Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[Meowzltov]

How are you defining "man?" That's not a scientific term.

Regardless, this is a silly question, because humans are apes.

I have no argument with you. It is an exercise in exposing the nonsense that there are no transitional forms.

 

[justlookinla]

You go back far enough, and you will eventually get to the non-mammalian ancestors of dogs. Heck, go back far enough, and you get to single cell pond slime.

That means that non-mammals produced mammals. Somehow.

 

[In situ]

Let me ask you, when did Dogs not have an ancestor which was a mammal?

When they where synapsid?

 

[justlookinla]

When they where synapsid?

Whatever your guess is....I guess?

 

[In situ]

That means that non-mammals produced mammals. Somehow.

Like the synapsid did?

 

[In situ]

Whatever your guess is....I guess?

Mammals are synapsid, you know that right? And it is not a guess, it is an observed fact.

 

[justlookinla]

Like the synapsid did?

That's someone's best guess....I guess.

 

[justlookinla]

Mammals are synapsid, you know that right? And it is not a guess, it is an observed fact.

Really? They aren't the non-mammals which produced mammals then.

 

[In situ]

Depends on one's subjective view.

Okay, do you have a classification of an ape that does not include a human?

 

[In situ]

Really? They aren't the non-mammals which produced mammals then.

Yes really, but why did they not produce the mammalian clade?

 

[justlookinla]

Okay, do you have a classification of an ape that does not include a human?

A human is a life form unto itself. If you wish to use the subjective classification of "ape", that's your choice.

 

[justlookinla]

Why not?

Because they're mammals according to you.

 

[In situ]

That's someone's best guess....I guess.

The "guess" is suported by the facts and the laws of biology.

 

[justlookinla]

The "guess" is suported by the facts and the laws of biology.

There is no 'law of biology' in the naming of life forms.

 

[In situ]

Because they're mammals according to you.

Do you misunderstand me with purpose? I said mammals are synapsid, not that synapsid was mammal.

 

[justlookinla]

Do you misunderstand me with purpose? I said mammals are synapsid, not that synapsid was mammal.

Does this mean you're not going to identify the non-mammal which produced mammals?

 

[In situ]

There is no 'law of biology' in the naming of life forms.

I did not say that, I said there are laws in biology. This is the second time in short succession you make a similar error about what I said.

 

[In situ]

Does this mean you're not going to identify the non-mammal which produced mammals?

I told you it is a synapsid. I also told you mammals are synapsids, so I have both identified your non-mammals as well as the mammals being the same, i.e. they are all synapsids.

 

[justlookinla]

I told you it is a synapsid.

Great. Non-mammals produced mammals.....allegedly.

 

[justlookinla]

I did not say that, I said there are laws in biology. This is the second time in short succession you make a similar error about what I said.

Back to the subjective naming of life forms.