What i can't understand about evolution....

You don't think it's possible that Daltonian scientists, who are trying to prove their theory, could be interpreting their data to fit in with their preconceived idea that solids are made of atoms rather than being infinitely divisible? No there haven't.

No. We have. But don't take my word for it, ask a creationist. According to the well-known creationist ministry "Answers in Genesis":New species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model.Say, I've a great idea. Why don't you argue it out with your fellow-creationists while we just sit back, eat popcorn, and watch? I can attach no meaning to this phrase. How about you?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No.

Crocodilians are not a species. And they have evolved.As you would know if you'd ever taken the slightest interest in them. Of course evolution is not random. This is what we keep trying to explain to you people. N
A
T
U
R
A
L

​

S
E
L
E
C
T
I
O
N
You might as well say: "The fact that raindrops always fall down implies that either its purposeful in that it occurs under some circumstances but not others, or its being directed somehow."Yes. They are being directed by gravity.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Why would you believe that?You seem very confused.You say that if an experiment proves that life arose from non-living matter, you will believe that life arose "by chance"?Why?Would you say: "If an experiment proves that a tree can arise from a seed, then I will believe that a tree arose by chance?"Where does "chance" come into it?

Compare your statements with the following statements:if the rings of saturn are to be proved, in my eyes, they need to show how they originally developed

​

to show how they originally developed, they need to create them...Or how about:if the pyramids of egypt are to be proved, in my eyes, they need to show how they originally developed

​

to show how they originally developed, they need to create them...Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Michael Denton has changed his mind, you know.He wrote: "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" in 1985.By the time he wrote "Nature's Destiny" in 1998, he had this to say:

quote:

---

It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

---