Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
So what you need to do is put your "evidence" in perspective.
We can't help that it doesn't fit yours. In the article they use very good arguments, point to evidence that indeed supports there theory. The new evidence is not the only evidence out there, it simply adds up to the big pile of evidence.
Quote:
The extent to which evolutionists on this forum today exercise faith, out of things that they can only hope to believe, is a much less sure foundation than that of the faith we Christians place in the intelligent design which is readily seen and observed throughout biological nature and throughout the stars.
Well, no, intelligent design suggest a designer, a creator and thus divine interference, those are all things for which there is ZERO evidence, there's no reasonable argument nor motive to assume there's a designer either.
Complexity says nada, just look at the difference between a egg and a full grown baby duck. You're practically claiming that because the egg looks so different, that a fullgrown duck can't possibly have grown out of it.
Also, explain to me why a 'intelligent' designer would create all those intermediate species?  You already admitted in other threads that evolution ís happening, but you made an artificial distinction between 'macro' and 'micro' evolution. A lot of 'micro' evolutions make up the 'macro' evolutionary 'stages'. It's all a bit gradient, so infact those percentages make perfect sense. They are evidence of exact the opposite of what you believe.
I really have yet to see good arguments for ID or a creator. 
Quote:
Morphological facts indicate similarity and that is all.
This is not true at all. Look at amphibious species, look at all the dog species, look at cats and tigers, look at elephants and rinos, look at the dozens of birds species, look at horses and zebras and donkeys and their historical intermediates. There's overwhelming evidence. Morphological evidence is not just about species having 4 legs, it really goes way further than that, they have almost the exact same bone structures, the same places where muscles are attached and some even share the same rudimentary structures ... It's impossible to ignore morphological similarities indicate a relationship. Sure, sometimes the actual relationship of a shared ancestor goes quite a bit back in time, sometimes the relationship is very recent though. It's crystal, really,
Cheers
|
