fossils in many different locations
April adorsey@netusa1.net
Sat, 25 Jul 1998 15:54:05 -0600 (00901421645, 199807252020.QAA06284@gatem02.netusa1.net)
>
> BRIDEAN
> But there are no flood stories in Egypt from around that time.
>
> DJC
> The word evolution is so commonly used that I use it as well. But, you
> are correct in using the word "adapting" instead in that that is all
> current science can prove to have happened. There is really no need to
> take animals from far acroos the glovbe as they would "adapt" as they
> move into new areas of the world--nature abhoring a vacumm and all that.
> Bridean, what makes your remark all that more puzzling is that there are
> flood stories virtually around the world.
>
>
April
OK, David, answer the question Terry so conveniently avoided - could you
adapt to breathing underwater? One adapts to things such as temperature,
social conditions, and stuff like that, and one can always adapt back.
Evolving results in permanent changes in a particular species, such that
the resulting species can no longer mate with the "original" one. An
Eskimo and a Zulu can mate and produce fertile offspring (although, due to
temperature adaptation of each, one of them is going to be very
uncomfortable during the process!) But a mating between a human and a
chimp won't produce fertile offspring.
If you guys really want to argue evolution, we need to do it offlist. But
I expect you to understand the subject you're arguing against. Just as
Farrell doesn't argue the Bible without a thorough knowledge of it, so I
won't argue evolution with people who don't really have a clue what it is.
And I remember that Egypt IS one of the countries without a universal flood
story. I'll try and find the reference for it. You guys realize, of
course, that if even ONE area doesn't have a flood story, the flood
couldn't have been universal?