In article <473c27ea@news.povray.org>, war### [at] tagpovrayorg says...
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> > >   Regardless of what is the truth, that just seems to be mocking for 
the
> > > sake of mocking. "Hahahaa! Look at all those idiots!"
> > >   Is that any better than the idiots?
> > > 
> > You didn't do more than read the article and look at a few pictures 
> > right? To be clear, the author is a biologist, so he knows how bloody
 
> > silly this shit is.
> 
>   That doesn't make my statement above any less true.
> 
>   The article and the photo series was nothing more than mocking for the
> sake of mocking. "Have a look at these photos and have a good laugh."
> There was no other point.
> 
> > Then there is 
> > the, "Evolution is false, but well, there probably where only a small
 
> > number of animals on the ship, so everything 'evolved' from those 
> > 'kinds' into all the billions of species we see now..." Again, which $@
#
> > $@# one is it?
> 
>   Regardless of whether evolution is true or not, that's one of the thing
s
> which always make me laugh. Anti-christian atheists always consider so-ca
lled
> microevolution (eg. wolves and dogs having a common ancestor species) to 
be
> the same thing as macroevolution (everything on Earth evolved from one
> single living cell). Accepting the former but doubting the latter is
> considered contradictory.
>   Regardless of what is the truth, that logic is flawed.
> 
>   Anyways, your overly long argumentation is pointless. I was not defendi
ng
> anything. I was simply saying that the purpose of that photo gallery was
> nothing more than mocking for the sake of mocking, with no other point.
> 
Why the #@$@$@ is it flawed. A) There is no mechanism **at all** that 
prevents one from leading to the other and B) The only answer the 
denialists can come up with is, "Well, maybe some intelligent designer, 
who (wink, wink..) might not be god at all, did it, somehow." Sorry, but 
that isn't science. Not knowing doesn't means you get to insert any BS 
you want. But that is hardly the point. The premise that we have no 
proof that micro can lead to macro is BS anyway, since we ***do*** have 
evidence of it in modern times, in labs, with bacteria, as well as 
things like ring species, where the opposite ends of the "ring", when a 
land slide or the like has separated them, are genetically **unable** to 
breed anymore, even though they can too their nearest neighbors, all 
they way around the "ring". I.e. A<->B<->C<->D<->E, but A</>E. This 
shouldn't be possible if micro evolution can't produce new species 
(which by definition is any two groups of animals that are sterile when 
they try to breed with each other, they don't have to be a giraffe and a 
mountain lion, nor is there any rule that says they have to **look** so 
radically different in the few hundred years it takes for this to happen 
that you can tell them apart visually).

Well, at least you didn't pull the, "And evolution doesn't explain how 
it got started!", claim, since that is roughly the same argument as if 
someone claimed you can't reconstruct a car accident without knowing how 
someone dug up the iron ore used to manufacture the car parts. Evolution 
is about what happened "once you had" life, not how it got here (at 
least not at this point anyway), and never has been about that.

Lets put it this way. If you think that micro evolution can't lead to 
macro evolution, never mind that those terms when they are used mean 
entirely different things between scientists and creationists, then you 
are a) not knowledgeable enough about the subject to know why this is a 
stupid claim and b) showing far more flawed logic than any biologist. I 
suggest reading www.talkorigins.org and specifically looking at the 
rebuttals given for this claim.

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message