Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 10 Feb 2001 16:25:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
867 times
|
| |
|
|
> Okay now I'm REALLY questioning the credability of these numbers.
> Please give me an authoritative source on this. First you (inclusive of
> "the evolutionists in this discussion") say "1.800.000.000 species",
> then you correct yourself and say "1.800.000",
That's right. There are currently about 1.8 million species (plants and animals) described. Of course this is just an estimate -
general textbooks vary in giving numbers from 1-2 million of DESCRIBED species, and estimates go even up to 8 million species of yet
UNDESCRIBED species (some say even 100 millions....)
then you use the figure
> "2.200.000" right after you just corrected yourself to say that there
> are only 1.800.000 species in total!
More than 50% of all living animals are insects, I had the number 1.1 million in mind. As insects are generally bisexual, you would
need 2 specimens of one species, a male and a female. 1.1 million plus 1.1 million makes 2.2 million insects. You want me to give an
authoritative source on these data? The problem with you is that you do not regard any source as reliable except of the bible....
anyway, what about the biodiversity page of the American Museum of Natural History, they cite 1.75 million species as described:
http://www.amnh.org/science/biodiversity/index.html
I'm very sorry, Tim, but these data are common ground.
Here's another one for the number of described insects species, it's the Entomology page of the Natural History Museum, London, they
cite "more than 1 million described insect species:
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/dep-info.html
The numbers are all pretty much the same in every common textbook.
I could cite 10 more sources within 10 minutes, but I fear you still would not believe in these facts. You permanently try to deny
basic facts of human science, and that's exactly why I think that literal creationism is dangerous to a modern society.
The story of Noah points to the critical point: you permanently have to assume divine action to make the entire story work. Food
requirements for more than 2 million specimens of insects alone .... a nice thought. Then add all the land-living vertebrates....
and all the other groups of animals. It won't work. Sorry. It won't work. Food requirements, excrements, etc.etc.... ever tried to
run a zoo with 2 million animals? Ridiculous. The entire giant flood story is ridiculous. Go ahead and put a carp into salt water.
It dies. Why the heck do we still have freshwater fish then?
However, let me come to the core issue: when you permanently have to assume supernatural things to make the entire story work, you
can stop doing science. It's not scientific. Creationism is not based on science. That's all. I don't see a problem with literal
creationism per se - everyone may believe what he wants to, BUT: do not go ahead and try to mimic science to "prove" that the bible
was correct, because your efforts are NOT based on scientific methods and thus not scientific.
Arnold
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
| (...) Okay now I'm REALLY questioning the credability of these numbers. Please give me an authoritative source on this. First you (inclusive of "the evolutionists in this discussion") say "1.800.000.000 species", then you correct yourself and say (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
95 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
