just plain wrong?
Steve Geller
Dan Hughes says --
> Evolution is just plain wrong and misleading besides.
Can you offer any positive arguments? I gave several reasons
why evolution is at least plausible. Do you have any reasons
why it's not?
>>Evolution is derived from observations of the ability of life to
>>change itself, and the fossil record. Sure, the gaps in the fossil
>>record could be creations all right, but there are no observations
>>of creations from which to make such an extrapolation.
>
>The change you observe is deleterious change, decline, extinction.
Certainly not. New forms of life appear throughout the fossil record,
Dinosaurs are not found among the Trilobites. Apes are not found
among the Dinosaurs. This is clear fact.
>The fossil record is obviously an *interpreted* story based on
>extremely limited information. Even so, punk eek recognizes the
>created pattern in fossils. And yet, gradualism lives on.
Can you give some details? What is an example of a "created pattern"
in fossils? If you mean the "sudden appearances", you surely must
realize that fossils are made so infrequently that we just don't
have any record of some intermediates.
Want to try my favorite question for creationists? Why is creation a
better explanation for origins than descent with modification?
We see descent with modification happening; nobody has ever seen
even one creation.
If you have any clear evidence for any creation, I sure would like
to hear about it.
>Exactly. Evolution is 'successful' only to those who reject God.
>Whether it is 'plausible' and 'far better' than creation is group
>think at its best.
Oh no. Evolution is a reasonable extrapolation from what we see
about is. Creation can't be extrapolated from anything.
I think you folks who can't see the Great Design of Evolution
are rejecting the clear evidence of the Hand of God.
>As long as you understand evolution as the degeneration of a created genome
>through deleterious mutation and replication errors.
<chuckle> No, that is nothing like the theory of evolution. Even
Darwin
and Wallace saw the patterns of adaptation, of change to suit
environment.
Degeneration? Hardly; new species have happened. We have
transitional
forms between reptile-mammal, even plant-animal living among us today.
>These processes are nothing that will begin with 'simple replicating
>structures' and proceed to 'sentient mankind'. This is where the big
>lie is told.
Well, I'll agree that we don't know how everything came to be in
detail,
and it's not clear that life started as simple (self-)replicating
structures. But life todat is indeed made up of self-replicating
structures, and it all runs by process. No miracles. No creations.
Not even to make human babies.
I'd say that anyone who tries to deny what Life really is,
is telling a Big Lie -- or at least being very ignorant. <grin>
I'd sure think differently if I knew about a real creation.