MarsCydonia
New Member
Bernhard.visscher said:I am now defining complexity as younger on the evolutionary tree.
So a dog would be more complex than a theropod or even a wolf.
[sarcasm]Makes perfect sense...[/sarcasm]
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bernhard.visscher said:I am now defining complexity as younger on the evolutionary tree.
It's a pointless question. There is no "evolutionist tree of life". There are a variety of models which are accurate enough for their intended purpose. Nobody claims to have mapped out the tree of life for all current and former species.Bernhard.visscher said:You skipped my question... Do you agree with the evolutionists tree of life? If yes.. Please paste which one.
I'm saying no one claims to have mapped out a complete and accurate tree of life.Bernhard.visscher said:Ok because you put your answer in quotes... I ask again... Are you saying there is no tree of life? So no Luca? Or no common ancestor? No common descent?
You wanted me to cite a specific tree, which is not the same as what you now claim to be asking.Bernhard.visscher said:We'll be that as it may... I am not asking that... I am asking do you agree there is a tree of life?
First of all, it isn't a "Google definition" it is a definition from a page found via Google search. When I search for "evolution" it shows the opening of the Wikipedia page on evolution, which is correct according to biologists. Informal uses of the word are irrelevant.Bernhard.visscher said:So that Google definition is wrong?
Edit
I mean according to you....
I never disagreed with that definition.
If you are talking about biological evolution yes. As you have been informed.Bernhard.visscher said:Whatever.
evolution being defined as simple to complex.... Is that wrong according to you?
SpecialFrog said:Can you provide a source for this evolutionary claim? The progression of simple-to-complex is a pre-evolutionary idea. The theory of evolution claims that the diversity of life increases -- and I agree that the fossil record shows this.Bernhard.visscher said:Now I ask you..do you agree with the fossil record ....complex on top... Simple at bottom? Or same question... Do you agree with evolutions claims the plants and animals found in the fossil record increase complexity as you move towards the top of the fossil record?
[url=http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&p=164660#p164660 said:Bernhard.visscher[/url]"]Ok he who is nobody:
Evidence for above the species level... In stead of saying provide evidence that the dorudon is a direct ancestor to the basilosaurus. It simply becomes show me the link between the two. By what evidence do you claim the two are linked?
It becomes a semantically word game.... Your going down the Aron Ra road...
You have one more question... Make it count.
Yes I'm skipping all the rest of your questions... Your rebuttal is insignificant.
Obviously a trick question.DutchLiam84 said:Bernard, can we play a little game to make this thread a bit more fun?
So I have these 3 numbers, that follow a rule, you have to guess what my rule is. If you think you know what my rule is, give me 3 numbers that you think fit the rule and tell me what the rule is, understood?
These are the numbers: 4, 8, 16
What is my rule?
DutchLiam84 said:Bernard, can we play a little game to make this thread a bit more fun?
So I have these 3 numbers, that follow a rule, you have to guess what my rule is. If you think you know what my rule is, give me 3 numbers that you think fit the rule and tell me what the rule is, understood?
These are the numbers: 4, 8, 16
What is my rule?
You didn't read the question!itsdemtitans said:DutchLiam84 said:Bernard, can we play a little game to make this thread a bit more fun?
So I have these 3 numbers, that follow a rule, you have to guess what my rule is. If you think you know what my rule is, give me 3 numbers that you think fit the rule and tell me what the rule is, understood?
These are the numbers: 4, 8, 16
What is my rule?
Your rule...is irrelevant...
Whay are your presuppositions when asking question that you did?
Say none = ignorant becuase you do presuppositions
red said:You didn't read the question!
"So I have these 3 numbers, that follow a rule....
These are the numbers: 4, 8, 16"
The answer is that 3 numbers - as prescribed - follow his rule.
You are presupposing other rules.
Your presuppositions are irrelevant.
I suppose if you presuppose there are rules then there needs to be some presupposition to the proposition there are rules.itsdemtitans said:Ohhhhh sure red...I presuppose rules other than rule
No
You presuppose my presuppose therefore you say no presuppositions therefore you admit ignorance
Typical evolutionist...
I have shown that the rules are 4, 8 and 16 for the tree of life, according to DutchLiam84.itsdemtitans said:Nonono
You provide your presuppositions...this thread title is evilution is a fakt...you prove your presuppositions valid are not, yes?
Are you serious?itsdemtitans said:Fine...wat ur question??
Yes!red said:I suppose if you presuppose there are rules then there needs to be some presupposition to the proposition there are rules.itsdemtitans said:Ohhhhh sure red...I presuppose rules other than rule
Typical evolutionist...
I am ignorant of your presuppositional stance as that presupposes that it is valid to propose a position which is valid.
Do you have evidence that evolutionists fell from the tree of life based on the presupposition that science is evidence of evolution and it does not prove macroevolution?
I know you cannot answer my question with honestness.itsdemtitans said:U aksing if I have evidance you evolutionauts fell from the tree of life but not prove macroevolution???
Easy...I answere question your with a question
Which tree you want me to prove you not didn;t fall out of?
Oh and macroevolution is a fairy tale for grownups. Just read anything by Ray Comfort