> Ah so you really have no evidence against evolution but consider
> lack of people addressing your example to your satisfaction to be
> example of such ? Please explain "indefinity increase of
> complexity" as it applies to evolution. Explain why there is a
> need for indefinite increase in complexity, define complexity in
> a way that can be measured and explain why evolution is a closed system.
> It seems to me that you are unable to argue the vaste amounts of
> evidence supporting evolution.
Cummins: You Evolutionists avoid real debate better than anyone else under the sun.
Why don't you just use your best judgment and if you're being obtuse, I'll
let you know.
It's obvious once again that Cummins is unable to live up to the minimum requirements for a scientific argument. Which is explaining his argument. Despite his assertions that I "avoid real debates", I am actually interested in one. But Cummins fails to deliver.
Cummins: Okay, I'll get you started. Do you consider a human to be more complex than
an ameba? If so/not, why? Do you think there's something fundamentally
different about the limits of change that allow a snowflake to form from water vs.
allowing amebas to mutate into humans? If so/not, why?
Please back up YOUR argument that an ameba (sic) is less complex than a human. Please show how evolution requires complexity to increase. As far as your last question, no there is no apparatant limit.
SO perhaps it is time now for you to make an attempt to formulate a convincing argument ?