A local creationist has admitted ignorance in most areas of science, yet claims that because of training in how to analyze arguments, he nevertheless has the ability to rebut evolution claims.
So as not to give away the ending, I am not going to link to this claim, but I am wondering how many creationists will be able to spot the flaw in this 'analytical' reasoning the creationist professes in this example:
"The E-Coli experiments after 50,000 plus generations still remain E-Coli, Homo sapien Neanderthalis/Homo sapien Altai/and Homo sapien Sapiens are another great example (very fitting to Kimuru's Neutral Theory)..."
So as not to give away the ending, I am not going to link to this claim, but I am wondering how many creationists will be able to spot the flaw in this 'analytical' reasoning the creationist professes in this example:
"The E-Coli experiments after 50,000 plus generations still remain E-Coli, Homo sapien Neanderthalis/Homo sapien Altai/and Homo sapien Sapiens are another great example (very fitting to Kimuru's Neutral Theory)..."
Last edited: