Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Creationism vs Evolution

unless these bald people you are referring to, continue to have their genes mutated, and or continue to LOSE information from their genetic structure, then even in a thousand years, they could still breed with everyone else. The point here is the net LOSS of the information. They would still be able to breed with everyone else, unless they LOST to much of our genetics. The problem I continually run into with you is that you see a direct correlation between micro evolution (improperly named, should be adaptation, and natural selection) and macro evolution (again improperly named, because it implies some connection to the above mentioned improperly named micro-e....)
I don't know how many times someone has to point this out to the evolutionists, but a species will never, ever mutate to a higher form, and develop extra lungs, or eyes, or anything else. It is biologically impossible...
read the book Darwin's black box... irreducible complexity...it will clearly show in the most plainly scientific terms.. that systems such as eyes, and blood clot, and others simply do not evolve. Now, I understand that with your faith in evolution, you could probably see it coming about somehow, but the rest of us, that would like to see some proof of evolution, have yet to have these tough questions answered. Reading this, you are going to say that I just don't get it, but I think the problem is that you don't understand the difficulty of what you are trying to prove happening.... If there was a God to begin things, his words should explain things the way they are. (I know you have a problem beleiving that).If there was no god then how could things happen by chance. That is patently absurd. Chance... i mean really...
have you not read any of the previous posts...
if a person draws letters randomly out of a hat, even in millions of years, do you think that they could in sequence, draw out the exact expression of your dna..
Furthermore, even if they were the luckiest, and managed to pull it out of this hat... would that sequence mean anything. I mean, what language is it in. What could read the sequence, what could act on that sequence. Chance alone, even given millions/billions of years, simply does not cut it. EVER.
I understand we all have to have faith in something. You have faith in something that is counterintuitive. I have faith in something that seems superficially unacceptable to you, but its acceptance/unacceptance by you doesn't prove or dissprove it. as does my belief yours. The things we see around us, simply do not point to evolution. I mean, all these formulas and "proofs" you always talk about (these mountains of evidence) they are not Fact. They are purely speculation, based on assumptions... When it boils down to it, everyone has a bias. Some are biased towards God. Some are biased against him. If you beleive that there is no God, then you can't explain the world around you with him in your explanation, so you invent theories. Some testable, others not to explain things. The point is, do your theories have the right starting assumptions. You say there is no God, and natural processes can explain the world as it is today. The problem is, all the laws in the natural world, go against what you are trying to prove, and, there is no real explanation for how these laws got there. All your facts in your dumptruckloads of evidence, are contrived through formulas, and measuring and science you say. Well, do you allow for error. Do you allow for catastrophism. Do you allow for things not yet discovered. I mean, if we were to discover a dinosaur existing today, evolution would have to be rewritten. The bible wouldn't. If we observed the work of a catastrophy in progress, such as mount snt hellens, does the bible need to be rewritten. No, but current evolutionary theory needs to be modified to allow for catastrophism. Again and again, evolution is modified, pruned, and new and wilder theories come about, to the rescue of the evolution idea. When will the layperson get involved with the discussion, and realize that everyone is biased. It boils down to which bias, is the better bias to be biased with. Indeed, do we see macroevolution happening, anywhere??
peppered moths, nebraska man, finches, piltdown man, archeopteryx, haeckels drawings... we never actually see evolution.. we only see frauds.. and natural selection...

Again, a new approach.. biases against microsoft set aside for a moment, do you think that the program windows 98 could come about, by taking all the letters that comprise the original program, mixing them randomly, and then expecting them to come out properly. And, if you beleive that billions of years latter it just might happen, then once we have the proper code, what use is it. unless we first have a computer, one that can run the program, because it has machine code. (perhaps I should have left microsoft out of it GRIN)

Ohwell... If you have the idea that God does not exist, or that we can't be sure, then any evidence we point to, that either uses God, or points to him, you will discount as not scientific, because in your mind he does not exist, or can't be shown to exist, because you are not sure he exists.

I bid everyone cheers, and have a great week!