John Knight wrote:
>> "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
> news:o4eopu4hq8r46jjc3amtdin77deu2vr69i at 4ax.com...> > cary at afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> > ><"Evolution" CANNOT be observed, to any degree. The *speculation* that a
> > ><human "evolved" from some other form of life has NEVER been observed, to
> > ><degree.
> > >
> > >Of course it hasn't.
> > Actually, evolution has been observed. But creationists consider the
> > microevolution that is generally observed to not be convincing,
> > because they cannot extrapolate from a few decades to a few million
> > years to see the order of magnitude of changes that can result given
> > enough time.
>> This makes four FALSE assumptions:
>> 1) That Earth has been around "millions of years". This CANNOT be proven,
> scientifically or otherwise.
>nor can it be disproven. given that carbon dating gives us dates in the
millions, it is far simpler to assume that this is the range of time
rather than to assume that:
A) the rate of carbon 14 decay in the universe varies with time
or B) God purposely made the earth in such a way as to appear millions
(closer to the billion range, actually) of years old to a bunch of
guys who wouldn't even appear for millenia
gotta love occam's razor
> 2) That humans have been around long enough to see this "microevolution",
> something that has NOT been observed.
>the evolution of domesticated wolves into dogs, perhaps? and have you
ever seen a true wild pig (not domestic stock gone feral, i mean the
real thing)? shall i continue?
> 3) That life has been around "millions of years", something that CANNOT be
> proven, CANNOT be observed, and is based on sheer and total *speculation*.
>so is the bible, by your logic. yet you seem to believe in that. how
many actual, biblical style miracles have you, personally seen?
> 4) "Given enough time" has NOT been observed, is a copout for their failure
> to OBSERVE any of this, and is based on sheer and total *speculation*.
> John Knight