Raving Conservative

Google

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Dismembering Evolution 7: Feathered Dinosaurs

Am I the only one who has noticed that every relatively small carnivorous dinosaur that is discovered these days is automatically assumed to have had feathers?

Take Bambiraptor for example. With no evidence to run with save for some similarities an bone structure between Bambiraptor and Archaeopteryx many artist’s renditions of it, most notably the sculpture made of it for the conference where the dinosaur was officially presented to the public, showed it bearing either feathers or hair-like projections assumed to be the precursor to feathers.

More recently a couple of small dinosaurs were discovered in China, once again assumed to have feathers for some reason. It should be noted that there have also been frauds regarding feather imprints found with dinosaur skeletons, all of which were immediately accepted and highly publicized until the fraud was exposed by a skeptic.

However, there is one very important creature to note that appears to represent a transition from dinosaurs to bird. It is Archaeopteryx.

The classic logical timeline that has been presented to students has bird-like dinosaurs preceding Archaeopteryx as a necessity to the development of this remarkable creature. The fact is that these birdlike dinosaurs appeared tens of millions of years after Archaeopteryx went extinct. Classically, it is taught that birds then arose from Archaeopteryx, with the most dinosaur-like ones coming first and advancing to modern birds. The actual timeline runs something more like this. Archaeopteryx – 10-15 million year gap – birds that survived until the end of the dinosaur age – another class of birds the lasted only a very short time – birdlike dinosaurs – a series of four classes of now extinct birds – modern birds appearing while the birdlike dinosaurs still roamed the Earth. This defies the necessary evolutionary development requirements by having Archaeopteryx predate the dinosaurs that should be its ancestors. It also fudges evolutionary theory by having actual birds appear before the supposed precursors to Archaeopteryx. It also does not fill the gap of millions of years between Archaeopteryx and birds. So evolutionary theory appears to be quite flawed as far as the fossil record goes.

It could be stated that there were divergent lines of evolution leading to similar development among birds and dinosaurs arising independently. First I want to challenge anyone to actually prove that this happened. Second, I want to point out the obvious flaw in this interpretation. This leaves no evolutionary precursors to Archaeopteryx, making it a random aberration of nature with no discernable source. It also eliminates all birdlike dinosaurs from the evolutionary mix because we are forced to conclude that since Archaeopteryx is not descended from them, and that birds themselves predate them, hey are nothing more than an evolutionary dead end. It also does not account for the multimillion year gap in the fossil record between Archaeopteryx and the first birds.

Now for some more personal musings on the whole subject of Archaeopteryx.

This beautiful fossil does share many characteristics of birds and dinosaurs. I will happily grant that. But this does not necessarily mean it is the ancestor of birds. For an example of this problem I shall turn to a more modern creature the Platypus.

The Platypus shares some remarkable similarities to both mammals and birds. It has hair and mammaries, but it also lays eggs and has a bill like a duck. By using the logic of the evolutionist this creature must represent a link of mammals descending from birds, or of birds descending from mammals. It has shared features, so it MUST be a transitional species. In fact, I am willing to bet that evolutionists 100,000,000 years from now will find platypus fossils and declare them to be the missing link between birds and mammals and something or the other.

Today, no scientist is using the platypus to try to prove that birds are descended from mammals, or that mammals are descended from birds, but it should only make sense to make this argument if you are a Darwinist. I mean, shared features prove common descent right? Mixed features prove ancestry, right? Also, isn’t hair supposed to have preceded feathers anyway? Aren’t feathers just modified hairs? That means evolutionary theory should stop looking for dinosaurs as the transition to birds and start looking to the tiny primitive mammals that lived during the age of the dinosaurs. After all, nobody is claiming that mammals evolved from dinosaurs; there is just no fossil evidence to support this.

So to the Darwinist I say, is the Platypus a transitional species between birds and mammals or not? Do the shared features prove that birds and mammals are interrelated to the point of having split from each other at some point? And if so, doesn’t this eliminate archaeopteryx as a missing link/transitional species? And most importantly, why aren’t the Darwinists asking these questions themselves? Why do people like me have to point them out?

The simple lack of reason, the inability to see and address problems with evolution is, to me, a sign of a weak secular mind. To accept a theory without question is to take it on faith. To fail to look critically at an assertion to evaluate how true it is is gullibility. I remember being taught the classic timeline of Birdlike dinosaurs to archaeopteryx to birds in school and books all the way up to a couple years when I bought my most recent book on dinosaurs. The fact that the timeline is off according to the fossil record causes serious harm to the credibility of all who teach this false timeline. The failure to address this problem openly to a critical public shows fear, fear of reducing people’s faith in evolution.

19 Comments:

  • Daniel: Am I the only one who has noticed that every relatively small carnivorous dinosaur that is discovered these days is automatically assumed to have had feathers?

    Perhaps that’s because most of the recently discovered, relatively small, carnivorous dinosaurs are Coelurosaurs, the antecedents of birds. However, can you present any evidence to show that it is automatically assumed that they have feathers? Of course, I’m only talking about the cases where there aren’t feathers actually visible in the fossil.

    Daniel: Take Bambiraptor for example. With no evidence to run with save for some similarities an bone structure…

    You mean with no evidence save for the evidence that it is the dinosaur most anatomically similar to birds yet discovered. Bambiraptor is a member of the family Dromæosauridæ, a sister taxon to Aves, where Archæopteryx lives; though there is currently discussion about the relationships around the dinosaur-bird boundary.

    Daniel: More recently a couple of small dinosaurs were discovered in China, once again assumed to have feathers for some reason.

    For some reason… What could that reason be? Oh yes, it’s because there were the imprints of feathers in the fossils. But let’s try to negate that evidence by poisoning the well…

    Daniel: It should be noted that there have also been frauds regarding feather imprints found with dinosaur skeletons

    So we are supposed to think that the Chinese fossils are frauds as well. But will you present any evidence that the Chinese fossils are frauds? I doubt it.

    Daniel: The actual timeline runs something more like this. Archaeopteryx – 10-15 million year gap – birds that survived until the end of the dinosaur age – another class of birds the lasted only a very short time – birdlike dinosaurs – a series of four classes of now extinct birds – modern birds appearing while the birdlike dinosaurs still roamed the Earth. This defies the necessary evolutionary development requirements by having Archaeopteryx predate the dinosaurs that should be its ancestors.

    Who is feeding you this garbage? Could you please look at this cladogram and tell us how your description above bears any resemblance to reality.

    Daniel: Now for some more personal musings on the whole subject of Archaeopteryx.

    For an example of this problem I shall turn to a more modern creature the Platypus.


