root
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,348
- Reaction score
- 73
Ansar - Like I said, you claim that it is a fact that creationism is not a theory. Thank you for supporting my point. Now would you mind answering it? If you claim that creationism is not a theory then no amount of evidence will ever deal a blow to creationism. Hence your entire post here is off-target, beginning with the title.
I fail to see how I have supported your point when you have claimed creationist theory status to which I am simply saying your point here is "wrong". Since creationism has no supporting evidence other than using "faith", creationism/ID attempts to validate itself by attempting to discredit evolution. Hence, one of the criticisms from creationists to evolutionists is the lack of transitional fossils, they claim teir are none. This post shows that to be a false accusation with this recent discovery so how it is "off-target" defies belief.
Then if it is not a theory then how can you claim it was 'dealt a blow'?! That could only be the case if it was a falsifiable theory. Did you even bother to think over what I wrote or did you think you could get away by simply responding with "wrong" ?
For the same reason I just gave. Cretionism/ID does not bring any supporting scientific nce one exists, creationism/ID seeks to discredit evolution in trying to validate itself. I say "wrong" simply on the basis you are wrong
Then if it is not a theory then how can you claim it was 'dealt a blow'?! That could only be the case if it was a falsifiable theory. Did you even bother to think over what I wrote or did you think you could get away by simply responding with "wrong" ?
yes I did, I even had a ponder on your paradox of a falsafiable theory for something that is not a theory. remember, creationism/ID is not a scientific theory.
So it differs 'greatly; because
1. because it is a transition to a tetrapod
2. and because it differs greatly from all other species during this period that we currently know about within this period of time.
Wonderful demonstration of logic root. It differs greatly because it differs greatly. And maybe you should learn about the other species I mentioned because they were also labeled as transitional forms from fish to tetrapod.
Yes, I did say I disiked the word "transitional". However, the species you talk about are known as ancestors the same as the species uncovered in this thread. However, none of the species you mention contained transitional bone structure making this species very different.
I have bolded in black what you have left out from my original post, it makes more sense if you include the full sentence eh?