>>11577300Something like that probably, or that the eyes look especially pretty and therefore God made them or some BS like that.
OP likely is suffering from Christinsanity, HOWEVER, I'll give him some advice. Hey
>>11577085 if you want to effectively BTFO evolutionists then all you have to do is remind them of the Ebner Effect. It doesn't show evolution is wrong (it's not; evolution happens) but it shows clearly that life forms on Earth have most likely not evolved the way we've been taught or as slowly. It shows what we've learned to believe is Evolution in an animal, can actually have been Devolution (that it devolved from a superior form). Among other things...
It also throws up into the air what it means that an animal is "extinct". Some animals which are said to be "extinct" aren't really, it's just that the electric field on Earth is different now (starved), than it was when we were in the Polar Configuration. Plenty of animals merely "devolved" (and solely due to the electric field change).
It's been demonstrated experimentally that some animals (trout fish for example) "revive" themselves right back into an "extinct" state of existence (in other words as they supposedly looked a very long time ago), when born under a different electric field. So for those cases, it's not that there's one separate subspecies or race which went extinct and one which didn't - rather, it's one and the same subspecies/race, the only thing that changed was that some individuals devolved/evolved to adapt to the new electric field while the others didn't (they died)... so the "extinct" version of the animal is the same as the surviving one.
It probably doesn't apply to most dinosaurs, but one species this most certainly applies to is the "Irish elk". It's much more likely that it simply "devolved" into what for us today are normal elks. If placed under the correct electric field you could probably make an ordinary elk embryo turn into something very "Irish elk" looking.