    You mean now for some wild speculation and a ridiculous and irrelevant straw man argument.

    Daniel: To accept a theory without question is to take it on faith. To fail to look critically at an assertion to evaluate how true it is is gullibility.

    You must be talking about creationism again. It is the belief taken on faith. The theory of evolution is actually supported by masses of material evidence, all of which you deny, of course.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 6:19 AM  

  • Nice blog. I just created a short post on the T-Rex found recently with soft tissue and blood cells still intact. You can read about the T-Rex on www.smithsonianmagazine.com and clicking on "Science and Technology". Anyhow, I wanted to cheer you on for your battle against biased evolutionist propoganda. You can read my T-Rex post at http://horadrim.blogspot.com and I have some rather rabid evolutionist contributors that you might like to debate in the future.

    By Blogger Seamus, at 12:53 PM  

  • CJB,

    "Perhaps that’s because most of the recently discovered, relatively small, carnivorous dinosaurs are Coelurosaurs, the antecedents of birds."

    This statement must be proven to be true before it can reasonably be assumed that these dinosaurs has feathers. Until such proof is presented is is dangerously presumptuous to just start assigning feathers to every one of them as if it were a fact and not just a guess.

    "You mean with no evidence save for the evidence that it is the dinosaur most anatomically similar to birds yet discovered."

    Oh realy? I thought that Archaeopteryx held that distinction. Which is it? It can't possibly be both.

    "What could that reason be? Oh yes, it’s because there were the imprints of feathers in the fossils."

    Last I read these imprints had been exposed as fakes.

    "But will you present any evidence that the Chinese fossils are frauds?"

    By all ,eans, do an independent search. Don't take my word for it, and don't take my sources word for it either. After all, we both know that any source I cite is automatically untrustworthy to you.

    "Could you please look at this cladogram and tell us how your description above bears any resemblance to reality."

    How incredibly hilarious! That Cladogram has been debunked in it's entirety. It is nothing more than a nonlinear chart (in actual time) that states what the evolutionary progression SHOULD be, not what it actually is. The age of the fossils themselves proves what I have stated to be correct. Go to you local library and find some recent articles about this in in some peer reviewed scientific journals. Start with Biological Reviews 73 (1998) pp 1-42. You may also want to read Nature 378 (1995) pp 349-355 even though it is not peer reviewed. So this cladistic fraud has been exposed for at least ten years now, and yet Darwinists continue to cling to it. How utterly typical.

    "You mean now for some wild speculation and a ridiculous and irrelevant straw man argument."

    No, I mean now to use the exact same logic that Darwinists use. Fell free to address this issue any time you have something intelligent to say. After all, it is no straw man to point evolutionary similarities to birds on the level of Archaeopteryx that exist todday in a creature that is completely unrelated to dinosaurs. Oh wait, lemme guess. This muddys the waters of evolution too much for you Darwinists to seriously address.

    "You must be talking about creationism again. It is the belief taken on faith. The theory of evolution is actually supported by masses of material evidence, all of which you deny, of course."

    If the evidence and the interperetation for evolution are inherrently flawed then that means evolution is NOT satisfactorily supported by evidence. Therefore simply accepting it as true is an act of faith.

    Seamus,

    I had heard about this. If true it is evidence that dinosaurs only went exctinct a few thousand years ago rather than 65 million years ago. I shall check out your blog and contribute to the debate.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:26 AM  

  • Daniel,

    I think you'll be a bit disappointed with my blog. It consists mainly of posts that are unconnected, ridiculous things. Serious discussions are only occassional on it. I only mentioned it because I had just posted about the T-Rex. The blog (a very liberal one, to say the least) where mostly serious discussions take place is http://threewisemen.blogspot.com They are, of course, dead wrong on most of their positions but they do like to talk about evolution and politics.

    In any case, check out the smithsoninan article. It's quite amazing.

    - John (seamus)

    By Blogger Seamus, at 8:41 AM  

  • Check out "Gotta Love That Islam" Feb 07

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:03 PM  

  • Daniel,

    After reading your response, I read your original post again because I’m having trouble trying to ascertain exactly what it is you are complaining about. Are you saying that birds did not descend from dinosaurs despite the fossil evidence? Are you saying that it wasn’t Archæopteryx that was the antecedent of modern birds, but some other species? Are you complaining about a gap in the fossil record? What is your actual complaint and how does your original post disprove the theory of evolution?

    By Anonymous cjb, at 5:46 AM  

  • CJB,

    Allow me to clarify.

    "Are you saying that birds did not descend from dinosaurs despite the fossil evidence?"

    What part of "The fossil evidence does not agree with evolutionary theory" was unclear. Just like your innacurate cladistic model of history. Archaeopteryx cannot be a precursosr to birds because the fossil evidence rules out that possibilty, as you can see when I presented the actual geologic timeline rather than you falsified cladistic model.

    "Are you saying that it wasn’t Archæopteryx that was the antecedent of modern birds, but some other species?"

    I am saying that the evidence says Archaeopteryx cannot be an ancestor to birds.

    "Are you complaining about a gap in the fossil record?"

    I am pointing the inaccurate way Darwinists have been portraying the evidence by completely fudging the timeline in order to meet their needs to make their idea sound correct. I am pointingout that there are tremendous gaps in the fossil record, and blindly filling them in is an "evolution in the gaps" argument of the same level you regard a "God in the gaps" argument. That is unless, of course, you believe that blindly filling in the gaps in history is sound scientific practice, in which case you desperately need to stay away from science and quit trying to justify your blind faith in Darwinism with it.

    Also, you have yet to actually address my position regarding the platypus. If evolution is to be considered correct then the evidence presented by the platypus must be considered very seriously. This creature shares features with both birds and mamals. Therefore, by using Darwinian logic, we must conclude that it represents a link between the two types of organisms. The problem i s that birds cannot be the evolutionary descendants of BOTH dinosaurs and mammals. so how do you propose we solve this problem? You know my answer, evolution is pre religious poppycock pretending to be science, so we can simply dismiss it altogether.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:01 AM  

  • Daniel: What part of "The fossil evidence does not agree with evolutionary theory" was unclear.

    So, what does the fossil evidence show?

    Daniel: I am saying that the evidence says Archaeopteryx cannot be an ancestor to birds.

    Then what is the ancestor to birds?

    Daniel: I am pointing the inaccurate way Darwinists have been portraying the evidence by completely fudging the timeline in order to meet their needs to make their idea sound correct.

    Then what does the timeline show?

    Daniel: Also, you have yet to actually address my position regarding the platypus.

    I’m sorry; I thought you were being rhetorical with your platypus story. I didn’t think that you meant for your speculation to be taken seriously.

