Don Smith don_smith at
Fri Jun 14 10:13:10 PDT 2002

Archaic wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 11:14:58AM -0400, Teibidh wrote:
> > B) My personal problem with it as well, you can't prove creation. Evolution
> > at least has a few hundred years of theory, research and scientific fact to
> > back it up.
> So where's the missing link? :)

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - I don't know who to
attribute that to. Fossilization is an incredibly rare event on land,
usually involving rapid burial shortly after death (or as a cause of
death). Then the bones get buried under even more sediment as the land
subsides. Then the fossil bed has to be uplifted and then we wait for
erosion to expose the fossil.

What is more surprising than the missing linkS is the fact that there
are any fossils at all.

Oh, and there's lots of DNA evidence for evolution coming out now that
gene sequencing is readily available.

> Actually, one of my favorite topics of
> discussion I used to have with my fundamentalist roommate (whose father
> was the preacher) was Darwin. He was brain-washed so thoroughly that
> "Darwin was wrong". When I asked him what Darwin was wrong about, he
> said evolution. When I said what kind of evolution was he wrong about, I
> got blank stares. :) The theory of micro-evolution is completely,
> undeniably proven. Has been for several decades. Macro-evolution,
> however, is another story (in which Darwin himself stated there was no
> physical proof, just a hunch). I question macro-evolution, but clearly
> disagree with the theory of creationism. The only reason this topic is
> such a big deal is that people just can't seem to handle an answer like
> "I don't know". I think that is why religion was created in the first
> place. To explain the unknown.

"The more I learn the less I know"

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-chat' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-chat mailing list