I see your point but mine would be that Mt. Rushmore has incredible detail whereas the Man in the Mountain isn't quite so detailed.
And please correct me if I'm wrong, but here are a couple of questions that, as far as I can't tell, evolution can't explain.
I do thank you for your time and comments. Several animal organs such as the eye. I have read several comments from committed evolutionist that "admit" (my word) that the evolutionary time line doesn't permit such a complex system. Ditto the explosion of species in the Cambrian period.
Perhaps I misunderstood the comments, perhaps they were made by those with no or little standing.
Granted I'm NOT a scientist; in fact I am a high school drop out who is self educated (actually that may be a blessing even though public schools were a bit better in my day than they are now) but my "common sense", which to me is no more than Occam's Razor and which has benefited me well in other areas, says that, at least in those two cases, the possibility exists that there were outside influences since they don't seem to fit into the evolutionary model.
Pure speculation of course, I can't prove either but I think they're interesting questions and in my world "theory" is that and open to scrutiny and question. I am distressed when I don't see that in any field and theory is presented as fact. Again, I understand that "theory" in the scientific world appears to be used differently than in any other venue.
Regarding the theory of relativity; from what I've read I would bet you a rack of my world famous (or at least world famous around my house) smoked baby back ribs that in the next 30 years it will be proved wrong. I probably won't be around to pay off, so don't get your mouth fixed for 'em.
I do thank you for your time and comments.
Quotes you've seen from evolutionists that "admit" that the evolutionary time line doesn't permit complex systems are most likely the result of quote mining by creationists. I don't know which quotes you refer to so I can't say for sure. One tactic used by creationists commonly is to quote evolutionary biologists out of context in such a way as to completely change the meaning of the text. For example, in many parts of his writings, Darwin uses the device of rhetorical questioning to anticipate the opposing arguments to his theory. He will write things like "It seems impossible for a system as complex as the human eye to have formed by an evolutionary process. How could this possibly have occurred?" The creationist will dishonestly quote this part without mentioning the several following pages in which he actually describes the mechanisms by which this system might have evolved, thereby making it seem as though Darwin actually doubted his own theory. I would suspect that you have fallen victim to this trick.
Just as plausible evolutionary mechanisms have been given for evolution of eyes and other complex systems, the Cambrian "explosion" also presents no difficulty for evolution. Nobody ever has said that evolution must proceed at a constant rate. The "explosion" also was one that occurred over a period of millions of years. It also does not represent new life forms arising where none previously existed; many precambrian fossils have now been found. The "explosion" probably just coincided with the first evolution of simple multicellular organisms, which would have had many available ecological niches, and hence many different types of organisms would have evolved to fill these niches.
As far as overturning relativity goes, I will not take your bet. Even Einstein himself recognized that general relativity could not be the final ultimate theory of the universe, and he spent the remaining years of his life in a search for a unified field theory. Relativity is not consistent with quantum mechanics, so one or both of these will be replaced in the future. My bet would also be on relativity; quantum mechanics seems to be on firmer ground, and the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces are all better understood than is gravity. Common sense, however, is no more applicable in the realm of quantum mechanics than it is in relativity. For example, it is a result of QM that if you are trying to catch a baseball, you can never really do so. You can never know both where the ball is and how it is moving precisely at the same time. The uncertainty in these quantities is very small for baseballs (and almost any macroscopic object), but is significant for small particles like electrons. Common sense doesn't tell us this.
BTW, even were relativity to be overturned, the equation E=mc^2 would still be valid. This relationship was predicted by relativity, but the theory of relativity encompasses much more than this relationship.