RE: Evolution's Imperative

Pim van Meurs (
Tue, 30 Mar 1999 20:07:25 -0800

> 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.

CumminsL I've never met an Evolutionist who was capable of an honest debate.

Oh please. You have shown no interest in a honest debate dear Cummins. So perhaps you were staring in the mirror when you reached the above conclusion.

Cummins: 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.

Again erroneous, evolution can be observed and can be explained. That you cannot explain it is of no relevance.

CumminsL 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.

Ad hominem remarks how appropriate. After all Cummins has no intentions to discuss issues on their merrits.

> >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.

Cummins: 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.

More unsupported assertions. Poor Cummins is stuck in his ignorance of reality.

Cummins: Even if the Evolutionist wants to lie and insist that Creationist views aren't censored, it's still nothing but an appeal to authority.

Cummins it is good to see how you argue. It shows the lack of science surrounding your beliefs. And it also gives your beliefs a bad name. Well done