New here, I had to sign up on a forum like this in my search for truth, I'm only interested in truth so whatever it may be I lay my faith in, as long as it is the truth I can rest assured. So far, I've found when you breeze over the two, evolution can seem more convincing than the contradictory Bible. However, when you really put the two under the microscope, the Bible speaks truth and goes together like a perfect jigsaw puzzle which becomes only knock able by the foolish. Can't say the same for evolution though, the more I come to understand it the more problems arise and so far I've never seen, heard, nor read anything that could convince me Darwin was right. Anyway, that's enough of me blabbing.
After breezing over this topic, I'm not sure if it was already mentioned though, but most of you evolutionist seem confused by the term evolution. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not the same thing, nor can equal the same thing. I've found it to be a popular evolutionary brain-washing trick to blur the difference between the two. Perhaps seemingly convincing to the uninformed. Micro-evolution is the evolving of the many breeds/races within each kind. You evolutionist seem to think creationist ignore this or something, however, in the beginning going by a creationist stand point, there was only one race of humans, one breed of dog, etc, etc. This is micro-evolution, the shuffling of DNA's to create the incredible varieties we have within each kind. All that is proof of is that DNA can be arranged into many different combinations, no "evolution" there. Perhaps if Darwin had of realised this he would have never bothered with such a shaky hypothesis. For those who don't know, Charles Darwin was a pigeon breeder, he was fascinated with how many breeds of pigeons had come about and he pondered if this could have been how all things came about. Unfortunately little did Darwin seem to realise, that pigeon was still a pigeon and it could never possibly be anything else. It is well known that new species can and have evolved into new species, if we are referring to breeding within one genus. However, these were never superior than the first species, once again defeating the evolutionary theory, claiming that things gradually get more advanced and complex. Yet all known new species were just a degenerative version of the last, fitting perfectly within the creation model, that all kinds stay true to there kind. Macro-evolution from as far I've researched is just a myth and an illusion. Somehow DNA has to learn new, better, more refined information, having to derive all this from some non-existant source. It obviously didn't come from there parents since there DNA can only be rearanged to create new breeds/races, etc, not the information to trigger off the growth of feathers. I actually find the whole evolutionary theory to be very superstitious, it is almost as if DNA has a decisive brain to decide upon what will help it to adapt and survive in the unknown future. I really don't buy that. Survival of the fittest is just as unconvincing, just because a lion is the strongest lion of that generation does little to prove evolution. It just means it's genes will most likely be carried on, it doesn't mean that its genes are going to magically become better within the next generation. Evolutionist seem to be under the impression that this generation of humans are more superior than any humans before. This couldn't be any further from the truth, which once again with the overwhelming evidence should just collapse the evolutionary theory.
Unfortunately to un-objective minds, survival of the fittest, natural selection and micro-evolution may seem convincing enough to be lead astray to believe the impossible Darwin theory.
™ Version 4.2
