So you've totally backed off the assertion that there is no reason for similarity from creation?
I've tried to clarify it: creationism has no real reason for similarity, only an ad hoc one.
Posted 29 June 2012 - 11:07 AM
So you've totally backed off the assertion that there is no reason for similarity from creation?
Posted 29 June 2012 - 11:18 AM
Posted 29 June 2012 - 11:27 AM
Ad hoc reasons are real reasons.
Have you backed off the assertion that there is no reason for similarity from creationism?
Posted 29 June 2012 - 01:58 PM
Posted 29 June 2012 - 02:37 PM
From Wiki:
Note that an ad hoc hypothesis is not necessarily incorrect; in some cases, a minor change to a theory was all that was necessary. For example, Albert Einstein's addition of the cosmological constant to general relativity in order to allow a static universe was ad hoc. Although he later referred to it as his "greatest blunder", it may correspond to theories of dark energy.
Posted 29 June 2012 - 05:44 PM
Posted 29 June 2012 - 07:55 PM
The trouble is that there's no reason for them to be similarly designed. Similar design suggests a lazy designer, not an omnipotent one. The Bible and creationism have been around for a long time. If they had any reason to think the species were similarly designed, creationists should have predicted it first.
Posted 29 June 2012 - 09:58 PM
That's easily refuted. The bible says that God created different kinds and no one has even been able to imagine what a transition between different phyla would even look like. For instance, compare a humming bird to a blade of grass or an elephant to a apple.
Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "Our modern phyla represent designs of great distinctness, yet our diverse world contains nothing in between sponges, corals, insects, snails, sea urchins, and fishes (to choose standard representatives of the most prominent phyla).", Natural History, p.15, Oct. 1990
And what about scientists being knocked out of their boots when they found an entire ecologial niche thriving off of hydogen sulfide near hydrothermal vents?
Posted 30 June 2012 - 10:48 AM
What experiments do you propose to back up your idea that creatures are similar due to evolution?
Posted 30 June 2012 - 10:51 AM
It also allows us to eat them, allowing synthesis of new DNA with digested nucleotide parts etc
Posted 30 June 2012 - 09:06 PM
Posted 01 July 2012 - 03:45 AM
"We're" all similar because "we" are all people.The point is that evolution explains why we're all similar - because we're all related; we have a common ancestor.
And, to be consistent, evolutionism must then explain why evolution decided to make some organisms similarly.Creationism doesn't explain why God decided to make us similar; just He coulda/would/shoulda if He wanted to.
Posted 01 July 2012 - 05:41 AM
Posted 02 July 2012 - 09:06 AM
"We're" all similar because "we" are all people.
And, to be consistent, evolutionism must then explain why evolution decided to make some organisms similarly.
What experiments do you propose to show that creatures evolved similarly due to evolution?
Posted 02 July 2012 - 09:12 AM
... then the ONLY answer / reason / cause can be supernatural since ONLY the supernatural can bend / break reality / nature in order for these events, (that defy nature / reality) to come to pass.
Posted 02 July 2012 - 05:39 PM
The biggest problem with that reasoning is that our understanding of the natural keeps improving. To our primitive ancestors, fire was supernatural but now we can make it in the lab.
Posted 03 July 2012 - 10:49 AM
Yet what fire actually is is still unknown, (you cannot get a sample of fire for analysis).
Posted 03 July 2012 - 12:18 PM
So it's a good analog of abiogenesis. Even when we can do abiogenesis in the lab, even when you can carry a box of abiogenesis sticks in your pocket, we still won't know everything about abiogenesis.
But claiming that abiogenesis is impossible is no more reasonable than claiming that matches are impossible.
Posted 03 July 2012 - 12:44 PM
Matches exist, but abiogenesis has not been observed so your comparison is illogical.
Posted 03 July 2012 - 03:53 PM
The argument is about the possibility of an event. I'm saying that you shouldn't be claiming something is impossible just because it isn't understood yet.
(You guys really need to make more of an effort to understand an argument instead of just nitpicking schoolboy logic.)
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users