No trust in Creation...no trust in Genesis....no trust in Scriptures...

[superdave5221]

1. First of all, you clearly don't understand what a mutation is. Technically, our DNA is 100% mutated. Whether we call something a mutation or not depends on our point of reference. For example, a monkey might give birth to offspring in which it's DNA is mutated and it has a faster metabolism. However, the DNA of it's parents is the result of mutations from its ancestors somewhere down the line.

2. Ancient man was not more intelligent than we are today.

What we do know is that mutations NEVER result in new information. There is always a loss of information. The evolutionists seem to skim over this little detail.

 

[Tintin]

Do you know how difficult it is to find those 'trillions' of fossils. Understand the fact that the whole Earth sits on tectonics, has climate, goes through atmospheric changes, temperature changes, landslides, changes in continental drift, not to mention soil moves around, deposits, volcanoes erupt, we build things on so much of the planet and destroy habitats, the Earth's is 71 % water, too.

Exactly! This points to the enormity of the Flood in Noah's time. The Flood covered the entire world and did great geological damage to everything. The Flood wiped out all animals and people in the world, save those in the ark. Many mountains and valleys are a result of the Flood, as are many volcanoes. Earthquakes are also a result of the Flood, as are most fossils we find today. Continental drift happened during the Flood. The Earth is now 71% water because of the Flood. The Flood is the answer to all of this.

 

[Esanta]

What we do know is that mutations NEVER result in new information. There is always a loss of information. The evolutionists seem to skim over this little detail.

That's not true at all.

Monkeys have developed a gene that gives immunity to HIV. They do this constantly because they have one of the best immune systems in the animal kingdom.

Europeans have evolved genes that allow us to digest milk into adulthood.

These are both information gains.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Well, science itself also claims that animals that are similar enough can mate creating a new species that can reproduce. We have never denied this. But animals that are not close enough will not conceive. Mules come from breeding horses with donkeys (I've been told that two mules can't reproduce - I don't know if that's true). I have also heard that the Liger cannot reproduce either. And the bible does not tell us how many animals were on the ark. But we do know that it was huge. Besides you have heard of miracles, right - like feeding 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish.

As far as your picture analogy. These are not pictures, but trillions of "missing" fossils. You have a bigger problem than I do, because I believe in an all powerful God.

Yes indeed, the Hybrids. You will notice that Hybrids are the final nail in the coffin of Darwinism also. As it is most hybirds cannot actually reproduce and are infertile. However, in the case that hybrids are able to reproduce they must require the parent species to reproduce. The offspring of such a union will always either remain as the Hybrid Kind or will revert back to the Parent Kind.

Thus it is that evolution in the Darwinist concept is possible for one Kind to become another Kind, however, this is a Dead End and the Kind of animal is not able to continue evolving past the point of hybridization. Thus it is that Darwin's theory is not the Origin of Species, but is in fact the Dead End of Genetics. This also proves that human kind did not evolve as we would require at least one of the fictional parent species to still exist to reproduce.

 

[Esanta]

Exactly! This points to the enormity of the Flood in Noah's time. The Flood covered the entire world and did great geological damage to everything. The Flood wiped out all animals and people in the world, save those in the ark. Many mountains and valleys are a result of the Flood, as are many volcanoes. Earthquakes are also a result of the Flood, as are most fossils we find today. Continental drift happened during the Flood. The Earth is now 71% water because of the Flood. The Flood is the answer to all of this.

No, natural processes are the answer to this. It happens continually. Fossils end up buried. The flood is easy to disprove because there isn't' a bed of trillions of fossils sitting at the same level in rock. If there were, then we'd think about flood stuff.

 

[Tintin]

As a better understanding of the record of nature continues to march forward, and even more Biblical exegesis is performed, then the YEC roadblock will go the way of the flat-earth society.

Equating biblical creation beliefs with flat-earth societies? How original, how clever! Blah.

 

[superdave5221]

That's not true at all.

Monkeys have developed a gene that gives immunity to HIV. They do this constantly because they have one of the best immune systems in the animal kingdom.

Europeans have evolved genes that allow us to digest milk into adulthood.

These are both information gains.

Gene variation has nothing to do with new information. It is a recombination of information that is already there. It's like having a 10 letter alphabet. You can form a lot of different words with it, but without additional letters (information=analogy), there are words that can never be formed.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

As a better understanding of the record of nature continues to march forward, and even more Biblical exegesis is performed, then the YEC roadblock will go the way of the flat-earth society.

A better understanding of the Bible and science has in fact disproven a large portion of Old Earth Creationism as a fraud and in fact supports Young Earth Creation

As for the Flat Earth, lol, yes the Earth is flat so to say (minding we still have topography). It certainly isn't a spheroid.

 

[Esanta]

Yes indeed, the Hybrids. You will notice that Hybrids are the final nail in the coffin of Darwinism also. As it is most hybirds cannot actually reproduce and are infertile. However, in the case that hybrids are able to reproduce they must require the parent species to reproduce. The offspring of such a union will always either remain as the Hybrid Kind or will revert back to the Parent Kind.

Thus it is that evolution in the Darwinist concept is possible for one Kind to become another Kind, however, this is a Dead End and the Kind of animal is not able to continue evolving past the point of hybridization. Thus it is that Darwin's theory is not the Origin of Species, but is in fact the Dead End of Genetics. This also proves that human kind did not evolve as we would require at least one of the fictional parent species to still exist to reproduce.

Why do you assume that evolution has gotta have two genus mating?

