On 28/08/2014 1:11 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
John, my friend, you have a fundamental problem in your analysis.
Your unyielding adherence to Darwinian dogma
You are mistaken. I have no adherence to Darwinian dogma whatsoever.
If "Darwinian dogma" (whatever that is) happens to coincide with my
understanding - well maybe its right.
is blinding you and preventing you from asking the right questions.
You assume Darwinian Evolution is true first and that skews your analysis.
For example, you assume that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old.
How do you know that?
We have been over this ad nauseum. I accept radiometric dating. In
many cases it is simply superb. You are welcome to continue rubbishing
it but you should be aware that in the almost unanimous view of
intelligent and well educated people you are thereby only rubbishing
yourself.
You know that only because Darwinian Evolution theory told you so.
Since your first assumption is that Darwinian Evolution is true, you
can liberally conclude that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old.
Then a wrong question stems from this wrong understanding - wrong
assumption. You then ask why the coelacanth "stopped" evolving? This
of course is the wrong question that you are trying to answer.
What you should do is not assume anything. You then look at the data
and see if Darwinian Evolution fits the data.
What about you? You make one massive assumption (that the history and
legends brought back by the Jews after their exile in Babylon has to be
completely inerrant), and then you look at the data and no matter how
good it is, you toss it out if you can't make it fit that massive
assumption.
Can Darwinian Evolution explain the existence of the Coelacanth up to
today and why it hasn't evolved? If not, Darwinian Evolution theory
is wrong.
Instead, you ask, how could the Coelacanth exist unchanged for 350
million years? This is the wrong questions that should not have been
asked if your initial assumptions did not screw with your analysis.
Jojo
PS: I'm really at a loss understanding why people can't seem to see
the stupidities of their belief in Darwinian Evolution - why they can
see that Darwinian Evolution could be wrong.
Take out the plank that is in your own eye, and then you can see better
to pick specks of dust from others assumptions.
