No problem my friend, since you can obviously provide a well documented example of a new organism suddenly being created.
Evolution theory is the study of how organisms have changed over time.
They have!
If the changes of an organism is rapid (100 years) or slow (1 million years), that is only a clarification of the exact processes involved.
With Creationist theory, how does this new organism suddenly appear?
Does it shimmer with a blue light, just before it is fully formed?
Is their a loud popping sound, similar to thunder, as this new organism suddenly displaces the air?
Have you ever thought about the physical aspects (such as sound) that could be well documented by an act of Creation today?
Or, are you saying that no new organism have been created since the Earth was created, as documented in the book of Genesis?
Why yes I can. It's a written account by the guy who did the creation. However you've already rejected it as hooey. So I guess you're looking for ANOTHER documented example.
Or, are you saying that no new organism have been created since the Earth was created, as documented in the book of Genesis?
BTW, your strawman that creationists believe nothing new has occurred since the original creation is really quite annoying. Adaptability and change WITHIN a species is well documented. New species suddenly appearing via mutation or evolution has no documentation however. There is no contradiction here. We are well designed, obviously, and can adapt to the parameters we can expect to face on this planet.
If you can remove the emotion and observe your own body and all of life on this planet, it is painfully obvious that there is a designer. To credit random chance for what is observable takes far greater faith than Creationism. Evolution denies logic and well-established scientific principles. (e.g. the notion that a more complex and organized state can spontaneously arise from a less organized state without intervention.) For that matter, why would SEXUAL reproduction make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, hmmn? Much more elegant and efficient to stay at the one cell self-replication, wouldn't you say?