It would be more accurate to see that species within genus are very similar to one another, thus species within that genus would have mutated and procreated together, which would be a slow evolutionary process. You don't really understand the specifics.

 

[Elin]

If I presuppose that light travels straight in a vacuum, it allows me to set up an experiment to find the evidence. Now, I cannot physically tell light to be different than what it is, so, if my experiment leads me to the conclusion that light is straight, then light is straight.

I speculated that light was straight and proved it. Presupposition isn't the same as speculation.

They are above.

 

[jag1977]

Gene variation has nothing to do with new information. It is a recombination of information that is already there. It's like having a 10 letter alphabet. You can form a lot of different words with it, but without additional letters (information=analogy), there are words that can never be formed.

Exactly!!!!!!!

 

[Esanta]

They are above.

I left the inverted commas out in the first 'presupposition'.

 

[Esanta]

Gene variation has nothing to do with new information. It is a recombination of information that is already there. It's like having a 10 letter alphabet. You can form a lot of different words with it, but without additional letters (information=analogy), there are words that can never be formed.

No, a new protein was formed. New proteins aren't hard to form. That's a gain in information.

Yea, sure, it was made from the same four chemicals as ALL genetic codes in ALL life (evidence for species' relations), but that doesn't prove anything contrary to evolution.

 

[Tintin]

1. First of all, you clearly don't understand what a mutation is. Technically, our DNA is 100% mutated. Whether we call something a mutation or not depends on our point of reference. For example, a monkey might give birth to offspring in which it's DNA is mutated and it has a faster metabolism. However, the DNA of it's parents is the result of mutations from its ancestors somewhere down the line.

2. Ancient man was not more intelligent than we are today.

1. Yes, I do. Adam and Eve were perfect, they had no DNA mutations. Mutations are a result of the Fall of Man into sin, which cursed the whole of creation.

2. I don't believe in the bull that apes are our common ancestors. I'm talking about the first man and woman, Adam and Eve. Perfect in every way. They were far more intelligent etc. than we are because initially their body, mind and spirit hadn't been corrupted by sin. As we make our way through human history, we see a loss of information, not a gain. Adam and Eve would've had relatively few mutations and their children a few more and then their children more again and so on. We're becoming stupider, we just have a bigger body of knowledge and experience to draw on than did our predecessors. But still, some of that knowledge is lost. We don't even know how the pyramids were really constructed. And the builders lived some thousand years in the past. So by my reckoning ancient man goes back 6,000 years.

 

[jag1977]

No, a new protein was formed. New proteins aren't hard to form. That's a gain in information.

Yea, sure, it was made from the same four chemicals as ALL genetic codes in ALL life (evidence for species' relations), but that doesn't prove anything contrary to evolution.

DNA has 4 building blocks for all human existence.

 

[Esanta]

1. Yes, I do. Adam and Eve were perfect, they had no DNA mutations. Mutations are a result of the Fall of Man into sin, which cursed the whole of creation.

2. I don't believe in the bull that apes are our common ancestors. I'm talking about the first man and woman, Adam and Eve. Perfect in every way. They were far more intelligent etc. than we are because initially their body, mind and spirit hadn't been corrupted by sin. As we make our way through human history, we see a loss of information, not a gain. Adam and Eve would've had relatively few mutations and their children a few more and then their children more again and so on. We're becoming stupider, we just have a bigger body of knowledge and experience to draw on than did our predecessors. But still, some of that knowledge is lost. We don't even know how the pyramids were really constructed. And the builders lived some thousand years in the past. So by my reckoning ancient man goes back 6,000 years.

Yet again another argument from ignorance is about to be refuted. The same old thing were YEC people say 'we don't know how they did this' or 'we don't know this' thus YOUNG EARTH.

Well, now we DO know how they built the pyramids. Putting water on the sand.

 

[superdave5221]

No, a new protein was formed. New proteins aren't hard to form. That's a gain in information.

Yea, sure, it was made from the same four chemicals as ALL genetic codes in ALL life (evidence for species' relations), but that doesn't prove anything contrary to evolution.

Proteins are the words formed with the ten letter alphabet. Got it!

 

[Esanta]

DNA has 4 building blocks for all human existence.

Dyoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, is the genetic 'code' of every life form on Earth. It is made up of the same four chemicals in ALL life, not just humans.

 

[Elin]

Yep. It's not a given that every Christian believes the creation account is literal, thus it's possible that it's not literal - if we are to base the validity of scriptural interpretation on the interpretations that exist within the entire Christian faith, that is. Of course, then we end up with this one respondent who will say 'creation is literal, I know it to be true', as opposed to to the other Christian who might say 'creation is not literal, I know it to be true', then we have the atheist scientist who says to himself 'I'm fed up of this, both think they're right based off belief, none have evidence, so I'm gonna make everything in my life evidence based'.

Neither of those three people like the idea of uncertainty, though.

Are you limiting the evidence to the material?

Both those Christians would agree there is more than material evidence.

Just because it can't be put under a microscope does not mean it does not exist.

 

[Timeline]

Why do you assume that evolution has gotta have two genus mating?

It would be more accurate to see that species within genus are very similar to one another, thus species within that genus would have mutated and procreated together, which would be a slow evolutionary process. You don't really understand the specifics.

And a slower evolutionary process would require an even larger number in "the group" over a larger amount of time resulting in even more fossils of which science has produced very few. And the "mutations" could be as easily explained by the medical community (as in a disease of a particular animal/man) than the evolutionary community - Again, we have all heard of the elephant man.

PS. The elephant man did not descend from elephants, he just had a disease.