[geocentrism] Re: Evolution

Dear Paul,
One of the recent young age of dinosaurs was the discovery of the soft tissue 
of a T'Rex complete with DNA. 

I would certainly be at odds with Philip over millions of years. Philip seems 
to have forgotten that modern research has shown that radiometric dating is 
seriously flawed.

Jack
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: philip madsen 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:54 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution


  Paul you are stretching things a bit.  

  Archaeopteryx had feathers and wings, but it also had teeth and a skeleton 
similar to a small carnivorous dinosaur; therefore, it had both bird and 
theropod dinosaur features. Similar in size and shape to a European Magpie, it 
bore broad, rounded wings and a long tail. 

  Do they then have photos, or perhaps an original in deep freeze? 

  Do you believe then that Dinosaurs are reptilian..  ?  Why? because thats 
what we have been told for centuries?  Are you forgetting that speculation (and 
fraud) clothed these monster skeletons. ?

  Do you know that doubt has been cast on this speculation by more recent DNA 
tests that show these to be mammal rather than reptile..  also the dating 
method has been turned upside down by serious new evidence..  What reason other 
than faith in evolution would cause scientists to get angry at these new 
research data? 

  The point is that the fossils are not true evidence of anything other than 
that there are/were extinct animal types...  

  Please do not put me down on the claim that this is a creationist make 
believe outburst.. I have already put on the record that God created an old 
universe, His Garden had very old plants and trees that had never seen the 
light of more than one day. And also a well worn river that had never seen a 
flood. 

  I would not be surprised at millions of years old fossils that had never ever 
experienced life on earth. This I not only concede, but expect to be likely. 
God created an evolved world, according to natural law. That He bypassed this 
process; such is His mystery of creation, and a test for those whom he wants to 
call His own, as to whether they believe in Him and His word, or reject Him. 
Physical evidence of evolution could never be a PROOF against creation. Foolish 
proud and rebellious man.  Lazarus was already corrupt and stinketh, yet He 
raised him back to life..  That was re- creation...  not evolution. 

  Nevertheless I will not accept as fact the subjective speculation surrounding 
the science of the fossil records, as proof of any cross species evolution in 
that process, not even that dinosaurs were reptiles will I accept. 

  It is speculation with presumption and you know it. 

  The modern science of genetic modification, where genes of a species of fish 
are combined with or added to a tomatoe plant or the proposed experiments to 
prooduce Chimeras, are proof positive, due to the extremely "opposed to nature" 
methods used, that such cross breeding between species is contrary to the 
natural Law. 

  I am certain, that had He allowed nature to take its course over billions of 
years, (He certainly had the time) then beginning with just energy of perhaps 
positive and negative charges, one must go back further than a sea of soup, 
TRUE science would favour the proposition that evolution began in SEVERAL 
diverse orders, and with the developement of each species SEPARATELY..according 
to natural laws.  

  Philip. 
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Paul Deema 
    To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 6:59 PM
    Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution


    Jack L

    Archaeopteryx is the archetypal transitional fossil but of course your side 
of the table just shifts ground and calls for a transitional fossil between it 
and the birds or between it and the lizards. It wouldn't matter how many 
transitional fossils are found in this series, the creationists will simply 
repeat the exercise in ever smaller increments.

    Yes Apo A-I Milano is microevolution and it is an enhancement. And lots of 
these in succession and in isolation eventually become a new species -- 
macroevolution. 

    Since no creationist to the best of my knowledge, has ever given a 
definition of 'kind', I doubt that you would break the mould but we live in 
hope. Are you prepared to offer such a definition? If you are, (or even if 
you're not) which Arkian 'kind' is the ancestor (by microevolution of course!) 
of the kangaroo? Or of the lemur? Or of the hawaiian carnivorous caterpillar as 
per the snippet below?

    I also have an historical perspective on the subject of evolution from the 
creationist point of view. Are you interested? Might give you some ideas.

    Paul D

      Snippet from 
http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/acad/CTAHRInAction/Dec_05/caterpillar.asp.



      Our state is home to 350 known species of Hyposmocoma. Most of these 
species are endemic to a single island. Since first identifying the Maui 
caterpillar, Rubinoff and Haines have found different species of snail-eating 
Hyposmocoma on Molokai, Kauai, and the Big Island, revealing how our islands 
are hotbeds of evolution in which new organisms and survival strategies arise 
at a remarkable rate.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get 
it now. 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
    Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.22/1015 - Release Date: 
18/09/2007 11:53 AM

Other related posts: