14
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 63:
Line 63: − + + + +
→I would think…
:::::Computers are almost essential to modern business, so it wouldn't really be a surprise if computers were found to have evolved (read: developed by chance processes with no intelligent input) multiple times. See how ridiculous that reasoning is?
:::::Computers are almost essential to modern business, so it wouldn't really be a surprise if computers were found to have evolved (read: developed by chance processes with no intelligent input) multiple times. See how ridiculous that reasoning is?
:::::Yes, "convergent evolution" is rife, but "convergent evolution" is nothing more than a label for things that ''don't'' fit the evolutionary pattern of common features having evolved in a common ancestor. That is, it is an ad hoc "explanation" for evidence that contradicts the hypothesis.
:::::Yes, "convergent evolution" is rife, but "convergent evolution" is nothing more than a label for things that ''don't'' fit the evolutionary pattern of common features having evolved in a common ancestor. That is, it is an ad hoc "explanation" for evidence that contradicts the hypothesis.
:::::Evolution was designed as an explanation for how things came to be without a Designer; it implicitly says that there was ''not'' a "who". Evolution is anti-Christian because it is anti-biblical because it is contrary to the clear biblical account of all life being created in a period of six days. That many Christians accept this theory that was designed to explain things without God is something that should be taken up with them, because it is clearly contrary to the Bible.
:::::Evolution was designed as an explanation for how things came to be without a Designer; it implicitly says that there was ''not'' a "who". Evolution is anti-Christian because it is anti-biblical because it is contrary to the clear biblical account of all life being created in a period of six days. That many Christians accept this theory that was designed to explain things without God is something that should be taken up with them, because it is clearly contrary to the Bible
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Fine, let's agree to differ on our Biblical views.<br>As for evolution, I never said the pouch was disadvantageous to the echidna, but it does give a hint that pouches may not have started with the full, deep pouch that a kangaroo has.
::::::No, convergent evolution is not a fudge regarding common ancestors. It means that selective pressures can produce similar results on different branches of the tree. You get the same thing in human cultures and ideas: different cultures developed different number systems independently, because being able to count is a useful thing.
::::::I maintain that conservative values embrace non-literal interpretations of Genesis, but even if that's wrong, it shouldn't necessarily impact on an article about wombats. You will notice that I am trying to improve the article, in a fair and balance way in accord with conservative principles. I am not a YEC, but I am not attacking those who are. Please accord me the same courtesy.[[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 03:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)