Summations Only

Aren't you the one who believes that a supernatural deity spoke the universe into being?

If you can't explain why a Common Designer would produce a nested hierarchy, then a nested hierarchy is not evidence for a Common Designer. You can't claim that the shared characteristics are evidence of a Common Designer.

You, CRR, and Faith are writing posts where you try to ridicule evolution for being a fairy tale, and yet the whole time you three are the ones who believe life was magically poofed into being. That's the point.Also, Faith actually said that it is reasonable to conclude that the Universe and life were magically poofed into being. Take that up with her.

We can add the word "fact" to the list of words you don't understand. It is your OPINION. Do you understand the difference between opinion and fact? I am guessing that you don't.Also, the only people telling yarns are your, CRR, and Faith with your myths about magical poofing. The rest of us are discussing science.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

How do you know that he does? The burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that life was created. Porsches don't fall into a nested hierarchy. You are making this too easy.

This is called "putting words in other peoples' mouths". This is as dishonest as it gets.

"That's just like, your opinion, man"--The Dude

It is also entirely possible that a designer would not create species so that they fall into a nested hierarchy. Therefore, any pattern of shared features is as likely as another which means that the claims of a common designer does not predict a nested hierarchy. If a single 911 shares and engine with a 969 while two 911s have different engines, this violates a nested hierarchy. If a Cayman and 914 have the same tire while two Caymans have different tires, then that is a violation of a nested hierarchy. I could give many examples, if you like.

Science isn't a religion, so it doesn't work through scriptures and proclamations. You need to present evidence.

Atheism is the lack of belief in deities, so by definition atheism can't have a theology. And you still can't address the evidence.

Let's read what Dredge said again:"The whole story is, Gould clearly saw the evidence for creation, but as a committed atheist, he tried to explain it away with his stupid PE theory."Where did Gould ever say that what he saw was evidence for creation? He never did, yet Dredge is trying to put those words in his mouth. That is dishonest. Darwin stated quite clearly that he didn't expect to see those gradations. Now you are putting words in Darwin's mouth."Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. "--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"Darwin spent an entire chapter explaining why we don't see fine gradations of transitional forms in the geologic record. Then show me a fossil representation of the modern coelacanth. Bet you can't do it.

And yet more name calling. Is that all you have? You can't address the evidence?

Gould agreed with Darwin."Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species." [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

That is not the same thing. You said that Gould thought it was evidence for creationism, not creationists. That is bearing false witness.

I know, right? Surely no one would ever use stories or parables to teach about God, right? Jesus never did that, did he?