sciencegeek/lighter, how on earth can you say that the evidence for evolution[ism] is equal, let alone better than that of the tudors ! ?
if you dig up a fossil, you can certainly identify pretty much what it is , but there is no label on it saying.....I am xxxmyo...that is interpreted, as I said in my last post. for the tudors, you have artifacts, pictures, and historical writings...oops, I forgot, you discount historical narrative. I exagaratte, of course, it must fit in with your naturalistic worldview !
mrrzy, as I was saying to dmcg, and your post illustrates the point, what is observable, repeatable testable science, is described as Darwinist rules, but Darwinism asserts [as I assume you do] that microbes to man evolution can be extrapolated from that. the examples you give do not evidence the latter. I hear that information gaining mutations are less than a handful of doubtful examples so far. would you not think that they would be plentiful, if neo Darwin were true ?
btw, that moth thing is not the same story now, if we are thinking of the same thing.
ed, I have that book, but not read that chapter yet. but thankyou for just one example of a creationist scientist, which some insist is an oxymoron !
frogprince,= and I assume that you will accept anything as a robust scientific theory, as long as it does not conflict with evolutionism !.