(April 7, 2016 at 10:36 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(April 7, 2016 at 10:14 am)robvalue Wrote: Evolution not scientific? Someone must know next to nothing about it if they could possibly think that.Your right...it far worse than "that looks similar, they must have common descent"....
But pointing at life and saying "that looks designed" is science? Jeez. I give up. I'd already given up, but I give up again.
Oh wow, a strawman. How crazy.
It's a demonstrable fact that the closer organisms are morphologically, the closer they tend to be genetically. The correlation between genetic similarity and familial relationships is also well known and borne out by all the scientific data. So in fact, physiological similarities are a reliable indicator of descent, but in this case we also pair them with genetic analysis and close examination of morphology, so even if we only had looks to go off of, it'd still be a more detailed explanation than your glib, one sentence response. It's not, though: we also have the precise ordering of the fossil record, the similar basal genetics that all organisms share, and a raft of other scientific observations that are not shared in the overly simplistic, fallacious reasoning deployed in this thread in support of the design bald assertion.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!