>And I'm saying: How is that any different tha{n} the evolutionist who uses
the non-existant data for the alleged transition of Rhipidistian ancestors to
land dwelling creatures?<
Pardon me? In my Life Transitions post, I did not use a single
non-existent form. You must have missed that post and I would be happy to
send you another copy. But you will not find a single reference to a
non-existent fossil form in support of the transition from fish to amphibian
there.Every single form I mentioned was based upon an actual fossil which we
have in hand. If you have that post, then point out the relevant section in
which I referred to fossil material which does not exist!!
I wrote :
>I really do not see evolution depending on the 'just-so-stories' (...) as
much as non-evolutionists want to believe.<
Kevin replied:
>Wait a minute here. This isn't something that non-evolutionists 'want to
believe'. And, I am sorry that you can't see it. You need to train yourself
to look for it, because it is quite evident in countless volumes of
evolutionary literature. Conditional statements (or, statements of
speculation) are found almost everywhere. That you don't *see) this can be
easily remedied by simply looking for it whenever you read evolutionary
literature.<
and
>Perhaps most important is the reason that adherence to a single notion causes
one to become, in time, unable to perceive other possibilites.<
Both of these remarks stem from the assumption that evolutionists fool
themselves into believing what they do. You are forgetting that I used to be
a YEC and believed that evolutionists fooled themselves and didn't deal with
data. But as I looked deeper and deeper into the details of what they were
saying I found that I was wrong and their data was supportive of their
contention.
You say I can't see other possibilities? How about the fact that earlier in
my life, I ghost wrote the evolution section for Josh McDowell's _REASONS_,
wrote 27 articles for various publications supporting young earth creationism,
and now have changed my views. Does that not count as'seeing other
possibilities?'Or am I only allowed to see the other possibilities that you
deem fit?
Kevin writes:
>As long as we continue to think there is a 'missing link' for any major group
-- we will continue to find candidates (whenever possible). The sad part is,
what if there never WERE any such candidates? The evidence (or lack of it)
indicates that this is very likely. There are so few candidates between the
major groups as it is that it's become a major embarassment.<
Instead of merely pronouncing that there are no transitional forms, explain
why the features I laid out on the table for all to see in my Life Transition
post are not transitional? Do skull similarities not count as transitional?
In what way? Do the fact that the earliest tetrapod feet do not have 5 digits
but have 11 not count as a transitional feature? Why not? Get into the
details rather than pronouncements from on high. I haven't heard you even
mention the data I have advanced. If it is wrong, then show me where it is
wrong.The belief in evolution is based upon data. To disprove it you must
show where the data is wrong.
Kevin wrote:
>You say 'the similarities and changes between the specimens found in the
fossil record behave as if there were intermediate species'. No they don't.
they don't *behave* that way. that *behavior* is simply a construct of the
way you have been trained to look at the evidence. You've been hornswaggled.
Because now, you simply CAN'T look at the evidence any other way.<
I always wondered how to spell hornswaggled. Thanks for showing me. :-)
I would like to point out again, that I was 'trained' to see the evidence from
the young earth, non-evolutionary perspective. No one trained me to see the
data in an evolutionary fashion.
Kevin wrote to the effect that not all fossils are found in proper
stratomorphic order.
Please be specific. Which ones don't appear in that order? You have stated
your conclusion here with no supporting evidence. I am interested in the
evidence. We had a report that tetrapod footprints were found in rocks older
than the fossils but a look at that evidence found it quite questionable.
The relevant tracks were on a rock of unknown origin and the tracks had no
toes, which is essential for a tetrapod. Thus, I would appreciate it if you
would be specific.
Kevin Wirth wrote:
"But there are ALSO polystrate fossils which dip across alleged millions of
years of strata. WHat about them? Why just point out the fossils which fit
the theory?<
Sorry, the only people who think that the strata cut by polystrate fossils,
took millions of years to be deposited are the young-earth creationists.
Evolutionists do not believe that those particular beds took millions of
years. and I have been unable to document a case where an evolutionist stated
that these fossils took millions of years to form. The trees wouldn't last
that long. The young earth creattionist reasoning is as follows:
"Evolutionists believe that only .3 inch every thousand years is deposited.
This tree is 12 feet high. Therefore it would take 480,000 years to cover the
tree. Those stupid evolutionists."(the number .3 inch per 1000 years is only
an example and the value varies from basin to basin)
The problem with the creationist logic here is that the evolutionist believes
that the AVERAGE rate is .3 inch /1000 years. This is not a set
of handcuffs which says that never and nowhere can the rate of sedimentation
exceed that value. The YEC's want to make it a set of handcuffs but it isn't.
Several farmer's fields were destroyed at the confluence of the Mississippi
and Missouri rivers in 1993 by the floods. Six feet of sand were dumped on
some fields during the 2 months of flooding.
To use the same logic above that flood must have taken 240,000 years!!! Last
time I checked it only took 2 months. Also any tree buried by that flood is
in serious danger of becoming a future polystrate fossil. The tree will be
rooted in the clay soils of the farmer's field, but will extend up into the
next strata, the strata of sand. In a few thousand years, we can safely
conclude that those Missouri polystrate, fossil trees prove a young earth.
glenn