Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 12 2006,20:31)|
|Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 12 2006,19:02)|
|Here's what Dave thinks the creationist phylogenetic tree looks like:|
|Quote (afdave @ Oct. 10 2006,14:03)|
|THE CREATIONIST VIEW OF SPECIATION|
But as anyone can tell, it's completely wrong. For one thing, his diagram shows about 20 "created kinds," and only about 29 currently-existing species. Assume he's only drawn every thousandth "created kind" for clarity. Then he should have drawn in about ten thousand currently-existing species, rather than 29. He's understating the required pace of evolution by a factor of about 300.
To be fair, it's not Dave's tree, it's AIG's tree http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/towering_change.asp, and it's actually a tree of language evolution after Babel (although they mention that it's just as applicable to evolution from created kinds), which explains the limited number of "created kind" and "species".
I know its a bit presumptuous, but I wonder if Arden would do a quick smackdown of this AIG article about languages. I think an executive summary format would work since AFDave likes this so much. I was reading through it and found so many erroneous statements and (what I think are) errors that a resident expert on this board could point out more of AIG's lies and deciet. I've read Diamond's books and know that a lot of the AIG claims are egregiously false because they ignore any scientific investigation into languages.
I figure that every person commenting could take one AIG article that addresses a field they feel comfortable with and write-up a quick smackdown. Our resident copy/paste expert would then have to address our smackdowns if he uses the articles for references in the future. I'll look around for one in the engineering field (or chemistry or physics) and try my hand at a quick debunk soon.