At 12:35 AM 8/7/98 +0100, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>Hi Glenn,
>
>I am skeptical re the claimed discoveries of transitionals (which now
>appear to be coming out of the woodwork thick and fast!). For me, the
>'Piltdown Hoax' still rankles. I believe that evolutionists - frustrated
>by the absence of these mythical creatures in the geologic column - are
>inclined when examining fossils, to see and assume more than is there.
>After all, that's the way of man, and there's a large audience out there
>eagerly awaiting such news.
But why are creationists immune to the 'way of man'? Why is it that
Christians always think that only the evolutionist is subject to bias,
subject to deception, subject to the way of man? If you look at who Jesus
had the most trouble with, it wasn't the pagan Romans, it was the RELIGOUS
establishement. They were the ones that talked the authorities into
crucifying Jesus. The point of this is: Creationists are the religious
establishment today. Yet somehow they believe that they are immune from the
mistakes of other religious establishments of earlier days.
>
>As I've explained, I see problems of logic with the whole business, and
>nothing you've said so far has really addressed the nub of the matter.
>You seem happy to discuss the beginning and the end of the alleged
>sequence but leave the long middle section to look after itself. What
>you have to explain is how a disadvantaged fish (with fins now carrying
>incipient swellings, or whatever), can survive and reproduce in the same
>environment as his more mobile fellows. Isn't it extremely likely that
>he will be 'a sitting duck' for some predator? - and, anyway, miss
>whatever food is going?
Have you taken a look at my web page article on transitional fossils? I
not only fill in the ends of the process, I fill in the middle also. And as
to being a sitting duck for predators, what better example than the mouse
who is eaten by all but eats no one. Yet the mouse is quite fit and
reproduces so rapidly that all the predators can't really hurt his
population numbers.
>
>The standard answer to such questions appears to be: We are here, so it
>must have happened! In my book, that is not just good enough.
>
>By the way, did you receive my earlier email re the numerics of Gen.1:1?
Probably, but this last week and a half I have been having my hands full
with a bunch of atheists on another listserv so I have missed many articles
on the reflector. I am finally off that other listserv. Can you send it
privately to me, cause I can't seem to find it in the mass of e-mail I
received this week.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm