In article <473### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom 
says...
> Warp wrote:
> > 
> >   Regardless of whether evolution is true or not, that's one of the thi
ngs
> > which always make me laugh. Anti-christian atheists always consider so-
called
> > microevolution (eg. wolves and dogs having a common ancestor species) t
o 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.
> 
Yes, there are two things you could call species - A) What looks 
different enough to call it one, and which is naturally separated enough 
by inclination, territory, etc. to remain separate or B) Things too 
different to interbreed. The first one is the traditional 
interpretation, while the second is a more strict version that doesn't 
work for about 90% of what we deem "species", at least in categories 
like cats, some birds, etc. Its a sloppy term. The joke of course is 
that the ID people muddle things even more, by inventing the term 
"kinds", which means little more than, "Things that look a lot alike, so 
must have all micro-evolved from one goat/horse/sheep/turtle/rabbit/etc. 
Though, I have to wonder, wouldn't someone have noticed if, within the 
unbelievably short time it would have needed to happen, billions of 
different colors, shapes and sizes of all those animals started popping 
up to fill in the gaps in the ecosystem all over the world? You would 
think *someplace* you would find a comment like, "Yesterday I had two 
rabbits, with brown fur and short ears. Today I have 12, some with sandy 
hair, some with floppy ears, some with puffy tails, some with larger 
than normal feet, and a myriad of other differences." lol They seem to 
forget that it would have taken time for all those species to spread 
across the globe, and change, and that there where **people** around to 
see all those stuff happening, so it had to have either happened in a 
really long time *before* any flood, so as to avoid the glaring lack of 
mention of sudden rapid changes being observed or it would have all had 
to have happened in literally days after they reached land again (with, 
again, no one noticing any of it), in order for there to be this many. 
Otherwise, by their own argument, if it took all of 6,000 years to do, 
then we, or someone in the last 6,000, should have seen new species just 
*popping* into existence to fill incomplete parts of the grand plan 
every day.

You can't have it both ways. It can't take time to diverge, but have the 
only time available to do that be **while** people where around to see 
it, or take no time at all for the entire planet to get filled up with 
billions of species, and have literally **no one**, including Noah and 
family, notice those billions of species popping into existence right 
and left to make it happen that way. Both are absurdly silly (not in the 
least because if the first version where true, they would have a damn 
hard time claiming we didn't observe anything evolve).

-- 
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