VenomfangX http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CNV2A55Ilk
Venom asked me to review it last night, time to spread it around.
Here is the text, in case you don't like Venoms voice
:
If it can be clearly demonstrated that no single living creature contains a trait that can be classified as a chronological increase of physical traits such as a new limb, organ, sensory ability, or similar clearly new traits over its provable ancestors, (and are not repeated or altered versions of old traits, muscles, or bone structures), then it can reasonably be concluded that the variations of traits across the various species of all life forms are not the result of increased genetic complexity via evolution (as the proponents of evolution theory would suppose), but rather the result of maintaining the traits within a kind from its ancestral history from the original creation (that is to say, animals were created as kinds by a designer, in their full complexity, rather than through a process of evolution). It can therefore be demonstrated that no animal or plant within its kind (a lion, a tiger, a cheetah, a leopard, are all cats) will contain any trait (as defined above, with the exclusion of detrimental or beneficial mutations that alter traits that already existed in the past, without actually introducing a new trait) that can not be found within its provable ancestral history. This would undeniably prove that the types of changes evolution theory requires to bypass the distinct kinds of animals from one to another is a physical impossibility, both in the present and the past, as no living creature alive today shows any signs of gradual change that can be classified as being the precursors to an act of evolution into another kind of animal by introduction of new traits (not simply multiplying or subtracting or otherwise altering old traits).
The mutations witnessed today have never shown to introduce new features (such as an animal growing wings, or the beginnings of such an ability). It is therefore possible to conclude with absolute certainty based on this line of reasoning that the variations of animals and plants throughout the world living today are not the result of evolution (the act of increased genetic and physical traits), but rather the survival of an original prototype through generations of survival.
Should evolution theory be true, we would expect at very least one single animal or plant to show clear signs of development of new traits from its likewise kind (a bird for example that has something no other bird alive today has). However, to assume just because two birds are radically different (for example, a penguin and a woodpecker) and conclude based upon their differences that they must have evolved from a common ancestor, can not be used as evidence of evolution, for the penguin and the woodpecker do not necessarily have a common ancestor. Rather, it can be demonstrated due to lack of provable evidence that these two birds share a common ancestor, compounded with the fact that you can not prove the penguin or the woodpecker did not have the traits it now possesses in its ancestrial history, to conclude that these two animals (while both birds) were in fact designed to be birds originally, with distinct traits from other birds of its kind, as with every major species of animal and plant on the planet. This means the radical differences we see within a kind (such as within the plant world, for example a maple tree and a palm tree) are therefore surviving remnants of the original creation and design which was created with diversity from the beginning, and has survived until today as separate species, and yet the same kind.
It is therefore also useless to use the fossil record in this demonstration, because it can not be demonstrated clearly that two of the same kind of animals that are radically different shared a common ancestor (e.g. a T-rex and a Brontosaurus). It is also useless to show the difference between living creatures (such as a house cat and a lion) who exhibit slight alterations of features, like the lions mane, without being able to prove a house cat and a lion share a common ancestor. If my theory be true, the cat kind (along with all other kinds of animals) were created diversified originally, and they have maintained through survival of these separate species many of their individual characteristics without becoming a new kind of animal, while remaining the kind of animal they were originally created to be (a cat in this case), with the possibility of interbreeding (thus introducing traits that may be new for a species, but not for the overall kind).
To further elaborate, the theory of evolution states that simple life increased in genetic material, thereby introducing new organs, functionality, design and intelligence (in the case of humans). A supporter of evolution would claim evolution takes too long to see any of the traits I am describing emerge. This objection is simply not fair; it does not explain why not a single animal or plant living today exhibits any single clearly identified gradual alteration or change of its physical traits that would act as a departure from its clearly provable ancestral history (or from another species of its same kind) that would otherwise be defined as an event leading to a new kind of animal, or be inarguably the beginning of such a transformation or new trait (as defined originally).
