Can Creationists rationalize the evolutionary process honestly?

You cannot rationalize something that isn't rational in the first place, silly.

You say we are different than we were in the 50s? Well, you want to know why we may be a little "different"? It is unnatural, not natural evolving. They started putting different chemicals in food recently, like hormones that can make us get taller, and that could be good or bad. Our immune systems are better because we have created new medicines, and in the 1700s, they had barely ANY medicine. We have higher tolerance to chemicals because of all the medicines we have taken, and the fact that we had to adapt to the unclean air, that wasn't full of all those chemicals in the 1700s, and since we are around it all the time, and it has been there so long, we kind of get used to it over time, but that isn't really "evolution". I have never heard of the night vision thing, or the use of echo-locating, but that does sound pretty odd. How do you know if there even WAS an earth 10,000 years ago? We have no idea, if it IS that old, then like you Evolutionists say, why hasn't Earth became like Venus yet? You claim that Venus was once like Earth, and over about a one billion year period, it became the way it is now, so if Earth looked like Venus then, then why doesn't it look like Venus now. It seems like it would, according to the way YOU think. I am sorry for being rude, but, in all honesty, I am sick of pointless questions like these.

The Head of the Human Genome Project (2009) was a confirmed atheist yet has since produced some wonderful books on "The Language of God" and "The Language of Life."You cannot even begin to articulate about the origins of species without reference to Information technology encrypted in the humblest organic life.

No scientific mind has yet come up with a design or methodology to resolve the creation (sic) of anything, let alone the astounding genius written into any of the thousands of species of earthworm

For the record, most Christians accept evolution.

"We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities."

-Pope Benedict XVI

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."

-The Clergy Letter, signed by thousands of pastors

You want a species that is in transition, look at the Australian and African lung fish. Fish that can live on land live in water and have both lungs and gills. As for one species mutating into another, that takes time and many generations which makes it very hard to demonstrate to anyone who is unwilling to accept the fossil record. But sooner or later it will be shown (or possibly has been shown) to occur probably with bacteria.

Creationist just means someone who believes a creator/God created everything, doesn't have to be a christian,jew, or muslim, it exists among all faiths and religions. so yes a creationist can understand evolution and believe in it. I believe creation and evolution are two sides of the same coin.

This is the old 'change implies that there can be no limit to change' -- so ridiculous in light of my science training that I refuse to argue.

Evident to the studious observer ? Rather : Imposed by the observer who refuses to see.

Scientists dumbstruck: signs of intelligent design in DNA code

Bio-scientists are reeling at the implications of new research published in the prestigious planetary science journal Icarus, which indicates the DNA code of all life on earth contains a pattern that indicates deliberate design.

http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/3...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

We can discuss the evolution of the wheel to the automobile, the evolution of the grass hut to the skyscraper, and the evolution of many things guided by human intelligence. These things did not evolve naturally but were created in steps by the intelligence of the mind. Science has also provided evidence of the same through experiments in DNA. Do you deny that synthesized DNA is the product of intelligence?

DNA Is Blueprint, Contractor And Construction Worker For New Structures

DNA is the blueprint of all life, giving instruction and function to organisms ranging from simple one-celled bacteria to complex human beings. Now researchers have used DNA as the blueprint, contractor and construction worker to build a 3-D structure out of gold, a lifeless material. Using just one kind of nanoparticle the researchers built two very different crystalline structures by changing one thing -- the strands of synthesized DNA attached to the tiny gold spheres

"It took scientists decades of work to learn how to synthesize DNA," said Mirkin. "Now we've learned how to use the synthesized form outside the body to arrange lifeless matter into things that are useful, which is really quite spectacular."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/08013...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7178/ab...

Consider the experiment:

Using just one kind of nanoparticle the researchers built two very different crystalline structures by changing one thing -- the strands of synthesized DNA attached to the tiny gold spheres

Did this synthesized DNA naturally evolve or was it changed by intelligence?

Creationists who don't think the world is 6,000 years old and generally respect the scientific process shouldn't have any problem with evolution. It's the young-earth creationists who typically ignore reality.

Honestly, creationist can't tie their own shoes, honestly.

Creationist from the Discover Institute will knock the honesty of Ken Ham.

The Discover Institute gets nothing from Ken Ham.

Key word...Dishonesty!

No. And neither can anyone else.

No single mutation has ever been good for the host. Not one single transitional being has ever been found alive or dead.