Continued from last post:
You are saying that life was created separately, not part of a progression. Progression is evolution, not separate creations.
I never once claimed there was no progression. You continue to argue the stereotype of Creationism. I have finally figured out what the problem is, you argue from that and feel comfortable doing that. If you would try to understand what I am actually saying rather than thinking you know what I am saying we would have some progress here.
You still have not explained why it is necessary that separately created kinds fall into a nested hierarchy.
You don't even know what separately created kinds are. First of all, the Creation Narrative never claims that life was created separately. We see the sea swarming with life, was it all one separate kind, no obviously. You are working on the stereotype and not on what it says.
How did you determine that they didn't exist? Do you have a time machine?
Loudmouth, read what I am writing. I didn't say they didn't exist. I said that there were no precursors currently. Go back and read it.
I can do that, too.
The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature. . . For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear.--Darwin, On the Origin of Species
The Origin of Species: Chapter 9
Why did you post this? Did you misunderstand me yet again?
Run away from the evidence all you like.
Then why is it all you talk about?
We were discussing something in particular. However, it is important to my point. You accept supportive evidence in your own worldview and dismiss it in mine.
DNA is empirical proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) that all life shares a common ancestor and evolved from that common ancestor through natural processes.
Origins and DNA evidence
Biologists use the DNA sequences of modern organisms to reconstruct the tree of life and to figure out the likely characteristics of the most recent common ancestor of all living things the "trunk" of the tree of life. In fact, according to some hypotheses, this "most recent common ancestor" may actually be a set of organisms that lived at the same time and were able to swap genes easily. In either case, reconstructing the early branches on the tree of life tells us that this ancestor (or set of ancestors) probably used DNA as its genetic material and performed complex chemical reactions. But what came before it? We know that this last common ancestor must have had ancestors of its own - a long line of forebears forming the root of the tree of life - but to learn about them, we must turn to other lines of evidence.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bStudyorigins.shtml
[qutoe]So do I. I also have a worldview that consistently works with what we see in nature. I have evidence that supports what the Bible says about the universe. All these things support that what the Bible says is true concerning our universe and the life we see in it.[/quote]
The nested hierarchy falsifies design and separately created species.
No it doesn't. It falsifies your strawman creation.
You are once again pretending as if finding a suspect's fingerprints at a crime scene is evidence that God planted the fingerprints. If the evidence is consistent with known and observed natural mechanisms then it is not evidence of God.
That is strictly opinion and nothing more.
Logic and reason does. Or are you saying that God produces evidence to fool us into thinking that natural processes are involved?
Loudmouth, you are looking back in time, you are seeing after the fact. Of course it looks like it can be done all on its own. God walked before all the evidence and natural processes are only working due to His design. In fact, without all the laws of nature and a uniform intelligent universe you wouldn't be able to know what you know.
Why don't you present evidence that you are right instead of making empty assertions.
See above.
Such a claim is usually followed by evidence. Where is it?
See above.
And still no evidence for God.
See above.
So now you try to make an excuse for not having evidence by claiming that God hides the evidence. That is about the least compelling argument you can come up with.
Strawman.
Separately created kinds were created separtely meaning they have separate origins and do not share a common ancestor. How much clearer can I be?
1. The Bible never says anything about separate origins.
2. A common ancestor is not in evidence even for your worldview.
3. A common ancestor does not falsify Creation.
False. I start with the preconceived idea that following the empirical evidence will lead me to strong conclusions. That's it.
I respectfully disagree.
That's the problem. You don't care what the evidence shows. You don't care the the overwhelming observation when looking at separately created designs created by an intelligence is that they do not fall into a nested hierarchy, nor is there any reason why they would.
That is completely false. All of it.
We see evidence of evolution, not separately created kinds.
Strawman once again.
Glad you are ok.
