[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Where are my posts going now ?



Aaargh ! TerryC, I like your practice of crossposting to various groups, 
but methinks maybe something may have gone amiss in the translation. This 
is quite an old post, so I'm not sure if I remember what I actually wrote 
in the first place (as the only creationist-basher on the list named peter).

Here goes.

>
>I'd never deliberately slag you off Peter, but here's a few points raised by
>your creationist-bashing escapade;
>

You have yet to personally offend me Terry, and I'd prefer to keep it 
that way. My views on Creationism have been expounded many times in this 
list and I shan't inflict them on the long-suffering subscribers again. 
My problems arise mainly from continued misinterpretations on 
evolutionary theory by creationists. When these misinterpretations find 
their way into populist made-for-schools magazines like Creation Ex 
Nihilo, it becomes quite frustrating. Misrepresenting evolutionary theory 
is just as bad as evolutionist stating that all creationists are 
flat-earthers.

>1) Pandas (the Giant _Ailuropoda menoleucea_) ARE bears. Red pandas are
>procyonids, and the similarities between the two species (protruding 'wrist
>bone', s-shaped penis, bamboo diet and atypical dentition) are convergences.
>

Apologies. My zoology is more directed towards invertebrates than cuddly 
beasts. My point was that the article in Creation Ex Nihilo went along 
the "typical" mold - take a "sacred cow" of evolution and then try to 
blow it out of the water. In this case they took the "thumb" of the 
giant and red pandas, now regarded as an example of convergence rather 
than proof of relationship. Gould used it as an example of how examples 
of imperfection (making do with what we've got) is evidence for 
evolution, rather than "perfect" adaptation. The article in Creation Ex 
Nihilo used it as an example of how the Creator made his beasts to suit 
their lifestyle. I like Gould's version better.

>2) Mokele-Mbembe is the correct spelling for the Congolese swamp monster. 
>Tales and sightings of this thing seem based on large varanids, crocodiles and
>elephants. Mackal had ludicrously suggested that various Congolese legendary
>beasts represent living sauropods, stegosaurs and ceratopsians! A creature
>supposedly seen in New Guinea, the Row, has been described as an extant
nonavian
>theropod (again, seemingly a varanid [_Varanus salvadori_ of NG is the longest
>extant lizard, and can rear to a bipedal height of about 5 foot, which is near
>enough the height of the Row]). Meanwhile, a Babylonian 'dragon' decorating a
>palace gate is believed by some eminent cryptozoologists to depict another
>extant dinosaur! Utter bollox!

My inclusion of the Creationist comments on "living fossils" was used to 
demonstrate another favourite piece of misinformation they like to put 
out - according to evolutionary theory, evolutionary processes are 
constantly changing _all_ species, therefore the existence of "living 
fossils" disproves evolution because they must have "moved on". Quite 
simply, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that says that all things 
must change, regardless of what is happening from the outside. In fact, 
the whole concept precludes this idea. The Creationists love to play with 
the success of so-called "primitive" animals like marsupials. There ain't 
nothing primitive about modern marsupials, or inefficient about their 
mode of reproduction. Kangaroos manage quite well, thank you very much. 
Evolutionists no longer believe in a chain of being composed of modern 
animals placed in order of advancement, but this is a concept that is 
taking a long time to filter down to some Creationists.
 
>3) The Zaiyomaru carcass, caught in the net of a Jap trawler

Did I mention this ?

I'm a skeptical fortean. That's not an oxymoron (notice I didn't use a 
capital S), it just means that I will always consider the Skeptic "swamp 
gas" explanation just as carefully as I will consider the other 
viewpoints offered. I don't automatically disregard a scientific notion 
just because it tends to be a particular hobbyhorse the Skeptics like to 
push. The Creationists worry me because their brand of Creationism has a 
narrow theological and ideological basis. They would like to see their 
theories taught in schools and universities regardless of other belief 
systems. It's not just biology they want to affect, it's cosmology and 
flood theory and their own particular slant on history and ethics as well
The creationists carry a lot of ideological baggage with them, 
and I shudder at the thought of a Muslim student being forced to have 
"Christian Values" forced down their throats in a science 
class. Has evolutionary theory done this ? Most definitely, but I think 
science should be non-denominational enough to offend all religions 
equally ;)

>Ow! I just shot off one of my feet.....
>
>DARREN
>

Crosspost as thou wilt, Terry, but could you do the courtesy of letting 
me know where it ends up, so I can at least defend myself before I forget 
what I said.

Thanks, mate

peter

off to wipe the slag off and to try and think of a creative way to slip 
"Love is a many splintered thing" into his sig.