Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,150 Year: 5,407/9,624 Month: 432/323 Week: 72/204 Day: 14/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist inconsistency when inferring relatedness
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8612
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 18 of 78 (711648)
11-21-2013 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Atheos canadensis
11-15-2013 9:32 AM


If morphology can be used to reliably infer relatedness in the Cat "kind" for example, why can the same method not be used to infer that cats are more closely related to canids than artiodactyls?
Because they are totally different kinds! You atheist evilutionists just will not get that straight.
Dogs don't give birth to cats and neither of them give birth to giraffes.
OK, so there was a common ancestor between cats and dogs in the miacids some 30 million years ago and there was a common ancestor between this cat-dog miacid and the giraffes in the protungulates some 30 million years before that ...
but
... this was all well before the creation so it doesn't count!
So no more of this satanic morphology stuff. God hates it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-15-2013 9:32 AM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-21-2013 11:53 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8612
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 22 of 78 (711716)
11-21-2013 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Atheos canadensis
11-21-2013 11:53 AM


To Poe or Not To Poe
I was halfway through your post before I realized you were joking.
My apologies, A. canadensis. Obviously my Poe is not yet sufficiently developed. I will try harder next time.
By the way, welcome to EvC. Glad to have you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-21-2013 11:53 AM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-21-2013 2:04 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8612
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 38 of 78 (715542)
01-07-2014 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by AndrewPD
01-07-2014 6:13 AM


Re: Permission?
Logical or rational permission.
So your view is that logic and rationality would preclude a theory from growing up out of the preponderance of the evidence? That in itself is irrational.
Theories do not poof themselves nor are "concocted" into existence. When the multitude of evidence becomes such that the mechanism hypothesized is shown to be consistently right, then we have a theory. Rationality demands, by force of logic, that the theory exists.
The resultant theory was not concocted (in the negative usage of that term) by anything other than the weight of the evidence. When the evidence is lacking, inconclusive or contradictory then there cannot be a theory. When the evidence is verbose, pointed and consistent then the result is termed "theory".
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by AndrewPD, posted 01-07-2014 6:13 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8612
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 66 of 78 (717217)
01-25-2014 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by AndrewPD
01-24-2014 2:45 PM


Re: Confusion and misinformation.
I am surely not going to drop dead because I am skeptical about evolution?
Not physically, but intellectually you are well on your way. The kind of intellectual atrophy you display here is the same as the eugenicists and the crusaders you have decried.
Edited by AZPaul3, : spl

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by AndrewPD, posted 01-24-2014 2:45 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024