Creationist nonsense posits that it all started with just 2 humans. And after a while, their god even pushed the reset button and reduced human population back to just 8 individuals - 4 of which were brothers and their dad.

This very "model" actually REQUIRES evolution to take place.
Tell me, what traits did adam and eve have?
Where they asian, caucasion, aboriginal, black,...?
What color eyes did they have: blue, grey, brown, green?
Were they blonde, brunette, black, ginger,...?

Obviously, 2 humans could only accomodate for 2 traits of each.
By definition, the traits that weren't present, but are today, would have needed to come about one way or the other. In a timespan of just a few thousand years - which is actually a much, much, much, MUCH faster pace then evolution theory actually posits.

So, ironically, by being a creationist, you are actually required to accept a version of evolution "on steroids".

It makes no sense and it doesn't hold up. At all.

No I asked for an example of OBSERVED, NEW, and BENEFICIAL information being added to the genome of a multi-celled organism.

CCR5 delta 32.

CCR5 is a molecule that regulates things in cells. All humans have it. HIV abuses this molecule to infect. A mutation in the molecule blocks HIV from doing so. People with this mutation are immune to HIV.

Who studied the monks prior to their move to the high altitudes and noted that the gene did not exist in any populations of the world prior? Anser-->NO ONE!

This gene sequence is factually only present in Tibetans.
What's more reasonable? That ALL HUMANS besides Tibetans lost these genes, or that Tibetan ancestors gained these genes?

Where do they come from?

You did not provide what I asked for. I hand waved something away that did not meat the stated requirements.

I did. Just like I provided you with exactly the fossils you asked for: fossils that exhibit a gradual change of a trait.

I didn't expect you to be satisfied with these examples, because no examples would ever satisfy you. The doctrines of the religion you follow, prevent you from accepting these examples - not the examples themselves.

The only things that creationists would accept (as per their own statements in my experience) are the kinds of things that don't actually occur in evolution.

I can't even count the times that someone asked for an example of, for instance, a dog changing into non-dog. Or asking for a fossil that I can only call a "crockoduck".

Your non-acceptance of the evidence has little to do with the evidence and everything with
1. your religious beliefs
and
2. a false understanding of evolution theory.

That's my experience when talking to other creationists anyway. ANd the stuff you're saying here, seems to fall in line with that.

No friend there is no evidence that speciation is anything other than bad mutations causing a loss of information that worked to the new species advantage.

For crying out loud...................................

If a mutation works to an organism's ADVANTAGE, then it was a beneficial mutation.
Harmfull mutations are detrimental, not advantagous...............

Beetles on a windy island sometimes reproduce with a defect that makes them unable to fly. The non fliers don't get blown out to sea while the fliers do. Thus the non fliers reproduce and make more non flying beetles. Ta da! a new species. But it didn't form because new and beneficial information that never existed in the gene-pool suddenly mutated into existence.

If a mutation prevents me from dying, then the mutation is rather beneficial for my survival.

The mental gymnastics you exhibit here, are rather sad, you know...

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't care what the bible said or what jesus said or what captain kirk said.

Easy there fella! And it's Captain Kirk, with capitals to you.

 

[tas8831]

I have no idea? I am not a geneticist.

So you are not a geneticist yet you just laid out your criteria for this.

YOU wrote this, did you not:

"New information would be in the form of a completely new arrangement of the nucleotides in a way that did not previously exist in any of the population which produce some new or visibly changed trait."


So why did you write that since you are not a geneticist?

And why did you write that if, when asked how you would employ that definition with a over-simplified scenario, you just get indignant and engage in the burden shifting fallacy?

How about you link a scientific paper that meats the requirements I laid out and I will take a look at it.

Why do you think that ANY other geneticist in the world ascribes to your non-geneticist, idiosyncratic "definition"?

Absurd!

 

[tas8831]

Reminds me of piltdown man.

David Menton reminds you of Piltdown man? well, he does have crazy eyebrows...

I take it that you accept, at face value, tales of conspiracies and intrigue churned out by your favorite creationist organizations?

Did you know that many did not accept Piltdown from the start? Of course you didn't - your creationist overlords will not allow you to know that!

The anatomist William King Gregory of the American Museum of Natural History also studied the material in September 1913. Gregory made one of the clearest statements concerning the possibility of fraud: "It has been suspected by some that geologically they are not old at all; that they may represent a deliberate hoax, a Negro or Australian skull and a broken ape jaw, artificially fossilized and planted in the gravel-bed to fool the scientists" (6)...Others also publicly expressed their doubts about Piltdown Man. In 1915, the zoologist Gerrit S. Miller, of the U. S. National Museum of Natural History, published a paper stating that the jaw was that of a chimpanzee (7). Although Miller's work was savagely attacked by the osteologist, William Plane Pycraft–a friend of Woodward–it did make an impression on some (8). William King Gregory, for example, reversed his decision and agreed with Miller's observations. Further evidence against the case for Piltdown man came from George Grant McCurdy of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale University, who marshalled strong arguments showing that the skull and jaw could not be from the same animal. A Birmingham dentist, W. Courtney Lyne, also published a paper noting serious inconsistencies concerning the canine tooth that Teilhard had discovered. There was, however, more to come that would silence the critics.​

Bet you will never read about that on any creationist website...


