Re: tiger shark

Reddfrogg <reddfrogg@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

On Oct 4, 2:56 pm, Picasso Renoir Hilton <ihavethecode...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

[...]

so
the fish is closer to the shark on the tree than the human is and we
are in agreement.

No, that's where you are wrong. "Fish", by which apparently you mean
"bony fish", are closer to humans than they are to sharks.

There are three distances:

SH: the distance between sharks and humans
SF: the distance between sharks and bony fish
FH: the distance between bony fish and humans

Tapestry (and the other Creationists in this thread) are saying that SH
is larger than SF (fish are closer to sharks than humans are to sharks).

You (and the other evolutionists) are saying that FH is smaller than
both SH and SF (humans are closer to bony fish than fish (or humans) are
to sharks).

IIRC some articles have also rejected the Creationist position, arguing
that one can't really say that SH is larger than SF---the question's not
really meaningful. But most haven't addressed the question, leaving the
confusion above. So I think you're talking past each other most of the
time.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading