lol.....

No matter how much data we heap in front of you'll continue to raise the bar as to the burdon of proof as to what constitutes evidence of macro-evolution.

I don't have to raise anything....I could lay it on the floor and you still couldn't provide any....

where is your evidence refuting the data I presented to you
perhaps its because I'm looking at this as a lawyer would.....when opposing counsel tries to argue that the fact my client was standing on the sidewalk outside the store proves he was the robber I'm inclined to point out that no, it only proves he was standing outside the store.....
 
But I provided you a link to peer reviewed data, Are you blind? (don't asnwer, that's a rhetorical question.).

you linked me to things that in your opinion "prove" macro-evolution.....I have pointed out that this data does not actually prove what you claim......for example, the fact that fossil A and fossil B both exist does not prove that fossil A is an ancestor of fossil B.....it merely proves that both existed......the same is true for everything you presented.....
 
no, its a judgment choice.....

The whale did not choose to have an arm common to mammals. It is obviously due to common descent.

Why did the designer make this judgment choice? Why not make a mammal that can fly or lives in the water without the underlying mammalian limbs?

Certainly, when you reject science for magic and superstition, you can answer "just because." That is not proof. You can't offer proof because you reject a world where proof can exist for one of magic. Again, it is not useful. It is not science. It is a ridiculous theology for intellectual chickenshits.
 
The whale did not choose to have an arm common to mammals. It is obviously due to common descent.

Why did the designer make this judgment choice? Why not make a mammal that can fly or lives in the water without the underlying mammalian limbs?

Certainly, when you reject science for magic and superstition, you can answer "just because." That is not proof. You can't offer proof because you reject a world where proof can exist for one of magic. Again, it is not useful. It is not science. It is a ridiculous theology for intellectual chickenshits.

/facepalm......its a judgment choice as to whether you think its sub-optimal or not.....I am assuming both the whale and the Creator are satisfied....apparently, you think you could have done better.....quite frankly, I suspect you'd still be trying to figure out how to jumpstart that first amoeba.......

Why not make a mammal that can fly or lives in the water without the underlying mammalian limbs?

so now they're sub-optimal because they don't have jet propulsion up their ass?.....
 
/facepalm......its a judgment choice as to whether you think its sub-optimal or not.....I am assuming both the whale and the Creator are satisfied....apparently, you think you could have done better.....quite frankly, I suspect you'd still be trying to figure out how to jumpstart that first amoeba.......



so now they're sub-optimal because they don't have jet propulsion up their ass?.....

Suboptimal is not a judgement choice. They contain superfluous complexity. What you are doing is trying to avoid the facts and their implication by playing semantic games and engaging in vulgar sophistry. You are an intellectual lightweight and a chickenshit.
 
Suboptimal is not a judgement choice. They contain superfluous complexity.
of course it is....another observer may conclude they are perfectly suited for their purpose....a whale's fin has sufficient rigidity yet flexibility......because it has a jointed skeletal structure.....is it suboptimal or perfect?.....
 
of course it is....another observer may conclude they are perfectly suited for their purpose....a whale's fin has sufficient rigidity yet flexibility......because it has a jointed skeletal structure.....is it suboptimal or perfect?.....

It's suboptimal because it contains superfluous complexity. It has become suited to its task through evolution. But a designer could have done it without the need to rely on the inherited mammalian structure.... chickenshit!
 
It's suboptimal because it contains superfluous complexity. It has become suited to its task through evolution. But a designer could have done it without the need to rely on the inherited mammalian structure.... chickenshit!

it has just the right amount of complexity......you want to think its superfluous......it was created suited its task.....your dissatisfaction does not make it ill suited......
 
No, that's not even a good analogy.

dude, its not an analogy......its the actual thing.....how do you explain the evolutionary trail of a creature that does something extraordinarily different than any other creature on the planet.....

how do you explain the evolutionary trail of a thing like the butterfly.....insects that spend half their life as a winged creature and half their life as a crawling creature......were they evolving from flight or towards it?......if it survives better as one, why does it spend half its life as the other.......
 
dude, its not an analogy......its the actual thing.....how do you explain the evolutionary trail of a creature that does something extraordinarily different than any other creature on the planet.....

how do you explain the evolutionary trail of a thing like the butterfly.....insects that spend half their life as a winged creature and half their life as a crawling creature......were they evolving from flight or towards it?......if it survives better as one, why does it spend half its life as the other.......

It's not the same thing. Where is another animal in its line that has repurposed this trait?

Larva usually has a low energy advantage over the adult. Adults can reproduce.

How do you explain it? Oh yeah, you have your shortcut, God did it, which makes for a life of ease, banality and ignorance.
 
Back
Top