quote:Originally posted by Late_Cretaceous: Here are the FACTS:
I find it interesting that most of those "Facts" fit just as well (if not better) under a creationist model. As TrueCreation pointed out to you, not too many of your "facts" contradict Creation at all.
An example of a mutation creating something new would be interesting, since it would take millions of these to create the diversity of life as we see it today.
quote:Originally posted by joz: Um bud we have millions of years in our model......
You misunderstood me a bit.
1. Millions of mutations would have to occur to create the present diversity. 2. These mutations would have to INCREASE information. 3. Give me an example of a mutation that INCREASES information.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by toff: Many genes have the effect of preventing things from occurring; the absence of this effect allows the thing to occur - and viola, something new!
[/B][/QUOTE]
Well evolution needs to explain how the information got there BEFORE it was removed.
Well the question is kinda meaninless anyway. What does being a famous scientist have to do with whether or not Creation is correct. It's not that I think the question shouldn't be asked, it's just that it should not be considered evidence of whether or not Creation is correct.
quote:Originally posted by TrueCreation: --Wow 3? Wasn't aware of that, in what areas? I plan on getting minimally 1, depending on my marital statis I'll shoot for 2 or 3. I don't know about you guys, but I love science.
Great, maybe one day you will make it into the "infamous" list with all those other incompetent Creation Scientists!