So the use of the conditional in terms of creationism would suit you perfectly? Me is my case!The use of the conditional is caution.
As is currently done for vaccines? Coluche said; it is not because they are the most numerous to be wrong that they are right[*]. And the scientific provaccines are precisely the most numerous! So apply these methods of analysis to check if chance may have been at the origin of this order and harmony from the entire universe to bacteria and viruses of all kinds. So far it has been a resounding failure!Even if we know because today the methods of analysis make it possible to verify it.
And with huge differences elsewhere; DNA is like an assembly of a piece of lego, you can build anything and everything, but never live with legos and this is where the evolutionary discourse breaks its mouth!It was by analyzing the DNA of the chickens that we realized that it was the animal that comes closest to the tyrannosaurus rex ... for example.
So it is that you do not know the definition of evolution, that the evolutionists themselves give that claim that an evolution is not regressive according to a law invented by any individual. However, adaptation has no final character and can go backwards, not evolution and there it is impossible to prove. (All this has already been seen and reviewed in detail) scientifically with all the sophisticated devices that existWe can speak here of evolution and not of adaptation.
Darwinian misinterpretation and it is precisely there that the adaptations are measured which do not make a different species, but the same with particular characteristics, that was all the work of Darwin precisely, who uses the finches to support his speech, but no new species has emerged. This has been experimented with with Drosophila flies representing hundreds of human generations and yet no new species have emerged, so 40 years of current life is comparatively light.Ditto for the different DNAs in animals of the same species which change biotope (go from the outside to a cave), which become another distinct species ... and this is measurable in less than 40 years.
In short, your inane blah only convinces you. The world has changed since you were young.
My blah in question is only the speech evolutionists themselves, cited in large majority in the subject evolution or chance, which has nothing to do with a personal opinion. If you can prove that these evolutionists and other scientists were wrong, but you are going to have a big job in prospect, then my point of view may change, but that is not likely to happen since these evolutionary scientists are or were precisely the cream in this area. But for that it is necessary to study the subject in depth and not to be like ABC on the subject of the H which is convinced that its zetetic sect (evolutionist also besides) knows more than the practitioners themselves.
[*] the human being is a strange and contradictory animal. Our society (and particularly France, daughter of the Catholic Church, which became the daughter of the atheist church with the revolution) has criticized this church for its domineering and exclusive dogmatism, to replace it with the same in the name of another alleged religion. scientific or more exactly materialist, by philosophical opposition only. Clearly we leave a one-eyed one eye by substituting a one-eyed one in the other eye! Where is the difference?
Unfortunately, many are victims of it culturally and the members of this new religion stubbornly refuse to consider that science does not belong to any sect, however large and established it is, but belongs to everyone and to no one, no one owns it. exclusive.
Also: either we speak of science and ONLY science without religious references or of religion (whatever forms they have taken) and it is no longer a matter of materialist science.
So if you want to continue there is a dedicated topic on evolution and chance!
