I am STILL laughing my ass off! Here are just a few reasons why - bear in mind, all those evolutionists, even after 150 years of trying to prove evolution, have never evolved a leg to stand on, pardon the pun. (By the way - I believe in both SOME evolution AND creation - see below).
Let us first consider what science already does know. We know that a dominant trait, such as intellect, will survive while regressive traits, like stupidity, will fall by the wayside. And scientists say they have reason to believe that raptors were among the most intelligent of creatues, with an ability to hunt in packs, and even set traps for its prey. But now these Darwinists are trying to tell us that, after a few hundred million years, that the raptor intellect has regressed to the stupidity found in the turkey - the bird that will drown itself in a heavy rain. That would be DEvolution, not EVolution.
And evolutionists, themselves, have always claimed that mammals evolved from sea creatures and flying reptiles and birds. Now, suddenly, they are telling us it is the other way around - that intelligent reptiles evolved into stupid birds.
And back to the dominant trait thing. Raptors, being fierce predators, would have little reason to develop methods of fleeing. And flight is just that - a method of fleeing, which is how the phrase "interstate flight to avoid prosecution" got its name. Now, if evolutionists can be believed, and evolution is a process of adapting to needs of survival, why, pray tell, would the raptor have to develop wings? Maybe he had an inherent need to flee from all those dangerous nuts making documentaries.
I must say, I believe in evolution, to a point. But I do not believe that it is mutually exclusive of all other theories, such as Creationism. Anyone who believes in God must believe that God is all-powerful, and the most intelligent of all. Now think about that. Here we have an entity that is so incredibly smart that He can create beauty, then create the eye with which we can see the beauty around us. As smart as man is, we cannot duplicate that, or, as one poet so aptly put it, only God can make a tree. So, if he is that smart, why would He possibly create creatures who are incapable of adapting to changing conditions? Even mere mortals, as dumb as we are, try to improve our creations. Why would an all-powerful, omnipotent entity create something that is destined to die out because it cannot adapt? Nosir. If God exists, He is certainly smart enough to give us the ability to evolve.
So I believe that both Creation and evolution have worked hand-in-hand to bring about all that exists today. And a growing number of scientists are agreeing with that. Of course, uninformed evolutionists say that Creationists think the Earth was created just 6000 years ago. While it is true that some uninformed Creationists believe that, most do not. We realize that the Bible, as written today, is nothing more than an imperfect translation. When translated correctly, the Bible makes a case for the Earth being billions of years old, and that "creation" took many, many epochs and eras. Anbd while the English translation states Noah lived to be 960 years old, the original scriptures indicate he lived 960 "moons", or months - in other words, a perfectly normal 80 years.
But to some folks, perception is truth. So they just cannot recognize that the Bible they read may not be an accurate translation. Heck, some even think the original Bible was written in English!
And there are uninformed persons on both sides of the debate. Fully 80% of the folks who believe in evolution and who are not actual scientists actually believe that evolution is a proven scientific fact. It is not. It is simply a theory, for which there is no solid, indisputable proof.
I am a highly educated individual. My IQ is high enough to have been invited into Mensa. So I take great exception to fools who say that "believers" in God are a bunch of uneducated idiots who are following some sort of cult. In fact, it tends to be the most intelligent persons who believe that "chance" cannot explain our presence, or how something can evolve until first it exists. And we realize that evolution only can involve living matter. Rocks cannot evolve - they can only erode. Without Creation, where did non-living, non-evolving matter come from?
I have many personal experiences that have proved to my satisfaction that a greater intelligence supervises this show. And anyone who lives their life with eyes and mind open will see the same things. But all too often folks will focus on themselves, and their own, immediate surroundings, completely oblivious to the intricacies involved in those surroundings.
For example, the ecstacy we experience with a sexual act. That is not something that could "evolve". Yet, it is a necessary component for our survival - it is one of the reasons we even bother to procreate. But that ecstacy could only have been instilled by design. Chance cannot account for it. Man could procreate without it. But it takes INTELLIGENCE to determine there is a NEED for something that will INSURE survival; a need to DRIVE us to sex.
Or how about the interdepencies among species? Sure, if one specie develops a need for something, such a wings or lungs, then it could evolve. But not when the dependence is by another unrelated specie. How could one creature evolve in some way that is only for the benefit of an unrelated species? If Man evolves with gills, it would be because MAN needs gills, and not because some other species needs us to develop them.
For example, blackberries, chickadees and pine trees. Each is a separate species, but they require each others "cooperation" in order to survive. Pine trees provide the needed shade for the blackberry's roots, so it can flourish. The blackberry bears fruits, which the chickadees eat. But the seeds are not digestable. So the chickadee lands on the pine branch and passes the seeds - along with a glob of fertilizer to help it grow in the shade of the pine. Birds need blackberries. Blackberries need both the birds to sow and fertilize its seeds, and the trees to provide needed shade.
How convenient that it all works seemlessly, and the dependencies of one specie are conveniently met by another. How could such intricate interdependencies possibly be explained by evolution alone?
Or how about something even simpler - how and why bees pollinate plants so the plants can reproduce? Random chance? Bees MUST have pollen to survive. The flowers MUST have bees to survive. How can evolution explain how the needs of one species gets "known" by another, which adapts accordingly?
Just something to ponder...