Re: It's Gumby Damnit!


Gerard wrote:
I've read many many articles and journals explaining the evidence
applied to natural evolution theory. I am quite aware, or at least,
have been refreshed on all areas of science. But I'm no expert in any
sense of the word, and need not be.

....yet in spite of your self-confessed non-expert status you feel
qualified to pontificate on the subject even when those with real
expertise show you that your ignorance of the subject has led to false
conclusions.

Why is this?


I accept many many facets of the natural evolution "database". I accept
a common ingredient, or ancestry, however, not the way evolutionists
assume these relationships to have played out. Even someone with a
neutral perspective would see that the similiar ingredients for life,
nucleic acids, proteins, genes, organs, limbs, bone structures,
whathaveyou, in such a diverse creation, would yield both close
similarities and major differences, depending on the required
metabolisms, genes and structures for species in various environments.
Example: Water species would share identical similarities...Mammals
similiar......birds similiar, all gentically and structurally.

If you think that a pengiun is genetically and structually similar to a
fish, a seal, a whale, a plesiosaur, an ichthyosaur, a turtle or a
mosasaur you have an awful lot to learn about zoology and anatomy. The
interesting differences are in the way that structures of identical
function, and superficially morphologically similar, are built of
anatomiacally different components.

This does not suggest a common designer.
..

It would be a no brainer that many species would share a common
process or pathway leading to similiar yet distinct beings. But that
doesn't necessarily mean they did it on their own accord.

Who on earth suggested that they did? It's called evolution, dummy!

It could just
as well have been a supernatural generation of species.

Sure it could. But so what? Anything could be explained by reference to
the supernatural. If pink and blue unicorns appeared in Trafalgar
Square dancing a quadrille it could be explained by the supernatural.
There is no possible observation which could exlude the possiblit of
supernatural intervention. This is why such an explanation is
completely and utterly useless in science.


Relationships
don't mean naturally caused, nor is time necessarily required for the
formation of all of lifeforms today.

All the evidence suggests that it is, especially as we can trace the
evolution of extant and extinct forms through the fossil record.


It just depends on what
methodology you use to discern the possible scenario.


So what methodology do you propose to investigate the evidence? if you
want to claim the support of science in this endeavour, your need to
demonstrate how your assertion of supernatural interference can be
*falsified*. If you are simply claiming that God did it, there is no
point whatsoever in adopting *any* metodology, because you are not
setting any limits on the creative powers of God. The world might have
been created last thursday, or even ten seconds ago with all the
apearance of a deep and complex history, and there is no way to
disprove that.

The biblical scenario, taught before the alternative natural scenario,

Which fo the many alternative scenarios do you refer to? The
Mesopotamian account predate the Biblical accounts, as do those of
Pharonic Egypt. The Bhagvad Gitta predates the biblical account by
millenia.

How can you determine which is the "true" account? I don't think that
any argument based on the evident moral superiorty of Christianity
would hold much water.

reveals first and foremost, that God created everything eternal, never
to die, not measured in time. So right away, you get the setting of an
eternal essence of creator and created elements and universe. Only
after the fall, the rejection, you get the breakdown of elements and
life. Only after the fall would extinctions take place.

....which is simply empty assertion unsullied by any taint of evidence.
The fossil record shows at least five major global extinction events,
very well supported by the evidence. In the case of the largest of
these events, the Permo-Triassic extinction, the changes in faunal and
floral ecologies can be tracked with a high level of resolution across
the boundary,. These show complex changes over geologically short time
scales of a few thousand years as the different organisms colonise
landscapes devastated by cataclismic events. Similar, but different
patterns can be traced across the K/T boundary, showing (if that were
necessary) that it was an event of a differnt nature. You simply cannot
claim support for your scenario unless you address this evidence.

So it is reasonable to at least suggest that God created life in Eden
quite differently than He did in the post flood dispersal of life.

No, it isn't reasonable, as there is no reason other than your personal
conviction to believe that the biblical account is a literal record of
events. Most christians, including the most influential figures in the
roman catholic church accept that the biblical account cannot be read
literally.

If you can't offer any evidence, why should anyone believe the truth of
your personal conviction?


It
also would imply that eternal creative laws changed at the moment of
the fall of man, hence the whole ecosystem and balance of nature would
be tailored to accomodate the new role of this world, a temporary, yet
balanced system of time.

....which is another assertion lacking any evidence to support it.


No doubt, age effects are irrelevant now. As are the fossils of
ancient times, for they are inconclusive for determining this
particular scenario, and may in fact, be circumstantial evidence, soley
due to the similarity issue, in relation to structures of living
species today.

Please learn how to express yourself in clear English! This is so
tortured and convoluted as to be incomprehensible.


Not related, but somehow sharing many distinctions
tailored for this earth's climates, environments and habitats.

This is utter baloney. Different animals and plants in different parts
of the world are adapted to similar environments, but do so from
different ancestral stock. This is why we have kangaroos in Australia,
and antelopes in Africa doing much the same thing in much the same way,
but with completely different body plans, reproductive systems, and
skeletal morphology.

Whereby
nature worshipping evolutionists attribute what is needed, an
ancestorial relationship.


No, they go where the evidence leads, which is to evolutionary
relationships.


I agree, there is relationship of all species today back in time to
Noah's Ark.

Well bully for you.

I believe the Ark was afloat surrounded by mountains in the
one continent setting(note that God is said to have divided the earth
500 years after the flood).

Well bully for you.
Perhaps you can explain how the continents could have moved great
distance across the surface of the earth in a very shor time in that
case. Everything we have learned in the physical sciences for 500 years
tells us that this could not happen.

