"Jason" <

In article <5udtr19v2f54m9j6ishftsap3vgq4664eh@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:37:43 -0800, in alt.atheism ,

In article <aa6sr1lfiicc8mvgtfmmp3qlsbt9i9bo5f@4ax.com>, Matt
Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 19:31:16 -0800, in alt.atheism ,

In article <qp0rr19g7f6dflk3dcttrlpspnpra0t2sc@4ax.com>, Matt
Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 09:00:50 -0800, in alt.atheism ,

It's obvious that not all animals are fossilized. However, even
Gould
states that there are gaps in the fossil evidence related to

transitional

forms.
Evolutionists believe the reason for the gaps is because the

fossils have

not yet been found or failed to be fossilized.
The advocates of creation science believe the reason for the gaps
is

because

the transitional animals never exisited.

Yes, you think that in the past, but not in the present, whole
complete organisms would suddenly poof into existence. Then they
would
go on reproducing just like normal organisms. Amazingly enough
these
organisms that poofed into existence were very much like those a
bit
earlier and very much like those a bit latter. Far more similar,
for
example, than humans and chimps. You think these organisms,
thousands
upon thousands of them, poofed into existence because, somehow, you
think this is in accordance with your interpretation of the Bible.

Do I have this right? If not please detail all of the ways your
views
differ from the above.

The Bible states that God created various types of plants and
animals. It
does not state how he did it. Your guess is as good as mine. My guess
is
that God is an expert related to science/DNA etc.

What does it mean to say there are "gaps"? We have species Y for some
length of time, before that we have similar species X, after that we
have similar species Z, but we have gaps in the record. What do you
mean when you say that the organisms never existed? Are you asserting
that creation occurs at various time rather than plants on one day,
birds on another, land animals on another? Give us a clue.

Matt,
I have already told you in other posts how I believe it happened--read
the
first three chapters of the Bible.

I have read them.

I have also told you that I believe
that many of those animals and plants become what is now known as
"common
ancestors" of all the plants and animals now in the world or that have
become extinct. The only evolution that has taken place has been
microevolution. Dr. Gish states that the fossils that have been found
confirm that it happened that way.

How does that relate to gaps in the fossil record? If you accept
common ancestry for various organisms, then there should be no gaps.
Each gap, by your assertion, should mean that the organisms were there
are the beginning. Since we have H. habilis bones and a gap on either
side that means that they were created in the first week. Same for
*each* of the various trilobites. Same pretty much for every single
fossil organism. And that means that the Ark must have had hundreds of
thousands or millions of animals. Every single horse we have a fossil
for was on the Ark. Every single cat, dog, dinosaur. If you are going
to claim that the gaps are "real" and that Genesis 1 tells us how they
were created, then you can't have God doing any more creating later.
You can pretend that house cats and lions come from a common ancestor
4,000 years ago and call that microevolution, but there were also the
dozens of different saber toothed tigers that do not share a common
ancestor.

Now do you really want to try to defend this? Have you actually
bothered to think any of this through?

Matt,
The Bible does not list all of the animals and plants that God created or
that were on the Ark. Therefore, any answer that I provided would be based
on my opinions. As you know, opinions are like noses, everyone has one. I
know that there are lots of gaps in the fossil record and both know the
two reasons:
1. Some plants and animals were never fossilized.
2. Those plants and animals never existed.
I would not just assume that a transitional animal existed unless I had
fossil evidence to back it up. Of course, if we have an animal (animal X)
that now exists but no fossil evidence related to animal X--we must
conclude that it came to be as a result of evolution or that God created
the ancestor of Animal X.
Jason

There is evidence and more is discovered all the time. The very fact that
there is any kind of organism fossilized that is not mentioned in the bible
is evidence that the bible is nothing more than words of men, mistranslated
through the years.

"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0601061213420001@pm4-broad-35.snlo.dialup.fix.net...

In article <5udtr19v2f54m9j6ishftsap3vgq4664eh@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

[snip]

I have also told you that I believe
that many of those animals and plants become what is now known as

"common

ancestors" of all the plants and animals now in the world or that have
become extinct. The only evolution that has taken place has been
microevolution. Dr. Gish states that the fossils that have been found
confirm that it happened that way.

Gish lies, or to be extremely charitable, is rather recklessly
unreliable and careless when it comes to factual matters. Google the
term "Gish gallop".

As I've pointed out in a post that you didn't answer, your and Gish's
arguments about fossil record gaps would seem to mean that you must be
able to show us a complete fossil record detailing every step along
the way from the common ancestor of each "kind" to all of the modern
species in its group of descendants. So, where are they? Do you
perhaps have to admit that there can be other explanations for gaps
in the record?

How does that relate to gaps in the fossil record? If you accept
common ancestry for various organisms, then there should be no gaps.
Each gap, by your assertion, should mean that the organisms were there
are the beginning. Since we have H. habilis bones and a gap on either
side that means that they were created in the first week. Same for
*each* of the various trilobites. Same pretty much for every single
fossil organism. And that means that the Ark must have had hundreds of
thousands or millions of animals. Every single horse we have a fossil
for was on the Ark. Every single cat, dog, dinosaur. If you are going
to claim that the gaps are "real" and that Genesis 1 tells us how they
were created, then you can't have God doing any more creating later.
You can pretend that house cats and lions come from a common ancestor
4,000 years ago and call that microevolution, but there were also the
dozens of different saber toothed tigers that do not share a common
ancestor.

Now do you really want to try to defend this? Have you actually
bothered to think any of this through?

Matt,
The Bible does not list all of the animals and plants that God created or
that were on the Ark. Therefore, any answer that I provided would be based
on my opinions. As you know, opinions are like noses, everyone has one. I
know that there are lots of gaps in the fossil record and both know the
two reasons:
1. Some plants and animals were never fossilized.

That's not what you claimed before. You said that if evolutionary
common descent was real there'd be no gaps.

2. Those plants and animals never existed.

What gaps would these be, in mainstream science? Ones leading to
hypothetical organisms? [I suppose the unicorn family tree has
nothing but gaps]

I would not just assume that a transitional animal existed unless I had
fossil evidence to back it up.

Sure you do, when you say that all modern members of the deer family
Cervidae descend from a single ancestral form of the "kind". Or do you
think you can show us a completely unbroken fossil record of that
ancestor and every intermediate form connecting it to each and every
descendant species living and extinct? Where is this smoothly unbroken
deer fossil record?

It seems you do assume that these transitional forms existed even
without any fossil evidence for them.

Of course, if we have an animal (animal X)
that now exists but no fossil evidence related to animal X--we must
conclude that it came to be as a result of evolution or that God created
the ancestor of Animal X.

If there are no fossils of X or its immediate ancestors, when would
this creation event have taken place? Yesterday? Last year? If more
than a generation earlier, you'll still have a fossil "gap" and a need
to explain the absence of any remains of its ancestry.

cheers