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

Creationism rears it's ugly head

The latest attempt to legitimize creationist dogma would be amusing if it 
wasn't so annoying.  I'm sure other more educated list-members will counter the 
latest arguments far more effectively than I can, but here is my take.

To describe all similarities between species as simple convergance is to 
oversimplify things to an extreme degree (isn't it unusual for a creationist to 
allow for ANY kind of evolution?  Maybe there is hope for Skeptic yet ;^)  
Convergent evolution is described as two species that are SUPERFICIALLY alike, 
due to similar lifestyles.  Yet, under rigorous analysis one finds that the two 
species are very different.  The classic case of the Ichthyosaur and the 
Dolphin, shows this very well: the "outer shell" is very similar, but the 
skeletons are so fundamentally different, that one can see that they are not 
closely related.

For birds and dinosaurs, the convergent argument falls flat.  Firstly, Archy 
and Dienonychus DO NOT have a similar lifestyle.  Secondly, under an extemely 
rigorous and detailed analysis between Archy and Dienonychus, the skeletons 
show a profound similarity, so much that the convergance argument just doesn't 

As a Christian, I find it wierd that Skeptic is holding on to an archaic 
theological principle.  C'mon, most theological leaders have no problem with an 
ancient and evolving Earth.  What is his problem?

For the sake of everyone, keep all non-scientific comments OFF-LIST, in a 
PRIVATE message.

Rob Meyerson
Orphan Vertebrate Paleontologist

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new 
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's 
funny ..." 
-- Isaac Asimov