brainfloss
Every heard of a typo?
mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
brainfloss
Every heard of a typo?
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
Stephen myers
You are correct it is foxes not wolves. Either way at the end you have a domesticated fox. That is microevolution, not macro. Same thing Darwin witness with the finches, the beaks changed but they were still finches. You still have foxes. Also notice that the researchers were picking the most tame, and docile. It was not natural selection but man making intelligent choices. That falls under intelligent design.
2 peter 1 = deity of christ.
2 pe.
1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .
Earnest
Our and Lord are genitive. God and Father 'belong' to the 'our Lord'
mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
whatshallicallmyself
What is your point.
2 peter 1 = deity of christ.
2 pe.
1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .
Earnest
For the rule to apply God and king have to be describing someone. Read the rule.
mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
Island man
seems the most Atheist can do is attack character. So much for a science, logic and reason based world view. You act more like an antiquated superstitious religion. Come back when you want to discuss facts.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
Unsure
I proposed that the parallel universe that (could have) spawned ours followed a different set of physical laws and could have not had a beginning and was always there just like God has always there; so this parallel universe would be timeless just like God.
Notice if the parallel is the cause and our universe is the effect, and we have the effect, where is the cause [parallel universe]. No one can point to it.
Why is the "effect" being personal the only way to explain this? How is the "effect" being personal the only way to explain this? The only difference between what I'm proposing vs what you are proposing is cognition. I'm failing to see why cognition is a factor.
The cause being personal not the effect. The cause being personal explains how a timeless cause can bring about a temporal effect. The universe coming into existence is the choice the timeless cause made. If the cause is timeless and impersonal the effect should be also. And that is not what we find.
mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
To Unsure
Again for the record, I'm agnostic. What I find exhausting and disheartening is that even if intelligent design was proven, the very next forum post would be about who's intelligent designer is the true God. Why does it have to be this complicated?
I don’t find if complicated. My suggestion is to follow the truth to wherever it leads you. Something to read.
Since the Greeks there has been two basic pictures of ultimate reality. One world view espoused that the mind is the primary reality. According to this view, material reality either originated from a preexisting mind or is shaped by a preexisting intelligence. Thus the mind, not matter is the ultimate reality from which everything come from. Plato, Aristotle, Roman Stoics, Jewish and Christian philosophers espoused some version of this worldview. Most founders of modern science [1300-1700 = scientific revolution] held to a mind first view of reality. This is known as Idealism. Theism is a version of Idealism which credits God as the source of all reality.
The other view is that the physical universe is the ultimate source of reality. This is known as naturalism or materialism.
mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
Finklestien
What you are doing is a common reaction to "FEAR".
mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
To cofty
What you have is hundreds of fossils that demonstrate a common designer.
Stop hiding in the obscure, gray, subjective world of comparative anatomy, and step in to the objective world of mathematics and genetics.