Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: tallhappy, Junior
It is unfortunate these religious fanatics have tried to hijack science.

What takes place on these threads is not always about science, even if, at times, it is. It's not always about religion either. But it can be fun. The creationists on the threads are, for the most part, not interested in science and the discussions repeatedly lead to the same irreconcilable arguments.

Junior is particularly recalcitrant about issues which I have pointed out to him as scientifically incorrect. He carries on with statements like "Evolutionists do not use the terms micro- or macro-evolution!", pictures of humans with "vestigial tails", incorrect definitions of speciation, etc.

When I first started on these threads, I sang somewhat the same tune you do. This isn't science, I'm a molecular biologist, and so forth. But, so what! The creationists are even less about science than the evolutionists here are. I try to infuse a little current scientific knowledge, but I realize that the simpler, pedestrian version of the evolutionary narrative is more than the creationists can handle.

1,086 posted on 03/21/2002 6:53:24 AM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1082 | View Replies ]


To: Nebullis
Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure I share your analysis on the two populations.
1,087 posted on 03/21/2002 7:06:34 AM PST by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1086 | View Replies ]

To: Nebullis
He carries on with statements like "Evolutionists do not use the terms micro- or macro-evolution!", pictures of humans with "vestigial tails", incorrect definitions of speciation, etc.

Number one, the micro- macro- thingy is a creationist creation; it does not appear in any of the books on evolution I have, and I'd never run across it before beginning to debate creationists on these threads. Secondly, I conceded the point on human tails. I specifically remember telling you that all we had to go on was that photograph of the kid with the tail, we did not have any additional information on the tail structure. And as for the speciation definition, as far as I can tell there are several competing definitions of speciation, which the creationists gleefully glom onto so they can change their definitions of macro- and micro-evolution to fit their particular arguments. I've typically stuck with the "unable to mate with any other species" definition.

I will be the first to admit I'm an amateur when it comes to biology, but I do have to point out that I make an effort to track down the information I need and seldom post without having something (a link, a reference, something) to back up my contentions. Mr. tallhappy, on the other hand, has been horribly unforthcoming with any actual information, evidently relegating himself to sitting on the sidelines carping.

1,097 posted on 03/21/2002 8:27:18 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1086 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson