If you have no reason to expect God to do it, then you have no reason to think God is a good explanation for it. Hence you shouldn’t.
But you are the one claiming this as evidence against God. But for it to be evidence against God you have to demonstrate some reason why, if God exists, I should not expect to find this result.
No, I’m claiming it as evidence for common descent. I don’t consider the translation system evidence against the existence of God. I just consider it evidence for the shared genealogical history of life.
1 Like
I don’t follow your reasoning here. How does it represent evidence for common descent? It’s just a system where you arrange things according to like characteristics. You can do the same thing with automobiles.
Do you understand what a nested hierarchy is?
1 Like
So, in your world view, unverifiable stories are stronger evidence than physical evidence.
According to that worldview, if I tell you you can walk thru a brick wall, you should accept this as a fact, and discount all the physical evidence to the contrary. It must be hard, not to say actually hazardous, going thru life with such a bizarre point of view.
Yeah, I’m somewhat acquainted. It has to do with cladistics, correct? Arranging things by like characteristics?
I asked one your fellow creationists to prove this assertion by arranging the following into a nested hierarchy, Please note, this is just four entities, not the millions that biologists have been able to organize into a nested hierarchy.
- Honda hatchback
- Honda sedan
- Ford hatchback
- Ford sedan
So, for instance, maybe all the Fords are also sedans. Or all the hatchbacks are also Hondas.
Off you go, let us know how you make out.
The more entries you have the more characteristics you can look at, which makes it easier, not harder, to do cladistics (especially when you’re aided by computers). This is hopelessly oversimplified and completely irrelevant. And it doesn’t answer the simple question I asked. Apparently a little bit of critical thinking, leading to the posing of simple questions like I have done here, is all it takes to bring all of the grand consensus of modern “science” crashing down.
How about a Creation Hierarchy?
- Sea creatures
- Flying creatures
- Land animals
- Man
And the Common Denominator is…GOD
1 Like
Not only is nested hierarchy off topic, it’s pretty clear that neither @PDPrice nor @r_speir knows what it means or how phylogenetics works. Guys, stop before you embarrass yourself more.
1 Like
That’s not a hierarchy because they are all separate events, unless you want to claim flying things descend from swimming things because they came afterwards on the same day.
1 Like
I don’t see where anybody here is answering my simple questions.
That’s because they’re so full of false assumptions that it’s hard to untangle them. Also, this sort of thing has been dealt with many times here and elsewhere. If you have simple questions about phylogenetics, try starting a new topic.
1 Like
That’s nonsense handwaving. There were no assumptions at all in my questions directed here to @Rumraket . Just simple logical questions to figure out what he was trying to say.
Excuse me? Perhaps we are the ones who know that what you are claiming is far beyond what the evidence indicates. So apparently you are thinking no matter what you pull out of the hat - nested hierarchies or phylogenetics - you have the right, the authority, the privilege of claiming common descent, all the while expecting that we should kowtow? Not a chance.
1 Like
When you present evidence to a Flat Earther of a spherical planet, are you claiming the right, the authority, the privilege of claiming a round Earth, or are you trying by any reasonable means to explain why they are wrong?
1 Like
In the context of this discussion here, what is the ‘evidence’ being presented?
Variability within and between kingdoms is not variability across generations in the same lineage. There is subtle circular reasoning and equivocation in your supposed rebuttal.
1 Like
But we have no accounts from any eyewitness.