Whoa, totally forgot about this thread.

Quote:

-The tail bone doesn't have a purpose at all.



I think somewhere along the line we established that I was right on this one, so I won't keep bringing it up.

Quote:

-Evolution doesn't require new data to be written from scratch the way you think it does. It goes way more gradually, thinking about a germ to ape is a step that's way to big. Yes, it happened in the long run, but you don't wish to see all the steps in between.



Who said it didn't have to happen gradually? Whether it happens slowly or not, its still requires new data to be written. If you can, compare just the number of nucleotides of the simplest microbe to that of a human. The number of nucleotides alone will tell you that there's quite a difference, if you can't make the common sense connection.

Quote:

-Just because you believe there is no such thing as progressive mutation, doesn't mean they can't happen/didn't appear in the past.



The burden of proof isn't on me.

Quote:

-Growing a third hand because of an mutation is basically a form of evolution when it gives an advantage having that 3rd hand. Thus what do you mean with non-evolutionary change here? Just because you don't believe in evolution, doesn't mean you can simply ignore that fact that we see it as part of evolution.



It would appear because the 'schematic' for an arm jumped locations. The arm isn't being written up from scratch, the data for it already exists. You're just scrambling DNA into new locations (literally scrambling body parts into new locations). However, this doesn't provide any insight into the possibility of a human having been written from a microbe.

Quote:

You try to fit the evolution theory within your framework of thoughts, that's not going to fit at all when you keep having this biased view on it.



You keep trying to squeeze non-evolutionary events into the theory of evolution because there's no actual record of evolution happening. So you've gotta grasp for some kind of straw I suppose.

Quote:

'progressive' or 'regressive' on the genetic level is basically equal in effect to the natural selection level, you make a distinction where there is none to be found and I was referring to the same. A genetic change affects the natural selection process just aswell.



There is a difference. I'll state the difference again. Let's say that beetles living on a windy island mutate to LOSE their wings. On the genetic level this is obviously a loss. Its regressive. However, now they don't get blown away into the water by the wind. So on the natural selection level is a positive thing. These two ideas are exclusive, and I think if you understood exactly what was going on you wouldn't believe evolution in the least. You would scoff at it in fact because you would realize how many times you've been lied to (incidentally).

Quote:

I meant that if there's information that let's us develop hands from fin-like shapes first, then it doesn't surprise me at all that a mutation could cause fins to stay.



It should. Genetics and cells are really quite amazing. And the millions of specific details of cell behavior in a developing human argue strongly against your point here. The reason our hands aren't fused together is because some cells between our fingers know to commit suicide to give us independent digits.

Its a very complex and yet precise process determined by genetics. From the layman perspective (of which I admit I am part of, although I have studied up a bit and do understand the problem) I can see why it might be easy to jump to the conclusion that our hands are real close to fins. But in fact, they're very far away.

Unless I'm mistaken, a mutation somewhere along the lines of what you were talking about has been recorded in history. Webbed hands. They don't turn into fins, they turn into 'freaks' of nature. I'll begrudgingly give you that this can be a beneficial mutation. I suppose swimming 0.01 km/h faster is something of a benefit, although it comes at the rather detrimental loss of some of the finger independence. Now, we have to lose the data that tells the hand to still become a hand (with the hand skeletal structure, and still distinct fingers between the webbing). Of course, if we lose all of that we just have formless nubs, so the data for the fins has to be written. In this case, not from scratch, but it must be NEW DATA. The data for the fin does not exist. Not to mention that in order to be useful, a rather large rewrite of the arm would be in order.

So I suppose on the most simplistic levels, evolution seems rather plausible. But when you really understand the wonderful nature of God's design, it becomes painfully clear that evolution is entirely lacking.

Of course, its only this rather simplistic level of evolution that's presented to students in school. They don't teach the kids how to grapple with problems like why breasts would grow on lizards when it provides no advantage until all of the other dozens of effects take place. Evolution should only be discussed on the simplest of levels, because that's the only place it seems plausible.

I think if evolutionists were actually fair in presenting their TRUE beliefs to students, they would get laughed out of the classroom. I always hear them complain about how the public is generally lacking in understanding of evolution. But a faulty teaching of evolution is the only way it can be believed. Oh well...

Quote:

No, to say the least there are all kinds of mutations that have caused certain humans to have 6 or even 7 fingers, a second ear, not fully developed hands or feet etc. etc.



Again, these fingers appear from pre-existing dna. They aren't written again. In fact, they happen within one generation which is about a 10,000 times faster than evolution predicts. Its not even in the evolutionary ballpark.

Quote:

Honestly your statements keep telling me otherwise.



Coincidentally, your arguments had nearly required me to say the same thing to you.

Quote:

A little gambling with the building blocks of life sounds more plausible to me then the creation theory and we've got more evidence



You have no evidence. You read your theory into a wide open plethora of natural records that can be 'read' any number of ways. Whereas, conveniently, nothing from your theory can be observed in modern science....except that things look the same! Which is why we know skyscrapers weren't created, but evolved.

Quote:

were creationists got nothing.



We have the creation! It acts exactly in accordance with how God's word says it would.

Quote:

your religion is failing.



Agreed. But I don't agree for the same reason that you do.

Quote:

but I would not be surprised when christianity would dissappear within a few decades (50-100 yrs?) because religion itself has failed to withstand the test of time.



It won't ever disappear actually, though its going to definately become more and more marginalized, which would only rest on ancient predictions.

Quote:

Again, where is your evidence for creation? Your theory isn't scientific, that means backed-up properly with solid evidence.



Do you even know what my theory is.

Every time a dog gives birth to a dog, my theory is backed up. Every time we can make a hybrid from microevolved subspecies of a kind, my theory is vindicated. Every time an animal is micro evolved into a new species that's entirely less fit, more disease prone, and has less genetic potential, my theory is vindicated. Every time we try and find ways that life could have started on its own, and fail miserably, my theory is vindicated. Every time we look around at the chaos of the universe and see just how well designed our world is, my theory is vindicated.

I fail to see not only how my theory (who's predictions pretty much always come true) is not scientific.

Every time a mutation only causes a genetic loss of information (as it always does) my theory is again vindicated. Your theory WON'T die because it can't, not in the mind of atheists who will reject their creator at all costs. However, it has died, and its been dead almost since its inception. Its just running on extreme life support, not to mention ignorance.

Quote:

What if the bible is wrong? What if all those miracles are just the imagination of their respective authors? What if it has been oral tradition written down in multiple books, just folklore?



That's easy. Then I die, and nothing happens to me. I just disappear into the nothingness. What if you're wrong though? Where are you going to spend the rest of eternity? I don't really have anything to lose here, but in fact, in the realm of hypotheticals, you have quite a bit more to lose.

Quote:

That would explain certain events that appear more than once. You see why I doubt your theory and thus the existance of God?



No, in fact, I don't. You believe a theory without evidence, and you also believe that the universe is a self-creating scientific contradiction. Its, in fact, rather hard for me to drop my belief in my God to believe some wordly confusion meant to make me deny my creator. I don't have the arrogance to turn a cold shoulder to a God powerful enough to create our universe.

Remind me to touch on 'similar events' in the bible contradiction thread.

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."