And too often Christians only look to falsify evolution rather than explain
the data.
Stephen wrote supposedly quoting me.
"GM>... Paleontologists now report that a Basilosaurus skeleton
>recently discovered in Egypt has appendages which appear to be
>vestigial hind legs and feet. The function these could have
>served is obscure. They are too small even to have been much
>assistance in swimming, and could not conceivable have supported
>the huge body on land. The fossil's discoverer speculate that
>the appendages may have been used as an aid to copulation." "
This should not be attributed to me. This is a quote from Phil Johnson.
Stephen wrote:
"Glenn, in Discover they have a picture of Ambulocetus and it looks
nothing like a "whale". It looks a bit like a crocodile."
In evolution, things change. It is amazing to me how you do not believe in
transitional forms because there is nothing in between the two forms but then
if one is presented, it can't be a transitional form because it is does not
look like the end product i.e. a whale. A transitional fossil can not look
like the final product by definition. If it looks like the end product, it
ipso facto is not transitional.
Stephen wrote:
"I am also interested that the Discover article does not even mention
Pakicetus, but has the order Meonychid - Ambulocetus. Has Pakicetus
been quietly dropped?"
I have not read the Discover article but as I understand it Pakicetus has not
been dropped. Only the skull has been found.
Stephen wrote:
"Where does Rodhocetus and Prozeuglodon mentioned in the Discover
article fit in to this scenario?"
They are latter whales.
I wrote:
"GM>I quote Thewissen et al, (1994, p. 211)
>"Toes are terminated by a short phalanx carrying a convex
>hoof, as in mesonychids, the terrestrial ancestors of
>cetaceans."
Stephen replied
>Again, evolution has to believed first. One has to already believe
>that "mesonychids" are "the terrestrial ancestors of cetaceans.""
So, why do the toes of the ambulocetus resemble the toes of mesonychids? Is
there a reason, or is it merely chance?
Stephen wrote:
""Ambulocetus" tail "lacked a tail fluke". Again more evidence against
it being a whale. I would not have thought the shape of "lumbar
vertebra" would be conclusive evidence that an animal swam like a
whale."
Once again you require that the transitional form look like a fully formed
whale. This is an impossible demand. According to this reasoning, in order
to prove that ambulocetus was of the whale lineage, he must look like a
whale. If he looked like a whale, then you would claim, "No transitional
forms."
Stephen wrote:
>>"It cuts both ways, Glenn. Darwinists have not hesitated to attack
creationists and their motives:
"One Darwinist who says exactly this is Cornell University Professor
William Provine, a leading historian of science. Provine insists that
the conflict between science and religion is inescapable, to the
extent that persons who manage to retain religious beliefs while
accepting evolutionary biology "have to check [their] brains at the
church-house door" (Provine W., "Evolution and the Foundation of
Ethics",1988, MBL Science, Vol. 3, no. 1, pp25-29, in Johnson P.E.,
"Darwin on Trial", Second Edition, 1993, Inter Varsity Press,
Illinois, p126).<<
I have two responses to this. Just because someone else does something does
not make it correct for you to do it. Every parent has to teach their
children that just because Johnnies parents don't care that he smokes, drinks
and chews at age 5, doesn't mean that I will let my kid do it.
Secondly, the quote above shows that Will is capable of making mistakes and
errors in judgment. :-)
Stephen Wrote:
>It is not a Biblical position that "nature" acts "independently" of
God. The Biblical picture is that there is no such thing as "nature"
and God works through nature.<
While I clearly agree that God sustains this universe, I see no Biblical
requirement that absolutely everything must be the act of God. If nature
does not act independently of God, does this mean that when a robber fires a
bullet at an innocent store clerk, that God Himself must guide the bullet
into the heart of that man? Was God the force which caused the robber to
pull the trigger? Was God moving the neuronal message from the brain to the
arm to the hand of the robber telling his hand to squeeze the trigger? Did
God direct the motion of the electrons in the robbers brain which told the
robber that if there are no witnesses I can get away with this?
If this is your view, then where is the moral responsibility of the
robber?
Stephen wrote:
>Has it ever occurred to you that Wise and other creationists are
simply trying to understand the question of origins in light of the
theistic paradigm contained in the Bible? In their own way they are
trying to give due glory to God as Creator (Rev 4:11).<
I am not questioning their motives. I used to be in the same camp they were.
What I am questioning is "Are they correct?"
Stephen wrote;
>Continuing the caricature. I don't know of any creationists who claim
that "God did it" as a "universal..apologetic"<
O.K. I might be wrong. Tell me why Ambulocetus' toes are identical to the
toes of the Mesonychids? What do the creationists you know have to say about
this?
Stephen wrote:
>"Why is not taking Genesis 1 seriously when it says God created
vegetation and animals "according to their various kinds", not
similarly denying "the historicity of the Scripture"?<
I do take it seriously. You misunderstand what "according to their various
kinds' means. Lets use a technique Ludwig Wittgenstein used to use. ( It is
one of the few things I remember from my Philosophy days) If I send you to
the store to pick up vegetables "according to their various kinds", do you
think I am telling you about the reproductive proclivities of vegetables?
No. You will pick up cauliflower, broccoli, lettuce etc. In doing this
activity, you are fulling what I wanted. But if you went to the grocery
store and told the manager that I was telling you about the sex lives of
veggies, you would be very, very wrong. I can take that seriously, and not
have your interpretation, and not violate the scripture.
Stephen wrote:
>"Why do you allow God to intervene directly in salvation-history, but
not entertain the possibility that He might have intervened directly
in creation-history?<
I could not disallow God from creating in the manner in which He desired,
even if I wanted to. I just do not believe that the evidence supports your
interpretation of the Scripture.
Stephen wrote;
> I would have thought that Progressive
Creation is a "hypothesis that explains the data".<
Can you tell me one prediction which PC makes that would allow me to look at
the scientific data and determine that PC fits the facts better.
glenn