Quote
It's very simple RAZD, all kinds are stable. Unless you know of a horse than jumps side ways and becomes a leopard, or a cat goes round the other side of the world out of sight and becomes a dog. You are relying fully on imagination and using senarios like this in an attempt to support the theory you have no substance for.


Is the above description what you believe the theory of evolution states? So, unless you see a video of an individual horse turning into a leopard during its lifetime, evolution is not true. Which evolutionist told you that this is how it works? Sure wasn't me.
If you think the theory of evolution says that, then I can understand why you cannot accept it.
However, if you do think the theory of evolution says that, you would be incorrect.

Quote
I believe that this theory is simply a convenient way to oust any idea of a Creator. It certainly doesn't explain it any better! It's just man's idea of what MUST have happened because the alternative is not desirable or wanted.
What alternative is that?
You do realize that the majority of evolutionists, many of them evolution biologist scientists, are also believers in God. Just that fact, refutes your statement that they are trying to oust the idea of a Creator.

Quote
As I have said, the evolutionist continues to have the burden of proof to prove that their theory is a reality, they're teaching it in the science classroom. Your way out of this is an attempt to shift that burden onto the opposition when you are faced with pictures that defy any significant changes that one would expect from millions of years worth of evolution. If they haven't shown change, you tell us they are signficantly changed anyway and that we just don't see it (or understand it). It also shows that fish and amphibians were existing then, just as they are now. Evolution teaches that one evolved into the other.....yet these pics show even then they were existing around the sametime. What's changed? Even natural history hasn't contradicted the present. The evolutionist is the only one trying to do that.
You are stating that minimal change, in some species, over "long" periods of time shows evolution could not occur. The theory of evolution doesn't state that at all. How can we agree with you that your pictures equate to a problem when it doesn't contradict the theory of evolution at all?
Just because one fish population from a particular species evolved into amphibian-like animals, doesn't mean that all the population of that fish species had to evolve.
There's the problem....we can't even debate you about this lack of change, because we can't see which part of the theory that it violates. This isn't shifting the burden of proof. It's asking you to provide a clear explanation of how this lack of change violates parts of the theory of evolution.

Then there is this little bit from above:
Quote
It also shows that fish and amphibians were existing then, just as they are now. Evolution teaches that one evolved into the other.....yet these pics show even then they were existing around the sametime.
First, evolution teaches that amphibian populations are descendants of fish populations. It does not say that all fish populations evolved into amphibian populations.

Second, what do you mean by "around the same time"? Do you contend that the fossil record has amphibians showing up in the same layers as when the fish showed up? There are no older layers with only fish and not amphibians? Sorry, but you are incorrect, if that is what you are saying.

BTW: No one has told you that frogs changed significantly from then to now. What we have shown you is examples of change in process (Tiktaalik, archaeopteryx) and evidence that all kinds were not present at all times (fossil sorted by age of sediment layers) so some change must have occurred.

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke