Can Creationists Show Evolution Never Happened?

quote:

---

First of all, "NEVER EVER" is not scientific language.

---

And being an atheist is?

quote:

---

Second, what mechanism prevents many small changes accumulating to large change?

---

OK, take a deck of 52 cards, shuffle them for as long as you want. What do you find? 52 cards, just rearanged differently, which is micro-evolution. No matter how many times you shuffle them cards you won't end up with 53 cards, or different types of cards all together. Micro-evolution is just the reshuffling of existing information, macro-evolution consists of learning new, better DNA information that wasn't there before.

quote:

---

Please provide a precise, unambiguous definition of "kind". (I have yet to get this from any creationist, in over 3 years of asking)

---

Sigh, can you not think for yourself? What do you think a kind would be? A dog is a kind, a cat is a kind, a horse is a kind. Scientifically, within some kinds you need to seperate species even though they are pretty much the same thing. All these evolving of new species are still the same species, or kinds we now have to refer them as, simply because they can no longer breed within the same genus they have to be seperated as a different species. However, the evolving of new species goes against the ToE since they are just more degenerative replicas of the last species and are still true to there kind (not all types of dogs can breed with one another you know) having learnt no new better DNA information than what they had prior. Just more unordered following the creation model that all things were once perfect and since than they are getting more unorderly.

quote:

---

The ToE doesn't claim that "reptile just all of a sudden learns new DNA information to grow feathers", so this is a meaningless argument.

---

Huh, what do you mean it doesn't claim? The bird supposedly evolved from the reptile. The reptile doesn't have feathers so it would have just had to learn new intelligent DNA information from some non-existant source to supposedly survive when it was obviously surviving fine up until that point. That is a macro-evolution change, it didn't have that DNA informatin before, but now it does.

quote:

---

Speciation has been observed.

---

Since when did I ingnore that? It nicely follows the creation model though, all these new species aren't new better kinds than before so how is that suppost to support evolution, it goes against it. Some species do adapt better to there environment, using existing DNA information. But doesn't that support creation? Showing how well made life is, not just some no purpose chemically bound molecules.

quote:

---

BTW, You don't think that the "logical" alternative to science and Biology is Fundamentalist Christanity, do you?

---

No I don't. I don't even mind if evolution was taught for its gullable believers. Just don't pass it off as fact and for anyone who brings up contradictory evidence not to ridicule them. This is science, if people didn't prove things the way they really are then we'd still be living on a flat earth so to speak. I also wouldn't mind the killing off of the media hype making out it has found facts for evolution when it is normally just a pigs tooth or something. It confuses the hell out of the uninformed and they go off living in a fairy tale thinking we came from monkeys. I also wouldn't mind being able to watch documentaries without them saying evolution is fact, evolution is fact, look at all the evidence we have, even though they don't have any they tell you they do. It's just brainwashing and I'm sick of it.

​

[This message has been edited by RetroCrono, 12-23-2001]

Mutations, ummm....how should I put this. Are very harmful to the DNA code, disordering the already existing information. Therefore, mutations are even more limiting than no mutations since mutations make the DNA code worse, not better. A heap of mutations won't just make a monkeys mind expand into a humans mind, perhaps rather limit it instead.

I consider bacteria and living systems to be very different things. Even though they both can be classed as living, bacteria does not know of its existance and living systems have a number of attributes that makes them seperatable. If you can tell me how a mutation can be benneficial (where talking about the evolving of living systems here) and prove that it didn't have that existing DNA information before I'd be interested in hearing it.I find you can easily draw a line on the biology of DNA. Why do you think you can't get a horse and a fox to successfully mate? Even though the horse supposedly evolved from the fox it just goes to show DNA isn't all free range like you seem to think.

quote:

---

Where did you hear that horses were supposed to be descended from foxes, anyway?

---

Several evolutionist actually. My teacher for one and I can also remember reading a text book showing the artist conceptions from the fox to the horse.Anyway, one example is still pretty useless. I can name countless harmful mutations compared to only perhaps at best several useful mutations (even then I'm exagerating on the several). Now, I can remember reading that about 99.9% of mutations are harmful. If we compare that to what really would of happen you'll find the ToE is just plain wrong. I'll be really leanient and give you about 10% of useful mutations to work with. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I was told how things evolve. Every several generations a new gene is formed. Using the leanient harmful to useful mutations ratio, this would most likely be a harmful mutation. Now, after 10 new genes have formed after about 30-100 generations, 9 harmful genes would have formed and 1 useful gene would have formed. How is it possible then that life went from unordered to ordered if in reality it gets worse. Just because you want to ignore God do you also get to ignore reality and comman sense as well? How did a monkey/ape's brain evolve into a superior thinking brain if it can only overall get dumber? Was it that everything was made perfect in the beginning much like the accounts of Genesis claim and since then everything has slowly been degerating, which, observing the evidence is what you see.When entering this topic again I found the name of this topic rather pointless. You have to define evolution. If your talking about can creationist show macro-evolution never happened then I can straight away say yes, since you are yet to show that it did happen, let alone possibly could. Nobody ignores micro-evolution, the evolving of new breeds/species within a kind. But I believe the true evolution that takes place is what goes on with each and every person. The evolving of there emotions and mind. However, just because someone evolves within there generation, doesn't mean they pass on evolved DNA blue prints. Your DNA blue print is decided upon when your born so that is what will be passed on. There's no survival of the fittest and natural selection evolving going on, that is just a Darwin myth. Would you care to explain why the Jewish still need to be circumsised, or why there are dogs that have had there tails docked for centuries yet they continue to be born with tails? This doesn't seem to fit in with this so called "evolving" going on.

