Re: fish and the flood

Glenn Morton (
Mon, 06 Apr 1998 18:41:38 -0500

At 07:02 PM 4/6/98 -0500, Ron Chitwood wrote:
>GM>>> went to my database so I could get things correct. The source for
>is Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution.<<<<
>Again, why are you so sure your sources are correct and mine wrong?

This is really frustrating Ron. I believe I am correct because of what I
learned in college Biology courses. There are experts who are expert in
biological taxonomy. They classify animals and then their classifications
must pass through a review process. Nowhere have you shown that the
Encyclopedia Britannica says that the Latimeria alive today is the same as
those alive in the past. Remember that Coelacanth applies to a suborder.

But let me try something else. Let's for the sake of argument assume that
Latimeria is identical to those found in the Devonian. So what. Where are
the other 324 genera of modern fish which should be there if the global
flood is the true account.

>did not do field work in this area apparently so rely on scholarship
>predisposed to macroevolution. The Encyclopedia Britannica never would
>have made that reference without backing of their own.

They didn't make the reference you think they did. they didn't say that
latimeria is found in the fossil record. What they said is equivalent to
saying that a mammal is found in the fossil record.

Would anyone else on this list of a biological persuasion want to jump in here?

So far, Michael
>Denton, Morris and Parker, Encyclopedia Britannica and me are incorrect.
>If you read Michael Behe's THE BLACK BOX I'm sure you will find him wrong,
>too. They disagree with your position.

So if we want to tally up the votes for and against evolution and then
decide who is correct, I don't think your position would win. So I don't
really think that you want to play the game of "count the experts"

Apparently your selection of whom
>to believe and whom not to believe is based on your opinion, an opinion
>that must change as more and more information becomes available opposing
>the macroevolutionary theory .

Ron, I am going to use your words here, not to build myself up but to make a
point about how you might be making judgments.

You wrote to me on Sat, 4 Apr 1998 19:42:49 -0600:

>As I am not as conversant with this type of data as you,...

Now, if you are not as conversant with the data, then you are placing your
faith in Morris, Parker etc for your determination that latimeria is found
among the ancient Coelacanthiforms. But this means that you must trust them
without being able to check it out for yourself. I would strongly recommend
that you take the time to repeat what I did in gathering together the list
of fossil and living fish genera. the sources are publically available it
just takes a bit of time and effort on your part. Your numbers would be
slightly different but not enough to make a big difference in the
conclusion. In this fashion you can avoid placing faith in the works of
other humans, either me, Morris, Parker or other evolutionist. It would do
you good to understand the nature of taxonomic science.


Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man


Foundation, Fall and Flood