Therefore, when comparing two species of animals that are clearly the same kind (a donkey and a zebra), to assume they share a common ancestor is an error, simply because they share common design. Even if the Zebra had a new organ (or in this case, a stripe pattern that other horses do not), this is not evidence of the fact that zebras and horses shared a common ancestor and the zebras "evolved". Rather, the ancestor of the zebra and the ancestor of the donkey had offspring which through the generations survived until today (by reason of logic), and while they are the same kind and can even potentially interbreed, they do not necessarily share a common ancestor and were potentially created with different features to begin with. To falsify this claim, it must be clearly demonstrated that the zebra and the donkey share a common ancestor (as opposed to a common designer who created them separately and slightly differently) and that not only did the zebra gain its stripes through mutation, but that no other explanation exists whereby the zebra and the donkey could logically be so different, yet similar. Evolutionists are guilty of assuming all horses (donkeys, zebras) share a common ancestor for their bias against the possibility of a designer who made the horse kind diversified to begin with. I repeat, to falsify my claims, it must be demonstrated that a zebra and donkey share a common ancestor, and that by the introduction of new traits (via evolution) they diversified, as opposed to the possibility that the two were never related to begin with and were created differently, yet with many similarities (being the same kind of animal, a horse).
In the event that the donkey and zebra do have a common ancestor, that still does not prove evolution, for the minor changes between a zebra and a donkey may very well be attributed to natural selection, mutation, and adaptation (not evolution, despite the claim that evolution works on these principals). To prove evolution, it must be demonstrated that two creatures of the same kind which are simply too different to have contained its current traits from its ancestry (in other words, gained traits its ancestors did not possess), and yet are clearly the same kind of animal, showing the appearance or beginnings of traits as defined originally, excluding the possibility by way of evidence that the two do not share a two separate ancestors (thereby proving beyond any doubt that two animals of the same kind inherited traits that the other did not have, and were clearly not from its ancestor or another species from the same kind).
In conclusion, if no single animal or plant exhibits any variation from its kind that can be demonstrated to have been absent from its provable ancestral history (and not members of the same kind that differ), then evolution can be confirmed to be impossible both now, and in the past, for its lack of present day appearance in any living creatures or plant life. For evolution to be true, it must be a continual process that does not simply "end" when it is convenient or when looked at under a microscope. There must be a single provable example living today (although there should be countless of such examples across every single form of plant and animal life, yet there are none), whereby an animal or plant possesses a trait (or beginning of) that its provable ancestors did not possess. If no such trait can be found, then evolution is officially impossible and should be proclaimed to be so immediately
Venom asked me to review it last night, time to spread it around.
Here is the text, in case you don't like Venoms voice
: If it can be clearly demonstrated that no single living creature contains a trait that can be classified as a chronological increase of physical traits such as a new limb, organ, sensory ability, or similar clearly new traits over its provable ancestors, (and are not repeated or altered versions of old traits, muscles, or bone structures), then it can reasonably be concluded that the variations of traits across the various species of all life forms are not the result of increased genetic complexity via evolution (as the proponents of evolution theory would suppose), but rather the result of maintaining the traits within a kind from its ancestral history from the original creation (that is to say, animals were created as kinds by a designer, in their full complexity, rather than through a process of evolution). It can therefore be demonstrated that no animal or plant within its kind (a lion, a tiger, a cheetah, a leopard, are all cats) will contain any trait (as defined above, with the exclusion of detrimental or beneficial mutations that alter traits that already existed in the past, without actually introducing a new trait) that can not be found within its provable ancestral history. This would undeniably prove that the types of changes evolution theory requires to bypass the distinct kinds of animals from one to another is a physical impossibility, both in the present and the past, as no living creature alive today shows any signs of gradual change that can be classified as being the precursors to an act of evolution into another kind of animal by introduction of new traits (not simply multiplying or subtracting or otherwise altering old traits).
The mutations witnessed today have never shown to introduce new features (such as an animal growing wings, or the beginnings of such an ability). It is therefore possible to conclude with absolute certainty based on this line of reasoning that the variations of animals and plants throughout the world living today are not the result of evolution (the act of increased genetic and physical traits), but rather the survival of an original prototype through generations of survival.
Should evolution theory be true, we would expect at very least one single animal or plant to show clear signs of development of new traits from its likewise kind (a bird for example that has something no other bird alive today has). However, to assume just because two birds are radically different (for example, a penguin and a woodpecker) and conclude based upon their differences that they must have evolved from a common ancestor, can not be used as evidence of evolution, for the penguin and the woodpecker do not necessarily have a common ancestor. Rather, it can be demonstrated due to lack of provable evidence that these two birds share a common ancestor, compounded with the fact that you can not prove the penguin or the woodpecker did not have the traits it now possesses in its ancestrial history, to conclude that these two animals (while both birds) were in fact designed to be birds originally, with distinct traits from other birds of its kind, as with every major species of animal and plant on the planet. This means the radical differences we see within a kind (such as within the plant world, for example a maple tree and a palm tree) are therefore surviving remnants of the original creation and design which was created with diversity from the beginning, and has survived until today as separate species, and yet the same kind.
