Barbarian
Member
Again I repeat as have everyone else have, you have no scripture and your "science" is heavily flawed.
I realize you want to believe that, but even your fellow YE creationists know better.
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise
First you try to take a very simple principle (ie genetic information) and try to turn it into a very complicated explanation and in this complexity you hope to lose and fool those discussing evidence with you.
There's nothing whatever complicated about it. It's accessible to anyone with a grasp of high school math. C'mon. The formula is very straightforward:
You also avoid many topics (such as the complexity of DNA and genetic information being a major piece of evidence against evolution)
Since we now know that RNA can be self-catalyzing, that's not a problem, either. And if you were following the math, you'd realize that any new mutation in a population increases information. And often speciation actually decreases information before it increases information. Would you like to see how that works?
I said physical death is always the result of spiritual death,
That's wrong. Squirrels die physically. You think they die spiritually first?
But let's keep things simple. First we can observe that the fossil evidence tells us a different story than evolution.
Not according to your fellow YE creationists. As you learned, scientists who are creationists are away that fossil evidence is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."
The fossil history of organisms that actually lived instead show a different story of a regression in earth's diversity.
Well, that's testable belief. Over the ages, we see a spectacular increase in the diversity of mammals from the Cretaceous. We see a huge increase in diversity of organisms in the Cambrian, over the relatively few complex animals of the Ediacaran.
And there are also ages where diversity decreases. It's not a straight progression as your teachers assumed.
A millions years from now if there are still evolutionists they will claim that the platypus is the link between ducks and beaver.
No, that would be silly. Ducks have a narrow bill that is made of hornlike material. Platypuses have wide, soft mouths made of soft tissue with many, many nerve endings. You've confused analogous organs with homology.
The skeletons of platypuses are mammalian, typical of monotremes. The skeletons of ducks are avian, typical of birds like flamingos.
The vast majority of observable mutations are what we call cancer, genetic diseases, and genetic disorders.
No, that's wrong, too. Most mutations don't do much of anything at all. You have dozens of mutations that were present in neither of you parents. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts them out.
ou cannot say that there are many mutations that do not harm but we just can't detect them.
Of course we can detect them. How else would we know about them?
If Darwin was alive today he would condemn his own theories of macro-evolution.
Nope. In fact he'd be gratified, since genetics cleared up a serious problem with his theory. Would you like to learn about that?
If Darwin was alive today he would condemn his own theories of macro-evolution. He had stated that if any part of an organism can have irreducible complexity then that part could ever have evolved because it could not have been less than it currently is and still function.
No, he never said that. But if you'd like to give me a checkable source, I'd be pleased to see it. You're confusing IC with something else. And irreducible complexity has been observed to evolve. Would you like to see that? Just tell me what you think irreducible complexity is, and we'll take a look.
So explain in simple terms how the human eye evolved. What came first, the lens or the iris? When was the retina added?
Fortunately, the transitional forms are still in existence in some phyla. Mollusks, for example: