Hi Drum
I will cut-n-paste an argument:
At a minimum, three things are needed for evolution to happen. Birth (we know that happens), death (we also know that happens), and genetic variation (and we know that happens). More specifically, 1) the births of many more individuals than can survive, to give the maximum genetic potential; 2) the disproportionately high percentage of deaths of organisms who are less well suited to their environments and predatory conditions, and therefore are unable to leave as many offspring; and 3) genetic variation to produce the raw material of physical change, which is then acted upon by natural selective forces.
So here it is, the evolutionist's definition of evolution from Schraf's site. What is there to object to in this? How can you say that there is no evidence for these three things?
If you do accept these three things - birth, death and slight differences between parents and offspring - then you are an evolutionist. As far as I know there are then 3 options:
- Genesis 1 is not history, the earth and life are ancient. Huge numbers of tiny changes, accumulated, can explain all of life's diversity.
- Genesis 1 is true, but its words are used in non-standard ways, the earth and life are ancient. Many kinds were created, something limits the variability in any kind, but they do evolve according to circumstances
- Genesis 1 is true, the earth and life are 6,000 years old. Each kind was on the ark. Very, very rapid evolution has occured since then as the kinds change into species.
So evolution exists. It's a question of which theory of evolution you subscribe to. Then there is the question of how internally consistent each theory really is.
[This message has been edited by Chavalon, 02-23-2003]