    Daniel: The Platypus shares some remarkable similarities to both mammals and birds. It has hair and mammaries, but it also lays eggs and has a bill like a duck. By using the logic of the evolutionist this creature must represent a link of mammals descending from birds, or of birds descending from mammals.

    Would anyone take this nonsense seriously? It’s just a silly straw man argument that you’ve fabricated. Show me a scientist who says that the platypus is a link between mammals and birds.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 4:55 PM  

  • CJB,

    "So, what does the fossil evidence show?"

    That the cladistic model used as evidence for evolution is a lie.

    "Then what is the ancestor to birds?"

    As I creationist I say there is none. They were created as is.

    "Then what does the timeline show?"

    I discussed that already.

    "I’m sorry; I thought you were being rhetorical with your platypus story. I didn’t think that you meant for your speculation to be taken seriously."

    I don't take it seriously, but as an evolutionist YOU should. AFter all, shouldn't such strong links be thoroughly ivestigated? Just think, There is more than bone structure and feather imprints available for us to research in this situation.

    "Would anyone take this nonsense seriously? It’s just a silly straw man argument that you’ve fabricated. Show me a scientist who says that the platypus is a link between mammals and birds."

    Of course, any Darwinist SHOULD take it seriously, or, at least as seriously as they take Archeaopteryx. To dismiss what I have presented about the Platypus as silly is to do the same for Every fossil that scientists point to as transitional species. The reason is because the Platypus shows transitional features, and dismissing these transitional features in the Platypus is simply irresponsible for any serious Darwinist to do. After all, if the Platypus can be conclusively shown to be a transitional species it is far stronger evidence for evolution than any fossil yet dug up. Of course, the problem for Darwinists is that we can actually tes the genes of Platypi and show that they are in no way related to birds, whereas they can simply point at what appears to be similar morphology in some dinosaurs and claim, without any genetic evidence, that they represent transitional species. This, of course, demonstrates the inherrently flawed nature of using morphology as evidence for evolution.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 1:21 PM  

  • Daniel: "Then what is the ancestor to birds?"
    As I creationist I say there is none. They were created as is.
    "Then what does the timeline show?"
    I discussed that already.


    Yes, you did discuss the timeline and it belies your statement above that birds were created as is. If this were so, then modern birds—in fact, all animals—should appear at the very beginning of the fossil record and all the way through it, but they don’t. How do you explain that? How is it that all animals and birds were supposedly created at the same time (according to the Genesis myth) and yet they are distributed over millions of years in the fossil record as you noted in your discussion of the timeline above. Why, it’s almost as though they weren’t all created at the same instant, but instead evolved over time. So how does a creationist explain biostratigraphy?

    How does a creationist explain biogeography as well? If all the creatures alive today descended from those that traipsed off the ark in Turkey then how is it that some animals are found only in some locations and not others? For example, marsupials are mainly concentrated in Australia and not found in the fossil record elsewhere. How do you explain that?

    Daniel: The reason is because the Platypus shows transitional features, and dismissing these transitional features in the Platypus is simply irresponsible for any serious Darwinist to do.

    The problem is that a platypus does not show transitional features between mammals and birds; this is just your naïve appraisal of the situation. This is nonsense, Daniel. You are erroneously concluding that these transitional features exist then criticising scientists for not making the same mistake as you.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 7:17 PM  

  • CJB,

    "Yes, you did discuss the timeline and it belies your statement above that birds were created as is. If this were so, then modern birds—in fact, all animals—should appear at the very beginning of the fossil record and all the way through it, but they don’t. How do you explain that?"

    I have encountered some interenting evidence regarding the timeline itself that I am still investigating that could explain a great deal. However, I do not want to be irresponsible and jump to conclusions, so I have not posted about it here at this time. Suffice it to say that there is some evidence indicating that our understanding of the fossil record may be all wrong. If this is true then there is strong evidence that we need to reevaluate all of pre-history. Beyond that, you are still failing to address the failure of the Cladistic model to actually hold up to the timeline itself. There IS another possibility, and that on eis that both evolution and STrict creation are wrong and Intelligent Design is corrct. Since what is recorded in the Bible actually gioves very strong evidence for Intelligent Design I have no problem with this personally, and I even tend to fluctuate a bit from time to time between Intelligent Design and Creation based on the Biblical and scientific evidence presented. Of course, the failure of the fossil evidence to uphold the cladistic model necceessary to explain evolution as truth is a damaging blow to evolution.

    "For example, marsupials are mainly concentrated in Australia and not found in the fossil record elsewhere. How do you explain that?"

    Personally, I don't as it is not my area of expertise. However, it is a common theory among theologians that the Great Flood did not neccessarily cover the entire Earth, but only the areas populated by humanity at the time, whic was far more limited. However, if I were to speculate, and mind you this is pure speculation, I might be inclined to simply say that God, in his power and wisdom. havin ginitally gathered some representatives of each species to the Ark in the first place, then directed the animals back to where they came from to repopulate the Earth. Of course, this speculative idea hinges entirely on the existence of an all powerful God, which you deny exists, so, naturally, this bit of speculation is laughable to you. Of course, assuming the existence an all-powerful God, literally anything is possible, even evolution as Intelligent Design states.

    "The problem is that a platypus does not show transitional features between mammals and birds; this is just your naïve appraisal of the situation. This is nonsense, Daniel. You are erroneously concluding that these transitional features exist then criticising scientists for not making the same mistake as you."

    I see, so you are saying that it is normal for a mammal to lay eggs? You are aying that it is normal for a mammal to have the same mouth organ as a duck? Last I knew there were only 2 mammals in the world that lay eggs, and that it is such an oddity that was being actively studied. Last I knew the only mammal in the world to have a bill for a mouth was the Platypus, and it is such an oddity that is being studied. The fact is that these features may very well be transitional. The only reason to dismiss them out of hand as you are is because they are damaging to your (unprovable) pet theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs. A mammal with the bill of a duck is no less transitional than a dinosaur with a beak full of teeth. A mammal that lays eggs is no les transitional than a dinosaur with feathers. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 3:09 PM  

  • Personally, I don't as it is not my area of expertise.

