Replies

In the past, whenever one of the dedicated creationists gets into trouble in a thread,

It is you and your friends who are trying to divert from a scientific discussion on this thread. That is why as soon as I made my post# 988, 989 and 991 asking for explanations which evolutionists could not give, you folk started attacking me and trying to divert the discussion with the totally irrelevant 'how old is the earth' question which you ask to turn this into a religious discussion. Again I ask, if evolution is true, how come no evolutionist can give a scientific answer to the challenges made to them in the following posts:

Neither you nor any evolutionists has ever given proof that a single species has transformed itself into another more complex species. If I am wrong, let's see the proof. Come up with a real arguement that slams evolution can you do it?

There are many. The bacterial flagellum is one. The program by which a single cell at conception turns into a 100 trillion cells at the time of birth - with every single cell of the exactly proper kind in the exactly proper place is another. There are many more which have been scientifically proven, but these two should keep you busy for a while.
988 posted on 12/23/2002 7:07 AM PST by gore3000

'Gradual loss of egg laying' is more easily said than done. You must remember that the you need to provide nutrition to the developing organism throughout its development - as well as after the birth until it can feed itself. To say that all these changes can occur simultaneously is totally ludicrous and you have disproven nothing. Let's see an article describing how this change occurred in detail. Can you find any? I doubt it because this is one of the things evolutionists never speak of.
989 posted on 12/23/2002 7:14 AM PST by gore3000

And where did you debunk the flagellum besides in your own mind?

As to the eye spot, your article only says that because it happened more than once then therefore the eye spot could have occurred. It is not a refutation of the complex mechanism required for an eye spot.

BTW - a blog from Don Lindsay is proof of absolutely nothing. The guy cannot even give references for his nonsense.
991 posted on 12/23/2002 7:28 AM PST by gore3000

Hey I already debunked this post abuot a hundred times why repost it.

BTW How old is the Earth ?

I think the answers that you are looking for are:

God made the flagellum so ridiculously complex that when we finally had the instruments available to see them closely, we would realize who he is and immediately realize that the Christian Bible, which so many times talks about the flagellum, is the only way to enlightenment.

God wanted some things to lay eggs, a marginal few to have eggs hatch inside their body, and some things to give birth to a live baby. He works in mysterious ways.

God made it so that people would sometimes have tails at birth, but only so that we could realize that this is Satan's handiwork.

God put little legs on snakes to throw us off track.

------OR-------

We just don't know yet because we have not advanced scientifically yet. Much like there really was no proof that the moon wasn't made out of cheese before we actually landed there, but we knew that it wasn't...

Seriously, man. This isn't even about proving a point now. I really want to know what you think and not answering is making you look really bad. Just answer that one little question. It seems like you are embarrassed.

How old (young) is the earth?