Science doesn't work by narrowing things down to a single possibility. This is a great way to think or reason but it is not science. You can think like this to invent hypothesis or experiment but NOT theory.
That was a response to, "
Try this. Basically, you have a series of extinct creatures ranging in age from older forms that more closely resemble furry creatures that walked on all fours to newer, more whalelike forms. No other mechanism that could account for that apart from natural selection acting on genetic variation has ever been suggested. Creationism doesn't predict or explain finding ancient, extinct forms."
I don't see how your response relates to mine. In fact, I can't tell that you read my comment. You asked for evidence of whale evolution and I gave you a link and explained the fossil evidence suggested, and that it wasn't accounted for by evolution's only alternative, a deceptive intelligent designer. There's the answer. If you'd care to tell me what part of that is in error and why, we can discuss our differences of opinion and perhaps resolve them, but answers like that one don't help.
Let me share something I wrote earlier today on another thread, where another poster was touting Christian morality, to which I gave about a dozen examples of moral failings of Jesus in the Gospels, only one of which was addressed - the one where Jesus kills a herd of pigs. I only mention it because it outlines a hierarchy of dissent from rebuttal to lower forms of disputation:
You'd need to address all of them to rebut the claim that this ethical system is flawed, not just one. If you don't want to do that, address three or four of the most egregious ones, not the one about disrespect for personal property. Why won't you give a response to all of them? Isn't defending your faith important enough, assuming that you can?
I saw a similar response on a thread asking whether Christmas and Easter were adaptations of pagan holidays, and about a dozen examples of pagan influences (yule logs, tinsel, flocking, Santa and reindeer, eggs, bunnies), and the guy chose to address one of them as if that were a rebuttal. We also see this with the response to claims that the Bible contradicts itself or that biblical prophecy is weak if several examples are provided.
But it is the best one can do short of a complete rebuttal - a rebuttal of one point. It goes downhill from there. Next worse is simply giving what you believe instead without explaining why you feel what you reject cannot be correct. Next least effective is to simply dissent: "That's not what I choose to believe." An ad lapidem fallacy comes next ("Anybody with commonsense can see that your argument is absurd"), and the lowest rung is the dismissive insult, like your first answer: "Wisdom is too high for a fool"
What you have done is give what you believe instead without attempting to rebut what you reject.
You are making an assumption that consilience shows survival of the fittest and that this is the mechanism of change in species.
I am saying that consilience supports the theory.
If evolution wanted such "fitness" then why would the species change? Why wouldn't every individual be exactly alike (much as Darwin assumed) except for its sex?
Species change because genomes and habitats change. Also, such a genetically homogeneous species would be eliminated by disease.
I maintain consilience "proves" my theory because it has more experiment, observation, and logic within it than Darwin's does.
Your hypothesis explains and predicts nothing. If you disagree, please rebut. If you think the comment is wrong for a reason, you shouldbe able to produce the argument that falsifies it.
You can't prove any scientific theory.
Several (maybe all) scientific theories are correct in the main beyond reasonable doubt, including evolutionary theory.
There is and never will be such a thing as "settled science".
Perhaps not in your estimation, but there are countless ideas that are demonstrably correct and for which no serious dissent exists in the field. Opinions from outside the field aren't relevant. The creationists would argue that evolution isn't settled science and produce pseudoscientific apologetics, but the scientific community isn't looking at them or responding to them.
So now you are an expert on the will of God also.
That was in response to, "Creationism doesn't predict or explain finding ancient, extinct forms." Once again, I don't know how you think that response relates to my comment. So perhaps you can address what I wrote with, "I agree" or "I disagree because [rebuttal here]"
Perhaps God just wants us to strive to understand our universe.
Are you saying that creationism predicts finding ancient, extinct creatures? If not, you aren't disagreeing with me.
