Proof of Creational Science

[Viker]

Why do we not respect the mind of scientists? But how clever is it to assume that there is a common relative (i.e., ancestor) between the flea (or a virus) and an elephant?

Axioma is a statement that is so apparent that the statement has been proven by its apparency. Obviously, elephants did not occur from fleas. It is infinitely evident.

If the modern flea and modern elephant have a common ancestor A, then the A is the ancestor of the contemporary flea. The latter fact means that ancestor A is a very primitive, under-developed ancient flea. Hence, modern elephants came from very primitive, under-developed antique flea.

The Riemann hypothesis is an unproved statement, but not an axiom, and never will ever become an axiom. Why? Because the Riemann hypothesis's validity is not apparent.

How is refuting one thing and not offering evidence proof of the other?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is refuting one thing and not offering evidence proof of the other?

You have to ask that after reading that "refutation"?

 

[Viker]

You have to ask that after reading that "refutation"?

I'm bored.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm bored.

The same thing happens to me.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

If the modern flea and modern elephant have a common ancestor A, then the A is the ancestor of the contemporary flea. The latter fact means that ancestor A is a very primitive, under-developed ancient flea. Hence, modern elephants came from very primitive, under-developed antique flea.

This statement demonstrates your lack of any understanding of the subject matter you have chosen to champion. It would take an essay to address all the misconceptions you appear to have regarding evolution. Let me just try to help with what I perceive as your most significant misconception.

No organism living today or ever has an “A” ancestor. It is an error to talk about “the” ancestor of any living thing. It would be correct to talk about “an” ancestor or “one of the millions” of ancestors of an organism. That is to say you, and I, and every living thing today has tens of millions if not billions of ancestors.

E.g. I have an ancestor in common with all humans, another in common with all hominids, another with all apes, with all monkeys, with all primates, all mammals, with all amniotes, with all tetrapods, all chordates, all animals (including fleas), all eukaryotes, all karyotes, etc. And literally millions of ancestors between all these.

Your understanding, and by extension your entire line of reasoning, is invalid on this basis alone. I don’t see any point in addressing your additional misconceptions if we can’t get past this one.

 

[metis]

This statement demonstrates your lack of any understanding of the subject matter you have chosen to champion. It would take an essay to address all the misconceptions you appear to have regarding evolution. Let me just try to help with what I perceive as your most significant misconception.

No organism living today or ever has an “A” ancestor. It is an error to talk about “the” ancestor of any living thing. It would be correct to talk about “an” ancestor or “one of the millions” of ancestors of an organism. That is to say you, and I, and every living thing today has tens of millions if not billions of ancestors.

E.g. I have an ancestor in common with all humans, another in common with all hominids, another with all apes, with all monkeys, with all primates, all mammals, with all amniotes, with all tetrapods, all chordates, all animals (including fleas), all eukaryotes, all karyotes, etc. And literally millions of ancestors between all these.

Your understanding, and by extension your entire line of reasoning, is invalid on this basis alone. I don’t see any point in addressing your additional misconceptions if we can’t get past this one.

Well said, and just a short note to say "Welcome".

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

Well said, and just a short note to say "Welcome".

Thank you for the welcome. It’s much appreciated!