Do they lie, or do they simply not know? There IS no answer that either "proves" or "disproves" Darwin theory as to the origin of species - all the Darwin theory does is concentrate a greater number of particular genetic combinations for specific conditions, but it does not, CANNOT, explain differences in chromosome numbers, or further interactions that cause sharp inheritable differences from the parent stock, sufficiently so to rationalize calling the offspring a different species altogether. Porcupines do not produce bears, and worms do not produce butterflies.
Flaming is such an unattractive quality.
While there is obviously a great deal of incompetence among the creationist "authors", it is unfortunately true that there is a large amount of dishonesty as well. Check out the links I provided -- many of them involve creationists who continue to repeat their falsehoods even after they've been given indisputable evidence that they *were* falsehoods (e.g., pointing out that they were misquoting a researcher and the researcher specifically repudiated the creationist's misstatement of the research, etc.)
There IS no answer that either "proves" or "disproves" Darwin theory as to the origin of species
Well of course not -- science does not deal in "proofs". On the other hand, science *can* disprove a theory (known as falsification) if its predictions don't match the evidence. And for over 100 years evolutionary theory has survived all such potential "disproof" tests.
- all the Darwin theory does is concentrate a greater number of particular genetic combinations for specific conditions, but it does not, CANNOT, explain differences in chromosome numbers,
Please support this claim of yours. I've seen it explain differences in chromosome numbers quite well.
or further interactions that cause sharp inheritable differences from the parent stock,
And this one.
sufficiently so to rationalize calling the offspring a different species altogether. Porcupines do not produce bears, and worms do not produce butterflies.
Of course not, but then evolutionary biology doesn't say that they do. Are you sure you understand the science you're attempting to critique? Isn't knowing something about a field a necessary prerequisite to actually being able to determine if it's valid or not?
Flaming is such an unattractive quality.
Indeed. Please direct that excellent advice to Terriergal.
Oh PLEASE ask that that statement be inserted into public school textbooks. I beg of you.