An alternative is what Morris and Gish et al have chosen, an untenable interpretation of the Bible leading
to ridicule by most scientists. So the question is: Is theistic evolution "the path of least resistance" and
if so, so what ?
A Theistic Evolutionist picks and chooses what to believe, almost at random.
If you say Adam was the first man, was he blood related to earlier hominids?
If you say Adam wasn't the first man, you've now covered all the basis left
open by Creationists (Adam=first man, no other hominids) and Evolutionists
(no Adam).
Nope, theistic evolutionists cannot pick what they want, they are constrained by reality.
CumminsL As for those earlier hominids and their art and crafts. Most of that is
pure imagination (e.g. where does "long range planning" come from? What's
not imagination is bad theory.
Or bad understanding of the theory. The latter is what you have demonstrated. You have not demonstrated on the other hand that evolution is a "bad theory" or "imagination".
CumminsL Considering that most new "nature" discoveries come to us through
secular/atheist interpreters, I would be most worried if my beliefs were
consistent with "the results."
More erroneous "facts" from Cummins. How interesting to see how little of his remarks are based in fact.
> Evolutionary biologists, who used mitochondrial
> to trace human evolution, had estimated that
> the woman from whom all others descended lived between
> 100,000 and 200,000 years ago.
CumminsL Oops, now you've got to explain 195,000 years of no history.
Not at all, just no written history. Your errors in assumption are clear.
When will you make a scientific attempt ?