Thursday, April 20, 2006

More Evolutionary Silliness

Once again, presuppositional analysis of genuine evidence results in the declaration of "false truth." Just note the language used in this article, and let me point out my observations:

Fossil Suggests Snakes Evolved on Land
By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writer Wed Apr 19, 7:53 PM ET

NEW YORK - A fossil find in Argentina has revealed a two-legged creature that's the most primitive snake known, a discovery that promises to fire up the scientific debate about whether snakes evolved on land or in the sea.

The "fossil find has revealed a two-legged creature..." That's a fact. "...That's the most primitive snake known..." That's an opinion, not a fact. All the fossil shows (see picture) is a two-legged creature. Where is the evidence that it was a snake? There is none. Yet, this fossil "promises to fire up the debate about whether snakes evolved on land or in the sea." Notice the assumptions that snakes actually evolved rather than were created by God as snakes.

This undated photo provided by the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil shows a newly discovered fossil of the most primitive snake known, a crawling creature with two legs, and it provides new evidence that snakes evolved on land rather than in the sea. (AP Photo/University of Sao Paulo, Hussam Zaher)

There is "a crawling creature with two legs," and this SUPPOSEDLY "provides new evidence that snakes evolved on land rather than in the sea." Again, all we have is a two-legged creature, not necessarily even a snake. We might as well suggest that this is a creature God made on the 5th day of creation, which has since become extinct. There's certainly no evidence suggesting otherwise in this particular fossil!

The snake's anatomy and the location of the fossil show it lived on land, researchers said, adding evidence to the argument that snakes evolved on land. Snakes are thought to have evolved from four-legged lizards, losing their legs over time. But scientists have long debated whether those ancestral lizards were land-based or marine creatures.

Yes, let's rely on what the "researchers" said! What do they know? Are they presuppositionally biased to be looking for "proof" of evolution? Why can't they see this fossil for what it is: a two-legged creature. "Creature" simply means, of course, "created being." Created by whom? God! Well, the reason they can't see it is that they have suppressed the truth by their wickedness and darkened their hearts and became futile in their thinking; professing themselves to be wise, they have offered evidence for their foolishness (See Romans 1:18-32).

Notice still, "snakes are thought to have evolved...but scientists have longe debated..." There is always a little bit of truth in these articles that reveals the truth of presuppositional bias.

The newly found snake lived in Patagonia some 90 million years ago. Its size is unknown, but it wasn't more than 3 feet long, said Hussam Zaher of the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil. He and an Argentine colleague report the find in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

I suppose they "know" where "the snake" (no longer "the creature," as defined earlier) lived, because of where they found the fossil... And I'd love to hear more about how they determined this 90 million year age. Most likely, they are dating the fossil based on the supposed age of the rock bed in which in was found. They'll claim the geologic column as supporting this date claim, but they overlook the assumptions used in that method. I talk more about this in chapter 2 of my book, Biblical Glasses.

It's the first time scientists have found a snake with a sacrum, a bony feature supporting the pelvis, Zaher said. That feature was lost as snakes evolved from lizards, he said, and since this is the only known snake that hasn't lost it, it must be the most primitive known. The creature clearly lived on land, both because its anatomy suggests it lived in burrows and because the deposits where the fossils were found came from a terrestrial environment, said Zaher. So, if the earliest known snake lived on land, that suggests snakes evolved on land, he said.

Why do they think this is a snake? It has features that snakes don't have, like legs and a sacrum. Ah, here is the reason: PRESUPPOSITIONAL BIAS - "That feature was lost as snakes evolved from lizards." There's simply NO evidence for this claim, and yet, look at the logic and reason, also biased, that they use: "since this is the only snake that hasn't lost it, it must be the most primitive known." Well sure it must, if it evolved. But it didn't evolve! It was created after its kind. Oh and then, "the creature CLEARLY lived on land" (emphasis added). Now it's back to the "creature" definition, rather than the "snake" definition. "It's anatomy SUGGESTS it lived in burrows..." Love the loaded language.

There has been little new evidence in recent years in the land-versus-sea debate, and "we needed something new," said Zaher. "We needed a new start. And this snake is definitely a new start for this debate."

And here's the motive for the explanation of the fossil: "We needed something new... a new start." So let's just find something that's not really what we want, and call it what we want so that it fits our view. Great. Nice. Smart. Professing to be wise, they showed their foolishness.

He said that although the creature had two small rear legs, it crawled like a modern-day snake and probably used its legs only on occasion, though for what purpose is unclear. The creature, named Najash rionegrina, is "a fantastic animal," said Jack Conrad, a researcher at the American Museum of Natural History in New York and co-curator of an upcoming exhibit on lizards and snakes. "It's really going to help put to rest some of the controversy that's been going around snake evolution and origins," he said. Conrad said he never took sides in the land-versus-sea debate, but "but this is starting to convince me."

I'm sorry that you're convinced, Mr. Conrad. There's absolutely nothing convincing here, except that this is foolishness. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should stop studying fossils. Fossils go a long way in proving creation, as well as Noah's flood. But it makes no sense to look at a fossil of "a two-legged creature" and call it a snake that proves that snakes evolved on land and not in the sea. Ridiculous.

Olivier Rieppel, a fossil reptile expert at the Field Museum in Chicago, called the find important and said Najash is clearly the most primitive known snake.

Once again, a so-called "fossil reptile expert" is brought in to offer his thoughts that the fossil "is clearly the most primitive known snake." We've already been told that. But we have been told how anybody arrived at the conclusion that the thing was a snake. Why not? Because they know that there's no reason to think such a thing. They've just come with it out of thin air to support what they believe, instead of seeing it for what it is: a fossil of a creature that God made and has since died.

If snakes did evolve on land rather than the sea, their fossil record might be less complete because early fossils would have been better preserved in a marine environment, he said. That, in turn, suggests "we may not know all the lineages of early snake evolution," he said. Maybe several snake lineages lost the legs of their lizard ancestors independently, he said.

And here's the motive behind the motive. "If snakes did evolve...their fossil record might be less complete." Picture them saying, "We have no proof of our position, so let's come up with a reason for having no proof. Ah, let's take this fossil of a creature that is not a snake and call it a snake and say that it CLEARLY evolved in such a way and in such a place that there is not much evidence of it having done such. That will get us where we WANT to go, without having to have true evidence of it!" Professing to be wise, they became foolish.

The creature's name comes from a Hebrew word for snake and the Rio Negro province of Argentina, where the discovery was made.

No comments: