Living proof of change in species or evolution : An underwater breathing cricket

a reply to: Barcs

I don't think you speak fundy? Its really hard to prove it to someone, who will only take "god did it" as an answer.

Well, even if it isn't some new recently unknown species, then that's pretty cool. But you have to remember, evolution is possible even through creationism. I am Christian, but what 99.9% of hard-headed, beat-you-with the Bible Christians don't realize is that evolution has, is, and will continue to happen. Its science. Its abiogenesis that that 99.9% is actually arguing. They just don't realize evolution and abiogenesis are 2 different things. Most no fault of their own.

a reply to: Bubba1020

Its odd. Because, the Bible says nothing about evolution. Evolution could be "gods will" if you swing that way So to argue against it, you might be saying God is a liar.

a reply to: Bubba1020

It's pretty hard to deny there are creationist who willfully, arrogantly, separate the two concepts on purpose.

It's more or less politically correct to accept what you said as truth:
-It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
-This has no impact at all on 'if there is a God' or 'if life was created by God'. Could be true, could be false.

While it's commendable as a creationist, that you accept the theory of Evolution, without question it's Christian Creationist narrative that suggests false equivalency in these terms. Not scientists. Specifically, fallacy literalist interpretations of the book of Genesis, that are even hypocritical to their own nature, suggest 'Life is too Complex' to be explained by Evolution. Too bad Evolution is not meant to 'explain life', just a function of it, more specifically how Transcription Errors will change an Organism, and if those changes are 'beneficial', how it will change course of a new 'dominant species'.

Evolution's main mission wasn't to prove the origin of life, it's to explain why things 'change' in the first place.

It's most definitely a direct attack on Science to suggest Religion has more complexity in it's answer, or to suggest that the two topics are related. The interpretation is so unrelated to the premise, it's like comparing a Banana to a Firetruck.