All of that nonsense is rebutted here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
"FILE NOT FOUND"
Thanks, I have reviewed your talkorigins website previously. I have yet to see scientific conclusions truly supporting macro-evolution without a whole lot of assumptions and conjecture.
Most of the pro-evolution books and websites I read jump to conclusions like most of the posts by the pro-evolution group here at FR. "Believe it because we say so"
What about the holes in the fossil record or how about the starts/stops of the fossil record too? The more I read the more I see evidence that evolutionists are willing to fake their evidence - moreso than with any other scientific theory. They also willfully ignore a lot that they simply can't explain reasonably.
Bad link.
Losing their public education welfare checks...
There is no more evidence that life evolved on this earth than there is for life to have been delivered or engineered here by extraterrestrials...
What would the evolutionists think about teaching life came from outer space? They already teach the Big Bang theory...
The blazing irrationality of this 'debate' is the total lack of discussion that should come before...simply (smirking and) dismissing the other side. (That's OK, your pat on the back is sure to be coming).
Any outside observer is keenly aware that this is NOT a debate.
And now I depart this thread knowing I will be considered woefuly unable to defend a position I have not taken.
No, it's not. If you had read the article before pointing us to that webpage, you'd see that talkorigins.org in fact does not address finches etc....
File Not Found
We're sorry, but we did not find /indexcc/list.html\"
The status code for this request was 404
The TalkOrigins Archive changed servers in August, 2003, and a number of files and links require some adjustment. Please be patient with us as we work to make the TalkOrigins Archive better.
The only nonsense is darwinism.
I haven't done any of my research on creationist websites, FWIW.
There are two nagging questions about Darwinist evolutionary theory for which I have yet to find any satisfactory answer. Maybe you can help me with these -- you know, point me in the right direction to a direct, specific citation that clears up the difficulty.
It seems to me that Darwinist theory is based on the way things appear, and not necessary on what they intrinsically are. On this basis, I have no difficulty whatever appreciating that Darwinist theory is a good, general description of microevolution. My first question is: On what logical/evidentiary basis does Darwinist theory bootstrap itself from microevolution to macroevolution? Ultimately the theory appears to be an intuitive way to express what humans have directly observed. But humans have never directly observed anything about the origin of life, or even of the origin of species. It seems to me the theory rests mainly on conjectures, and those conjectures seemingly are constructed to give the Darwinist theorist what he wants -- an account of lifeforms that does not require any "guide to the system."
The second question has to do with what do we mean by "species?" I ask this, because nowhere have I found a rigorous definition of that term, consistently applied. At times it almost seems as if a "species" is whatever the observer cares to say it is.
I mean, just because a species of moth acquires a spotted pattern does not necessarily mean a new species has emerged. I think this would be just a case of the moth adapting to changes in its environment. Animals and humans do that all the time. But it seems they usually don't become entirely new species as the result of making such adjustments.