Michael wrote of the fish/tetrapod transition evidence:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Michael Roberts
>Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 1:44 PM
>
>
>Why cant everyone accept this? What is the problem?
The reason is exactly the same tendency that has been illustrated here on
the topic of bear sacrifice. The only way the widely held conservative
apologetical posistions can be held is by ignoring the contradictory data.
If one has to ignore the contradictory data without simply not mentioning
it, then one can doubt any and all conclusions which can be rationally drawn
from the data.
I have seen the anti-evolutionists question the following:
No matter how many fossils are placed in the gradual transitional sequence,
they doubt that it is enough. Indeed with each additional fossil one
additional gap appears!
They claim that there are no transitions, speak only of ichthyostega or
acanthostega, and ignore Sauripterus, Livonia multidentata, Elginerpeton,
Obruchevichthys,Hynerpeton, and Densignathus rowei. And they ignore the
similarities between Elginerpeton and ventastega and Greerepeton among the
earliest amphibians.
They have doubted the connections between the various animals, since they
are not found on the same cliff face, each in the act of both conceiving and
birthing the next one. (I wonder what that would look like!)
They have doubted evolution's ability to cause the change.
They have doubted the researchers veracity.
They have pointed to the shoulder girdle of Ichthyostega and claimed that it
was amphibian-like and not fish-like and thus not transitional, ignoring the
lineage leading to that position and ignoring the fact that it isn't a fully
developed shoulder blade being unable to support the full weight of the
animal
They have cited the irrelevant coelacanth as proving that fish couldn't give
rise to amphibians.
They ignore the fact that there were animals with both lungs and gills,
which is a truly transitional feature!
They have pointed out that the earliest fully formed amphibians don't look
like fish and thus couldn't have come from them, ignoring that when the
process is complete, there shouldn't be the close similarities.
As I said to another fellow, doubt is easy. We have holocaust deniers, we
have people who doubt the government's explanations of UFOs, we have YECs
who doubt every fact of science, we have Geradus d'Bouw, another YEC, who
doubts heliocentricity, we have the example of many arabic peoples who doubt
Bin Laden was behind the 911 attack preferring instead to blame the Mossad.
Yes, we can always have doubt if we don't like the obvious conclusion. And
we can make those doubts sound so noble. We have people who will ignore good
evidence for animal sacrifice prior to 7000 years because it would destroy a
preferred theory.
And we have people who will doubt the transition no matter what evidence you
put in front of them because it violates a higher priniciple (e.g. Vernon),
that the data can't be true because of his interpretation of the Bible. The
silly thing is that they think they look so smart when they pretend to
discuss evidence which means nothing to them because of the higher 'truth'
they hold to.
Yes, whatever we don't want to agree with play the DOUBT GAME. It will get
you out of any intellectual difficulty.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 21 2002 - 03:41:39 EDT