ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Arguments For Evolution

What are some arguments for evolution.

Join Our Christian Chat and Take The Evolution Bible Quiz
 ---Marty on 11/5/07
     Helpful Blog Vote (13)

Post a New Blog



I leave flat earth believe to christophobes like Matthew. The Bible teaches no such thing, but it does teach that the earth "hangs upon nothing" (Job 26:7). And historian Prof. Jeffrey Burton Russell documented in his book "Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians" that the overwhelming majority of Chrsitian commentators on the topic affirmed that the earth was round.
---Ktisophilos on 1/5/08


There will always be conflicting scientific views. If there were a book with all the answers in it and people regarded everything written in it as inerant fact, that would be religion not science. And the earth would still be flat and the center of the universe, and...
---matthew on 12/21/07


I can echo MikeMocker's shopping list by pointing out the many conflicting evolutionary positions:
atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, New Age evolutionists, astrology-believing evolutionists, crystal-power-invoking evolutionists, Raelian evolutionists, orthogeneticist evolutionists, zoogeneticist evolutionists, gradualist evolutionists, punctuationist evolutionists
---Ktisophilos on 12/19/07


MikeM love his shopping lists:Creation science,Gap Creationism,Intelligent design,Modern geocentrism etc...

In reality I've always been clear my beliefs are based upon a plain reading of Genesis-the true story of beginnings.

I see no gaps, no theistic-evolution, no geo-centrism, or other compromise views.

When God says He created heavens & the earth I readily accept He knows more than me, writes what He means & means what he writes.
---Warwick on 12/17/07


Here is why warwisk and the other 'creationist' need to allow science to be science.

1000 sectarisn believers from a 1000 docternal positionss offer thier own dogmatic beliefs, all claiming the Holy Spirit guides them in their specific, and, in the final analysis- idiosyncratic conclusions- Science, like goverment is secular, it must be objective, seperate from a miasma of sectarian beliefs
---MikeM on 12/17/07




Warwick opposes evolution, but supports what? Creationism is a miasma of garbled beliefs.
Creation science
Gap Creationism
Intelligent design
Modern geocentrism
Neo-Creationism
Omphalos creationism
Old Earth creationism
Progressive creationism
Theistic evolution
Young Earth creationism

These are beliefs systems. Natural selection is science, and evolution can no more be seperated from science than teeth from dentistry.
---MikeM on 12/17/07


Matthew, it is not the "hard to understand" parts of the Bible that misotheistic christophobes hate, but the parts that are impossible to misunderstand!
---Ktisophilos on 12/16/07


MikeMocker:

"Without mysticism or allegory or metaphor" The Bible abounds with all three. From Gen to Rev. continuous examples of Metaphor can be demonstrated."

So tell us something we don't know. The examples of all these in other parts of the Bible show how *different* they are to the historical narrative of Genesis.
---Ktisophilos on 12/16/07


Even if mikeMocker were right about vestigial structures and alleged pseudogenes like the one for L-gulonolactone oxidase, all he would prove is DEvolution. This is consistent with the Fall.

But so much alleged junk DNA is now known to have a function, including pseudogenes, that the concept of "junk DNA" belongs on the junk heap!
---Ktisophilos on 12/16/07


MikeM you say some things in Scripture are literal!

How do you know this?
---Warwick on 12/15/07




5) A new species of mosquito has developed in the London underground-new species because it cannot mate with other mosquitos. The point is,it's still only a mosquito not heading 'uphill' anywhere not having gained any new unique genetic information which would cause it to become a new 'kind' of creature- actually lost some. Therefore neither natural selection nor mutations assist the evolutionary idea.

Plenty of reading on this & other subjects on the website creationontheweb dotcom.
---Warwick on 12/15/07


1) Whatever MikeM is, dumb isn't one of them. He acts as though he hasn't understood what I wrote-I don't believe it.

I defined 'literal' & he writes as though I claim there's no mysticism, allegory or metaphor in Scripture.

To take a text literally is to take it at face value unless there's some good reason not to. Scripture says 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' cont
---Warwick on 12/15/07


2) I see no reason to believe God meant us to understand otherwise. It fits with the rest of Scripture, which shows us that God does what He says & says what He does. He is all powerful, & does not lie.

