"I was actually hoping to receive the onslaught from the creationists . I considered that post more as bait to begin a logical discussion for evolution vs creationism . I wanted to hear -- from a creationist -- why one can concede to evolution within a species within just 100 years , but can never agree to macroevolution across the span of hundreds of millions of years . It 's tantamount to believing each species of creature now has always been here and has only transformed through microevolution . ( Well , maybe the cockroach . Those things are the best , albeit icky , animal survival machines : P ) Besides , there are many examples of macroevolution which would be brought up as a creationist ignorantly believes this never happens . Of course , the end result would be that the creationist will not concede because s/he can not think logically , which is why they 're a creationist in the first place ."
"Well , I am a creationist , and I would hope I can think logically ( it 's generally a good quality for an accountant and tax attorney to have ) . The difference between microevolution and evolution as an explanation for the beginning of a species is simple . In microevolution a species is simply adapting to it 's environments . In evolution as is usually meant by the word you are talking about the formation of an entirely new creature from inorganic compounds . If this is possible I pose a few questions for you . 1 ) Why have no new creatures evolved from inorganic compounds in human memory ? 2 ) How did these inorganic compounds decide that some creatures should evolve , while others of the same species did not ? Why are there not some apes that have evolved into humans by now ? Why did n't all apes evolve into humans ? 3 ) One of my favorite pieces of confusion from evolutionists involve fossils . How do you know how old a fossil is ? Every evolutionist I have asked has stated that fossils are dated by the rock layer they are found in , but if you then ask them how the rock layer is dated they answer that it is dated by the fossils that where discovered in it ! That 's a classical example of circular reasoning . I am not a scientist , so I can not present all the evidence against evolution as clearly as someone with a scientific education and background might do . If you are truly interested in learning more about the creationist arguments against evolution you can check out the article located at http : //www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp . This article also has many links to other articles with even more information ."
"one can concede to evolution but can never agree to macroevolution creationist will not concede because s/he can not think logically"
"I am a creationist , and I would hope I can think logically In microevolution a species is simply adapting to it 's environments In evolution about the formation of an entirely new creature"