Replies

I would like a pro-evolutionist to explan briefly how either of the following complex systems could have evolved: 1. The human eye 2. The process of blood clotting Answers must be 3500 words or less and cannot contain any of the phrases "could have," "might have," or "is believed to have."

eye : any three dimensional object will be affected more by light on one side than the other- therefore light sensing organic units are almost trivial.

clotting: Organisms without the ability to clot blood die, period, so no non-clotters will survive..

On the other hand: creationists "believe" a divine entity "might have" created everything from nothing, so creationism "could have" been the answer.

clotting: Organisms without the ability to clot blood die, period, so no non-clotters will survive..

On the other hand: creationists "believe" a divine entity "might have" created everything from nothing, so creationism "could have" been the answer.

First, that doesn't even BEGIN to describe HOW clotting came about. That's like saying "Well, paint lasts longer on canvas, so the Mona Lisa was the result." If no "non-clotters will survive" then how did anything EVER survive? Did the first organism have blood? Did its blood clot? If not, how did it survive? If the first organism didn't have blood, then why would blood have "evolved" if the host organism's lack of clotting ability would have killed said organism?

In answer to your last statement, we Creationists don't believe anything "might have" or "could have" happened. We believe in something that DID happen.