How could you do that? Looks ironclad unfalsifiable to me.RickD wrote:]
Sort of.And I told you what an intermediate would be, if one existed.
While not a definition, it is a good example of hand wave.There's no hand waving going on. I say the fossil evidence supports progressive creation better than the theory of evolution.
"Ended with man" is just an editorial opinion with no basis whatever.Nope, not endless. His creation ended with man. And, stop throwing out the stupid global flood straw man crap. I told you I don't believe in a global flood, so there wouldn't be any evidence for one.
In any case, what I meant by "endless" was that there are so very many
intermediate forms, it gives such a good simulation (if such it were) of evolution! Mechanism and all, and yet its all an illusion.
You misunderstood what I said about global flood. I am not strawmanning you, its as cheap to claim it as it would be for me to do it.
Those who think there was such a flood betimes claim we see no evidence coz he cleaned it up. Kind of the f lip of all this evidence for evolution, but it is deceptive.
]If progressive creation is wrong, it will be shown to be wrong
What would do it? IF every single blessed generation from the Devonian to now were available in the fossil record, you could say the same:, progressive-progressive. Nobody can even prove that god does not direct every raindrop to its designated LZ.
Here is something that I really dont get about the progressive stance.
Why would it even occur to anyone that their omnipotent god would have to tinker with his creation, as if its an old British sports car?
Are you a "micro but not macro" guy? Why?