[Gerasimov]

And actually, transmutation within a given species does not show an ability of evolution from one kind to another to occur, only that sub-speciation can be observed. Evolution on a micro sense clearly happens. Man is growing taller, and as in the article you linked to, evening primroses are able to mutate over several generations of pollination. (they happen to be my favorite flower, BTW. Truly amazing.) But you cannot observe, recreate, or devise an experiment to study the plausibility of macro evolution, or the changing of one kind to another

I won't convince you, you won't convince me. The evolutionists inability to admit that the theory of evolution as the origin of any kind is no more of an empirical science than creation does leave me somewhat confused, though.

I admit that I cannot observe and study creation. Creationism is outside the realm of empirical science. Faith is a large element of my belief in creation. Why can't you admit that you cannot observe and study evolution of the type necessary to rise man from the muck? An evolutionist requires as much faith as a creationist does.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

A few of the folks here should enter this Contest.

[Junior]

Did you catch the transitional fossil links posted earlier? Did you note the link I posted was to observed instances of SPECIATION (i.e., not change WITHIN a species, but a transition from one species to another)?

Do you have any mechanism whereby the accumulation of small changes doesn't add up to large changes? Have you actually thought through your position?

[Virginia-American]

But you cannot observe, recreate, or devise an experiment to study the plausibility of macro evolution, or the changing of one kind to another

So it's just coincidence that our earbones start out in a reptilian arrangement and migrate during gestation to a mammalian atrangement, recapitulating the fossile record of the transition between reptiles and mammals?

It's just another coincidence that any retrposon found in both cows and whales will also be found in hippos, and furthermore, if the same mutation is not found in camels, it will not be found in pigs either?

The list goes on and on. How many "coincidences" will it take to make you think "hmm, there might be something true there?"

The evolutionists inability to admit that the theory of evolution ... is no more of an empirical science than creation does leave me somewhat confused, though.

Allow me to help dispel your confusion: Using evolution, we can *predict* where various mutations will and will not be found, like the example of artiodactyls above, or the relations between apes, monkeys and people. Every time these predictions have been tested, they were found to be true. This is typical of science.

Creationism, or ID for that matter (as long as we postulate a sufficiently powereful creator or designer), does not even allow us to make any predictions, much less ones that juust happen to be right.

Still confused?

Can you come up with a specific prediction of creationism that can be tested?

An evolutionist requires as much faith as a creationist does.

Faith in the invariance of physical laws and in the scientific method, is all that's required. This "faith" is also required for all of science. It's more like knowledge than religious faith, though, because everywhere it's possible to test it, it's passed.