Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale

But what is documented by this and other insect fossils coincides with what is documented in Scripture. The creation model holds that in the beginning, God created certain creatures to fly. Both the written and the fossil records agree that insect flight did not evolve, but suddenly appeared as a fully developed and completely functional ability.

"Fish and Fowl" is the usual translation. This same translation is used to determine that Noah didn't have any insects on the Ark.

And day SIX is "land animals." Care to explain why this flying insect is exactly according to Genesis, but archeosaurs -- and even some synapsids -- were already well-instated in the PREVIOUS geological epoc?

Centre for Intelligent Design Lecture 2011 by Stephen Meyer


[link to www.youtube.com]

If we set aside your naturalism religion for a moment, we can rationally infer that they were intelligently designed.

[link to web.archive.org]

STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL
SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.

we can also infer that god built an adapting and evolving system. something that doesnt require his daily supervision.

how can you use 1 example as "proof" of creation, when you ignore 10,000 other examples that support evolution?

why do you say scientists are ridiculous, except when you come across the few instances their science supports your superstition?

We certainly could, if there were evidence for such a thing.

Currently the historical and genetic data points away from common descent, and points towards a Creation event(s)

We simply are not seeing mutation events that would account for steadily increasing complexity.

Nor are we finding the fossil evidence of these gradual shifting of morphologies.

Not to mention, like it or not, the foundation of the evolutionary paradigm relies on some form of Abiogenesis, which modern molecular biology tells us is completely absurd. Nothing in natural science indicates that a living, functioning system will construct itself.

we can also infer that god built an adapting and evolving system. something that doesnt require his daily supervision.

The shills will be strong with this thread, OP. Keep up the honest work though, its appreciated.

I don't know. But what the evidence certainly shows is that insects (or any organisms for that matter) did not "evolve" wings. Not only is there no evidence, such a concept is logically absurd. Mutations don't design complex aviation systems, obviously.

If we set aside your naturalism religion for a moment, we can rationally infer that they were intelligently designed.

There are NO examples which support evolution. Common design is supported, not common descent. Funny how you couldnt include just one of these thousands of examples.

Run away, run away!

Are you going to stand by any argument, or are you just going to keep finding new horses?

9 pages and no one posted anything about Kent Hovind, I suggest looking him up. He destroys every evolutionist he ever debates. He even debates entire universities on this subject and IMO wins every time.


[link to www.youtube.com]

The Cleaner Fish

Let's first start with the cleaner fish. This fish will swim into a shark's mouth and eat remnant food particles from the shark's teeth. The cleaner fish departs with a satisfied appetite, and the shark is happy because his teeth are cleaned in the process. The shark does not allow any other kinds of fish into its mouth without chomping down for a good lunch. Indeed, what other fish would dare attempt to swim into a shark's mouth! This type of relationship is called a symbiotic relationship. Creationists point out that these relationships clearly represent a design that could not have occurred by chance. Evolutionists have a very difficult time explaining how these types of relationships could evolve with time.

Nevertheless, an evolutionist will somehow have us believe that the cleaner fish eventually figured out he could go in the shark's mouth, and the shark eventually figured out that he should let him so as to maintain proper dental hygiene. The following illustrations portray the likely repercussions of this ill-advised bravery.

Nobel Prize winner and evolutionist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi acknowledged that time, chance, and random mutations could never produce the numerous symbiotic relationships we see all around us (He went on to postulate an impersonal creative force, an "innate drive in living matter" in an attempt to make peace with his faith in evolution)1.

Let's face it, symbiosis clearly points to a Designer. The lengths an evolutionist must go to explain away this one is beyond fairy tale!

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." - Charles Darwin


[link to www.evolutionfairytale.com]

The Cleaner Fish

Let's first start with the cleaner fish. This fish will swim into a shark's mouth and eat remnant food particles from the shark's teeth. The cleaner fish departs with a satisfied appetite, and the shark is happy because his teeth are cleaned in the process. The shark does not allow any other kinds of fish into its mouth without chomping down for a good lunch. Indeed, what other fish would dare attempt to swim into a shark's mouth! This type of relationship is called a symbiotic relationship. Creationists point out that these relationships clearly represent a design that could not have occurred by chance. Evolutionists have a very difficult time explaining how these types of relationships could evolve with time.

Nevertheless, an evolutionist will somehow have us believe that the cleaner fish eventually figured out he could go in the shark's mouth, and the shark eventually figured out that he should let him so as to maintain proper dental hygiene. The following illustrations portray the likely repercussions of this ill-advised bravery.

Nobel Prize winner and evolutionist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi acknowledged that time, chance, and random mutations could never produce the numerous symbiotic relationships we see all around us (He went on to postulate an impersonal creative force, an "innate drive in living matter" in an attempt to make peace with his faith in evolution)1.

Let's face it, symbiosis clearly points to a Designer. The lengths an evolutionist must go to explain away this one is beyond fairy tale!

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." - Charles Darwin


[link to www.evolutionfairytale.com]

The theory of evolution is a THEORY. Not 100% fact. It's a work in progress so to speak..

But it's still the best and most likely explanation for life around us.