-=> Quoting Relatif Tuinn to Andrew Cummins <=-
 RT> Fair enough. Then maybe you'd like to post what creationists *can*
 RT> test for instead?
We could breed thousands of generations of fruit flies under
conditions of increased mutation and selection and see if we
end up with anything that is not a fruit fly.
 AC> The modern geography isn't what was flooded.
 RT> Please provide evidence of this assertion.
Are you not aware that it can be observed that some
mountains are still "pushing up."?  Ever notice all
the sedimentary rock on maintains.  Either there was
a lot more water, or those mountains were shorter.  What
do you think?
 
 AC> Evolutionists don't merely believe that change happens, but that
 AC> natural processes can lead to an indefinite increase in complexity -- a
 RT> It not only can but has. Look at the world around you. We have species
 RT> ranging from micro-bacteria to blue whales. The evidence speaks for
 RT> itself.
Evolutionists believe that some simple organism appeared and
that this simple organism gradually developed into more complex
organisms, and ultimately to humans.  Now, can you identify
any clear example of the complexity of any type of organism
increasing in complexity?
 RT> Scientists never use a theory to support anything. It is just that - a
 RT> theory. As to empirical support, we have millions of bones and fossils.
 RT> Where did they come from?
Mostly from animals that drowned.
 RT> As you'll inevitably just refuse to except any evolutionist argument,
 RT> then maybe you'd like to provide some evidence for the creationist
 RT> argument instead?
Not only do you refuse to except any Creationist argument, but
if you're the least like a typical Evolutionist, you want to
censor Creationist arguments so that no one will have the
opportunity to except any Creationist argument.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0066
---------------