Didn't you claim that you know all about data mining and analysis or something?


What's next? Are you going to mention 'Haeckel's embryos"?


Amazing...

 

[DogmaHunter]

The theory basically says that through random mutations and natural selection all life is related.

Yep. Which is testable.

This is where evolutionists love to get their foot in the door and suddenly pull a switch. They will tell us that evolution is nothing more than observed small changes in a population of an organism over time.

That's how the process works yes. By accumulation of small changes over generations.
Which, in an every changing environment with impact on selection pressures, inevitably ends up in big changes over longer periods.

If left at that definition all knowledgeable creationists are also evolutionists.

Sure. The only problem here seems to be that these creationists fail to grasp the concept of accumulation of small changes.

If you consistenly move 1 inch at a time, you'll inevitably end up walking for miles.

However once they get everyone chanting "yeah evolution is a fact," they suddenly switch the definition to being "small changes over vast amounts of time lead to one form evolving into a completely different form."

Not a "completely different" form.

This is far from a fact

It isn't. That, for example, humans and chimps share ancestors, is as close to fact as it gets.

We do observe small changes take place in populations of organisms all the time as a result of natural selection.

...which accumulate over generations.

However the problem is that these changes have nothing to do with random mutations.

False.

That is nothing more than a fairytale equal to a frog becoming a handsome prince. The idea that over large amounts of time these small changes will eventually lead to very large changes stems from a completely ignorant understanding of what caused these small changes to begin with.

No. 1+1+1+1+1+1+1... = big number.
Accumulation. It works.

All changes observed "so far" (in the evidence) shows these changes have been the result of natural selection "selecting" already existing genes in the gene pool.

Were you expecting for natural selection to "select" for non-existing DNA, perhaps?

Well without schooling me on the "difference" then I guess you have chosen to leave me in "ignorance." From my perspective there is little to no difference.

Scientific consensus is a recognition that the available evidence all falls in line with the scientific theory and that the tests confirm that as well.

Opinion is just that: opinion. It's merely what one believes, not what one can demonstrate.

Your like a guy claiming his 12 year old son is the greatest baseball player in the world.

Perhaps. If that guy could also demonstrate that his 12-year old is the best in the world.
Because the fact that all the physical evidence points towards evolution is very demonstrable.

When someone says what about Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron? You reply, I don't believe they existed so they don't count

Is that supposed to be an analogy to my atheism?
Because that wouldn't work. Those people demonstrably existed.
And I'll also add that most christians have no problems with evolution theory...

Basically you validate your observations to be interpreted "your way" by eliminating (waving away) the competing views in your own mind.

Not all competing views are relevant or valid.
In fact, the particular "competing view" that you are proposing, was discarded some 200 years ago already. You're behind.

And it's not "my way". It's the science way.

Is there a lot of physical evidence for evolution? Absolutely. It's all based on similarity, and when someone points out to you that similarity could be the result of a common creator, then you just reply "I don't believe in a creator so it must be a result of evolution."

Nope.

If someone points that out, then I'll reply with the explanation of why that simply is not the case. And I'ld have to explain (for the millionth time) that it's not about mere similarity, but about the pattern of similarity.

Evolution predicts ONE very specific pattern. And it is exactly THAT pattern we observe in nature.

It's also the very last pattern one would expect from a "designer".

An evolutionary process inevitably ends up in nested hierarchies.
Designed products never end up in nested hierarchies, unless it is done deliberatly. And you'ld have to go extremely out of your way to accomplish such a pattern.

There is no reason at for doing this. In fact, it ends up in such bad and inneficient design that if any engineer at any factory would design products that way, he'ld be fired.

Absolutely correct. And this is how the Bible is validated.

Apparantly not, since reality heavily disagrees with genesis, exodus, etc.

It agrees with all known science, all known history, is free of inconsistencies, and 100% prophetically accurate. It passes what I call the SHIP test.

Only in your head.

No He wouldn't.

Yet, there it is.

However they may have many of the same genes and when creation became cursed those same genes became "broken" in the same way.

lol

But I'm the one with the "assumptions", ha?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What's next? Are you going to mention 'Haeckel's embryos"?

Or perhaps that "darwin had a deathbed confession" - another good one.

 

[tas8831]

Or perhaps that "darwin had a deathbed confession" - another good one.

Isn't it amazing....