Ignore that this post is here, somehow, not sure if it was by my own mistake. The post of mine before this one was repeated within this one. Anyhow, carry on...

​

[This message has been edited by RetroCrono, 12-26-2001]

My point still stands, you obviously didn't see the point I was trying to make about dogs or the Jews. Wouldn't they have evolved to "adapt", like the dolphin began to "adapt to the water. You admit the DNA is decided upon conception, so then how can anything possibly evolve to suit there environment. The DNA you get when your conceived is what you'll pass on. Meaning, with in each creatures life what ever evolving/adapting goes on won't be passed on and that was the point I was trying to make with the dogs and the Jews. You openly admitted that with your last reply that this is the case, so how do things evolve. Don't just tell me look at sites on the net as they tell me nothing, except "survival of the fittest", "Gene Flow", "Mutations", "Natural Selection", etc. I know all that and it is all pretty much wrong. Saying stuff like Offspring are similar, but not identical to their parents is absurd. Of course there not identical, but they are the exact make up of there parents meaning they cannot be anything but a make up of there parents. The reason they will stay within there kind is because they cannot bread outside of there kind, Gene flow is impossible, it will never work. Mutations are almost always harmful, you give me one case of a useful mutation and that is it, some other evolutionist know a few others but not many. Harmful mutations out way it hands down, off the top of my head, blindness, deafness, aids, cancer, heart failure, collapsed lungs, disordered muscle growth and I could go on for ages. Just ask and I will, that is clear cut evidence that things get worse.Why has it made me look silly, I've got you right where I want you. You admitted exactly the point I was trying to make, if your DNA is decided upon when your conceived (yeah, I made a mistake about saying born but the point was still there) then anything that goes on with in anythings life time as in evolving and adapting to there environment will not be passed on. I made this point quite clear with the Jews and the dogs and you could clearly see that this won't do anything. So then how do things evolve? I can see you don't know, and just leaving it up to make believe stuff like survival of the fittest will not answer the question at hand. I know I only have a basic understanding of genetics & hereidty. Enough to know evolution cannot be possible. I know that these laws were published after Darwin who believed it was all chance, perhaps evolution would be possible then. But it is now widely known it is decided upon precise mathematical ratios. Therefore a human will always be a human, a dog will be a dog, a cat will be a cat. I also know it states that life must come from life. In Darwins time they thought magots could just arrise from the garbage. Yet we know that the eggs must be laid there. How big a law does evolution want to break here. I know they've seen microscopic organism form but this is drasctically different then a structured ordered living system. Does evolution not break this law? Perhaps in the 1800's evolution might have been science, but now in the light of real science it doesn't work. Why do so many people still believe it is possible since science dissaproves it? Like Einstein's Big Bang Theory clearly forgets the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I know what you'll say to that. Gravity is what made it all ordered. But saying how it went about doing the impossible still does not justify for it doing the impossible.Sorry guys, you are very unconvincing.

When I was referring to your DNA being decided upon from when your born I just meant you have your DNA from the moment you enter the world and that is what will be passed on, no evolved or adapted to the environment DNA is passed on. I admit I made a mistake by saying born but my point was still there. If that is the case, how can things evolve for there environment? I was just using Jews and dogs as examples that you pass on your DNA from when you were conceived, not by what adapting or evolving happened within its life tine. Evolution is entirely fixed around life adapting to there surroundings. Yet how can this be if no adapted or evolved DNA is really being passed on?If you don't get that than I'm sorry.When referring about the bad mutations. Well, that doesn't necassarily have to be just mutations. I was just showing that life has become more degenerated and disordered which completely out ways that of better mutations, ordering, etc. The ratio is totally uneven and I cannot possibly see how life gets more advanced learning all this new information from some mysterious source if it is without doubt overall going to get worse.

quote:

---

How is Einsteins 2nd Law ignored by the big bang?

---

Your kidding right. Can you not see how it doesn't? I can remember hearing a creation argument about the earth couldn't have become more ordered since that goes against the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. I saw the fault with this straight away, the earth isn't a closed system and that was the evolutionary reply. No surprise there. But I like to look at the big picture. The entire universe! It exists only within itself so that can be classed as a closed system. An explosion is a mess, which can clearly be seen by any nuclear bomb. However, the big bang supposedly went off then went about going against the 2nd Law and forming ordered planets, galaxies, etc. Why would the biggest thing that possibly could of happened break its own scientific laws? I heard the evolutionary reply that the gravity ordered it. Why does it matter what caused it to go against this law? Whether you like it or not, saying how it went about doing the impossible DOES NOT JUSTIFY it for doing the IMPOSSIBLE.Anyway, if you cannot possibly work out in your own head how evolution is impossible without people making up wrong excuses for it all the time, then sorry you cannot be helped.This is going to be my last post on this forum. All you evolutionist are just so boring, anytime I bring up something valid you skip over it, try find a little technicallity then expand on it simply because the question is to hard, "evolution makes no such claim", "man you’re a peach!", and so on. Sorry, replies like that are doing little to defend your imaginery beliefs.BTW, I'm not really a creationist. I just know evolution is wrong. I only argued for that side since there is only a choice of being one or the other on this forum. I know God exists and that is something you can never take away from me as what you don't know will never convince me for what I do know. Deny His existance all you like, it won't make Him non-existant. However He went about getting us here is really not that big of a deal as I already know He exists. One thing is for sure though, it wasn't evolution!

​

[This message has been edited by RetroCrono, 12-27-2001]