RE: In Defense of my beliefs.doc

From: Shuan Rose (
Date: Thu May 09 2002 - 17:16:41 EDT

  • Next message: Shuan Rose: "RE: In Defense of my beliefs.doc"

    D Dear Vernon,
            On the fish-tetrapod issue, you should read to references
    provided by Keith
    Miller before coming to a conclusion. the references were mostly to journal
    articles written by scientists who are experts in that area. If you can't
    find those articles, Carl Zimmer's book-available at your local library) is
    a good resource.
    As Glenn explained, the "proto legs" were more useful than fins to these
    fish, who inhabited fresh water habitats close to shore, where they had to
    find their way through dense underwater vegetation. You should know that
    there are fish living today in shallow-water and ocean-bottom environments
    who use fins as legs to get around. Your idea of optimum fin function only
    works for fish in free swimming environments. There are different kinds of
    fin adaptation for different kinds of environment , and what is optimal for
    one fish species may not be optimal for another. Another fin adaptation is
    the Caribbean flying fish, whose fins are not optimal for swimming, but are
    great if the fish wants to launch itself out of water and skim along the
    surface. Eels get along with no fins at all.
    There are also fish with lungs today. Some of them leave the water and even
    climb trees!
    As you can see, there are more ways of being a fish than are dreamed of in
    your philosophy, Vernon. Like most young earth creationists, you believe
    that just because you, a nonexpert, can't figure out how fish with these
    adaptations could survive, therefore no else can either-even folks who spend
    their lives studying fish.Give these experts some credit, Vernon. And for
    Pete's sake, read the arguments before rejecting them.
    AS to Darwin and Wallace, remember that within 20 years, most scientists,
    many of them believers in special creation, were convinced by the evidence
    in favor of evolution.Many believers who are scientists are convinced of it
    today.Maybe unwritten assumptions are preventing you from accepting the
    evidence. How would YOU interpret the evidence? You have a fish , then a
    fish with legs, then an amphibian with fishlike characteristics, then a
    primitive amphibian. What do YOU think is happening?

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Vernon Jenkins []
    Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 3:36 PM
    Subject: Re: In Defence of my beliefs.doc


    I'm not as impervious to reasoned argument as you suppose. In suggesting
    that I only believe what I want to believe you appear to be confusing
    _evidence_ (meaning the 'hard' stuff) with _particular interpretations_ of
    the evidence - often based upon unwritten assumptions that I am unable to

    As a case in point, I had occasion, just recently, to question Glenn
    regarding his web page dealing with the alleged fish>tetrapod transition. I
    accepted the fossil evidence as genuine but questioned his interpretation on
    the grounds, (a) that the progeny of the particular fish that first
    exhibited the tendency to convert must, inevitably (perhaps for a million or
    so years) be deficient in fin function with no compensatory advantage from
    leg and foot development; their survival, therefore, hardly reasonable -
    indeed, a great mystery, and (b) that because Darwin thought it _hardly
    likely_, and his co-worker, Wallace, _impossible_, that special creation
    might account for all the creatures whose fossilized remains are now held to
    represent an evolutionary series, these can hardly be considered logical
    reasons for ruling out the possibility. However, perhaps you have some
    observations of your own regarding these matters and would be prepared to
    share them with the forum.

    Finally, concerning 'evidence': none can be more certain than that which may
    be found on my website concerning the remarkable underwriting of the Bible's
    first verse. As far as I am aware, you are numbered among those who say "I
    don't believe it, and that's that". But this is real hard evidence, Wayne -
    not conjecture. Why won't you follow your own good advice and examine it?


    Vernon wrote:

    > Vernon Jenkins wrote:
    > > Like your YEC friends, I am unashamedly a 'Category A' man who
    > > regards the 'scoring of points' in this life as having little eternal
    > > merit. More reasonable, and far safer in my view, to accept God's
    > > Word as it has come down to us; certainly more assuring, and far less
    > > complicated
    > What you clearly say here is that you will only believe
    > what you want to believe, and it doesn't matter how much
    > "evidence" is offered to you. Why do you ask for this
    > evidence? Just say "the Bible says it, I believe it
    > and that's that" and be done with it? At least _then_
    > you are being honest with yourself and others.
    > it is only by Grace, and Grace alone that anyone proceeds,
    > Wayne

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 09 2002 - 17:37:43 EDT