    You do not have an area of expertise. You do not compare to someone who has spent their life studying the fields that evolution encompasses. Frankly, this entire series is bunk because you are not qualified to speak on it, and yet you pretend you know better than the scientists who have made this their life's work. You are an amateur that has read a few books. Go you.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:19 PM  

  • Anonomys,

    "You do not compare to someone who has spent their life"

    Absolutely true. I am simply repeating information that better men than me have researched, studied, and published, just like the evolutionists you cling to. As I acknowledged at the very beginning of this series, I am not nearly so infrmed or eloquent as my sources, and I ecourage everyone to read them for a far better depiction of the points I am trying to make here. My hope here is to simply make this information a little more widely known, and even to garner arguments against what I am presenting, actual scientific ones rather than the silliness and baseless dismissiviness of most of the responses this series has provoked. Truth be told, am dissapointed in th edebate so far simply because of th efact that most of the arguments against what I am presenting are either regurgitations of disproven ideas, personal attacks, assertions made without without supporting evidence, and sloppy double-talk. There have been a few good points made, and I value them highly, but they have been distressingly rare.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 9:27 PM  

  • Daniel: Suffice it to say that there is some evidence indicating that our understanding of the fossil record may be all wrong. If this is true then there is strong evidence that we need to reevaluate all of pre-history. Beyond that, you are still failing to address the failure of the Cladistic model to actually hold up to the timeline itself.

    So is the fossil record right or wrong? If it is right then the Genesis myth is false. If the fossil record is right, how do you explain that we have fossils going back 3.5 billion years, yet modern humans appeared only 200,000 years ago? All modern animals and plants should have appeared at the very beginning of the fossil record and remained in it all the way through if creation is true, but they don’t. How do you explain it?

    You say the fossil record is wrong, but does any scientist believe you? Does anyone at all believe you? What evidence do you have that the fossil record is wrong? Have you published this evidence? Has anyone published this evidence in peer-reviewed papers or is it just more creationist tripe from the popular press?

    Daniel: Personally, I don't as it is not my area of expertise. However, it is a common theory among theologians that the Great Flood did not neccessarily cover the entire Earth, but only the areas populated by humanity at the time, whic was far more limited.

    Is that so? And what evidence do they have to support this theory? Do they have any evidence at all? Let’s see now, do you think those populated areas included Jericho? I would think so, given that it is in the heart of the Middle East. Did you know that the old city has been thoroughly excavated and investigated archæologically and that civilisation there extends back to about 8,000 BCE (before God supposedly created the universe)? Not only that, but even though it is 820 feet below sea level, there is no archæological evidence of a flood ever covering the city. Surely a flood covering the areas populated by humanity at the time would have at least filled a basin that is 820 feet below sea level, yet there is no evidence of it happening at all. What do you make of that?

    Daniel: I see, so you are saying that it is normal for a mammal to lay eggs? You are aying that it is normal for a mammal to have the same mouth organ as a duck?

    No, I am saying that the features of a platypus are not transitional features between mammals and birds, no matter how much you try to misunderstand them to be. The platypus bill is not the same as a duck’s bill; it doesn’t open the same way a duck’s bill opens and it is not composed of the same material as a duck’s bill.

    Daniel: The fact is that these features may very well be transitional. The only reason to dismiss them out of hand as you are is because they are damaging to your (unprovable) pet theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

    No, they are not transitional features. The reason I dismiss them as such is because this is all make believe on your part. It isn’t my pet theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs; it’s simply what the evidence shows. Feel free to deny all the evidence and cling to your make believe instead if it makes you feel better, but it doesn’t change the facts. By the way, have you run this idea of yours past anyone actually trained in the field? If so, what did they think of it? Have you convinced any scientists or anyone else for that matter that your ideas, any of them, have merit?

    Daniel: I am simply repeating information that better men than me have researched, studied, and published, just like the evolutionists you cling to.

    Not quite, Daniel. The information you rely on is unreliable. It is published only in the popular press without having passed review by people who are actually trained in the various fields you blunder into. The evidence supporting the theory of evolution, on the other hand, has been tested and verified innumerable times.

    Daniel: Truth be told, am dissapointed in th edebate so far simply because of th efact that most of the arguments against what I am presenting are either regurgitations of disproven ideas, personal attacks, assertions made without without supporting evidence, and sloppy double-talk.

    Oh, you mean like this:

    Daniel: Of course, this speculative idea hinges entirely on the existence of an all powerful God, which you deny exists, so, naturally, this bit of speculation is laughable to you. Of course, assuming the existence an all-powerful God, literally anything is possible, even evolution as Intelligent Design states.

    Right… So all we have to do is believe in miracles and your ideas will all make sense? This is laughable to me because you have yet to produce any sound evidence to support your irrational beliefs.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 6:41 AM  

  • CJB,

    "If the fossil record is right, how do you explain that we have fossils going back 3.5 billion years, yet modern humans appeared only 200,000 years ago?"

    Didn't we alredy have this dicussion very early in this series when I discussed the evidence presented by Gerald Schroeder? His model reconciles measured geological time with creation using the Law of Relativity.

    "You say the fossil record is wrong, but does any scientist believe you?"

    Really? I could have sworn I said "that there is some evidence indicating that our understanding of the fossil record may be all wrong" Note the "our understanding" and "may be" and the general noncomittal tone of the entire statement. This is because I am very skeptical of this idea and am looking deeper into it. Do try not to be so irresponsible by putting your ownwords in my mouth, especialy when a quuick glance above what you have typed proves you wrong.

    "Is that so? And what evidence do they have to support this theory? Do they have any evidence at all? Let’s see now, do you think those populated areas included Jericho?"

    Did I say it was MY theory? You expect me to defend it as if it were when all I did is point out that there are some theologians who subscribe to it. But if you want some further discussion on it all I can say is that I have no idea as I have not studied this theory. I tend to take tings rather literally in the Bible,so whe it says the whole world was wiped out I tend to think the flood covered the whole world.

    Now given that I would assert that any flood that is supposed to have covered every speck of dry land around should have covered Jericho as well I would look to the evidence we look to for flooding. We look for sedimentary mud deposits from runoff and erosion. Now, if there were such a rainstorm that over a mile of water covered the whole world, where is the runoff? Where is the erosion? And by default, where would the sediment go anyway? In a world of water there would not be the conditions neccessary to create the usual sediment layers anywhere. However, I personally am incline to think that there would at least be diatoms at some level of the rock strata, admittedly, this layer would be very thin if the waters receeded as fast as the Bible indicates. The indication in the Bible is that everything returned to pretty much normal very quickly after the rains stopped. Of course, this is just speculation on my part since I have not done any work or research to prove it. Of course, far more interesting to my mind is the fact that every ancient human culture records a great flood that wiped out nearly all life on the planet. For such a story to be so common among such disparate people and religions is a strong indicator that such a flood did, in fact, happen. The only question that needs to really be answered is what the exact nature and circumstances of this flood were.

    "The platypus bill is not the same as a duck’s bill; it doesn’t open the same way a duck’s bill opens and it is not composed of the same material as a duck’s bill."

    And if the only evdence you had was a very few fosils, just stone and maybe an imprint or two, would you be able to say this? How can you determine the composition of a stuctire is every molecule it once contained has been replaces wit sedimentary rock? Would a researcher not look at the morphology and conclude that this bill is a transitional feature? Also, there are differences between the playpus bill and bird bills, but there are also morphological similariites. And isn't one of the defining features of a transitional species that it shares only some, not all of the morphological characteristics of whe it supposed to evolve into or be evolved from? Wouldn't the differences you have pointed out be expected?

    "By the way, have you run this idea of yours past anyone actually trained in the field?"

    As someone who thinks evolution is a crock, why would I bother? It jst seem sto me that it is pointless to bring ideas of transitional species to scientists when I am firmly convind\ced there is no such thing. But please feel free to do so yourself if you have a genuine interest in the subjject. Any evidence one way or the other from a qualified scientists would be a very interesting read regardless of the conclusions.

    "The information you rely on is unreliable. It is published only in the popular press without having passed review by people who are actually trained in the various fields you blunder into."

    What I think is very interesting is that you automatically assume I did not go to the peer reviewed atricles that were cited as sources in the books I used to verify that the authors were not lying to me. It was pain in the ass, and I generally dislike going through microfilm and electronic archives, but I did it. The peer reviewwed atricles that were cited as sources were completely in line wiith the facts presented in the books. You see, the greates use of books in the popular press is not the main part of the boook, but the references section at the end where you can find all of the articles, books, and studies that were used by the author in compiling the book. Go to these references and verify what is being said and you can rest assured that the author is not just makin gstuff up, and you can expand your understanding of the topic exponentially as well. Your constant assertion that my sources are unreliable is rather silly in light of this fact, ubless of course, you are convinced that the peer reviewed articles are unreliable as well.

    "So all we have to do is believe in miracles and your ideas will all make sense?"

    Not all, most of what I am presenting is from scientists. Sometimes n the discussion I will insert some ideas that I have not tested, and I alway say that they are untested ideas and speculation so they can be properly taken as such. If I do not do this it is because it is from someone else who has done more proper research into the idea presented, and when I am skeptical of it I say so, just like when metioned the possiblilty that our understanding of the fossil record may be wrong. Such a thing is so monumental, especially considering the simple fact that geological history is so well documented ,that it will take a lot of research and study before I am willin gto accept it. Heck, it took me ten years to conclude that evolution is a crock.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:45 AM  

  • Daniel: Didn't we alredy have this dicussion very early in this series when I discussed the evidence presented by Gerald Schroeder? His model reconciles measured geological time with creation using the Law of Relativity.

    Shroeder’s argument is complete nonsense, Daniel. Even a cursory inspection reveals flaws so glaring that only a fool would believe it coincides with the fossil record. For example:

    Genesis 1:11-13: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

    So plants with seeds and fruit trees appeared on the third day according to the Bible. According to your post on Schroeder, day three spans the time from 3.75 billion years ago to 1.75 billion years ago. But the fossil record shows that during this time the only life on Earth was single-celled organisms. Flowering plants such as fruit trees didn’t appear until only 130 million years ago (mya) and grasses didn’t appear until 35 mya. That’s 1.6 billion years later and well into the sixth day, according to Schroeder.

    The Bible has birds and whales appearing on the fifth day (750–250 mya according to Schroeder), yet the fossil record shows that Archæopteryx appeared about 150 mya (by the way, that’s before flowering plants, supposedly on the third day) and whales around 37 mya.

    Face it, Daniel, Schroeder’s claims are unsubstantiated nonsense and so is the creation myth.

    Daniel: Note the "our understanding" and "may be" and the general noncomittal tone of the entire statement.

    Okay… So you are not saying the fossil record is wrong? But… you’re not saying it is right either? So are you saying that you don’t have any idea whether the fossil record is right or wrong? But you are going to use it as it suits your purpose to argue whatever you like. Is that it?

    Daniel: Now, if there were such a rainstorm that over a mile of water covered the whole world, where is the runoff? Where is the erosion?

    Exactly. Do you have any idea of the rate at which rain would have to fall to cover the Earth over five miles deep (higher than Everest) in forty days? The heaviest rainfall ever recorded was 1.5 inches per minute, but it would need to rain at a rate of six inches per minute for the entire time if the flood myth were true. There would be no soil left. It would all be washed into the sea during that time. Jericho and every other city, town and hamlet would have been obliterated. Yet there is no evidence of this at all. How do you explain that? I can explain it for you. There was no flood. It’s nothing but a silly fairy tale. To accept this fairy tale as true flies in the face of nearly all the archæological, meteorological, geological and historical research ever conducted. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that the flood myth is a lie.

    Daniel: Of course, far more interesting to my mind is the fact that every ancient human culture records a great flood that wiped out nearly all life on the planet.

    And some of them pre-date the Biblical myth, which would indicate that it is just copied from another culture.

    Daniel: As someone who thinks evolution is a crock, why would I bother?

    Well, you might learn something.

    Daniel: It jst seem sto me that it is pointless to bring ideas of transitional species to scientists when I am firmly convind\ced there is no such thing.

    If you are firmly convinced that there are no transitional species then all your arguments about the platypus being transitional between mammals and birds are just make believe, aren’t they. You don’t mind just making things up to try to win your arguments and keep your beliefs.

    Daniel: The peer reviewwed atricles that were cited as sources were completely in line wiith the facts presented in the books.

    The peer-reviewed articles you cited clearly state that birds evolved from dinosaurs so how can you be using them as evidence to support your claim that birds didn’t evolve from dinosaurs? The peer-reviewed articles refute your claim. Whom should we believe? Let’s see now… On the one hand we have numerous well-trained scientists who have spent years doing the actual research and on the other hand we have some creationist with a blog? Hmmm…

    Daniel: Sometimes n the discussion I will insert some ideas that I have not tested, and I alway say that they are untested ideas and speculation so they can be properly taken as such. If I do not do this it is because it is from someone else who has done more proper research into the idea presented…

    Really? So what were the results of the proper research done into the existence of an all-powerful God and the claim that anything is possible?

    By Anonymous cjb, at 5:01 AM  

  • CJB,

    "Schroeder’s claims are unsubstantiated nonsense"

    That's an awfully strong coming from someone who never actuall read them. I would detail every way you are in eror, but then I would just repeating Chapters 4 and 6 of Schroeder's book "The Science of God", which handles every objection you have raised in fine detail. Therefore I suggest you actually read it from the source. Also, you must understand that he is an Intelligent design advocate while I am a Creationist, which means that my own views and his differ on many points. This is one such example. He uses science and the Bible in the original hebrew to show a fascinating idea that has been around since hundreds of years before Darwin. Maimonides first proposed that the third day of Genisis did not actually produce the fully formed plants, but rather their predecessors which gave rise to the full spectrum of plant life we see today. This interperetation is actually exceedingly reasonable when one studies Genisis in the original Hebrew. Heck, in the original Hebrew the Bible mentions dinosaurs in the account of creation as well, not to mention them being mentioned in numerous other places in the old testament. The Hebrew word for the dinosaurs is Taninin Gedolim, and it encompasses all dinosaurs both land and sea dwelling. I'm sure this is an Earthshaking shocker for you.

    "Okay… So you are not saying the fossil record is wrong? But… you’re not saying it is right either? So are you saying that you don’t have any idea whether the fossil record is right or wrong? But you are going to use it as it suits your purpose to argue whatever you like. Is that it?"

    Wow, the absolute silliness of this statement is dumbfounding. I have said none of that, and while I know you wish I did so you could call me stupid and unreliable. The fact is that by "May be unreliable" I mean I am looking at the evidence and evaluating whether it is to be trusted or if the interpertaion of it as presented by the the ones puting it out is pure bull. As of right now I stand by the traditional view of geographic history, but am open to reevaluation as the evidence permits, unlike nearly all Darwinists regarding evolution. Such a subject is not to be taken lightly.

    "And some of them pre-date the Biblical myth, which would indicate that it is just copied from another culture."

    Correction: Some of them were recorded before Moses wrote them down, this does not answer the origin itself. This, however, has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether the flood actually happened. Assume for a second that all of Humanity was wiped out save for one family; wouldn't absolutely every nation that descended from these few survivors have the story of the flood? Seriously, it would be part of the common history of all of mankind. Therefore, your snide comment is meaningless.

    "Do you have any idea of the rate at which rain would have to fall to cover the Earth over five miles deep (higher than Everest) in forty days?"

    Here is where things are sure to get wild by your estimation. According to the Bible it had never rained before the flood. Delving into the Hebrew texts we discover deeper meaning in the wordds used to describe the condition of the world than English permits. That is where we discover that the "firmament" as it is described in the Bible was a water heavy atmosphere that filtered the rays of the sun far more effectivey than our current atmosphere and simply brought dew to the ground at night without raining. It also controlled the global temperature creating sort of an unending spring and fall cycle with none of the extremes of summer and winter. It is the loss of this firmament when God dumped absolutely every bit of water it held on the world that created the conditions we know today. It is also responsible for the relatively short lifespan of man as compared to those first men recorded in the Bible as harmful UV light was unleashed upon the world, a thing that is scientifically proven to accelerate the effects aging on animals of all kinds. Personlally, I seriously doubt that 6 inches of rain per minute would erode all the mountains down to nubs. I also doubtthat this kind of instant flooding would actually erode muchh at all. It seems that everything would fill up and be covered so fast that there would be no time to create runoff very far from the base of the mountains. It any runoff from the mountains would hit still water as soon as it hit bottom.

    "Well, you might learn something."

    As you might too. Why don;t YOU do as you have suggested if it's so important to you. Oh yeah, that's right . . . beecause you are only suggesting this course of acton as a challenge to my own assertion that a fossilized platypus would be jumped on my Darwinists as a transitional species based on nothing more than bone shaped rocks where actual bones once were. Just like they did with a multitude of dinosaurs. I belieeve that is called "interpereting the evidence to fit the theory".

    "If you are firmly convinced that there are no transitional species then all your arguments about the platypus being transitional between mammals and birds are just make believe, aren’t they."

    As far I am concerned they absolutely are, but as a Darwinist YOU should take them seriously. After all, a real live transitional species would such powerful evidence for evolution I would think that Darwinists would jump for joy at the chance to show that one exists. Yet, here you are aguing against what would be the most convincing evidence for evolution we could possibly find. Now why would you do that . . . OH YEAH! Because you have already painted yourselves into a corner with this silly dinosaurs turning into birds theory that to chase after what might turn out to be real evidence would discredit an enormous number of scientific work and study, not to mention force numerous revisions of evolutionary theory. That would just be too much work.

    "The peer-reviewed articles you cited clearly state that birds evolved from dinosaurs so how can you be using them as evidence to support your claim that birds didn’t evolve from dinosaurs?"

    You obviously have not actually read the articles. The problems with you cherished cladistic model are revealed in these articles, and that is what I was using them as a reference to, not as generalized proof of anything, but as evidence for that one specific issue. With the cladistic model throughly shot, any assertations that Birds evolved from dinosaurs become little more than gibberish.

    "Really? So what were the results of the proper research done into the existence of an all-powerful God and the claim that anything is possible?"

    Look to nature. The one thing the Bible says to look at to understand God is nature. So look at it. Look atthe impossible vastnes of the universe with every star, every galaxy in its proper place. Look to this world ad the life that has appeared on it despite all odds. Look to the wondrous variety in nature, often with multiple organisms filling the same exact niche in the same exact place, a thing that evolution cannot account for since it relies on differences in conditions around the globe to fuelspeciation. Look to the marvelous intricasy of the simplest cell. Look to genetics and how what we have learned in the last ten years alone casts the most serious doubt on evolution to date. Look at it all and ask yourself this question, can sheer rendom happenstace produce all of this with such perfection? Clear your mind of all prejudices and simply take an unbiased look at the world. I cannot do this without being overwhelmed with the impossible perfection of it all. One thing few people wil debate is the simple fact that randomness has not produced anything approaching such perfection on even the smallest scale in any laboratory experiment.

    You have asked in the past what might convince me about evolution, there are two things that may. The first is Intelligent Design, which I am open to, but highly skeptical of. The second is the following experiment:

    Take the raw, unrefined ores of every material needed to make a 747. Apply random heat and pressure gradients as well as varying wind conditions, heck, zap it with simulated lightning from time to time if it pleases you. If/when this produces even one bolt or rivet let me know. Then continue the experiment until you have assembled a fully functional Boeing 747 airplane. If randomness can produce a Boeing 747 then it most certainly can produce a human. If randomnes can produce one perfectly formed bolt thenit can certainly produce a cell. Otherwise, it all just faith in a conveniently unprovable theory.

    Beyond all of this, what reserch you ask? Why, millenia worth, most predating the scientific method. The unfortunate thing for manlike you is that the research typically goes something like this:

    I lost my eyes in an accident with an old landmine. After I became a Christian I prayed for sight and had the priest/pastor/minister/a Christian friend or acquantance lay hands on me and pray as well. My eyes grew back right then and there.

