tgamble

"Algae along with fungi and all plants must have evolved from a few seeds that managed to survive the flood. In just a few thousand years. ”

Socratism:

"You should read about Charles Darwin's studies on this very subject.

In addition, the latest information in the area of genetics seems to support the notion that rapid diversification from existing types is a "built-in" feature of the sexual reproduction process called meiosis. This feature would seem to be what permits effective adaptation to rapid changes in the environment, something that would not be possible in a process dominated by such a slow and haphazard process as "random" mutation only.

Most informed creationists recognize this adaptive capability of rapid change in response to equally rapid changes in the environment. What is disputed is whether this presumably "built-in" type of variation can be extrapolated to support the "goo to you via the zoo" concept."

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...6&pagenumber=4

Is this depressing or just funny?

Duvenoy

Neither, it's only pathetic. Well, ok. It's funny too. And maybe a little depressing, but another beer'll take care of that.

I wonder: what would it take to convince these guys; what evidence must be presented to make them say, "Damn! Why didn't I see that before?"

doov

pz

Nothing. If they can read Darwin (not that I believe that that bozo has read one word of any real science source) and come away thinking he's presenting evidence for the irrelevance of Darwinian mechanisms, there is no hope.

Alix Nenuphar

Most of the inhabitants of TheologyWeb are astonishing irrational, including the moderators who appear unable to determine what constitutes an ad hominem. But I think that Pz is correct:

"Their arguments, not being founded in reason, cannot be swayed by reason."

I don't recall who said it, but I think it applies.

Tgamble, why do you post there? Entertainment? Stubborness? A hope of shedding some light on some subject?

Dr.GH

I ask my self the same question, even though I am no nearly as active there as tgamble.

1) It does motivate me to continue to broaden my reading of science. The creatos mostly just cut-n-paste, but I try to write responses.

2) It pisses me off to see that Bull Shit spread around as "truth" and this motivates me to write longer pieces to counter the creationist's lies.

3) There is the vague idea that there are "lurkers" who might be open minded enough to gain a little knowledge.

4) There are very far-right wing religious bigots, and therefore I feel obligated to oppose them where ever, and when ever I can. We will all be in 'camps' or ovens if they are allowed to take over the future.

lpetrich

One has to marvel at how much evolution the creationists accept.

Nowhere357

When I saw your post title, I thought of this thread from the theologyweb.

Then I saw this answer, and almost lost my will to live...

tgamble

One has to marvel at the acting ability.

They an say, with a straight face, that a few seeds that survived the flood evolved into all plant life on the planet in just a few thousand years.

but insist that's just variation within a "kind"

Valentine Pontifex

Well of course. In the end there is only one thing about evolution that most creationists really object to: that it includes humans. Remove the bit about humans evolving from non-humans and evolution would considered pretty obvious by most everyone. But since one cannot ignore the implication for humans, people will then try to deny it and pigeon-hole what they can't deny as "microevolution."

And here come the Valentine Pontifex conjecture: the more distantly related to humans a taxon is the greater the amount of evolution that can be falsely pigeon-holed as "microevolution" is. Plants being a case and point.

Coragyps

Yeah, VP, I've seen that "reasoning" used quite a bit: the "bacteria kind," despite there arguably being more genetic distance among bacteria than among all eukaryotes, and also references to the "fish kind" or "insect kind." It all seems to be based on an even less accurate view of the world than the authors of the pentateuch had - at least they could distinguish a locust from a bald locust.