[Thatcherite]

Well, you can start on the obliteration of the lie by supplying that Darwin despair cite, and by explaining what is wrong with the evidence for evolution. Since you have said ToE cannot be falsified explain why the numerous potential falsifications in that document would not falsify ToE.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”

Micro vs. Macro

[Jehu]

I read the Darwin quote in Custance over ten years ago...go find it if it tickles you. I have work to do and the Custance site is not indexed. MichaelAngelo has a link to dispute your 29 points.

And remember if Custance's works were 30 years ago, and so are not credible because of that time span. Why do you believe anything Darwin wrote?

[Jehu]

Once again you cannot propose any other theory except Creationism, or Evolution to explain life, even just one single cell, let alone the (after the fact) nonsense of evolution of species...neither can be falsified. So neither are a scientific theory...they are "faiths," Beliefs! I never argue that Creationism is a scientific theory. I will argue that the evidence and "facts," and observations for special creation are far better than they are for evolution. And since I do not have a predisposition to deny a God, I have no problem believing both in Creation, and that the evidence supports MY belief.

It is evolutionists that have to build a ever more creaky scaffolding around the obvious elephant (Intelligence and information in the biological systems they LOVE to study) in the room. It is almost as entertaining as watching one of those old circus acts where the clown tries to keep 20 plates spinning on separate poles.