Replies

No, evolution is a theory with scientific backing inferior to that of intelligent design and preservation of information.

Idiotic. ID has one published scientific theory to its credit, which was published as a result of editorial misconduct. Evolution has been the mainstay of biology for a century; virtually everything we do invokes it, explicitly or implicitly.

No, the two laws together make evolution (spontaneous increase in information) a highly inferior explanation.

Which two laws? The Second law is one Law. I've posted a refutation of StayatHomeMom's kooky ideas about entropy elsewhewre; she hasn't managed, yet, to muster a reply. I doubt she will.

No, there is little fossil evidence of intermediate links, the record yielding designed speciation as a better answer than punctuated gradation.

StayatHomeMom is simply pretending the several thousand intermediate forms in the fossil record do not exist. Dishonesty, or self deception?

It is impossible for the Colorado River to have carved the Grand Canyon. No, it could've happened easily in a year's time, under better hydraulic principles than in an era's time.

Riiiight. That's why the earth gets a new Grand Canyon every time we have ten inches of rain or so. Anyone who buys this should contact me about some Florida swamp land, going cheap.

No, there is such tenuous evidence for any history older than about 20,000 years that evolutionists are the only ones who have to worry about it.

Uh huh. Go outside and look up, and you can see light older than 20,000 years. That's the problem with creationism. It not only requires you deny biology, but chemistry, physics, geology...the entire body of modern science, in fact.

BTW, I'm still waiting for a demonstration that the entropy reduction in evolution exceeds solar output.