Scripture also says 'the trees of the field will clap their hands.' Even I know trees don't have hands so I look beyond the literal for another meaning. MikeMocker is persistent & entertaining but off the mark as usual.
---Warwick on 12/15/07


Matthew,
Scripture says it's via the Holy Spirit we understand Scripture. Therefore why should we be surprised if Bertrand Russell or other anti-Christians find Scripture impenetrable-being outside the Kingdom?

To understand a culture for example it's best to live within it, & eventually its very essence will be revealed.

God's Word reveals itself to true seekers patient enough to spend the necessary time. Those who attack & mock won't understand.
---Warwick on 12/15/07


1)Matthew let me give a simple explanation so everyone can understand.
Evolutionists claim once there was no genetic information. Then the genetic information for the first living creature supposedly arose from non-living matter- without intelligent help.

They propose first-life was something like bacteria- having relatively little genetic information, possibly containing the amount of such information so that the codes for this could be represented in two novel size books.
---Warwick on 12/15/07


2) In the evolutionary story humans (for example) are a product of this evolutionary process. However humans have much much more genetic information a copy of which is stored in every cell of the body. Except the red blood cells I believe. It is believed it would take 1000 books to hold a written representation of the genetic code for a human.

Therefore Matthew the question is where did these 998 new books packed with new unique genetic information come from?
---Warwick on 12/15/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


3) It doesnt come from speciation or natural selection as variants have less genetic information than the original kind. To explain scientists believe the original dog-kind was something like a wolf. Therefore coyotes have come from wolves, but cannot produce anything but coyotes because they have lost wolf genetic information. Therefore speciation is downhill.
The vast amount of new unique genetic information doesn't come from mutations. The vast majority of mutations are harmful- often deadly.
---Warwick on 12/15/07


4) However a few mutations have been shown to give survival advantage. For example the mutation sickle cell anaemia gives resistance to malaria but those with it rarely live past their mid twenties. They are like the mosquitos I wrote about in that if a whole human population were infected with malaria then these mutants would most likely survive. But have they evolved gaining new unique genetic information, on their way to becoming a totally new kind of creature? No, the opposite.
---Warwick on 12/15/07


"Without mysticism or allegory or metaphor" The Bible abounds with all three. From Gen to Rev. continuous examples of Metaphor can be demonstrated.

Some things are literal, like the physical resurrection. I repeat, is "Do not suffer a witch to live' to be taken literal as our ancestors did? When one picks and chooses one is crafting an arbitrary criterion, a capricious and use of scripture. That is religious narcissism, the initiation of dogmatic demagoguery
---MikeM on 12/14/07


Alan and Warwick,

In regard to the discussion between you two:

Bertrand Russel once said that the Bible is known for many things, but clarity is not among them.

Unfortunately, this is definitely true, and your arguments and almost all arguments between others in other blogs here are a result of this reality.
---matthew on 12/14/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


Warwick,

"4. The most obvious uphill mutations are in things that can go through multiple generations in short time periods. Insects, diseases and plants that have in the very short space of just decades (or less) gained the ability to survive new drugs, pesticides and herbicides. Though most mutations are detrimental, if a new generation occurs every hour or every few days, by chance, beneficial changes appear very fast (geologically speaking).
---sophia on 12/6/07 "
---matthew on 12/14/07


Warwick12/06/07,To say something has gained the ability to resist poisons is poor science. If a population of mosquitos for example was sprayed most die. Some already have ability to resist therefore will survive to breed. Successive sprayings will eradicate the unfit leaving only the fit to breed. However they're still mosquitos, with less genetic information than the previous population. You would have us believe the survivors have somehow gained new DNA are on the way to becoming non-mosquitos-not-so.
---matthew on 12/14/07


Warwick,

The challenge in a response is dealing with the disconnect between what you wrote and what Sophia wrote. I can barely relate your response to what Sophia was trying to get across. She speaks of adaptation through mutation and many generations. You claim some of the species were already resistance, go on about losing and gain DNA, (which I don't get at all.) And then something about her wanting us to believe that a new species of mosquitoe could be created out of this process.
---matthew on 12/14/07


Warwick ... Perhaps misrepresent was not quite the right word, but I don't know the exact word to use when someone twists what another has said, or implies that they mean something else, and then to attach wrong motives to this.
Maybe you did not mean to do this ... if that is the case, perhaps you should take more care to read what others say before making accusations.
I know I often misunderstand what people have said ... and when it is pointed out to me, I apologise.
---alan_of_UK on 12/14/07


Send a Free Apostate Church Tract


Well, that is all good and well. I am for the living God. Our true Creator. And you better be.
---catherine on 12/14/07


Alan to misrepresent is to give a false account. I have reacted to what I have understood to be people's intent & meaning. If what I have understood is incorrect it is fine by me if the writer point out my error.
---Warwick on 12/13/07


1) MikeM says he's against Protestant fundamentalism which the Oxford dictionary defines thusly: 'Maintenance, in opposition to modernism, of traditional orthodox beliefs, such as the inerrancy of Scripture, and literal acceptance of the creeds as fundamentals of protestant Christianity.'

These creeds say much including calling Jesus Creator God-came to earth-crucified for our sins-rose again-our only ticket to heaven is by accept we're sinners & accepting his free gift of salvation.
---Warwick on 12/13/07


2)MikeM is either confused by the word literal or trying to sow confusion.

Literal-Taking words in their usual or primary sense & applying the ordinary rules of grammar, without mysticism or allegory or metaphor. We all take literature literally but are well able to understand the meaning. Consider 'He was over the moon having passed his university exams. Does anyone believe he was over the moon, or just excited?

I think we can all understand why MikeM is against the plain Truth.
---Warwick on 12/13/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


Matthew you are catching MikeM's disease in that you don't answer questions.

On 7th December I wrote 'Matthew you say I have misinterpreted what Sophia said in her point 4. Then please illuminate me as to what her point was?'

An answer would be nice.

---Warwick on 12/13/07


Against,
I'm against Islamic fundamentalism
I'm against 'secular' fundamentalism, meaning Marxism
I'm against protestant fundamentalism.

Indifferent,

Most other religions I'm indifferent to.

I'm for the Bible, which I take seriously, but not literally, (not the same)

For,

I'm for, science, religious pluralism, complete academic freedom. I believe in debate and discussing who and what God is His plan, His nature, and His plan of salvation without any reservation
---MikeM on 12/13/07


Warwick, you used the phrase

"You would have us believe..."

Does not this phrase but assign motive to the words referenced and serve as a precusor to re-interpreting those same reference words to your own liking?
---matthew on 12/13/07


Warwick ... It is for Matthew to answer regarding the comment he made, but you wprda as he quoted did assign a motive to someone's comment, when you had no justification.
And on 11/12, I asked you to justify a few coomets that you made about what I had said ... all without basis.
They were misrepresentations, and yet you justified them by calling it straight talking.
---alan_of_UK on 12/12/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


Alan have I intentionally misrepresented anyone? Matthew said so -I asked him to explain-he hasn't.

Regarding vegetarianism animals considered vegetarian have been found to also eat meat. As improbable as it sounds sheep have been recorded as being carnivorous. Conversely there have been fully documented instances of lions being vegetarian. Panda bears live mostly on bamboo but as their habitat disappears some have become carnivorous.

See the site creationontheweb dot com.
---Warwick on 12/12/07


Warwick ... # 1 We seem to be confusing each other.
I mean to be talking about the change between vegetarianism and onmiverousness after the Flood, not after the Fall. I made that point once, but subsequently mistkenly used the term Fall again ... sorry.
---alan_of_UK on 12/12/07


Warwick ... # 3 "'Accusing'-maybe Australians are too straight forward for you English who have a reputation for talking around the point rather than being explicit"
Warwick ... I have no problem with straight talking. But misrepresentation is not straight talking but false witness ... a sin. Even so, I don't have the problem with it, the person with the problem is the one who ... yes, this is the word ... lies.
---alan_of_UK on 12/12/07


1) Alan, its often difficult to discern if someone's being humorous & often difficult to understand people's meaning.

Regarding Cheetah's we dont know all the changes God made for His fallen world, other than what He writes. Its assumption to say Cheetahs existed in the pre-fall world. Maybe their speed is adaptation which came in the new world where cats need to chase their tucker-only the fast survive.
---Warwick on 12/12/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


2) 'Accusing'-maybe Australians are too straight forward for you English who have a reputation for talking around the point rather than being explicit.

