What do creationist think of the analogy of language to evolution?
There are small changes over time and accelerated in isolated populations. These small changes compound to the point that the segregated population is dramatically and unequivocally distinct from the ancestral population.
So if the creationist can accept and recognize the concept that small, compounded changes result in dramatic, virtually unrecognizable change...what justification do they have to reject this self-evident and proven principle when it comes to evolution?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Because evolution has no proof, like the following found in Genesis 11: And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
I'm not sure how you consider those alike. The former is a known process observable in real time and supported by fossil [i]and[/i] genetic evidence while the latter is a story with no physical evidence whatsoever.
It seems to me that this response has nothing whatsoever to do with the question posed. Do please clarify if i am mistaken.
