Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,420
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 19:
Line 19: − +
→Creation Ministries International on the failings of evolutionary arguments
No one has explained how new, specialized kinds of teeth could have supposedly evolved, and it appears rather to be a case of [[intelligent design]] instead of “microevolution” (variation within a kind, as suggested by various creationists) or “macroevolution” (new kinds of organisms, as suggested by evolutionists).
No one has explained how new, specialized kinds of teeth could have supposedly evolved, and it appears rather to be a case of [[intelligent design]] instead of “microevolution” (variation within a kind, as suggested by various creationists) or “macroevolution” (new kinds of organisms, as suggested by evolutionists).
[[File:Horse picture.jpg|thumbnail|left|250px|The available fossil and biological evidence does not support horse evolution.<ref>[http://creation.com/the-evolution-of-the-horse The Evolution of the Horse] by Mats Molén], Creation.com</ref>]]
The Cavanaugh et al. (2003) hypothesis of [[Baraminology|intrabaraminic]] variation of all animals that belong to Equidae (or animals that they did put into Equidae, even if the evolutionists put some of them in different families) is not well supported by the available evidence and ought therefore to be abandoned...
The Cavanaugh et al. (2003) hypothesis of [[Baraminology|intrabaraminic]] variation of all animals that belong to Equidae (or animals that they did put into Equidae, even if the evolutionists put some of them in different families) is not well supported by the available evidence and ought therefore to be abandoned...