Replies

You creationists REALLY are a kick in the pants.

You have absolutely NO proof that creationism or ID occurred, you read it in a "holy" book and therefore it must be true.

Then, when a scientific theory comes along, that fits the known facts and evidence, and even tries to say if this is here, then we are missing something here, and that missing something is found, you still have the cahunas to call it faith, or a belief system?

Sorry, but when a theory makes a call for future findings and facts, and those findings and facts are found through study and research, that is called science. So sorry Chester, but your strawman looks like it's burning.

BADLY, thanks for playing though, wanna try again?

". . .and even tries to say if this is here, then we are missing something here, and that missing something is found, . . ."

That "missing something" is the mechanism that drives all the changes evolution purports to observe. No scientist has ever explained it to my satisfaction, let alone observed it in action and recorded it for the rest of us to see. Until they do I will not blindly assume certain ancient writings must be dismissed as pure fiction.

And if you think I am in the same boat as those who believe "creationism is science" you are mistaken.

I see the "strawman" theme has come about again. "Swiss Cheese and Strawmen." Yes. that would be a fine tune for the swamp toads to work on. Repeat as needed. Oh, wait. I stand corrected per jokester. That's "swamp frogs."

Sorry, but when a theory makes a call for future findings and facts, and those findings and facts are found through study and research, that is called science.

Problem is that science keeps disproving evolution:
1. The disproof of Darwin's racist claim that the brachyocephalic index showed what races were superior and which were inferior. While some may dismiss this as a minutae, it is a strong refutation of evolution because it shows that there has been no 'evolution' in the human species and according to evolutionists evolution is always going on.
2. Mendelian genetics showed that the transfer of new traits was very difficult and well nigh impossible because with only one individual in an entire species having the mutation it would not spread and most likely die unless it had a very large selective advantage.
2a. Mendelian genetics also showed the concept of alleles - duplicate genes in every organism which performed the same function but a bit differently. This allows the adaptation of a species to the environment without the need to wait for a chance mutation to occur. It shows that transformation of organisms is not necessary for survival or for adaptation.
3. DNA - a Nobel Prize winning discovery - showed the utter complexity of the cells in every organism. It laid to rest forever the concept that just a little mutation could transform an organism or a species.
4. Genome Project - showed the utter interrelatedness of every single gene, cell, part of the body. It has shown that it is impossible for any new trait to evolve by chance occurrence (or at random, or without design or whatever you wish to call how evolutionary changes to the genome are supposed to occur according to evolution). For any change, for any transformation to occur, there would need to be the coevolution of the new trait together with a complete support system to make it work. This of course is totally ludicrous, especially in view of 2 and 3 above.
5. Paleontology has shown that the problems with fossils are even greater than in Darwin's time. In the Cambrian Explosion we are finding more species suddenly occurring making the disproof of evolution greater. We also in spite of having 100 times more fossils that in Darwin's time have the same vast gaps between major classifications of species and man's descent from apes has been discredited and the time of the supposed branching between man and ape keeps getting pushed back further and further.
So as you can see, your statement is absolutely wrong.