Replies

So, the fact that scientists can't make an elephant out of a one celled organism is evidence that evolution is bunk. Gotcha.
They're not alchemists or magicians.

Your equation of randomness = evolution is false too. Natural selection is anti-random; if it were random than it wouldn't matter what the organism's genes were, each individual would have an equal chance of survival.
Natural selection says that that is not true. Given that it is a fact that populations in a species vary from individual to individual, and that this variation is inherited from generation to generation to a large degree (some of the variation is due to the environment and is not inherited), and granted that it is also a fact that there is a struggle for existence and a scarcity of resource's(some individuals in a population are better adapted to that population's environment than others) and therefore the individuals better adapted to their environment will have a better chance (not certainty mind you, but chance) of passing their genes on to the next generation; granted this(and I don't see how anybody can really deny these points) the only logical conclusion is that these populations will change over time.
How fast they change is what evolutionists are debating; ID isn't necessary.

I believe in Natural Selection and Adaptation. Evolution fails on its face due to a lack of a beginning. You have to have an organism to allow NS. Scientists know the elements of life yet they can not create a single cell organism. What I have asked all you Evolution is real jerks is "Why can science not produce life?" You all resort to inferring I am some cave dweller rather than answering a simple question. Because you do not know the answer and I do.

Hope you slept well.

Later