    Or:

    Check my medical records, I was pronounced dead and I stayed that way for several days. By dead I mean room temperature. Just before being shipped to the mortician for preservation a family member prayed over my lifeless body and God restored me to life.

    Or:

    The moment I asked Jesus into my life I was cured of a lifelong addiction to Heroin, I never had any withdrawal sypmtoms, and I never had any cravings. That burden was simply taken away in an instant.

    And many other such evidences as have happened and are are recorded both in eyewitness accounts and even as oddities in the occasional mediical journal where a mystery of the human body has not yet been explained. Of course, the most unnatural and disturbing stuff does not get recorded in medical journals for good reason; who would belive it?

    Take another true story to bed with you tonight.

    Two missionaries were seeking converts among the various remote,and frequently hostile tribes of Africa. They brought with them a portable projector and screen with a film recorded in the locallanguages to play and tell people about Jesus. They entered one small village and soon noticed that al of the men were absent. The women and children waited patiently as the two missionaries et up their projector and screen and played the film for them. The men made no appearance at all. At the end the men asked al present who believed what theyhad beenshown and who would like to come to Jesus. To thier suprise, something happened that had never happened before, absolutely everyone present answered in the affirmative. Confused, the missionaries asked what had convinced them all about the truth of Jeses. they were told the following:

    Whe we saw you approaching all oof our men tookthier spears and hid in the bush near the village. As you were setting up your presentation the circled around behind you, and as one they all threw thier spears at your backs to kill you. We watched as every thrown spear turned into a flower in midflight and fell to the ground.

    Atthis poin the men of the village came out of the brush where they had been hiding and confirmed the story the women had just told. It was then that the missionaries noticed the many flowers strewn upon the ground where thier back had been facing before. That entire village was saved that day.

    Of course, this event cannot be placed in a testtube, spun in a cemtrifuge, and broken down into its essential components for analysis. And, of course, the only witnesses are 2 missionaries, and one entire village who became Christians that day. Which, according to your standard of evidence, absolutely disqualifies anything they have to say sine they are Christians. Naturally, the only thing such an attitude reveals is the you personally think that all Christians are either liars, or are suffering from a mental illness so powerful it creates the most profound hallucinations.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 9:27 PM  

  • Daniel: I would detail every way you are in eror, but then I would just repeating Chapters 4 and 6 of Schroeder's book "The Science of God", which handles every objection you have raised in fine detail.

    The fossil record contradicts your depiction of Schroeder’s timeline in your post on the subject. Were you misrepresenting him? If not, then please briefly explain the glaring difference between the creation myth and the fossil record with respect to flowering plants.

    Daniel: Maimonides first proposed that the third day of Genisis did not actually produce the fully formed plants, but rather their predecessors which gave rise to the full spectrum of plant life we see today.

    Oh, I see—so Maimonides proposed that these predecessors evolved into the full spectrum of plant life we see today. Do you agree with him?

    Daniel: This interperetation is actually exceedingly reasonable when one studies Genisis in the original Hebrew.

    Really? What does the Bible say on this matter in the original Hebrew? Does it say that God created cyanobacteria or single-celled organisms on the third day or is it perhaps closer to the passage I quoted from my KJV Bible about grass, herbs, seeds and fruit trees? In fact, does the original Bible exist or are you relying on apparently flawed copies for your enlightenment?

    Let me get this straight… You are satisfied with a mere 31 verses in a single book to provide the complete explanation of every detail of the formation of the universe, the Earth and all life we see on it—even though the most basic elements of that explanation seem to be completely different in different versions of that book? Do you really have such little interest in the natural world? Are you honestly satisfied with ‘God did it’ as a complete explanation? I cannot begin to comprehend such a moribund curiosity.

    Daniel: As of right now I stand by the traditional view of geographic history…

    What does this mean? What is “geographic history”? Are you talking about the fossil record or something else? Tell us whether you trust the fossil record or not. If you trust the fossil record then it is difficult to see how you can dismiss the theory of evolution as an explanation of it or how you can cling to creation as an answer when the fossil record contradicts it so completely.

    Daniel: As far I am concerned they absolutely are, but as a Darwinist YOU should take them seriously.

    Why on Earth would any rational person take your creationist pap seriously? You don’t believe there is any such thing as a transitional species despite ample evidence to the contrary; yet you make up this cock and bull story out of whole cloth and expect me to give it credence and act upon it.

    Daniel: With the cladistic model throughly shot, any assertations that Birds evolved from dinosaurs become little more than gibberish.

    How like a creationist to extrapolate from a minor quibble to an extreme position. It reminds me of Christians who scream of hatred and bigotry at the first sign of disrespect.

    Here is the first sentence from the abstract of the Biological Reviews article you cited:

    Birds evolved from and are phylogenetically recognized as members of the theropod dinosaurs; their first known member is the Late Jurassic Archaeopteryx, now represented by seven skeletons and a feather, and their closest known non-avian relatives are the dromaeosaurid theropods such as Deinonychus.

    This is pretty clear cut and conclusive, wouldn’t you say?

    Daniel: Look at it all and ask yourself this question, can sheer rendom happenstace produce all of this with such perfection?

    No, but then evolution isn’t sheer random happenstance. Mutation is random (within limits), but the other three basic mechanisms of evolution—gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—are anything but random. Your incredulity stems from a lack of understanding of the processes of evolution. Read some textbooks.

    Daniel: [Numerous anecdotes unsupported by evidence]…
    And, of course, the only witnesses are 2 missionaries, and one entire village who became Christians that day. Which, according to your standard of evidence, absolutely disqualifies anything they have to say sine they are Christians.


    Not at all. I don’t care who is telling these stories. What disqualifies these stories from belief is the total lack of sound corroborating evidence. Your trouble, Daniel, is that you believe stories without sound evidence to support them. You’ve admitted you are gullible. Remember, you believed that Santa Claus was real until you were nine years old and then let it go only because your parents finally admitted they had been lying to you all along.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 5:47 AM  

  • CJB,

    "The fossil record contradicts your depiction of Schroeder’s timeline in your post on the subject. Were you misrepresenting him? If not, then please briefly explain the glaring difference between the creation myth and the fossil record with respect to flowering plants."

    I did that in the sme paragraph, in fact your very next coment is on that very topic . . .

    "Oh, I see—so Maimonides proposed that these predecessors evolved into the full spectrum of plant life we see today. Do you agree with him?"

