Was working on it as you posted that.
Well you didn't work very hard, you didn't address any of it. As to what you did write, that's nice, I'm not trying to tell you how life began or dissuade you of you faith in God, why not comment on the evidence I presented instead, maybe ponder what I've written below?
This is fantastic. It is a prime example of what I am speaking about. Point one is the horse thing. It's an assumption that the eohippus evolved. We have no observation of such a thing. We are guessing that is what happened. We believe in evolution and therefore believe that happened. We don't know if the transition actually occurred.
No.1 - "The horse thing"
Everything I posted was based on observation, there were no assumptions. Literally thousands of fossils have been found that, when lined up chronologically, show a clear transition from eohippus to the modern horse. These have been and can be observed in the fossil record. I wouldn't be surprised if you reject the dating of such fossils (with no scientific justification, just proclaiming it's based on assumptions no doubt) but Eohippus is found in the oldest strata and the fossils can be seen progressing gradually in sequence towards the modern horse as we observe them in more recent strata. This is clear as day, there are no mysterious gaps, no huge leaps in difference that can't be accounted for, which is why I chose the "horse thing".
Now, If we look at this sequence and wonder why these fossils are deposited as they are what logical conclusion can we draw? That the populations gradually adapted over time in response to selective pressures? Given that we can observe, in real time, the mechanisms by which such changes occur (remember the Blackcaps which have been
observed to adapt and change in response to environmental pressures?) such a conclusion is inescapable.
But no, you say, despite all these observations confirming the theory formulated by Darwin from his observations of nature all those years ago, they are all just "assumptions"!
So I will ask again (you ignored the question last time) how do
you explain these observations?
Again we can clearly observe many species of Equidae appearing in the fossil record with slight differences to preceding species chronolgically with all those changes adding up to significant differences over longer periods of time - As far as I understand it the creation "model" would suggest that over long stretches of time a slightly different species was created out of dust of the ground, only to go extinct and be replaced by another and another and another, is that what you think? I can't figure it out?
