3 minute read

Darwin vino del mono
Darwin vino del mono

Me encuentro en BoingBoing con alguien que dice que el Creacionismo podría explicar los restos hallados mejor que el Darwinismo. Nunca he comprendido ni uno sólo de los argumentos de los Creacionistas, y con este paisano me pasa exactamente lo mismo. Os dejo el texto original en la American Family Association porque se explica sólo.

The president of a creation apologetics group says the dwarf skeleton of a supposedly primitive man recently found on an island in Indonesia may confound evolutionists, but it is easy for creationists to explain.

Answers in Genesis founder Dr. Ken Ham says he is always amazed by the reactions of evolutionists whenever a new, so-called "humanoid" bone is found. Inevitably, he says, the evolution proponents say with the finding of a new fossil that creationists have lost their age-old argument with Darwinists.

But Ham says this is not so. "The interesting thing is that, really, from a creationist perspective, we have no trouble at all explaining variation within human kind like this," he explains. "I like to help people understand that by saying, 'Look -- eight people got off Noah's Ark, and as they increased in number, and then you have the Tower of Babel, and you split up the human gene pool.'"

When this happens, the science expert continues, the result is "different combinations of genes moving in different directions. You can get certain features in a particular group that might be unique to that particular group." Thus, he concludes, are the so-called "evolutionary" differences in the features of human skeletons explained.

But Ham says evolutionists are even arguing among themselves about whether the Indonesian skeletal remains found are even really those of a human. Meanwhile, he says creationists understand that there are some differences between modern man and the ancient skeleton, and that this is just another example of God's creativity in designing people.

Also, Ham says the skeleton was found with stone tools, suggesting some intelligence. But evolutionists' dating methods have caused problems here as well. He says the evolution scientists claim the dates range "from 18,000 to 38,000 years, supposedly -- and of course that's assuming their dating methods are correct, which are all based on assumptions."

This creates a problem, the AIG spokesman says, "because then they dated the stone tools at 800,000 years. So they say maybe the tools were used by somebody else, and then these particular humans came later -- or something like that."

Ham says evolutionists simply do not know what to do with this conflicting information. But he says these die-hard Darwinists will fit all their contradictory conclusions into their faulty evolutionary framework anyway.

(Gracias BoingBoing)

comments powered by Disqus