| Re: Would an Evolutionist get on a Bullet Train knowing there are tracks missing down the line ? |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: alt.athiesm · Group Profile
Author: Dr. HouseDr. House Date: Jun 24, 2008 15:09
On Jun 23, 10:14Â am, Augray wrote:
[...]>>Has fur and warm blood so it's a mammal
>>Lays eggs and has a duck bill so it's a bird
>
> Well, it's a bill that looks like a duck's bill, but it's not really
> the same. The supporting bones are remarkably different, and the bill
> itself is soft and supple, unlike a duck's, which is covered with
> keratin.
>
>>Well the one thing it isn't is an animal that is mammal like and bird
>>like all at the same time because that _can't_ exist.
>
> It's not really that bird-like, but it certainly has some of the
> attributes of a reptile.
Ah you only say that because that's what your religion "science" tells
you to assume. Only those who blindly follow that religion get to
publish in peer reviewed journals.
The ID people know the truth: egg-laying, duck-billed creatures are
birds.
;-)
Seriously though, I had a feeling that my comment would be out of
date. Thanks. I guess I should have done a bit more research on it.
As a layman I know going in that my arguments won't be rigorous but my
goal is to persuade the fundamentalist that they don't have to be anti-
science. I figure my odds of success are slim to none but I've got to
try anyway. The fundamentalists tend to use a very simplified
classification based on animal "kinds". That works for animals
commonly found near civilization but fails when we include exotic
places or ultra harsh environments.
House
Because some of the . . . er . . . more delicate individuals were
frightened by the Jayne Cobb reference. And no, I'm not a real Doctor
but Hugh Laurie plays one on TV. ;-)
| 
