rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Colin Rafferty) (05/24/85)
The time has come where Dan has stuffed his foot so far into his mouth, that even he won't be able to retrieve it. In replying to the how all the animals fit onto The Ark, he comes up with the idea that there were fewer species back then than there are now. This is interesting. I'll show you what he said: > There has been great diversification within species in the last > 5000 years. Theodosius Dobzhansky admits that species has been > diversified into so many varieties and subvarieties that even the > greatest taxonomists have been staggereed at the task of enumerating > and classifying them. "Genetics and the Order of Species" > > For example, the wild rock pigeon has diversified into several strains > such as the pouter, the leghorn runt, the fantail, the tumbler, the owl, > the turbit, the swallow, the carrier, the nun, the jacobin, and the > homer. > > Given this, it is unwarrented to insist that all present varieties should > have been represented in the Ark. Note the fact that he talks about "diversification within species". I hate to say this Dan, but that sounds to me a lot like the species evolved. For example, I don't think that any of the wild rock ancestors would be considered the same species (no interbreeding would be possible). Your argument seems to rely on the very existence of evolutionary processes. Not a good sign. Of course, you can't stop there. You have to shove deeper and deeper. Now you set yourself up when you talk about where the water went to. > On the second day of creation, the waters covering the surface of the > earth were divided by an expanse or firmament. In other words there > was a great reservoir of water surrounding the earth as well as the > great seas below the dry land. Geophysical evidense leads us to recognize > that there must have been a worldwide warm climate. The Miocene, Ogliocene, > Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, and Carboniferous, era's all > boast of universal warm climate as predicted by the "canopy of vapors" > advocates. This, of course, directly implies the existence of Miocene, Ogliocene, Cambrian, etc. eras. We won't point out that they occurred millions of years ago, and that the Flood only took place thousands of years ago. Ditto with Creation itself. But that won't stop you from giving one final shove... > Gen. 6:20 Two of every sort SHALL COME UNTO THEE! > (The animals came to Noah) > Climactic zones were not necessarily the same before the flood(universal > warm climate) and the animals may not have inhabited the same areas > as they do now. Animals may have been more widely distributed than now! > > As for the animals leaving the Ark, many animals have been known to > migrate over very long distances. "The Migration of Animals", Mathews. > I would suggest that after leaving the Ark, many animals migrated into > different parts of the world into places that were better suited for them > to live. Or, many animals may have migrated because of an over abundance > in one particular area. A. Franklin Schull, an evolutionist, makes > this point in his book, "Evolution", on page 60. And in "Genes, Genesis, > and Evolution", John W. Klotz, Professor of Natural History, concerning > the fact that many marsupials and monotremes are found nowhere in the > world except Austrailia, states "It may be that these forms have become > extinct in Asia and along tha Malay Peninsula. Possibly they were able to > live in some of these areas for only a short time and travelled almost > immediately to those places included in their present range." p. 226. Of course, they wouldn't have left ANY ancestors where they went through. And what did Klotz mean by "short time"? Probably short on the geologic scale (few hundred years?). How about the fact that the gerbil (for example) can live extremely well in any arid climate, but is only found in Asia? It can do just as well in the southwest USA, but isn't found there. (But they all went "immediately" to Asia. No sightseeing allowed. :-) > I have tried to answer these questions quickly and concisely. Each > question could really have taken several pages to answer, however, I > haven't the time to expound as necessary. I think the entire net is grateful to your bosses who don't let you expound too much. > I realize even now before posting this that most of you will not even > consider these as possibilities. Why? Because the supernatural is > involved and science can not tolerate the supernatural. However, science > seems to be incredibly tolerable of all the many inconsistencies of > uniformitarianism. Geological evidences of the Flood will be ignored > on the basis of the theory's origin. For science to be truly objective, > prejudice such as this must be eliminated. For Creationism to be taken seriously, it must not have theories that rely on evidence which contradicts the rest of the theories (i.e. Dealing with time scales of millions of years, when the universe was created only thousands of years ago.) Sorry Dan, but it just doesn't hold water. ---- Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University } "According to convention there is a sweet and a bitter, a hot and a cold, and according to convention, there is an order. In truth, there are atoms and a void." -Democritus(400 B.C.)