[fishtank]

Credit: Shinji Sugiura

[fishtank]

[Simon Green]

Creation scientists have long used them to challenge evolutionary theory. Can the Darwinians fight back?

"Darwinians" don't really need to fight back, any more than astronomers need to fight back against the Flat Earth Society.

[SkyDancer]

What evolutionists claim is evolution is actually adaptation.

[ctdonath2]

“I don’t know” doesn’t disprove.

[ctdonath2]

Just because the end result seems impossibly complex doesn’t mean there isn’t a simple process for getting there.
Eyes seem likewise impossibly complex, but there is a sensible development process.

[DungeonMaster]

Just one of billion example of living things or subsystems that could not have come together by themselves by random chance.

Imagine a billion monkeys typing on a billion typewriters. Eventually one of them would type a story, maybe even the bible.

Here is the problem with the analogy, there are no monkeys typing on typewriters in the natural world giving evolution random papers to choose from.

[pcottraux]

I’m a creationist, and a proud, devout Christian.

And evolution doesn’t bother me in the slightest.

[angryoldfatman]

brb bookmark

[Ancesthntr]

Folks, there are 2 kinds of evolution. One is pretty much impossible (yet the Darwinians insist upon it) and the other is demonstrably true (and the Darwinians ignore it, while the Creationists often times oppose it because of its name).

1. Macro-evolution, in which a whole new species is created out of another. This is a dinosaur turning into a bird - by suddenly (from an evolutionary P.O.V.) developing wings, feathers, porous bones, etc., all SIMULTANEOUSLY (otherwise, it doesn’t work and the animal dies). This is manifestly impossible.

2. Micro-evolution, in which minute changes within a single species occur. The best example is giraffes - during a drought, the leaves of the trees eaten by them are less plentiful. The taller giraffes can reach more leaves, and thus have a greater chance of surviving and reproducing. So, in that generation, the genes of many shorter giraffes get tossed into the dustbin of History. Have this process repeat itself 100 times over a 10,000 year timeframe, and the giraffes of now will be taller than those which lived 10,000 years ago. There are, of course, physical limitation to how much growth can occur, which is why no giraffes are 100 feet tall, but the change is still logical and possibly even observable.

[Hot Tabasco]

so where was the video?