Creationism vs. Evolution Debate

Um, I believe in the theory of evolution the same way as I believe in the theory of oxidization. It is valid science in a way pink unicorns are not. Anyone who doesn't understand that is . . . not someone worth debating, if only because the gulf between me and that person is too great ever to bridged by any possible argument.

These types of changes are very small compared to the kinds of changes necessary to turn a finch into a different species of bird!

Darwin was not careful and btw, evolution has never been proven!

They are EXACTLY the kinds of changes necessary to turn a finch into a different species of bird. It just requires a whole lot of them, say, the number that might accumulate over a hundred thousand years or so. Two individuals with only two different characteristics are clearly still part of the same species, but what happens when they have different beaks, different feather colors, different talons, different feather shapes, different feather thicknesses, different eye shapes, and so on, until, in short, every aspect of them has changed? At some point, they would become so different that they clearly wouldn't be the same species. In fact, they would be so different no one would even think of grouping them together.

You can actually evolve bacteria in a lab to create drug resistant strains. Evolution explains the emergence of viruses such as the swine flu. It explains how selective breeding can turn wolves into chihuahuas, too, and while they still aren't separate species yet, pretty much everyone agrees that they are well on their way to it.

The only way DNA can be altered is by mutation which removes information from DNA, not building it up.

the only bacteria alive will be the ones that mutated and are now not effected by the drug.

How does evolution explain the swine flu?

I've picked up on a general tendency of yours to include evolution or a facetious comment/view that likely steers the conversation in that direction

I've really learned A LOT from you, whether that was your primary intent, or not.

The fossil record provides an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of evolution.

Ok, so you don't understand what evolution is either. What you just detailed is called natural selection and it is the mechanism for evolution as Darwin detailed it. So without knowing it, you have just argued in favor of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Mutation changes the information. This may involve removal, difference, or addition. And the changes are cumulative. It's the cumulative part that matters. Over time, the DNA of an isolated population can become so different from that of another isolated population of members of the same species that their descendants cease to be members of the same species.

Swine flu is a new type of disease. The reason that new diseases are created is because they evolve from existing ones. New diseases are not spontaneously created.

i.e. those that have evolved to have a resistance. That is, originally, only a handful of the original bacterial population had resistance, but the addition of the drug to the environment meant that only those survived, so the trait was selected for. This is evolution at its most basic.

In the fossil record we find bones of men buried sooner or in the same layer as animals that evolutionists claim weren't alive at that time.

Natural selection is basically the survival of the fittest... Evolution is one species changing into another.

The Theory of Evolution says that things started out simple and have become more and more complex. That is not what we see in real life! The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that things start complex and, as time goes on, break down into simpler things. You have a Theory vs. Laws

This is mutation at its basic.

another is the meaning of life, if you think we are random molecules that came about by random chance and we could evolve into something different at any time, what is your purpose in life?

And the impossible point for evolutionists to prove... non living chemicals spontaneously breaking forth alive

There are at least two fully developed evolutionary theories that can provide an explanation. Eventually, one of them will be proved when the process is replicated in a lab.

And no, an experiment that has produced life has not yet been carried out. Hence my use of the future tense in my original post. However, various experiments have been carried out that indicate that such an experiment will eventually be successful. For instance, this one recently showed that the basic chemicals present on early Earth could have given rise to the basic building blocks of RNA fairly easily:

Ok, you don't understand how mutation works. Mutation does not remove information, it simply alters it. The DNA code does not become shorter and shorter as species evolve. But, even if this point were true it would be irrelevant because it says nothing about the validity of the theory of evolution.

This still does not say anything about the validity of the theory of evolution. Also over time, selective breeding can lead to a change in reproductive compatability. This would lead to the creation of a new species.

Only in 2 cases: 1) Where the fossils were planted as fakes, and 2) where natural geological processes have clearly shifted the layers out of the order in which they were originally laid.

i.e. those that have evolved to have a resistance. That is, originally, only a handful of the original bacterial population had resistance, but the addition of the drug to the environment meant that only those survived, so the trait was selected for. This is evolution at its most basic.

You don't evolve bacteria in a lab what you do is get a large amount of it and then inject the mass with the drug, eventually the only bacteria alive will be the ones that mutated and are now not effected by the drug.

Ok, so you don't understand what evolution is either. What you just detailed is called natural selection and it is the mechanism for evolution as Darwin detailed it. So without knowing it, you have just argued in favor of Darwin's theory of evolution.

The article that you provided says that it is impossible for ribonucleotides to form.

Also the origin of life article says it shouldn't be confused with evolutionary models.

all of these problems in all of these hypothesis's convince me that evolution is not true science.

Scientists like Dr. Lee Spetner and Dr. Werner Gitt agree that mutation has never added information to the genetic code.

So, in time, selective breeding would turn a dog into a snake... That seems absurd!

But, again, mutations, even beneficial ones, go the wrong way for evolutionists. They are a loss of information.

The problem for evolutionists is that natural selection is nondirectional-should the enviroment change or the selective pressure be removed, those organisms with previously selected for characteristics are typically less able to deal with the changes and may be selected against.

This has nothing to do, strictly speaking, with evolution, which is a theory, as I said, as to what happens with species after they get going. That life did arise is self-evident. Evolution explains what happens after that. As it not not meant to explain more than that, its inability to do so is not a flaw.