Regarding using the present to judge the past you did so in wondering about the Cheetah's ability to chase game, assuming such creatures even existed pre-fall. You appear to be saying- as they exist now, able to chase game they must have done so in the distant past. Surely this is judging the past by what we see in the present?
---Warwick on 12/12/07


Warwick .# 1 "Alan- Swifts & Cheetah's this is humour right?" No ... it is not humour. I just wonder how they suddenly became capable of catching their new prey.
"If not consider God says He created the various kinds of creatures (dog /cat etc) to reproduce after their own kind. That's what happens -cats have cats & dogs have dogs" I have never suggested otherwise ... you appear to be accusing me of doing so.!
---alan_of_UK on 12/11/07


Warwick .# 2 "Alan you propose (maybe humorously) that we use the present to investigate the past which isn't good science" Where do I do that?.
"Did you imagine there were such dogs in the pre-flood world?" No indeed, what makes you think I did?
---alan_of_UK on 12/11/07


Warwick .# 3 "Alan youre right I take God's Word seriously... "
I am glad you take God's word seriously, but that being so, I am surprised that you continue to put words into peoples' mouths (to quote Matthew) and thus bear false witness
You will recall I trust that that is one of the things God's Word warns us against.
---alan_of_UK on 12/11/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


1) Alan- Swifts & Cheetah's this is humour right? If not consider God says He created the various kinds of creatures (dog /cat etc) to reproduce after their own kind. That's what happens -cats have cats & dogs have dogs. But after thousands of years of speciation & specialization countless creatures though still genetically part of the original kind, are very different to their relatives of the past. This is speciation, the opposite of evolution. I am sure you understand why.
---Warwick on 12/11/07


2)Alan you propose (maybe humorously) that we use the present to investigate the past which isnt good science. Just imagine Great Danes & Chihauahs are both part of the same kind, the same species even, as they can interbreed, but so different. Did you imagine there were such dogs in the pre-flood world?
Alan youre right I take God's Word seriously, and seriously so should you.
---Warwick on 12/11/07


Oh Warwick, Warwick!!! # 1 To smile is not to mock! And to joke is not evil.
I have never described myself as a "seeker after the truth", in the way you imply ... because I know the Truth, that Christ died for me. I know the Truth that God made this World and us.
You say that I appear anti-Christian like MikeM. Now that is unfair and judgmental of you, and shows a certain exclusivity (I will not say bigotry)
---alan_of_UK on 12/10/07


Oh Warwick, Warwick!!! # 2 .... I am a Christian, and the fact that I disagree with yuo on the 144 hour Creation, and the possibility of something like evolution does not mean I am not a Christian, nor that my faith is any less secure than yours.
My disagreements with the Roman Catholic doctrine does not make me any less a Christain that Emcee. My doubt about Predestination does not make me any less a Christian than Mark
---alan_of_UK on 12/10/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


Oh Warwick, Warwick!!! # 3 And as for MikeM I think you are wrong to label him anti-Christian. He shows himself to be anti-extreme fundamentalism, but that is not anti-Christian.
Now to your question, and I will not bail. It says nowhere in the Bible about mosquitos being gathered into the Ark, neither does it mention duck-billed platipuses, or albatrosses. But perhaps I can refer to Genesis 6.19.
---alan_of_UK on 12/10/07


Warwick ... I think MikeM has it right "One must realize when fundamentalist use the term 'Christian' they mean only them"
Sad really, not even the Romans do that.
I kniow MikeM isn't even a conventional trinitarian Christian, being a Mormon, but He has never challenged the basic precept of our salvation by Christ's sacrifice.
---alan_of_UK on 12/10/07


i wonder why, if you believe that men have proven so much of the Bible to be untrue, that you just dont throw the whole book out? why build your belif system on somthing you think is a lie or just a metaphore for living well. is Jesus just a "good teacher"? how good can a teacher be if they think they are God? let God be true and every man a liar.
---Kraus on 12/10/07


Alan you disclose your true attitude to Scripture by the mocking tone you used re Noah & the two mosquitos. You have tried to tell us that you are a seeker after truth but honestly you don't behave that way, your attitude being much the same as anti-Christian mockers like MikeM.

Please answer this question: where does it say in Scripture that mosquitos had to go on the ark? Don't bail on me Alan.
---Warwick on 12/10/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


MikeM claims there are human vestigal organs but fails to name even one. In the past some claimed there were 100+ vestigal organs (supposedly evidence of human evolution) but one by one these organs were found to have current purpose. All except one I believe, the muscle which allows us to wiggle our ears. Read about this on the site creationontheweb dot com.

Mike's reasoning is false as he assumes no current known use equals no use.

Don't bail on us Mike- name one human vestigal organ!
---Warwick on 12/10/07


MikeM you write of embryonic gills. Are you by chance speaking of the fraudulent work of Haeckel who was convicted of fraud for his drawings of human embryo's with gills?

If so this nonsense was shown to be fraud many decades ago but evolutionary indoctrinators still teach it as fact. Shame!
---Warwick on 12/10/07


Warwick ... You do take everything so seriously don't you?
But I have to say I find it dificult to understand just how the swift (which cannot land to feed) survived before the fall, since presumably it was not permitted to open its beak to catch insects such as mossies?
And presumably the cheetah was slow then since it did not have to chase prey?
---alan_of_UK on 12/10/07


In my field of study there are clear vestigial structures in humans, from the molecular to organs which are no longer in use, and show common ancestry with other species.

L-gulonolactone oxidase, a gene that is functional in other mammals and produces an rare enzyne- a mutation disabled the gene and made it unable to produce the enzyme. The remains of the gene are still present in the human genome-we call it 'junk DNA'
---MikeM on 12/9/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


'Night Eyes' on a horse, vestigial
appendiges on sea mammals,embryonic
gills, etc, hundreds of morphological examples of vestigual exist.

On a Molecular level vestigial organs are
100% confirmed.
---MikeM on 12/9/07


Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms which have lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution. These are typically in a degenerate, atrophied, or rudimentary condition,[1] and tend to be much more variable than similar parts. Although structures usually called "vestigial" are largely or entirely functionless, a vestigial structure may retain lesser functions or develop minor new ones.
---MikeM on 12/9/07


Alan as we were not there we cannot know what mosquitos lived on in pre-fall times, unless God tells us. However are you saying that you know what they lived on?

Keep it in mind that it is only the female mosquito which today sucks blood. Are you saying that they could not have had a different food scouce in the past?
---Warwick on 12/7/07


Jesus believed in the reality of the Flood, Ark and Noah (Luke 17:26-27). So why are professing Christians doubting him.

The language of Genesis 7-9 makes it clear that it's a global flood not local. ALL (Hebrew kol) the high mountains under ALL the heavens were covered. While occasionally a SINGLE kol is not universal, such a DOUBLE kol leaves no doubt (Leupold's commentary on Genesis).
---ktisophilos on 12/7/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


One must realize when fundamentalist use the term 'Christian' they mean only them. They are unique in their distast of evolution (science), education, secular goverment(democracy)and pluralism, (meaning freedom of religion) Its fundamentalist vs everyone else, as all other Christians are considered 'cult.' They are reactionary, or as some call them, 'pop-evangicals.'

I may suggest 'answers in creation"
---MikeM on 12/7/07


MikeM, clearly Warwick was talking about JUNK DNA no longer being used credibly. Of course DNA is used. Context, man!

Recent discoveries show that the so-called junk has vital functions. About 93% of the genome is transcribed, even though a lot of it doesn't code for protein.
---ktisophilos on 12/7/07


I guess some have evolved in a way.
From fish whom it says have no ruler over them (unsaved) to men (new creatures in Christ) to gods! (Reprobrate and unteachable.)
They've gone full circle as a dog that returns to it's vomit.

Why would a Christian want reasons for evolution?
To know the enemy?
To be able to answer all of their reasons?
Frank
---Frank on 12/7/07


Matthew you say I have misinterpreted what Sophia said in her point 4. Then please illuminate me as to what her point was?
---Warwick on 12/7/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


alan_of_UK, mosquitos could have fed on plant sap as some even do today. Some spiders catch pollen on their webs for food. The oilbird if officially a bird of prey but is 100% vegetarian. But with the Fall and God's curse on the ground, plants no longer provided enough nutrients for many animals, and features adapted for eating plants.

There are other issues such as God foreknowing the Fall. Search the creationontheweb site.
---ktisophilos on 12/7/07


Matthew ... "Stop putting words in other people's mouths"
But he does this all the time, and never withdraws or apologises for the misrepresentations
---alan_of_UK on 12/7/07


MikeM Sorry ... I had asked the wrong question about the mosquitos. I should have said before the Flood everything was vegetarian.
I can just imagine Noah catching two vegetarian mosquitos to take on to the Ark.
He must have kicked himself later when they turned into bloodsuckers and started biting him!
---alan_of_UK on 12/7/07


Kelvin, you are correct. First tell the truth, then give you opinion, you gave the truth.

