How about ontongeny recapitulates phylogeny for a big one.
If you don't buy evolution, there are other theories - intelligent design, special creation, theistic evolution ....
Depending on your age, most of us will know with utter clarity in less than 50 yrs or so what the correct answer is. Until then, you have your conviction and I have mine -- but that makes neither one of us more or less intelligent.
If you want to call all creationists luddites of flat earth types, how about my husband who graduated first in his class from MIT - he's neither dumb or ingnorant. My biggest problem with the evolutionary debates is that if you don't agree with the evolutionists on the board, you are a knuckle dragging neanderthal with the sophistication of a 3 yr old. Simply not true.
And by the way -- I believe I have remained civil, not called any one names, etc, which is more than I can say for the way I've been treated in the last few hours.
That was an observation, not a theory. And it's not completely wrong. The fetal stages of many animals resemble one another; mammals start with gill arches, for instance.
If you don't buy evolution, there are other theories - intelligent design, special creation, theistic evolution ....
Do you have any POSITIVE evidence for any of these, or does your "faith" in them rest simply upon a critique of evolution?
If you don't buy evolution, there are other theories - intelligent design, special creation, theistic evolution ....
None of these are 'scientific' theories.
Could you point that out in the SToE?
"If you don't buy evolution, there are other theories - intelligent design, special creation, theistic evolution ....
Theistic evolution is just evolution, there is no change to the theory (SToE). Special creation is not a theory - it makes no testable predictions and it is not falsifiable. ID is not a theory - it makes no testable predictions and is not falsifiable.
Depending on your age, most of us will know with utter clarity in less than 50 yrs or so what the correct answer is. Until then, you have your conviction and I have mine -- but that makes neither one of us more or less intelligent.
I don't believe I have ever questioned your intelligence.
"If you want to call all creationists Luddites of flat earth types, how about my husband who graduated first in his class from MIT - he's neither dumb or ingnorant."
When have I ever called you a Luddite? Or your husband?
"My biggest problem with the evolutionary debates is that if you don't agree with the evolutionists on the board, you are a knuckle dragging neanderthal with the sophistication of a 3 yr old. Simply not true.
I do not doubt the intelligence of Creationists, I doubt their desire to critically assess their beliefs about the SToE. Most are quite satisfied to accumulate the strawman creations of a few anti-evolutionists which they treat as 'truth'. This reliance on misinformation guarantees they will have little or no understanding of the current state of the SToE and the evidence.
"And by the way -- I believe I have remained civil, not called any one names, etc, which is more than I can say for the way I've been treated in the last few hours.
At what point did I ever treat you poorly? All I did was ask for clarification.