EvC Forum: How can Biologists believe in the ToE?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: How can Biologists believe in the ToE?

Archer Opteryx

Member (Idle past 3901 days)

Posts: 1811

From: East Asia

Joined: 08-16-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 43 of 304 (395897)
04-18-2007 10:57 AM

Reply to: Message 5 by AnswersInGenitals
04-01-2007 9:28 PM

Yes, Virginia, this post is off-topic

AnswersInGenitals:

In the US, there are probably about 20 times as many Clausians as biologists (where a Clausian is a person who accepts the validity of the existence of Santa Claus based on the overwhelming evidence). And yet, the majority of people in the US reject the validity of SC's existence, even though they are familiar with the same evidence, and in many cases were the ones who first exposed the believers to that evidence. I have no idea if this is relevant to your point, or if its just one of those tu quoquequidproquo arguments that MiketheWhiz is so fond of exposing.

All I know is, if the Sun says it, it's so.

Archer

All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 5 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 04-01-2007 9:28 PM		AnswersInGenitals has not replied

Archer Opteryx

Member (Idle past 3901 days)

Posts: 1811

From: East Asia

Joined: 08-16-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 69 of 304 (400148)
05-10-2007 6:17 PM

Reply to: Message 66 by ICANT
05-10-2007 1:42 PM

ongoing search for the biological definition of 'kind'

So those scientists should just drop their high-falutin' talk about clads and get back to Fishy and Horsey, eh?

I'm curious as to how you and the two-year-olds of the world have decided to classify this one.

Archer

All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 66 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2007 1:42 PM		ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 74 by fallacycop, posted 05-10-2007 11:05 PM	Archer Opteryx has replied
	Message 85 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2007 10:49 PM	Archer Opteryx has not replied

Archer Opteryx

Member (Idle past 3901 days)

Posts: 1811

From: East Asia

Joined: 08-16-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 83 of 304 (400206)
05-11-2007 5:04 AM

Reply to: Message 74 by fallacycop
05-10-2007 11:05 PM

If it looks like a Moertherium and smells like a Moertherium...

fallacycop:

cool picture. [Message 69]
is that some kind of tapir?

Scientists call it Moertherium, an archaic pachyderm. It's in the family tree of today's elephants, though not thought to be a direct ancestor. The closest living relatives of the family are manatees, dugongs, and hyraxes.

But that's only what all the godless evolutionists tell us. What we still don't know is how our top creationist minds classify this creature.

Is it a 'kind' of elephant? If so, did Noah take these on the ark? Or does the vast difference in appearance between this animal and modern pachyderms represent a distinction in 'kind'? Is calling this (clearly non-elephantine!) animal a pachyderm just another ridiculous consequence of buying into all that macroevolutionist nonsense?

Should we classify Moertherium as something else? 'Piggy,' perhaps?

____

Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : ongoing evolution of the text.

Archer

All species are transitional.