Today’s letter-to-the-editor, like a few others recently, appears in the Daily Inter Lake of Kalispell, Montana — the gateway to Glacier National Park. It’s titled More thoughts on evolution and evidence. The newspaper has a comments section, but if there are any, you can’t see them without logging in.
Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. He writes a lot of letters, but that doesn’t qualify for full-name treatment. His first name is Dale. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
He begins by referring to the last letter we wrote about — see Creationist Wisdom #733: Millions of Years?:
In his Nov. 18 letter, Gary [last name omitted] presented two reasons why the earth may be very young: Carbon 14 in specimens supposedly too old to have any detectable amount left, and collagen in dinosaur bones which should have decayed in less than 100,000 years.
We remember. Dale wants to add to those arguments. He says:
The notion of long ages did not start with Darwin. In 1835 Charles Lyell published his “Principles of Geology.” He said, “The present is the key to the past,” and claimed that present rates of erosion and deposition could explain all the world’s sedimentary layers.
That’s true, except that Lyell’s book was published in three volumes from 1830 to 1833. 1835 is when the 4th edition appeared. But why mention Lyell at all? Dale tells us:
This, of course, would require millions of years to reach present depths. Lyell continually mocked the Bible, saying his goal was to “Free the science from Moses.” He was not interested in scientific accuracy.
That remark about Moses is attributed to Lyell, but as for his lack of interest in scientific accuracy, all we can say is BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Dale continues:
Lyell made a big blunder. Slow deposition will not produce fossils.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Of course not. Lyell never claimed otherwise. It produces rock layers — which may contain fossils if a creature’s remains were preserved because it died in a bog or was buried in a landslide. Let’s read on:
An organism dies, is eaten by scavengers, and the remains decay. Fossils are preserved by deep and rapid burial. This could explain why 95 percent of all fossils are marine and mostly bottom dwellers, which would be the first creatures buried in a Big Flood.
Ah yes, the Flood. The source of that dubious 95% statistic is this old article by John D. Morris at the website of the Institute for Creation Research: The Real Nature of the Fossil Record. Another excerpt from Dale’s letter:
Darwin was heavily influenced by Lyell’s book, and it provided him with the long ages he needed to explain organic evolution.
That isn’t much of a criticism. It’s always a good thing when one’s theory is supported by evidence from another branch of science. Creationism, on the other hand, is in conflict with almost every branch of science. Here’s more from Dale:
The fossil record was the only “evidence” [scare quotes in the original] Darwin could use, and he recognized his theory’s most serious flaw — lack of “numerous transitional forms,” but he firmly believed they would be found. Now, 157 years later, we have only a short, constantly changing list of disputable examples inflated by paleontologists’ vivid imaginations.
That was an arkload! First, Darwin had a bit more evidence than fossils. He also had morphology, geology, and biogeography. As for what Dale calls a short, ever-changing, mostly imaginary list of transitionals, we’ll link once more to Wikipedia’s ever-growing List of transitional fossils.
Okay, now we come to Dale’s final paragraph, and it’s a real winner:
Example: a fossil found in Pakistan consisting of a skull cap, part of a jawbone, and some teeth was called Pakicetus and declared a whale ancestor. The paleontologist fleshed out a complete animal diving for fish, and having short legs with feet adapted for paddling. (How did he know that?) More bones were found. The new Pakicetus is definitely a land mammal who could survive quite well without having to swim for food.
So there you have it, dear reader. Who ya gonna believe — Darwin or Dale? Think carefully before you decide. You don’t wanna end up in the Lake of Fire.
Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.