Sunday, June 25, 2006

Immutability: If it looks like a duck...

You'd be surprised how often a piece of scientific evidence comes along that baffles Darwinists, though mundane in nature and totally expected by Biblical Creationists. Such is the topic of this post. Without paraphrasing, here is the startling, new discovery: "Fossil experts in China have unearthed a 110-million-year-old bird that is strikingly similar to today's birds"!

In this latest case of "if it looks like a duck", scientists have unearthed evidence that they almost admit they didn't expect because it goes counter to evolutionary thought. Once again, rather than coming to terms with their false assumptions, they fane amazement. The see profundity in what should only seem profound to the deeply stoned.

But before creationists rush out and pop the cork on their...uh...diet coke, you should know that the paper's author made compelling arguments that this species, though duck-like, was no duck. You (the name of the paeleontologist) argued in this paragraph:
It may have looked like a duck and acted like a duck, but Gansus was no duck.
So there you (as in the reader) have it! You (as in the reader) can't argue with that!! (Don't go too hard on him for his lack of reason in this paragraph, he was probably just trying to keep from being crucified by the Journal Science).

Now, since the dinosaurs supposedly evolved into birds (wink, wink), AND birds were fully-bird at the time of the dinosaurs, scientists are forced to conclude that physical traits attributed to birds, but not dinosaurs, must have evolved very quickly and then remained stable and relatively unchanged ever since. These traits would include flight feathers, webbed feet, and racing stripes.

What they've really uncovered here is called "proof". Just not the kind they wanted. Either they are forced to admit that the layers of strata in which this duck was found aren't nearly as old as they say, or they must conclude that the bird-like characteristics evolved quickly and early in contrast to popularly held evolutionary views. Since re-dating the strata would be far reaching to the point of catastrophic, triggering the revisitting of thousands of accepted "facts", scientists choose to accept the less destabilizing option, that bird features developed early and quickly.

But all this gives rise to a more interesting point. Evolution is an attempt to explain the creation of the species through random and accidental means. It despises the notion of design in all its forms, particularly a Divine Creator. If these random, accidental mutations and variations in the genome are responsible for the creation of the species as evolutionists claim, then there should be absolutely no mechanism to keep these changes from occurring. It is a claim of design that either the bird-like traits developed quickly, or that they stabilized for the ensuing eons. If chance created these creatures and their traits, then the same chance should continue to modify them at a predictable rate throughout eternity! Stability should be impossible in evolutionary terms. And that gives rise to a whole new category of blogs that I've had on the back burner during my couple of month sebatical: Immutability - the ability to remain the same. Normally only attributed to God.

"Evolution the science" is a front company for "evolution the faith".

Article: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060615-dinosaurs.html