Quote:Original post by Assemblor
Information is NOT added to bacteria. Read Article 1, the superbug article again.

or so he theorizes.

fact of the matter is, if a pig with wings is born, there will be people claiming that it was merely a loss of a gene that blocked the expression of wings, with which all pigs were endowed upon creation.

just like how there are people that claim moths changing color equals evolution. equally retarded.

unless we have easier access to genetic information, there is no way to tell.

I agree that I do not have any degrees in biology or what-have-you, which is why I have provided links to a site with people who do know what they are talking about and can see that there is major flaws in evolution.

Like the doctor in that video said, evolution is a way of taking God out of the equation. The evidence is not overwhelming. In fact, the evidence is NOT EVEN SUPPORTED (information is never gained - see link at bottom). Like the guy on this video says, evolution is a way of taking God out of the equation.

The evidence for the model presented by creation cannot be faltered, and can be viewed scientifically.


Here is another link showing pretty much what I have been saying. Please read.

Quote:
‘In this chapter I’ll bring several examples of evolution, [i.e., instances alleged to be examples of evolution] particularly mutations, and show that information is not increased … But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information.9

‘All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.10

‘The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how the information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little at a time.’

Quote:Original post by Assemblor
I agree that I do not have any degrees in biology or what-have-you, which is why I have provided links to a site with people who do know what they are talking about and can see that there is major flaws in evolution.

Like the doctor in that video said, evolution is a way of taking God out of the equation. The evidence is not overwhelming. In fact, the evidence is NOT EVEN SUPPORTED (information is never gained - see link at bottom). Like the guy on this video says, evolution is a way of taking God out of the equation.

The evidence for the model presented by creation cannot be faltered, and can be viewed scientifically.


Here is another link showing pretty much what I have been saying. Please read.

Let me just make a couple more points, and then I'll let it go, as we're probably not going to get anywhere here.

First of all, you might do a little research on the credentials of the 'doctor' to whom you refer, or at least be aware that throwing that title around does not equal credibility. Also, if you're refering to 'Answers in Genesis', that hardly qualifies as 'people who know what they're talking about'.

But here's what it comes down to. You're citing a few dissenters here and there of questionable qualifications. That's not even to say that there are no qualified scientists who question or challenge aspects of evolutionary theory (there are), but the fact is that the vast majority of people working in mainstream science accept that evolution is the strongest and most internally consistent theory we currently have available regarding the development of life on this planet. Are you saying that 95% percent (a conservative estimate) of scientists are wrong?

Your posts suggest that your mind is made up, so we've probably reached an impasse (as most of these discussions eventually do). But I'll repeat what I said before: citing Dr. Hovind, Answers in Genesis, or any other such references does not consitute an argument against evolution. For creationism to be a viable scientific alternative to evolution, it must succeed on its own merits in the marketplace of ideas that is mainstream science. This it has not done.

Again, I challenge you to provide supporting arguments yourself, or to cite mainstream scientific references that support your position.

Quote:
In fact, the evolutionists who deny God have a blind faith—they have to believe something that is against real science—namely, that information can arise from disorder by chance.

I do not understand why these sources do not 'constitute an argument' just because the majority do not say so. A lot of people do not want to believe in God.

The way creation describes the world IS scientifically sound. Pretty impressive isn't it, considering the bible has been around for so long.

I challenge you to show an example of something where biological information is increased, thus showing evolution. Make sure that it isn't actually a rare case of 'beneficial, but losing information'. Noone has.

Diodor - I believe what the Bible says. The Bible says that God created the world in 7 days. He created different KINDS of animals. Scientifically all of this makes sense according to what the Bible says. Evolution does not fit in with what the Bible says. Sorry I'm not sure what you meant about the monolith, but it is not fact that we evolved from a single celled organism or anything like that.

Quote:Original post by Assemblor

Quote:
In fact, the evolutionists who deny God have a blind faith—they have to believe something that is against real science—namely, that information can arise from disorder by chance.

I do not understand why these sources do not 'constitute an argument' just because the majority do not say so. A lot of people do not want to believe in God.

these sources do no constitute an argument because you just exposed them for what they are: 'second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution' in a new jacket.

information can arise from disorder by chance: it does so all the time. all thermodynamics says is that the entropy of a closed system is expected to increase over time.

small systems, like one enzyme, which couldnt be further away from being closed, could hardly care less about the second law of themodynamics. it is completely controlled by fluctuations. fluctuations which do not give a damn wether they increase or decrease information.


if you say there hasnt been any direct evidence of increasing information, you might be right, but theoretically impossible: most certainly not. theoretically inevitable is what mainstream science says, but time will tell.

Quote:The way creation describes the world IS scientifically sound. Pretty impressive isn't it, considering the bible has been around for so long.

You can't just say that creationism is scientifically sound and have it be so. Again, creationism must prove itself in the marketplace of scientific ideas, which it has not done.

Quote:I challenge you to show an example of something where biological information is increased, thus showing evolution. Make sure that it isn't actually a rare case of 'beneficial, but losing information'. Noone has.

The onus is not on me to provide supporting evidence for evolution, as this has already been done by the scientific community; rather, the onus is on you to provide legitimate, substantive arguments against it.

Quote:

Quote:Original post by jyk
Evolution is neither a belief nor a fact. It is a scientific theory for which the evidence is overwhelming.

Let's clear up all these misunderstandings:

Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is a theory (the explanation of how evolution works).

Sorry, I should have worded that differently.

The way the Bible describes creation does not contradict science. If it did, people would have proven that the Bible is wrong, but they haven't. Genetics works perfectly under what the Bible says :). The Bible talks about sin entering the world, and I believe this is why there are harmful mutations.

One of the articles posted before talked about how 'bacteria routinely acquire genetic material from other, unrelated, bacteria, increasing their "biological information"':

Quote:
Notice, again, that the information for the resistance must already exist in nature before it can be passed on. There is no evidence of anything totally new arising which was not there before. This is information transfer, not information creation.

There is still no evidence of NEW information.

When I said "Evolution does not fit in with what the Bible says.", I was simply explaining to Diodor why Christians do not believe in evolution.

OK I am off to bed now - but will talk more about it if you want in the morning.