Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,763 Year: 4,020/9,624 Month: 891/974 Week: 218/286 Day: 25/109 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   animals on the ark
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 310 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 192 of 196 (351298)
09-22-2006 12:39 PM


Hey, everyone, I found a list of kinds!
Here
Once more, we Brits lead the way in science.
So far as I can work out, a kind is a family or subfamily, whichever is the smaller, with the following exceptions:
* Apes are classed as Old World monkeys.
* Australopithecus goes in a kind of its own.
* Humans aren't mentioned for some reason.
This fits in with AiG's claim that Felidae is a kind.
This guy, though, has one extra trick: he claims that fossils were laid down after the flood. So he can prove common descent with, guess what? ... intermediate forms.
All he then has do do is deny the efficacity of radiometric dating, ignore the genetic, morphological and fossil evidence for evolution of higher taxa, and, of course, deny that what he's talking about is evolution, and there you go.
What I want to know is, where is the logical limit to this process. Why can he just claim that Noah took one tetrapod onto the Ark, from which all modern species evolved-but-we-don't-call-it-that?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024