A very easy method for overunity and its the real deal as they say.

[citfta]

No. It is precisely Darwin's intelligence to have shown that simple cause-and-effect relationships obeing the laws of physics can lead to complex systems found in the so-called living world.
Darwin's intelligence is unfortunately not within the reach of all human intelligence, evolution still has work to do! 

Instead of blindly following the lies of main stream media why don't you do some original research of your own?  Darwin clearly says in his writings ( I have read them ) that he could not come up with any reasonable explanation for such complex organisms such as the eye.  There is no reasonable way to explain an eye using the idea that evolution occurred over a period of time with slow improvements.  The eye involves several mechanisms that all have to work together and without all of them the rest of them are useless.  So how could they have slowly evolved over time?  And by the way this is exactly the example Darwin himself used when he clearly stated he had doubts about his theory of evolution.  He also gave other examples of complex organisms that can't be explained by evolution.  And none  of the missing links he was hoping would be some day found have ever been found.  Every one of them that have supposedly been found have all been proven to be hoaxes.  If you would read the genetic study I referred to earlier it clearly shows genetic boundaries between species that rules out the possibility of evolution as imagined by Darwin.


Respectfully,
Carroll

[memoryman]

Carroll, you said that you wouldn't clutter this site with religion.
Your arguments are the standard " I can't explain it, I don't understand it, therefore God" it is called the argument from ignorance.

[citfta]

My last post had nothing to do with God.  It was only about the myth of evolution.

Respectfully,
Carroll

[memoryman]

Thinly disguised.

[F6FLT]

Instead of blindly following the lies of main stream media why don't you do some original research of your own?  Darwin clearly says in his writings ( I have read them ) that he could not come up with any reasonable explanation for such complex organisms such as the eye.  There is no reasonable way to explain an eye using the idea that evolution occurred over a period of time with slow improvements.  The eye involves several mechanisms that all have to work together and without all of them the rest of them are useless.  So how could they have slowly evolved over time?  And by the way this is exactly the example Darwin himself used when he clearly stated he had doubts about his theory of evolution.  He also gave other examples of complex organisms that can't be explained by evolution.  And none  of the missing links he was hoping would be some day found have ever been found.  Every one of them that have supposedly been found have all been proven to be hoaxes.  If you would read the genetic study I referred to earlier it clearly shows genetic boundaries between species that rules out the possibility of evolution as imagined by Darwin.


Respectfully,
Carroll

I do research, I also do what I want and certainly not what anyone advises me, based on his ignorance or his faith, and I am not following the "main stream" except when it has demonstrated his point, which is the case of Darwin, which is not the case of religious theories, and which is also the case of the theory of evolution which has progressed since the Darwin discovery: you seem to ignore it but since the 19th century, science of evolution has progressed and has confirmed the essential points from Darwin.

About Darwin, when you have solid objections expressed scientifically, neither ad hominem attacks nor childish and irrelevant remarks found everywhere among creationists (like this story of the eye that is perfectly explained today), thank you for coming back, we can talk.

Respectfully,
F6FLT