The setting would be

and how would you test this "would be"?

the center of this
continent, waters were

and how do you test this assertion?

on outside of the circular mountain.

and how do you test this assertion?

Earth was
kinda like a large stadium at the time,

and how do you test this assertion?

but the waters held back,

and how do you test this assertion?

were
allowed to overflow atop the mountains and flood the lands.

and how do you test this assertion?


Although
not exact, this is the setting I feel the bible hints at.

And your evidence to support this model is.......?


So perhaps

and how would you test this "perhaps"?

the various kinds of animals on the Ark, were equipped(even
qualified, due to the command to bring "clean" animals aboard,

and how do you test this assertion?

which
was God's way of creating perfection,

and how do you test this assertion?

note that Mary the mother of God
Incarnate had to be perfect or clean in God's eyes)

and how do you test this assertion?

these animals
equipped with the genetic information,
and how do you test this assertion?

or even, just perfect in
essence,

and how do you test this assertion?

whereby God could then change their genetic coding according
to His wise plan

and how do you test this assertion?

to disperse and diverse creation in a postflood
regeneration of species or families.

and how do you test this assertion?


The mutations observed today are either temporary(forced by man in
labs) and return back to original dna coding, or they are naturally
occurring for their role, as seen in the bacterias, viruses, and
cancers, which are a part of the balance of life and death nature.

Nonsense. There are mutations which lead to the creation of new
species. Furthermore, mutations do hot "return back to original dna
coding".

The
mutations only work to serve to keep death and disease as a continuous
order, always elusive to immunologic resistence.

They lead to the creation of new species. Get used to that fact. More
to the point, learn something about the subject so that you don't make
yourself look both foolish and arrogant.

Pefect for the
creation and fall of man scenario.

...but complete and utter baloney which is conclisively falisfied by the
evidence.


The only evidence I have a problem with which is used in evolution
debate is the time issue.

The only evidence you have a problem with is all of it. You have not
offered a shred of evidence in support of your ridiculous scenario, and
there is a vast amount of evidence which demonstrates quite
categorically that it is utter nonsense.


But like I said, time was created, and had
man not sinned, age of universe wouldn't be noted, nor would it be
realistic or relevant.

So, with an airy wave of the hand you dismis 5 centuries of research
and investigation and the mountains of evidence that endeaviour ahs
produced. Yet, by your own confession, you know little about the
subject.

Ignorance and arrogance add nothing to the strength of your argument.

Eternity would be eternity. So perhaps the age
of the universal objects and elements simpy reflect a tiny part of
eternity in comparison to the initiation of it's creation

...and how would you test this assertion?

and the short
timeframe of it's phyical existence. Even in Eden, this may have been
seen as perhaps, a minute in eternity.
...and how would you test this assertion?


The geological distribution of
timed fossils could indeed be circumstantial,

...and how would you test this assertion?

due to the many earth
changing events after the fall of man mentioned in bible,

....and for which there is no physical evidence whatsoever...

as well as
the many localized disasters during various times(mudslides, floods,
avalanches etc). In fact, man, in his so-called 100,000 year
migrational journey in evolution as home erectus, surely would've
encountered fossil causing landslides, mudslides, avalanches etc. Where
are the primate fossils in various mountains??

Primate fossils have a widespread geographical distribution.No doubt
some are found in terrains which are now mountainous. Do you really
want to know the answer, or is this just a rhetoical question? I could
ask some of my colleagues who speciallise in primate palaeontolgy if
you want, but don't want to waste their and my time if you have no
interest in the answer.


Bristlecones seem to be living witness of the regeneration timeperiod.

...and how would you test this assertion?

They are the oldest living species,

Not according to some sources. There is evidence that some creosote
bushes are over 12,000 years old. Why not address that evidence?

and appear to have many thousands
of years to live.

No they wouldn't. The oldest pines are clinging onto life by a thread.

They are also found in different continents,

No they are not. Bristlecone pines are found only in California.

mountainess areas of Europe and Western USA. As were the Mammoths and
Sabortoothed tigers.

Smilodon is not found in Europe or Asia.

Which were proven to be hunted extinct by man.

It has not been "proven". It has been suggested, and some researchers
support that hyopothesis. Howver, there is other evidence which
suggests that these extinction events were caused by climatic change
following the retreat of the ice ***. The jury is still out on this.

So
we have life beginning anew 5,000 years ago,

...and how would you test this assertion?

evidence of man causing
extinctions, (and last 500 extinctions attributed to mankind over the
last few hundred years).

We also have the Permo-Triassic extinction event, the K/T boundary
event, and severl others which occured long before man evolved.

Perhaps you could either address the evidence for those events, or
explain why God was playing such a massive a practical joke on the
scientific community?


There's a balance here if you see it.

There is? Where?

It's
that Trees not only show that there was an interuption of life

They do? How?

because
of their longevity and lack of older trees means disasters prevented
them from existing when they should have.

Once again grammar and meaning are a stranger to you. Incoherence in
writing is a symptom of lack of coherence in thought.

Plus, we have proof that man
has been the cause of death and extinctions, and a biblical attribution
to death and disease to man's rejection of God in recent Eden.

....for which there is not the slightest scrap of supporting evidence.



Everything fits pretty good from my perspective,

Well, as your perspective is founded entirely in unsubstantiated
assertions which show the you lack even a rudimentary knowledge of
science in general and evolution in particular, so what?

even a neutral
perspective.

Why should anyone with a neutral perspective take on faith your
unfounded assertions and ignore the massive evidence for the account of
earth's history from scientific sources?

RF

.

Loading