I know what animals look like. Can you just answer the question? Is there anything you consider as being non-designed? Whether it's a living thing or not?
It makes it as right as anything will ever be.
I have my own views on free energy and telekinesis, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
I'm not saying to throw feelings out. Intuition is useful and it can pick up on things that we may not notice on a conscious level. Modern psychology...
That's how we think in our day to day lives. 100% certainty in anything isn't possible, but it's perfectly practical to deem a 99% as truth.
I don't know of anything that's been thrown out to accommodate the Theory of Evolution. The scientific community as a whole, doesn't have a vested...
It would have happened by now. The Theory of Evolution had so many chances to be wrong but never was. Literally every missing gap we have eventually found, turned out to be pretty much exactly what we expected. The chances of finding a fossil that's completely out of place is utterly abysmal...
If you're not even interested in addressing people's points and want to blatantly ignore and avoid them, then why bother making a thread for discussion? If you're making a thread in Evolution vs Creation, you should expect a rebuttal from us and be prepared to engage. Otherwise, there are...
Then tell me how you think it works.
It's not even a claim that science makes, which I've said to you already.
No... I don't. You think the ToE says one thing when it says another.
Apparently you haven't. I've already said to you before that the Theory of Evolution doesn't predict that...
That's what a scientific theory is meant to do. It's meant to answer a wide range of questions. When science has a theory that can do that, it means it has a working theory. It really is a blanket answer to any question regarding a heritable trait of a lifeform. That, and how life evolves. It...
No. Why would we think that given the vast number of dinosaur species and their 166 million year reign on this planet? And there's probably still numerous dinosaur species that we don't know about or will ever know about.
Besides, there isn't really a missing link in human evolution, in the...
How many times are you gonna ask this question?
Natural Selection accounts for every inheritable trait we see in life on Earth. Every last one of them, no matter what it is, whether it's an instinctual trait, a visual trait, or anything else. As long as its genetic, Natural Selection accounts...
10) Defective Vitamin-C producing gene.
11) Lifespan is considerably longer than other groups of mammals, at least in relation to size (longevity seems to correlate to size in the animal kingdom, but even small primates live a relatively long time).
12) Shared social behavior and psychological...
It's not an assumption that the trachea and esophagus function as pathways for breathable air and food, respectively. Two pathways that redundantly meet and cross, with a coughing reflex evolved to mitigate this major flaw.
Then that would be abiogenesis with a guided intelligence, not evolution with a guided intelligence.
It's not about goals. It's about efficiency of certain configurations in lifeforms.
The beginning is often seen from the "end" (or some random point in time).
When humans do it, we really do see entire parts switched around and/or replaced arbitrarily, as if we were designing an automobile. We have goats that produce spider silk in their milk. You don't see that sort of thing...
I'm well aware of what you're arguing. I'm telling you that evolution with guided intelligence would be different than what is seen.
Then it's not guided by intelligence. It's just natural selection.
It's also arguing against some form of intelligence being involved in the physical make-up...