A lot could be said about macroevolution, but the space does not permit us to go any further.
In the light of fossil record, molecular isolation, transitional difficulties, irreducible complexity, cyclical change, and genetic limits ( and the fact that darwinists cannot explain the origin of the universe or of first life ), you would think darwinists might finally admit that their theory does not fit observable evidence.
We agree that evolution is a fact, but not in the sense that darwnists mean it. If you define evolution as "change", then certainly living beings have evolved. But this evolution is on the micro, not the macro level. As we have seen , here is not only a lack of evidence for macroevolution; there is positive evidence that it has not occured.
If macroevolution is not true, then what is??? Well, if there is no natural explanation for the origin of new life forms, then there must be and intelligent explanation.
Tell me your thoughts.
2007-02-10
15:47:10
·
20 answers
·
asked by
SeeTheLight
7