Replies

While the Theory of Evolution seems to work nicely in a hypothetiacl sense, the world is much more complex than the simple straight line extrapolations evolutionists like project from their misunderstood observations and incomplete and failed experiments. In pariticular the fruit fly mutations and Miller-Urey.

I'm not sure I should confuse you any more, after all you have problems answering my earlier question... Do you know of any other theories that explain the world better?

I would note, of course, that science can be successful when it can explain one aspect of a thing, even if it coesn't explain all aspects of a thing. F=ma is a great example of this. Great approximation at non-relativistic velocities, no good at all in the relativistic regime. Miller-Urey was great in the day because it showed that complex elements could form in what was believed to be an early-Earth environment. Now, after the idea that the early Earth environment has changed, it is useful in a historical sense, to show people what has come before, it shows that complex molecules can form in energetic environments. Obviously these molecules have been able to form in strange places, since we seem to be finding them in odd places like the deep cores of Giant Molecular Clouds. It is just not particularly useful in modelling Earth anymore.