RE: Evolution's Imperative

Cummins (
Thu, 25 Mar 1999 13:19:49 -0600

> []On Behalf Of Bodester
> I actually would place myself closer to YEC right now. I've considered it
> a lot lately based on some of what's been presented on this list, and
> still consider the issue unproven either way, so until I see what I
> consider conclusive proof the other way, I'll stick with Genesis, no
> matter how allegorical it happens to be. Now, don't you go blast me for
> that, I'm open to other ways, just haven't been convinced.

Creation vs. Evolution is easy. Nature has never been known to be any good
at creating
complexity. Evolution Belief itself is based on pleading with "just so"
stories about
circumstantial evidence, not empirical testing.

The age of the Earth is not so easy. Creation Scientists have no good
answer for how
light gets here in mere thousands of years from very distant stars.
have no good answer for the lack of historical evidence of man's existence
much beyond
5,000 years ago. But, it is inexcusable to dismiss the necessity of God
creating a
fully functional and mature universe if he indeed did mere thousands of
years ago.

> I happen to see a lot of correct science on both sides. And which side is
> the pseudoscience can be highly debated as well. And I think a
> differentiation should be made between natural selection and
> macroevolution. They really are different arguments altogether, despite
> what definition goes where, I see both sides talking right past the other
> all the time. Most or all YECs would agree with nat. sel. wholeheartedly.
> That is one issue noone really can debate, seriously anyway.

There's nothing to debate about a truism. However, it's not justified to say
that because some deformed animal is observed to die prematurely that man
indeed evolve from apes -- as Evolutionists do (see any college biology text
that uses NS as solid and direct evidence that Evolution is true).

> >In contrast there is virtually no evidence in support of creationism.

> At which point creationists can say exactly the same thing about
> evolutionists, leading to yet another strawman argument. And don't respond
> with "but they're wrong, I'm not" because that's a bit arrogant first of
> all, and second of all doesn't convince anyone.

What does the Evolutionist want evidence for? That their parents are
homosapiens too? Maybe we lack that evidence. But Creationists, for
the most part, assert essentially that Evolution didn't happen. The
burden of proof is on the Evolutionists, not just because they are the
ones making a positive assertion, but because they claim their assertion
is wholly based on science. It is pure icing on the cake for Creationists
to point to such things as the stability of species in the fossil record.

The Evolutionist digs desperately for any bone fragment that he can imagine
is some sort of transitional form such as an ape/man, the Creationist can
go to the very bottom of the fossil record (the Cambrian) and point out a
number of major marine invertebrate groups which can be found living today.
And, if before the flood there were billions of sea bottom-dwelling humans,
I'm certain the Cambrian would be full of human fossils.