"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 ."
"logical discussion evolution vs creationism but can never agree to macroevolution across the span of hundreds of millions of years"
"Well , I am a creationist I would hope I can think logically Why are there not some apes that have evolved into humans by now"