    No, but Schroeder does, hence the use of this common Jewish belief. You are failing to understand something very basic here. Evolution as it is claimed to have happened by Darwinists was laid out by Kaballah Jews centuries before Darwin using the Bible as evidence. Be aware that there are 2 forms of Kaballah, the mysticism branch, and the logic branch. It is the logic branch that Maimonides was from. The original Hebrew text, due the meaning of the words used, words that do not translate fully into most modern laguages, lays out quite the case for evolution with only a few direct inteventions by God. This Intelligent Design theory has been around for centuries, and is why a sizable, but rather non-outspoken portion of the religious community really couldn't care less when Darwin published his theory of evolution. The general reaction was "tell us something we didn;t alread know". This same Intelligent design theory is the "form of evolution that Catholics are allowed to believe in". Same for Jews. Same for evangelicals. Same for every person who believes the Bible. Like I said before, Darwin did not think up anything revolutionary, Christians and Jews knew everything he suggested long before by studying the Bible. The only difference was that Darwin took what had been around for centuries, wrapped in the Galapagos Islands, removed God, and Viola! Instant and lasting fame for his "revolutionary" theory. You'll have to pardon my mirth, but like I said before, every time a scientist makes a major discovery there is a theologian waiting there wondering what took the scientist so long. But, you absolutely HATE Intelligent Design, it includes, *gasp* God! Me, I'm open to it because the Biblical evidence is there, all I'm doing is waiting for the scientific evidence to provide something reliable in the realm of evolution, then I can buy into Intelligent Design the way I once did. After all, since God is all powerful He can make evolution happen if He wants to. He has every tool imaginable to make everything in the universe exactly the way He wants it to be.

    "Really? What does the Bible say on this matter in the original Hebrew?"

    What it says cannot be explained without first explaining the full meaning of the words involved, the efficiency of language that is used, and many other fators that cannot be satisfactorily abridged here. I suggest that if you are genuinely curious you either read Schroeder's work since he does a fine jod of explaining all of this, or you can visit the nearest Kaballah or Synagogue and speak to the Rabbis. I make this suggestion because they generally speak Hebrew, and they spend thier lives in such deep study of the scriptures that it puts the vast majority of Christians to shame. If you do not do this then I am left to assume that you are just trying to pick and fight, and your qestions are purely rhetorical and pointless to answer on this matter.

    "What does this mean? What is “geographic history”? Are you talking about the fossil record or something else?"

    I mean that unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary I stand by the fossil record, but not neccessarily the interperetation of it. As someone who has studied paleontology since he was a very young child I look at the evidence, look at the conclusions that are drewn based on the evidence, look at the way the evidence has been reinterpereted in every direction in the 24 years that I have held an active interest in paleontology, and I am forced to conclude that while the age od the fossils is one thing, the interperetation of what they mean has yet to be settled on. Heck, just look at T-Rex. This dino has gone from fast hunter, to slow scavenger, to something in between, to fast hunter again, to fast hunter wit the possiblity of not really being so fast, and from solitary hunter, to mated pairs hunting together, to loosly organized packs, to we don;t know, and from abaondining their young, to the mother rearing the young, to both parent rearing their young, and other such revisions which, when you look at them, are nothing more than peope looking at the same evidence and interpereting it different ways in order to fill in the gaps that are inherrent in any body of knowledge based on fossil evidence. Scientists debate the intelligence level of various dinosaurs and have had the same dinos go from dumb brutes, to reasonably intelligent, to standard predatory intelligence, to intelligent for a dino but not so intelligent as the modern equivalents, to dumb brutes, to . . . you get the picture. Put simply, there is entirely too much speculation in paleontology and not enough evidence to support most of it. Remember Suprasuarus? All the found was one legbone and suddenly we magically knew everything about it. All we had to do was assume it was exactly like a really big Apatasaurus, maybe even a Brachiosaurus. All this from one leg bone.

    "Why on Earth would any rational person take your creationist pap seriously? You don’t believe there is any such thing as a transitional species despite ample evidence to the contrary; yet you make up this cock and bull story out of whole cloth and expect me to give it credence and act upon it."

    Well, YOU are the one who believe sin transitional species. The platypus shows classic signs of being a transitional species, therefore you SHOULD look into it. That is, unless you are only comfortable calling extinct species that we cannot do any conclusive testing on transitional species. Such a practice really IS a good way to shield your assumptions from genuine scientific scrutiny. As far as calling the Playpus a possile transitional species, that has nothing to do with creation. I am simply applying the same standard of evidence that you, a Darwinist, apply to Archeaopteryx and every other assumed transitional species there is. What I am gathering from you is that the only species that can can be called be transitional are the ones that you hand pick to best fit your flawed theory of evolution. That is rather sad and ignorant if you ask me. And here I though you were against ignorance. You dissappoint me.

    "Here is the first sentence from the abstract of the Biological Reviews article you cited: . . . This is pretty clear cut and conclusive, wouldn’t you say?"

    Not at all. Like I said before, I was using them strictly for their input on the fossil record as it applies to the Cladistic Model, which you have yet to address, demonstrating thatyou still have not actually read the articles. What are you afraid of? You afraid that by actually laying eyes upon evidence presented in a peer reviewed article that shows the Cladistic Model is utterly false will shake your faith in Evolution? It didn;t shake the faith of the guys who wrote about it, why should it shake yours. After all, the evidence doesn;t matter nearly as much your own belief in evolution, right?

    "No, but then evolution isn’t sheer random happenstance. Mutation is random (within limits), but the other three basic mechanisms of evolution—gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—are anything but random. Your incredulity stems from a lack of understanding of the processes of evolution. Read some textbooks."

    How droll. Not ony is mutation random, but the process of abiogenis is utterly random if it exists at all. Textbooks say that. Beyond that, the best experiments that have been able to be conducted ahve been computer models (which I shall trash in an upcoming article). In order for these models to work in the known timeline they had to insert massive random mutations caused by overexposure to UV light during the early years of life's existence. Therefore, the evidence indicates that evolution started as random as you can get, assuming evolution exists at all. Let me guess, you didn't know about this, did you?

    "Not at all. I don’t care who is telling these stories. What disqualifies these stories from belief is the total lack of sound corroborating evidence."

    Why don't you design an experiment capable of conclusively showing whether a particular flower found upon the ground has always beena flower, or if it was once a spear that was miraculously turned into a flower. If you can design any such experiment then similar methods should be able to be used to test any miracle. As for me, I will trust these reports as long as they continue to support what I have seen with my own eyes. I will aslo believe any medical miracle that can be supported by the medical records of that person, even if they come from a backwater country where you will not trust the local reports.

    Be aware that the Catholic Church puts any reported miracle they get through the mos rigorous testing possible. This testing is so rigorous that they have only certified a very few real miracles, such as a malignant cancer vanishing in a terminal patient after all treatment has stopped. What do you say to the miracles that have passed these tests, or were you unaware that this was going on?

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 9:09 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Listed on BlogShares