No, it says that they have managed to form them. In fact, that's the whole point of the article.

Scientists like Dr. Lee Spetner and Dr. Werner Gitt are wrong, as virtually all serious biologists agree. The validity of the theory doesn't hinge on who has the most PhDs on its side, of course (even though the evolutionists win hands down by that standard too) but by such things as predictive power, which is firmly in favor of the theory.

It seems absurd to think that the earth revolves around the sun when we can clearly see that it is the sun that moves through the sky. Nevertheless, the earth does in fact revolve around the sun, and selective breeding could turn a dog into a creature very like a snake (though the chances of reaching the exact genetic code of an actual snake would be very, very slim). It could probably be got to the point where it looked exactly like a snake, though. It would of course take millions of years. I suspect you are incapable of grasping time intervals of that length.

This isn't a problem for evolutionists at all. It is, however, a truthful statement about what they believe, so you should get some credit for that.

But if life did not evolve or did not come about by random chance the theory of evolution would be disproved.

Read the 4th or 5th paragraph and you will see what I mean

Has there been any documented mutation that adds information to the genetic code?

So you just disproved evolution as the earth is not millions of years old!

But if the very process by which evolutionists say it occurs can have the opposite effect doesn't that mean the process could just go in a circle and never form a new species?

To have to look like a snake the dog would have to have its genetic information.

Actually, even if the first single-celled creatures were magically created however many billion of years ago, evolution would still work just fine at explaining how they evolved into us. As it is, there are several scientific theories as to how those first single-celled creatures got going, none of which involve magic.

Again, you just don't understand the theory of evolution. Or how genetics works in general, for that matter. This is just wrong. Many phenotypical features have evolved independently several times (presumably because the environments of the creatures that evolved them favored them). According to your logic, wolves and chiuauas don't have the same genetic information, because they don't have the same phenotype. Yet they are genetically similar enough to be the same species, despite the apparent differences. In the same way, two creatures could be genetically different enough to be separate species, yet still have evolved to look alike.

Indeed it does. In fact, that's why some species have essentially stopped evolving, and are still the same as they were millions of years ago. That the process could and sometimes does go in a circle doesn't mean it always does.

Yes, several examples appear in the articles that I pointed you to. In fact, the very first one explains how you can do this is a lab with bacteria by getting them to evolve a resistance to a particular chemical.

But where did the first cell come from? Where did it get the genetic information to produce trillions and trillions of different types of cells?

The wolf has all of the genetic information in it that a Chihuahua has. The Chihuahua has just lost the major components that would override the other genetic information.

I showed how each of the examples have either been proved to be impossible or would kill life with the chemicals necessary to make it!

How was the universe made? I say God created it!

You seem awfully invested in arguing the merits of evolution -- why does it matter so much to you?

I am secure enough in my beliefs that I wouldn't foist them on you -- in the end, the only person you will be accountable for, will be you.

I'm afraid that's the way it is.

You come into this world alone, you exit this world alone, and you will carry the burden of what you have done, alone.

You seem awfully invested in arguing the merits of evolution -- why does it matter so much to you?

I am secure enough in my beliefs that I wouldn't foist them on you

No one believes that the first cell had that much genetic information. The first single-celled organisms were very simple, and gradually became more complex over time. How the first single-celled organisms arose is a matter of scientific debate, but eventually we will succeed at replicating the process in a lab, and then we'll know.

Anyone who has access to a basic lab (or who wants to set one up in his basement, for that matter) can carry out the experiments described in the first article on the website I pointed you to,

Evolution is sound science

Excellent, and where did God come from? You could say He always existed, of course, but then why not just say the universe always existed? That would be simpler.

You couldn't prove it, because it isn't true.

Was that the Wikipedia Article?

There has been no proof of evolution.

It violates scientific laws like the law I have brought up an you haven't addressed, the law of Biogenesis.

Even in the articles you provided links to it didn't give an example of mutations increasing the amount of information. All that they did was show how since vertebrates have a higher gene count than a yeast evolution must be able to add information.

How do evolutionists think the universe universe existed?

Great logic! If I say something and you believe it isn't true that doesn't mean that I couldn't prove it!

The Missing Missing Links...

So, I guess we can add biogenesis to the long list of scientific theories you don't understand.

Another one listed various mechanisms that permit the addition of information, including duplication and polyploidy.

There has been all sorts of proof -- that's why all serious biologists accept the theory, why, in fact, acceptance of the theory is pretty much a necessary part of what it means to be a serious biologist.

gradual changes between species over time, with no clear line demarcating them.

This is what I mean about creationism relying on dishonesty and lies.

Again, you are making false statements. Evolution doesn't violate the law of biogenesis. It is not a theory that deals with the origins of the first single-celled organisms, but a theory that deals with how complex multicellular species come about after that

I was saying that you clearly couldn't prove something that is false.

It is actually a law...

This is not new information... This is Duplication (making more of the same genes).

So the LAW of Biogenesis says there was an exception at the beginning of time and life sprang from non-life, but after that life can only come from life?

What proof? Has there been a documented change of a dog into a new species? That is what evolution is!!!!

So you would have to have some half fish half bird (or some other thing like that) in the fossil record. Eventually, according to you, gradual changes have turned something into a new species. We should find the midpoint of the two animals in the fossil record.

Wow they (and you) have great logic and are clearly unbiased...

All I am reading is practically an internet landfill of stuborness and redundancy.