| Judson McClendon 2005-12-17, 9:55 pm |
| "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>
> What evidence would you accept as evidence that evolution is correct?
Well, I have already logically proven that, if Biblical Creation is correct,
then any possible physical evidence is useless as a proof. However, for man
to set up an experiment whereby lifeless dirt formed, all on its own, into
living cells would go a long way toward convincing me the idea is not an
outrageous impossibility. :-) Remember, even if man created a living cell in
a lab through some process, then you still have life being created by
intelligence, not life forming all by itself, which is what evolution
presupposes. :-)
After that, then a good description of how things like a human eye or
bisexual reproduction could evolve would be necessary. The problem is not
simply the complexity of those things, it is the fact that they would have
no survival value (perhaps even the reverse) until virtually complete,
therefore removing any basis for natural selection to work and cause the
structure to evolve.
Then, as a final touch, explain how love and art and beauty (or sense of
these things) could evolve. An evolutionary process might come up with lust,
but why love? Why artistic sense? Why musical sense? In a purely
evolutionary context, these things make no sense at all. Even if having them
could be shown to have survival value, they would only work *after* they
were completely evolved and functional, so that art and music were actually
produced. Not very logical.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
|