RE: Where's the Evolution?

Pim van Meurs (
Thu, 8 Apr 1999 21:34:07 -0700

> []On Behalf Of Susan Brassfield

> This makes all the
> eviloutionists laugh because it's the Theory of Evolution that ties
> together all of our knowledge of biology and makes all those facts make
> sense.

Cummins: Susan, Susan, Susan, it doesn't take but a heartbeat for an Evolutionist to
prove that I'm right.

Well. that is more than you have been able to do. But I doubt that you are right this time.

What on earth do you mean by "the Theory of Evolution"? I was just told that Evolution is both a theory and a fact and that the theory explains the fact.

So in this case she refers to the theory of evolution, the explanations of the fact of evolution. Duh...

CumminsL According to the Talk Origins Fact vs. Theory Evolution FAQ, the fact of evolution is ameba-to-man and all that sort of stuff (Sagan and others concur). Now, you speak of the Theory of
Evolution. Obviously, you can't mean the ameba-to-man stuff.

Nope you are confusing fact and theory once again

Cummins: So, what's left? Punctuated Equilibrium ties together all of our knowledge about
biology? I guess that should make all Creationists laugh. And, the shell games continue.

As does your ignorance.

> They are delighted to comply. The Alabama creationists, like you
> do, believe that the word "theory" means "wild guess" to a scientist.

Cummins: Again, "theory" by definition excludes known fact. There's a big jump from
that to wild guess.

Nope it does not.

> it is my understanding that "facts" is a synonym for "data."

Cummins: Facts are things known to be true (the instrament says the temperature is 72
degreesF). In rigorous science, "data" (and logical extensions, as in
2+2=4), are the only things known to be true. In religion, any number of
things can be believed to be true. It is religious to call evolution a

Not at all. It would be religious if it was based on a belief not on data.

> It is a fact
> that in the very oldest rocks we only find fossils of single-celled
> creatures. As you examine rocks of younger and younger age you see fossils
> of more complex creatures.

Cummins: There you go again contradicting all your evolutionist pals. What does
complexity have to do with Evolution?

You are wrong again. We are saying that complexity is not required by evolution. However the fact shows a change from single to multi cellular creatures.

Cummins: BTW, "It is a fact that in the rocks dated as being the very oldest we find
fossils of single-celled creatures."

Yes, isn't science great. They actually dated the layers.