RE: Evolution's Imperative

Cummins (
Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:22:23 -0600

> []On Behalf Of Bodester
> >There are lots of things we do not yet understand about gravity or
> >lightning or tornadoes or cancer or....etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
> >Should we therefore state that these too cannot be considered fact? The
> >problem is that you miss one of the most basic points about science:
> >first you recognize the phenomenon, then you try to explain it.
> >Evolution, even so-called "macroevolution", is a readily observable
> >phenomenon. Any observable phenomenon can be considered to be a fact;
> >hence evolution is a fact.
> Except that I disagree that macro evolution is a phenomenon and observable
> as you say. I understand that basic point about science. I disagree with
> your connection between it and evolution.(macro) And if it's so readily
> observable, again, start posting pictures of transitions that have been
> found. I'm not aware there are any, correct me (with proof) if I'm wrong.

I've never met an Evolutionist who was capable of an honest debate. It
doesn't take a genius to see that gravity, lightning, tornadoes, cancer,
etc. are things that we can see and test -- even if there are things about
them we can't yet explain. Evolution is something that we've neither seen
nor can we explain. Here is where the Evolutionist demonstrates his
dishonesty again by insisting that we can see Evolution (his birth changed
the allele frequencies of his species), even though he knows that I'm
talking about macro-evolution, specifically, the indefinite increase in the
complexity of life over time.

> >Except that any perusal of the archive of this listserv, plus the
> >scientific literature, would prove them {creationists} wrong.
> I disagree with that as well. Both sides are able to claim that the other
> twists evidence to fit with their respective hypotheses. I think if you
> look through many discussions of this topic, some observations are used by
> both sides against the other, depending on interpretations of what the
> observation could imply.

Yet another point of dishonest debate by Evolutionists. The "scientific
literature" means "peer reviewed" means that any interpretation not in
accord with Evolution is censored. Even if the Evolutionist wants to lie
and insist that Creationist views aren't censored, it's still nothing but an
appeal to authority.