Glenn,
As visitor No.114944 to your site I am impressed with the data you have gathered
there; somewhat envious too of the traffic you have succeeded in generating! A
few questions come to mind:
(1) As in the past, you take me to a series of intermediate points in the
alleged transition, FISH>AMPHIBIAN. My concern on the other hand is with the
logic of believing that the process could ever have got started. Setting aside
all evolutionary assumptions and expectations, do you really consider it
reasonable to suppose an impairment to normal fin activity to be advantageous?
(2) In response to my earlier posting, you wrote regarding Ichthyostega,
"...(it) lived in shallow water...and would thrust out to grab its prey. It used
its fins to push against the sediment to add to its speed." This might easily be
mistaken for an 'eye-witness' account of typical Devonian activity. Shouldn't
such details be declared as guesses?
(3) And again, surely predation is a two-way matter. The reality must also
involve "How can I avoid being eaten?" You have already implied that fin
function is reduced in Ichthyostega. Where, therefore, is the selective
advantage that this creature has over the fish that share its environment?
(4) On your web page I observe you have inserted an estimate of the time that
has elapsed since each of the creatures you describe lived. The impression
created is that this time sequence was derived independently of the alleged
evolutionary sequence. Is this indeed so?
(5) I believe the logic of my original observation stands, and I suggest that it
is therefore appropriate that we look for a more reasonable interpretation of
the fossil evidence. How would you respond to my belief that the creatures you
describe lived contemporaneously in the earth's waters some 6000 years ago -
each having been created independently as a distinct 'kind'?
You may already have gathered that my leanings toward YEC derive from biblical
considerations more than any other. As a Christian I take as the starting point
in my quest for truth God's strictures concerning man (eg Gen.8:21, Ps.2,
Jer.17:9). I think you will agree that such unsavoury characteristics, if true,
must have a profound effect on the way we think and behave toward God and His
Word, and to the manner in which we conduct our day-to-day affairs. To soften
the meaning of what is actually being said of us it is common practice to use
the term 'original sin' - a device that in itself, suggests that the charges are
true. But there is no lack of further corroborative evidence: the censures are
confirmed, (a) by what we know of ourselves and observe in those around us, (b)
in that they make sense of Incarnation, Cross and Resurrection, and (c) in the
universally adverse reaction to the news that the Bible is a self-authenticating
text - ie that its Author has more to say to us than had originally been
supposed (I refer to the numero-geometrical phenomena described on my website).
It must surely follow, (a) that man is an unreliable witness in respect of
matters pertaining to our Creator and His Word and, (b) that the Bible is a
unique body of divinely-revealed truth intended to provide man with an enduring
and dependable 'benchmark' for living, and a 'means of escape' from his depraved
condition. Clearly, man-made philosophies can command no authority in this, the
real scheme of things. The Lord has told us how it all began - complete with
timeframe. Thus, He can hardly be accused of deception if - for one reason or
another - the majority of the world's clever people chose to disbelieve his
words. Indeed, any deception there is must be a 'self-deception' - based upon
selective interpretations of empirical data, inflated ideas regarding the
capabilities of the human mind, and a rejection of the possibility of
supernatural activity. Regarding the latter, as Christians we would be wise to
remember the reality of the spiritual battle in which we are all engaged
(Eph.6:10-18), and to accept that the interests of the supernatural - friend and
foe alike - do not necessarily stop short of the laboratory door.
Sincerely,
Vernon
Glenn Morton wrote:
> Vernon wrote:
>
> >>In my reply I asked him to suggest how the alleged transition
> fish>amphibian could possibly have taken place, for in my mind it defied all
> logic. In particular, in the early stages of the assumed process, I failed
> to see what possible selection advantage would accrue from the encumbering
> of normal fin activity with the growth of incipient legs and feet (together
> with the necessary internal adjustments). My experience over the years has
> been that evolutionists assure me that it must have happened. They are far
> more comfortable discussing later assumed developments in which leg and foot
> function obviously become significant factors in creature survival.
> I also requested evidence of the fact that such transitions have been found
> in the fossil record.
> To date, neither request has been met. Am I therefore correct in inferring
> that this essential stage in the evolutionary enterprise is to be taken on
> trust? <<<<
>
> No it doesn't have to be taken on trust. THe earliest stages of the
> transition of fin to leg involve an animal which lived in shallow water,
> Ichthyostega, and would thrust out to grab its prey. It used its fins to
> push against the sediment to add to its speed. Ichthyostega had limbs which
> would not support his weight on land but would work wonderfully in the
> water. We can follow an entire sequence of fossils gradually moving from
> fish to amphibian so you don't have to take anything on trust.
>
> see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/transit.htm
>
> glenn
>
> see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
> for lots of creation/evolution information
> anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
> personal stories of struggle
>
> Sincerely,
> Vernon
> http://www.otherbiblecode.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:54:02 EDT