1: It is biologically impossible
2: it is chemically impossible
3: it is mathematically impossible
4: it is physically impossible
5: it is thermodynamically impossible
Like my friend said, a cartoon understanding of evolution (and science).
change one species KIND into another species KIND
I appreciate you capitalizing your creationist catchphrases, but it's not really necessary. When someone uses unscientific terms on a post about evolution, it's abundantly clear. Next up you'll be talking about BARAMINOLOGY.
Your use of the word "kind" just proves my friend correct. You're bound to a literal interpretation of a book written by people in the Bronze Age. Nothing dare violate the inerrancy of "created in God's image."
There are many organizations out there that present scientific facts showing the impossibilities of evolution
Sure there are. Just like there are organizations presenting the scientific facts about 9/11 Truth, UFOs, the fake moon landings, and homeopathy.
Every cargo cult has its own "organizations".
I think the creationist front should first decide whether they are YEC Ken Ham acolytes, or followers of Michael Behe's ID pseudoscience.
Amazing that a lot of anti-evolutionists don't even know there's a difference, as you seem to be credulously mixing the two.
I noticed- per usual, that you didn’t bother addressing one issue brought up- typical
Care to explain how irreducible complexity can arise without the help of an intelligent designer? Or is it just far easier taking cheap shots without that lack substance at ID?
please do enlighten everybody and explain to us all why the following 5 points are ‘cartoon understanding’ of science (and by the way- the mathematical and chemical impossibilities of evolution were decided on by the world’s top evolution scientists at a scientific symposium to discuss the viability of macroevolution- that is not a ‘Christian’ conclusion- although we do agree with it because the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of macroevolution being impossible, but since you have such a profound understanding of the ‘science of evolution’ I’m sure you can set us all straight by explaining why evolution isn’t impossible regarding those 5 issues-
And I’d like you explanation for why miller’s argument about irreducible complexity arising naturally is true despite his silly argument which only served to prove why an intelligent designer was needed (too bad he wasn’t birght enough to recognize it though)