RE: News on fossil man

Cummins (
Thu, 1 Apr 1999 00:18:45 -0600

> []On Behalf Of Kevin O'Brien

> >The Bible would deny that the creation days were long periods of time....
> >
> Actually, that's not true. The Hebrew word for day can mean age or epoch;

Two points. One, you've taken my statement out of context. I was "proving"
Ross's hypocrisy by pointing out his inconsistency (Ross has one of the
highest levels of nonsense per paragraph of any prolific book-writer I'm
familiar with). Two, cut to the chase. You've seen the claim that the
creation days were 24 hours many times, and you can bet that I've seen your
argument (day=epoch) countless times. How about revealing how the Bible lets
us know that it means "epochs" when it says "day" in the first chapter.
Then you can address how things lived without the sun, how to reconcile the
different order with the secular version of Earth's past. You may start
with the plead "The sun existed first, but only became visible to the
non-existent human observer on the 4th day."

> Same in what way? The same identical nucleotides, the same identical
> biochemical apparatus? Obviously true. The same identical
> sequences, even
> the same identical genes? Obviously false. Human DNA shows the same kind
> of diversification pattern that we see when we sequence the same gene from
> different species, the kind of pattern predicted by evolution.

What exactly is the pattern, and how does Evolution predict it?

> On the contrary; Darwin described evolution as the descent with
> modification
> of all modern lifeforms from previous lifeforms. This predicts that some,
> if not most, species should share a common ancestor.

Evolution does not predict that all humans share a common human ancestor.
Remember, it's populations that evolve. If some, if not most, species are
demonstrated to share a common ancestor (of essentially the same species)
then Evolution has sunk even further in the deep doodoo it's in.

> common ancestors
> have been found in the fossil record, plus we can reproduce the descent of
> two
> new organisms from a single common organism in the laboratory, so the
> prediction has been verified.

Is that an attempt at humor?

> >You better keep it hush hush. No doubt 30 years from now, Evolutionists
> >will deny that they ever even considered the possibility that
> African's and
> >non-Africans don't share common ancestry among modern men.
> >
> If evolutionists censored that information, how was Glenn able to
> read about
> it in a scientific journal?

Didn't I say 30 years. It's like some decades ago when some Evolutionists
claimed that whites were move evolved than blacks because of larger cranial
capacity. Now, Evolutionists not only deny that they (as a group) even
considered cranial capacity (in humans) to be an indication of degree of
evolution, but that all those old studies of cranial capacity were all
fatally biased. (and, what new studies have they replaced the old ones