Warp wrote:
> 
>   Regardless of whether evolution is true or not, that's one of the things
> which always make me laugh. Anti-christian atheists always consider so-called
> microevolution (eg. wolves and dogs having a common ancestor species) to be
> the same thing as macroevolution (everything on Earth evolved from one
> single living cell). Accepting the former but doubting the latter is
> considered contradictory.
I don't know if you ever read the origin of species, but for me the main 
point in it revolves around the concept of a species. I think the point 
where the devout christian Darwin turned away from a literal 
interpretation of the bible is in the story of Noah's ark. While 
thinking of the concept of a species and the definition of it he was 
gradually forced to admit that there is no such concept as a species. 
Undoubtedly a dog and an oak are not the same species, but that does not 
imply that for every two individual plants or animals you can decide 
whether they are the same species or not, not even a supernatural being 
can do that. Hence there is no way that Noah's story can be true. After 
taking that hurdle Darwin freed himself from the literal interpretation 
of the bible and was able to take all the other steps.
I am an atheist (though not an anti-christian one, some of my best 
friends are Christian) and indeed I think that microevolution and 
macroevolution are the same thing. Because the distinction is based on 
the concept of a species, which may be handy concept in everyday live, 
but scientifically it is fundamentally flawed. It is possibly comparable 
to using Newtonian physics. Handy in normal live, but we know that in 
the end, nature is not like that.
 >   Regardless of what is the truth, that logic is flawed.
True, if you believe that 'species' is a well defined concept then it is 
indeed possible to believe one and not the other.

>   Anyways, your overly long argumentation is pointless. I was not defending
> anything. I was simply saying that the purpose of that photo gallery was
> nothing more than mocking for the sake of mocking, with no other point.

On the concept of mocking, I think you may be right, but I could not 
force myself to read more than a few paragraphs. When I still had no 
clue what it was about I stopped reading.

Post a reply to this message