Constantly designed baramins and the evolving food chain

Dear Mike,You use 'The food chain' as if it were some monolithic ideal set in stone. In fact many of the food webs we see in nature are very complex and dynamic. Why should adding such a variable factor make your hypothesis more reasonable.Apart from the bits about the food chain you just seem to be saying that all transitional fossils can be explained by 'goddidit', which is as successful a scientific explanation as it has ever been.If the food chain really were a constant then wouldn't we expect to see all the same levels appear at once. Shouldn't God have produced Primary consumers, Secondary consumers, tertiary consumers and degraders all at the same time? Or what happened to all the secondary and tertiary consumers of the stromatolites? Did he decide at some point that all of his unicellular 1ary/2ary/3ary consumers should suddenly be multicellular? Why? What possible reason would there be for such a procedure? Why not just poof everything into existence in 6 days but looking like there had been a series of evolving food chains?How much flexibility are you allowing for all of these roles? Would the baramin previous to the current position of wolves have to have been wolf like or could it have been something like a big cat? How big a jump is ok? Could you replace an algae with seaweed in one jump? how about going from a rabbit to a cow? Why have so many different food chains? If the food chain is the important thing why not just have enough species for one food chain and replace them as they die out? Or why not simply keep replacing them without changing them at all, why let the original food chain change in the first place?If god is simply replacing levels in the food chain as they become vacant then why do we see variations in the number of species over time?You just seem to repeating the old totally empty argument that God just made all of the transitional fossils so it looked as if evolution happened and tacking on some supposed rationale involving the food chain.TTFN,WK

That has to be the most obtuse thing ever!! You complain that 'Goddidit' is a strawman and then go on to state 'Goddidit' and say that there is absolutely nothing that could distinguish your 'theory' from natural evolution.That has to be the most vacuous argument I have ever seen. Becuase the evidence contradicts your evolving food chain. Why not actually address some of the specific questions I asked in my post rather than pretending that your theory is anything other than simply saying 'Goddidit' What evidence do you have for a food chain, with all the hierarchical levels we see today, for the pre-cambrian cyanobacteria which formed the Stromatolites? Would a chain consisting of nothing but bacteria be consistent with your theory?TTFN,WK

Could you try and be at least coherent if not consistent.Why bother arguing that a designer does not imply any specific deity if you are then going to use the biblical flood as an explanation for the fossil record.If the fossil record is nothing but the result of some sort of flood sorting then why do you even bother positing an evolving food chain, since there is no coherent way of linking particular groups of organisms to a particular time period. In what way is this a 'thorough philosophical argument'? Given your presumption of the equivalence of evidence for both theories surely you can see that your 'designer' is not in the least parsimonious but rather a superfluous entity.You seem to be trying to think up some tortuous rationale by which a designer is somehow more parsimonious than the absence of a designer, and the one you come up with is one for which there is not a shred of evidence, why?If you really have a coherent theory then why don't you address any of the questions I raised in my initial post?TTFN,WK

yeah, if you stand on your head, cover one eye and squint. Is that the sort of perspective you were thinking of. There are no brush strokes on Leonardo da Vinci's artworks? Have you been using magic mushrooms to heighten your religious experiences? Because I'm pretty sure I've seen brush strokes on da Vinci's paintings.Your talk of chance is meaningless.TTFN,WK

Don't you ever get tired of rehashing an argument that is already 200 years old? Not even bringing something new to it, just churning out the same old argument except this time with a painting instead of a watch.TTFN,WK