“Ultimately, a combination of natural history, embryology, and paleobiology will be needed to fully understand the unique anatomy of giraffes. This is not something which will be accomplished in a year or even ten, but will take the persistent investigations of many researchers working across a variety of scientific disciplines. For the moment, the question of “How did the giraffe get its long neck?” must be answered with “We do not yet know”, but that is as it should be. It is better to admit that we are still unraveling a mystery than to dogmatically assert that all is solved and that all the uncharted places on the evolutionary map have been filled in.”
On to your next argument from ignorance?
Before we knew of nuclear fusion there was no known mechanism for the Sun to produce the amount of energy it produces and has produced. While the creationist impulse may be to try to claim that ‘Goddidit’ based upon their argument from ignorance - the scientist only had to wait until nuclear fusion was discovered and it became clear.
That is why proposing physical means to explain physical phenomena is a productive endeavor that has produced a wealth of useful knowledge and application - while proposing supernatural means to explain physical phenomena (the creationist method) has produced nothing of use in terms of knowledge or application.
Science is of use.
Creationism is useless.
How do you know that God didn't set it up and jump start it? What ignited it in the first place? Where'd the matter come from?
What's holding the nucleus of the atom together in some cases and not others?
Nice effort there allmendream.... but you didn’t really answer my question.
I didn’t ask you how the giraffe got it’s long neck. I asked how the giraffe could have evolved given the fact that its morphology demands that all four of the parts that I listed have to be present for the giraffe to survive. The point is that all four of the parts would have had to evolve at the exact same time.
I will however accept your answer which is apparently “we do not know yet”. I assume (since you haven’t tried to answer them) that your answer is the same for the questions I asked about sexual reproduction, chemicals learning to think and the placenta.
“I don’t know” is an acceptable answer. What is not acceptable is “I don’t know but I know you are wrong.” If you don’t know then how could you know that?
Just a few more comments for you and then I’ll answer the questions to which you demanded responses.
You said this:
***That is why proposing physical means to explain physical phenomena is a productive endeavor that has produced a wealth of useful knowledge and application - while proposing supernatural means to explain physical phenomena (the creationist method) has produced nothing of use in terms of knowledge or application.***
Since the theory of evolution wasn’t around until a little over 150 years ago and until then special creation was pretty much accepted by the scientific community....just how in the world did they produce such a wealth of useful knowledge and application?
***You are arguing that if something is difficult (i.e. the development of the adaptive features of a giraffe)then it must have been God that did it.***
I have said no such thing....I’ve not even mentioned God (although at some point I will). All I’ve done so far is to ask a few questions... believe me when I say that I can deluge you with a lot more questions for which you won’t have an answer.
***What mechanism do YOU think accounts for the features a giraffe has?****
Design.
*****Would the difference between a mouse and a rat be a “micro” or a “macro” change?****
Micro
****What mechanism would explain the derivation of all modern species from those few species that could fit on a boat of known dimensions within the last few thousand years?****
Variation was designed into each animal phylum. Way more than “a few species” can fit on a boat that has the capacity of 522 railroad cars.
****Wouldn’t that be speciation and evolution at a rate many thousands of times faster than ever predicted by an evolutionary biologist?****
Not if the variability is designed in.
****How would such changes in species NOT be described as evolution - as defined by biologists?****
That’s a canard, allmendream..... it’s pretty easy to recognize. They tell you that evolution is change... everybody can see change so they all accept evolution. Heck, by that definition I’m an evolutionist. The problem is that while they’re saying that our kids are being taught that we emerged out of a puddle of slime....that’s a little different than birds having different sized beaks.
You said this to metmom:
***I think God did set it all up in the beginning. This is a matter of faith and belief - not theory and evidence.***
Don’t you think that a God capable of “setting it all up” is also capable of design?
One last comment and one last question before you make your next ad hominem attack.....
Here’s the comment:
You need to realize at some point that you are making a circular argument. This is common among fervent believers in evolution. Belief in evolution comes first. All of the evidence is then examined in light of the fact that evolution is true. When you do that you are going to find (or invent) the answers that you want.
Here’s the question:
Why are you so angry?
Blessings allmendream..... you may now continue with your verbal abuse.