The only evidence presented here is that there are changes that take place over time due to mutation and selection.
Since they happen on a small scale they 'MUST' happen on a large scale.
'FAITH' is required to believe these small changes can produce the changes necessary to produce the life forms of today, since there is 'ZERO' evidence to support such a position.
How long, ICANT, will this utter stupidity be repeated.
If one sees a man sitting in a chair who looks at his watch, stands, moves his chair a few inches to the left, sits back down, strums his fingers a few times, looks at his watch, stands, moves his chair a few inches to the left, sits back down, strums his fingers a few times, looks at his watch, stands, moves his chair a few inches to the left, sits back down, strums his fingers a few times, looks at his watch, stands, moves his chair a few inches to the left, sits back down, strums his fingers a few times, looks at his watch, stands, moves his chair a few inches to the left it is up to them to establish and explain exactly why the man won't eventually wind up in San Diego.
The man started out as a Bosox, evolved through the stages of Phillie, Indian, Cub, Rock, and Rattler, to becoming a Padre. No one in Massachusetts ever saw him becoming a San Diegan and no Californian ever saw him as a Bostonian. But every observer in between could guess where he came from and knew where he was going. Unless of course the observer was a creationist. For them the man Poofed into existence in Des Moines. Why? Because a book they read say so. Actually it doesn't even say that. Some twit Nabraskan, 2000 years ago, wrote in a letter to his BFF about some idiot in a chair hopping down Main Street. And because the letter only mentioned Main Street, Main Street was the only place the creationist will consider the man in the chair having ever been.
ICANT, if a man sitting in a chair strums his fingers a few times, looks at his watch, stands, moves his chair a few inches to the left, sits back down,strums his fingers a few times, looks at his watch, stands, moves his chair a few inches to the left, sits back down,strums his fingers a few times, looks at his watch, stands, moves his chair a few inches to the left, sits back down, will he ever get past Main Street? Or is it impossible to know because no one was around to watch the man all day long?
AbE: I've just used an easily understood mechanism and its consequence as a metaphor for an easily understood mechanism and its consequence. I use a rather ridicules example in the hope that the recipient won't argue the metaphor; i.e., "Maybe the man was moving east." instead of the point of the metaphor. But I should know by now, ICANT, that you aren't trying to understand but trying to avoid confirming what you already understand.
So, more directly, ICANT, as the mechanism, a small change in position, which can be observed and repeated as often as one wishes without apparent limit, is so easily understood that its consequence, a large displacement give enough time, can not be denied, would it be up to the claimant to provide evidence that that is in fact the case?
Aside from the Pacific Ocean and Hawaii not having a MLB team, what prevents small changes from becoming large changes. ICANT?
Edited by lyx2no, : Forgot who I was talking to.
Edited by lyx2no, : Spelling.
Be still, the demands I make upon your conscience are slight. It is only your flattery I seek, not your sincerity.
™ Version 4.2