RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (58) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?, For Daniel Smith to present his argument< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2008,04:26   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 29 2008,19:09)
IOW, the 'toes fit for running on the plains' came first, the 'plains to run on' came later.

Just to clarify, which of the following options best represents your position here?

a) god knew that horses might need "toes for running on the plains" before there were plains, and LO! It was so.

b) Another explanation that does not require supernatural intervention in any way shape or form?

Seems to me you are eager to posit divine intervention at the slightest opportunity.

Daniel, do you believe that there *can* be a explanation for the toes that does not require supernatural intervention?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
  1733 replies since Sep. 18 2007,15:27 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (58) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]