Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tgamble · 08-19-2002, 01:23 PM

Enjoy!
<a href="http://www.innercite.com/~tstout/cs/pog_6.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.innercite.com/~tstout/cs/pog_6.shtml</a>

Never mind. Utterly useless

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

scigirl · 08-19-2002, 08:36 PM

Quote:

I would like to think that if Darwin knew what we know today, that he would have greatly reduced the scale of his claims, limiting them to micro-evolutionary processes.

Why do creationists insist on ascribing to scientists that which they do themselves: Adhering to an old book that doesn't ever change?

Darwin this, Darwin that. If Darwin had lived a few more years, he would have been around for the advent of genetics.

scigirl

Doubting Didymus · 08-19-2002, 08:42 PM

Mind you, can you imagine the look on his face if Darwin DID find out how much we know today. Might be a bit like the look gallileo would have if you put him in a rocket and sent him to the moon.

Albion · 08-19-2002, 10:17 PM

Well, I must be missing something (wouldn't be the first time). First he says that biblical kinds weren't species but some overarching master kind like the "cat kind" which was the basis for the development of everything from the Siamese to the sabre-tooth tiger, and then he says there's no such thing as macro-evolution?

lpetrich · 08-19-2002, 10:31 PM

As is typical of present-day creationists, the author of that pamphlet concedes that much evolution has happened, such as evolution of the various feline species from some ancestral feline. But he does not give any way of recognizing a created kind other than to quote the Bible:

Quote:

The specific kinds mentioned are grass, herbs, trees, sea creatures, birds, cattle, creeping things, and beasts.

This is absurdly vague and imprecise. For example, palm trees, being monocots, are more closely related to grass plants, also monocots, than of to dicot trees or conifers. And treeishness may have evolved several times among the dicots.

Also, bushes are intermediate between herbs (woodless plants) and trees.

I'm sure it's easy to continue to pick apart this classification; I've decided to stop here.

Camaban · 08-19-2002, 11:42 PM

I've never quite figured out why microevolution can't become macroevolution if given enough time.

Anyone else got any thoughts on this?

Albion · 08-20-2002, 12:03 AM

Because it's un-Biblical.

Vampyric · 08-20-2002, 02:08 AM

Because it can't be evilution if 'godidit'. God did something else which looks just like it but isn't because macroevilution is a lie spread by satan.

lpetrich · 08-20-2002, 06:17 AM

I went to <a href="http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/APweb/welcome.html" target="_blank">the University of Missouri's angiosperm-phylogeny site</a>, and I attempted to find patterns in whether plants were woody or woodless. But the large majority of orders in the classification had both woody and woodless plants in them, making "trees" and "herbs" both grades of organization rather than taxa united by common descent.

Happy Wonderer · 08-20-2002, 12:40 PM

This is the crux of the whole mess, I think -- "Evolution is wrong because we don't like the consequences." It doesn't matter what the evidence is, we just don't like the conclusion.

Quote:

<strong> I believe that Darwin's principle of natural selection is valid. It worked well when its application was limited to explaining those things Darwin was able to observe, such variation within closely related species. However, his attempt to extrapolate it to a more general case simply did not and does not fit the facts. I would like to think that if Darwin knew what we know today, that he would have greatly reduced the scale of his claims, limiting them to micro-evolutionary processes. That would in no way detract from the greatness of his work in discovering the principle of natural selection. But it might have limited the wild speculation that he so freely offered in The Origin and which has had such a disastrous impact on western civilization. </strong>

HW

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Happy Wonderer ]</p>

08-19-2002, 01:23 PM	#1
tgamble Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada Posts: 1,652	biblical kinds Enjoy! <a href="http://www.innercite.com/~tstout/cs/pog_6.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.innercite.com/~tstout/cs/pog_6.shtml</a> Never mind. Utterly useless [ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-19-2002, 08:42 PM	#3
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Mind you, can you imagine the look on his face if Darwin DID find out how much we know today. Might be a bit like the look gallileo would have if you put him in a rocket and sent him to the moon.

08-19-2002, 10:17 PM	#4
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Well, I must be missing something (wouldn't be the first time). First he says that biblical kinds weren't species but some overarching master kind like the "cat kind" which was the basis for the development of everything from the Siamese to the sabre-tooth tiger, and then he says there's no such thing as macro-evolution?

08-19-2002, 11:42 PM	#6
Camaban Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 473	I've never quite figured out why microevolution can't become macroevolution if given enough time. Anyone else got any thoughts on this?

08-20-2002, 12:03 AM	#7
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Because it's un-Biblical.

08-20-2002, 02:08 AM	#8
Vampyric Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Nowhere Posts: 33	Because it can't be evilution if 'godidit'. God did something else which looks just like it but isn't because macroevilution is a lie spread by satan.

08-20-2002, 06:17 AM	#9
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I went to <a href="http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/APweb/welcome.html" target="_blank">the University of Missouri's angiosperm-phylogeny site</a>, and I attempted to find patterns in whether plants were woody or woodless. But the large majority of orders in the classification had both woody and woodless plants in them, making "trees" and "herbs" both grades of organization rather than taxa united by common descent.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.