Debate with an Alternative Evolutionist (real shorty)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What is your main argument against classic creationist fixism, especially when it comes to mammals (for plants there are obvious things to be said for evolution of for instance all lemon / orange like or all raspberry / blackberry like plants from common origin)?

Eugene McCarthy of Macroevolution dot net

I merely offer an alternative evolutionary theory. Nowhere do I argue against creationism. In fact, I don't see how creationism can be argued against since it's not an evidence-based outlook. It's based on a simple belief in miracles. You either believe in miracles or you don't. How could any sort of evidence or argument persuade someone who believes in miracles not to believe in miracles?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That was a very revealing answer.

In other words you do not believe in a recent creation because such a thing involves a miracle.

I somehow guess people back in Nod East of Eden seven generations after Adam and Eve called them a myth "ah, no, it is a natural fact that all men have a father and a mother, no way there could have been a first man just a few generations ago!"

One may believe in miracles in general, but still argue about the factuality or non-factuality of a particular miracle. My point can, if you care, be restated as: even if you do not believe in miracles yourself, are there any evidence against a recent creation you would like to share with people who, in general philosophical outlook, accept miracles?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
PS, do you mind if I post our discussion on some blog of mine?

Eugene McCarthy

As I say, I think that for people who believe in miracles there is no conceivable evidence that could somehow show that their view is incorrect. Of course, for those who do not believe in miracles such evidence does exist. However, this is not an interesting topic for me, so unless you have an inquiry about some other, unrelated topic, I don't plan to answer any subsequent emails that you send me.