>From: Adrian Teo <email@example.com>
> With all the hammering that YEC is getting in this forum, it appears that
> the only other alternative is evolution. However, it seems to me that
> Old-earth creationism (OEC) is another viable alternative that seem to be as
> consistent with the evidence as evolution is.
Sorry, I don't believe that for a minute. A century ago that might have been
true, but not today.
> Assuming that God created all life forms in their own "kinds"....
What is the warrant for that assumption?
> (however one
> chooses to define what this means, but it almost certainly must be above the
> level of the species), ....
Why should the biblical "kinds" have anything whatsoever to do with modern
> .... either simultaneously, or at different times, it
> seems to me that this perspective is able to account for all the scientific
> evidence that evolution can.
Biologists/paleontologists/geologists.... on this list are capable of
providing numerous counterexamples, but why would they want to take the time
to do it once again?????
> Microevolution is accepted, and accounts for a
> wide array of observations. Extinction is also allowed in this view, which
> explains why we don't see many creatures that we find in the fossil record.
Why allow extinction? Is that a Biblical concept?
> What we find in common across different species (physical structures,
> genetic sequences, etc.) could be accounted for by the fact that God
> recycles basic building blocks in different types of creatures.
Where did that "fact" come from?????
> wondering if people can think of data that this view is unable to account
> for, because, on the surface, it seems to me like this may be a viable
> alternative for Christians to take.
It's been done, and done, and done, ........................
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 14 2002 - 14:55:49 EST