Quote:
Originally Posted by drkztan
I'm sorry to break it to you, but you have some faults in your reasoning:
1.Evolution states that minor changer in the environment provoke even more minor changes to the organisms that live in it. It also doesn't state that EVERY organism adapt to the changes. In fact, most of them can't adapt and just die off. And that's with a minor change. The oil spill is very VERY toxic to almost every organism and it happened in a very short time, increasing the concentration of oil from practically 0% to be swimming literally in oil, effectively wiping out every non-adapted life form.
2.Various strains of oil-resistant bacteria have been found on those water over the past few months, and studying their evolution, you can clearly see how their population has risen sky-high with their oil resistance and their ability to synthesize oil derived substances for their own profit.
|
Let use the Occam Razor on the above case: (allegedly) a vast majority of specimen perished due to the spill - except few ones. In which way would that support the
theory of Evolution? How much this story differs from the Biblical account on the Flood? Even
IF there would be any coincidence, would it necessary mean the consequence? What happened with
causality - (allegedly) a basic assumption of science – in this case?
The Evolution devotees flaunt with a bunch of “empirical data”, alas without any certainty; devout Christians don’t need “empirical data” to be certain; we have the inerrant KJV.1611 Bible as the proof.
YiC
Dan
P.S.: how about an introduction?