It is therefore also useless to use the fossil record in this demonstration, because it can not be demonstrated clearly that two of the same kind of animals that are radically different shared a common ancestor (e.g. a T-rex and a Brontosaurus). It is also useless to show the difference between living creatures (such as a house cat and a lion) who exhibit slight alterations of features, like the lions mane, without being able to prove a house cat and a lion share a common ancestor. If my theory be true, the cat kind (along with all other kinds of animals) were created diversified originally, and they have maintained through survival of these separate species many of their individual characteristics without becoming a new kind of animal, while remaining the kind of animal they were originally created to be (a cat in this case), with the possibility of interbreeding (thus introducing traits that may be new for a species, but not for the overall kind).
To further elaborate, the theory of evolution states that simple life increased in genetic material, thereby introducing new organs, functionality, design and intelligence (in the case of humans). A supporter of evolution would claim evolution takes too long to see any of the traits I am describing emerge. This objection is simply not fair; it does not explain why not a single animal or plant living today exhibits any single clearly identified gradual alteration or change of its physical traits that would act as a departure from its clearly provable ancestral history (or from another species of its same kind) that would otherwise be defined as an event leading to a new kind of animal, or be inarguably the beginning of such a transformation or new trait (as defined originally).
Therefore, when comparing two species of animals that are clearly the same kind (a donkey and a zebra), to assume they share a common ancestor is an error, simply because they share common design. Even if the Zebra had a new organ (or in this case, a stripe pattern that other horses do not), this is not evidence of the fact that zebras and horses shared a common ancestor and the zebras "evolved". Rather, the ancestor of the zebra and the ancestor of the donkey had offspring which through the generations survived until today (by reason of logic), and while they are the same kind and can even potentially interbreed, they do not necessarily share a common ancestor and were potentially created with different features to begin with. To falsify this claim, it must be clearly demonstrated that the zebra and the donkey share a common ancestor (as opposed to a common designer who created them separately and slightly differently) and that not only did the zebra gain its stripes through mutation, but that no other explanation exists whereby the zebra and the donkey could logically be so different, yet similar. Evolutionists are guilty of assuming all horses (donkeys, zebras) share a common ancestor for their bias against the possibility of a designer who made the horse kind diversified to begin with. I repeat, to falsify my claims, it must be demonstrated that a zebra and donkey share a common ancestor, and that by the introduction of new traits (via evolution) they diversified, as opposed to the possibility that the two were never related to begin with and were created differently, yet with many similarities (being the same kind of animal, a horse).
In the event that the donkey and zebra do have a common ancestor, that still does not prove evolution, for the minor changes between a zebra and a donkey may very well be attributed to natural selection, mutation, and adaptation (not evolution, despite the claim that evolution works on these principals). To prove evolution, it must be demonstrated that two creatures of the same kind which are simply too different to have contained its current traits from its ancestry (in other words, gained traits its ancestors did not possess), and yet are clearly the same kind of animal, showing the appearance or beginnings of traits as defined originally, excluding the possibility by way of evidence that the two do not share a two separate ancestors (thereby proving beyond any doubt that two animals of the same kind inherited traits that the other did not have, and were clearly not from its ancestor or another species from the same kind).
In conclusion, if no single animal or plant exhibits any variation from its kind that can be demonstrated to have been absent from its provable ancestral history (and not members of the same kind that differ), then evolution can be confirmed to be impossible both now, and in the past, for its lack of present day appearance in any living creatures or plant life. For evolution to be true, it must be a continual process that does not simply "end" when it is convenient or when looked at under a microscope. There must be a single provable example living today (although there should be countless of such examples across every single form of plant and animal life, yet there are none), whereby an animal or plant possesses a trait (or beginning of) that its provable ancestors did not possess. If no such trait can be found, then evolution is officially impossible and should be proclaimed to be so immediately
: 
