Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
cnaylor,
you wrote: "There's lots of nits to pick pastor, but to start with, where exactly did you come by this "fact"? Where is your support? (I, for one, like having those pesky details.)"

Pesky details are acceptable as long as they pertain to the point in question. It is when people go off on rabbit trails that they stray from the path and end up lost.

Allow me to quote some experts:
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Dr. Robert A. Millikan, in a speech before the American Chemical Society, said, “The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.”

Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago states that the “250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”

Klaus Dose, a prominent evolutionist said, “More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution.”

Now, unless there is scientific evidence to support an evolutionary transition (beyond the amazing adaptive ability of humanity to their environment) then there is no evidence to support evolution of the eye. In order to support the contention that eyes are evolving we should either, 1)expect to see some eyes in the transitional state, or 2) be able to produce a genetically superior eye in the lab using only the original DNA within the human eye. This to my knowledge cannot be done. If there is no evidence to prove that human eyes are evolving (again beyond reasonable adaptability), then that is sufficient as "fact" that it isn't. Look at the various species of life around you...there are some rather drastic differences. We are told by evolutionists this is natural selection, but the transitional differences are such huge leaps that if evolution is true than it is not unreasonable to see nor to expect such transitions to be occuring even today. In other words, if evolution were true it would not unreasonable to see some animal life in transit to a new animal that has never existed before. Such however cannot be proven on any scale that i have seen...how about you?
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement