ok, IF, of course the living moths didnt evolve! they can't once they're born.. evolution is the gradual change over hundreds of generations. and i said that they eventually would become a different species. i did not say that they already were one. and what in the creation story has been prooven to be true? where is your evidence? just saying its true doesnt make it true. as for the chimps dna being 98% identical, i did not say that we evolved from them or anything, i just said that to show you that they're more like us than you think.
You say Creationism hasn't been proven and there isn't any evidence, yet you say that the Peppered moth will evolve and give no reason at all why it will? Tell me, what evidence shows that the peppered moth is going to evolve...guess what, there isn't any! If there is then show me, I'd love to see it. Almost every Creationism idea has scientific evidence that shows that there is a very small chance that it didn't happen. For example, there has been no written literature older than 8,000 years that we have discovered, and if we were on this earth for 3 million years ago like most scientists think, then we would've found A LOT more human fossils. Evolutionists go saying crap like the half life of Carbon 14 and Uranium 238 gives the date of things, even though a very small amount of radioactive energy can completely change what the date of something reads to be with them. Also, what even shows that the half lives of them really do tell the date of something? What you said about the chimp's DNA being very similiar also doesn't show that we are a lot like them. Thats just a very small similarity, if a fish has 2 eyes and a mouth then does that mean that they're similiar to us? Not really.
also, your making it sound that the theory of evolution says that an animal changes in its lifetime, wich is just rediculous. small mutations occur from generation to generation and over hundreds of generations, the animal looks a lot different than it's great great great (and so on) ancestors. also, with the thing about different races of humans:
YES they are different in terms of evolution. NO they are not a different species yet. if you give a group a long long time of isolation they will change over many generations. an example of this would be (not to offent anyone) the english. they were virtually stuck on that island for thousands of years, and (the royal family in particular) started to have changing features. bigger ears, longer faces, bigger noses.. its not a bad thing at all, just an example of how our species is changing even as we speak.
I am not saying that the theory of evolution states that an animal changes in it's lifetime. But apparently Evolutionists think it happened rather quickly since when they saw less light colored moths they immediately drew the conclusion that the light colored moths evolved from the dark colored ones. About the English people thing, that is just a very slight change that the genetics of of humans allow. They didn't even come close to growing different body parts or look slightly like an animal! If humans have been on this earth for 3 million years as they say then why havn't we changed at all since we were here?
This is where your argument falls apart, Intaminfan, because you acknowledge that animals respond to their environment, but yet you refuse to believe that this leads to a long-term change.
How does my argument fall apart there? Your saying that its impossible for only small changes to occur without having a long term change. like I said in my previous paragraph, there have been many small term changes but they all just even out to be the same, or else we would've been different than when we here 3 million years ago as Evolutionists believe it. (Which further supports the 8,000 year old earth idea)
How can you guys say science is on your side? Let's go through them, shall we? Hmm, biology is based on evolution, so that's out...Geology, paleontology, physics and astronomy are all based on a unvierse billions of years old, so those are out...Meteorology, climatology, limnology and oceanography are based on a water cycle that circulates far less total water than Noah's flood needed, so those are out...Chemistry seems pretty neutral...Microbiology deals with bacteria, which aren't in the Bible and therefore must be another lie drummed up by the anti-Bible media... Need I go on?
It's on our side because all the there are more evidence that shows that Creationism is correct, while there are almost none that support Evolutionism. If Biology is based on Evolution that doesn't mean that the REAL biology has to be based on it, just means its different. There
are biological things that go against evolutuion, BTW.