GR>>Actually, when God did it is not as important as what he did.
GR>>Personally, I see your model of the image of man arising from a
GR>>miraculously revived chromosomally fused still born animal 5.5 million
GR>>years ago as an attempt to satisfy two pre-assumptions... that gene
GR>>similarities are proof of evolution and that man thus evolved
GR>>genetically from apes. God miraculously fashioning man out of clay and
GR>>then breathing his life into him at a single point in time is at least
GR>>as rational and possible according to the evidence.
GR>Sure it is an attempt to fit both pieces of data. That is what a good theor
GR>should do--fit data. A theory that does not fit the data, is called a bad
GR>theory or a false theory. The 5.5 MYR time frame is also an attempt to give
GR>reasonable explanation for the Flood. Every other theory of the flood that
GR>have heard, from the global deluge of the young earther's to the Mesopotamia
GR>valley flood of the old earther's, is geologically or physically ludicrous.
GR>People may not like my suggestion, but it does fit the facts of geology.
So you are really building a model by fitting data with theoretical
preassumptions... the evolution of man from apes... and that gene
similarities are proof of evolution. The dating could stand alone as
data, I agree. The fitting of data with theories in order to develop a
new theory only results in a bad or false theory.
That is what evolution often generates... theories layered upon
theories, not strictly the piecing of data... and thus by your
definition, successively weaker theories. That is why we have the law of
parsimony... Occam's razor... to hold us accountable.
Creationism starts with one preassumption... the how... that original
species were created by God and were not the product of evolution. Data
is then fit to that model to establish the when, what, and where. A
much simpler and thus stronger theory by your standards.
Paul Durham
to: IN:GRMorton@gnn.com
cc: IN:evolution@calvin.edu