Re: uhh? why not evolution?

Russell Stewart (diamond@rt66.com)
Thu, 12 Jun 1997 09:02:41 -0600

>>Remember, now, it's not a response to say "I don't think there is any
>>evidence FOR his existence."
>
>RS:It most certainly is. If you want to prove his existence, you must provide
>RS:evidence.
>
> Shouldn't the same type of logic apply to evolution if it must
apply to
>God? Where is the proof? Besides evolution being 'called' a fact where is the
>burden of proof?

Evolution has been seen, demonstrated, and proven. I'm sorry that you are
unable to see this, but it is quite obvious.

> Woops...Im sorry... you don't prove evolution..".it's just a FACT".
>"It' both a FACT and a theory".

Yes, it is. Just as gravity is both a fact and a theory. Is that a difficult
concept?

> Why cant you apply the same logic to God? Hey, we dont have to prove
>anything! He's a FACT! In addition there are some theoretical aspects that
>are still being worked out.
> Shouldn't the proof of evolution be examined instead of just believing
>what the majority of textbooks say?

It has been examined. Do you think that it was easy for Darwin to gain respect
for his theory? He fought an uphill battle all the way, and I might add, he
fought it scientifically, not through the courts. He won over his opponents
by putting together a strong, consistent, and effective theory, not by hiring
lawyers and forcing his ideas into the classroom.

Creationists could learn a lesson from that.

_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|

2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.