Why is it that every article from the ICR is simply another criticism of evolutionary theory? And usually a small part of it, which is then extrapolated to “the whole theory must be junk”, just like leftists like to point to one crazed gun-owner and then paint every gun-owner as a crazie.
Not once is there ever an article from the ICR offering evidence in support of an alternate theory.
Not once.
Creation?
Apparently, all ICR does is parrot the work of real scientists, while putting their slant on the work.
I’m starting to think they may have an agenda.
The name Creation Research is an indication of an alternative therom.
What I find most curious is their tactic of using what they claim doesn't exist (evolution) and club their opponents over the head with it.
You cut down a forest one tree at a time.
There are scientists out there examining the evidence for a Creator:
http://www.signatureinthecell.com
Not once is there ever an article from the ICR offering evidence in support of an alternate theory.
The alternate theory is obvious to me and is even in the name of the ICR, Institute for Creation Research, Creation is the original theory and fact to many of us.
Agreed. The “degradation” harped on DID adapt to the imposed environment, improving efficiency and reproduction rates. The result may not be intellectually satisfying, but is an adaptive improvement nonetheless.
“Gotcha” science isn’t science.
A scant genealogy does not make for compelling biology research.
“Not once is there ever an article from the ICR offering evidence in support of an alternate theory.”
Why do you think they need to have a mission other than showing the evolutionist has no clothes?
Because there is no alternate theory. They don’t know, except to say they DO know evolution is debunked. It doesn’t work. Zero evidence of it working.
Piles and piles of evidence for adaptation. Zero for evolution. They’ve been pushing that rope so long that they’ve had to back off of it in public schools.
It’s not the first bit of science where scientists have had to shrug their shoulders and say they don’t know. Magnetism is another. Nobody knows how it works.
This was alleged to be some very impressive evidence for evolution. Most people who believe macro-evolution have this idea that there is all this impressive proof, like this experiment was alleged to be. People hear this stuff and think evolution is a fact but it isn’t.
Your analogy with the crazed gunman and this experiment makes no sense.
Alternate theory?
Just more wheel spinning.
Your arguments are weak, misdirected and illogical.
If you accept the loss of information as evolution, you’re going to have to start calling it devolution.
.