You're making no sense... as usual.
As you might be aware, the USS Enterprise is a fictional ship. Just like the alleged ark.
I don't really call it "evolution"; I call it variation. All of those finches whose "evolution" Darwin studied were still finches. That's just variation within the created kind.
I would return you then to my earlier question about how you think the finches came to be different. How did seven pairs of birds (assuming tanagers are clean animals) become 14 or 15 species, living on the island in the archipelago with the kind of food that matches the beak shape?
It's interesting that when Darwin visited the Galapagos he was thinking as a creationist and assumed that the different species of these birds represented 'centres of creation'. It was only later when he examined the birds he took back to England that he started thinking in terms of transmutation of species.
Your model has up to seven pairs of some ancestral finch kind. I don't know what modern species you would put within the 'kind' of finches, since Darwin's finches are actually from the family of tanagers, and are not related to true finches very closely. So my questions are, how did the limited variation contained in 14 birds get expressed as at least 14 different species (but possibly many more), and why are these birds only found in the Galapagos Islands?
Sure, but the kinds do not magically turn into other kinds. That's just simple science. Cows make baby cows, birds make baby birds, dogs make baby dogs, etc. etc. etc.
If you use simple science you get a wrong answer.
No, it's a real fact. If you'd like to be the first to disprove it, have at it.
You claimed this:
It has been proven time and again that chemical do NOT come to life by natural processes.
It's not my job to demonstrate anything regarding your claim. Since you asserted it without supporting evidence or argument, I will just dismiss it without supporting evidence or argument.
At least SOME things as opposed to your NOTHING (which is just plain idiotic).
Can you tell me what in nature was designed by a supreme intelligence and what wasn't?
The supreme intelligence put a curse on His creation due to man's sin.
It's up to you to believe in a vindictive god. But you made this claim:
We, on the other hand, see the obvious creative design in nature and therefore INFER that there was a supreme intelligence involved. That is a FAR more scientific and logical conclusion.
What tells you that natural has creative design in it? How do you tell the difference between what was designed and what was not designed?
The dimensions are in a book called the Bible. You should go look for yourself.
The largest wooden boat known to have been made is the New England schooner Wyoming. Depending on what you think a cubit is, the Wyoming was of similar size, or perhaps slightly smaller than the dimensions of the ark given in Genesis. The Wyoming did serve as a merchant vessel for a number of years, but it sank in heavy seas with the loss of all lives. It managed to last as long as it did because it had a large amount of iron bracing inside, and pumps that worked constantly to remove the water that leaked in between the constantly twisting and buckling planks. In the end, and despite the bracing and pumping, the planks twisted and buckled and let in the water that sank her.
I didn't see a mention of iron bracing or pumps in Genesis. Did you?
Your willful ignorance is tiring.
You poor thing.
Stuart