Alan, yes maybe vegetarian bugs, LOL, you make me smile!

"DNA no longer being used"-If so, then the courts have not been informed, people still convicted of crimes based on DNA evidence.

Yes there was a flood, many floods over millions of years. Noahs floood regional. When the ice sheets melted. Its symbolic.
---MikeM on 12/7/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


Warwick,

You assign motives to other people beliefs. And with this, "You would have us believe the survivors have somehow gained new DNA & are on the way to becoming non-mosquitos-not so," you assign the motive of Sophia's statement with a fanciful purpose and conclusions you just made up.

Your conclusions do not follow what she wrote, nor did she say "I'm writing this because I want to make you think...".
Stop putting words in other people's mouths.
---matthew on 12/7/07


Warwick, what did those mosquitos live on before the Fall? I think you say everything was vegetarian then?
---alan_of_UK on 12/7/07


Trey, you have your own answer

"...and God said LET THE EARTH BRING FORTH..."

That tells me that God put into place the laws that allowed the Earth (i.e. nature) take over from there.

The entire fundamentalist argument that evolutionists are nothing more than a bunch of Godless atheists is inane. There are millions of Christians who believe in evolution.
---Kelvin on 12/6/07


Sophia: "This is just the beginning of the nonsense about the global flood myth."

Or hyperbole--as when Paul tells the Romans that their faith is known throughout the world. Many cultures have flood stories that are remarkably similar to the biblical account. For instance, in Chinese characters they tell you that there were 8 people who were saved.
---djconklin on 12/6/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


Sophia what you wrote is best described as Evolution 101-first year university. I've neither room nor time to point out your many errors & assumptions but consider:

1) DNA no longer being used- an argument from ignorance & assumption. What youre saying is if we don't understand the purpose of something it therefore has no purpose. This is like the old evolutionary story of the supposed 100+ vestigal organs in humans. Research showed these organs do in fact have purpose.
---Warwick on 12/6/07


2) To say something has gained the ability to resist poisons is poor science. If a population of mosquitos for example was sprayed most die. Some already have ability to resist therefore will survive to breed. Successive sprayings will eradicate the unfit leaving only the fit to breed. However they're still mosquitos, with less genetic information than the previous population. You would have us believe the survivors have somehow gained new DNA & are on the way to becoming non-mosquitos-not so.
---Warwick on 12/6/07


Thank you Sophia. I doubt they will be back. They will bail or 'retort' with rhetorical barbs. Some present infromation with logical clarity, others offer only emotion and name calling. You clearly take the higher road.

We must all remember evolution is not a prescription or argument for atheism, in reality, fundamentalism, islamic or Christian, is.
---MikeM on 12/6/07


Sophia,

Thanks for the thorough and knowledgeable response.

I take it that you are neither a checker at Wal-Mart nor a grammar school teacher, and you've read more than one book this year.
---matthew on 12/6/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


ktisopholis:
3. The large informational content on DNA has many "artifacts" that show what other life forms they decended from and are related to. Many DNA "artifacts" are no longer used (having been deactivated). An intelligent writer would edit out unused, worthless or duplicated passages, but yet DNA has many such things. They are in essence a DNA evidenciary history of the process of evolution.
---sophia on 12/6/07


ktisopholis:
4. The most obvious uphill mutations are in things that can go through multiple generations in short time periods. Insects, diseases and plants that have in the very short space of just decades (or less) gained the ability to survive new drugs, pesticides and herbicides. Though most mutations are detrimental, if a new generation occurs every hour or every few days, by chance, beneficial changes appear very fast (geologically speaking).
---sophia on 12/6/07


ktisopholis:
2. The global flood is a joke. It is not supported by fossil evidence, sedimentary stratification evidence, etc. Layers in ice going back 100,000+ years show no noticable debris layer at the point of time for a flood. The very presence of glacial ice and glacial flow lines that go back tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years proves no water covered these areas. This is just the beginning of the nonsense about the global flood myth.
---sophia on 12/6/07


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.