The guy replied and then locked the thread so I couldn't comment back.
Here are the replies:
"Well I will answer the questions first, Sam I have been involved in research and study of creation/evolution for nearly 20 years so I dont have to spend much time on it these days as I already have most of it stored in my memory.
To answer your Accusation of BS about mutations Tim :
The evidence clearly demonstrates that mutations, for practical purposes, are always useless or harmful particularly in homo-sapiens they can often be fatal that is a FACT as mutations can cause diabetes, club feet, hemophilia, Downs Syndrome, colour blindness, Turner's Syndrome, Klinefelter's Syndrome, Sickle Cell Anemia, Cystic Fibrosis, Phenylketonuria, Albinism, Metabolite as well as substitution, addition/inversion of genes and a bomb load of other such tragic afflictions. So you see it is not just plain wrong because all these
afflictions exist or are you going to tell me they are not caused mutations ?
And what is your point about Hfloresiensis ? Are you going to tell me it was part Human and part Chimpanzee ? Or it is a direct ancestor of man as we know it today ?
Against hard evidence, mutations are supposed to produce the changes that drive the wheels of evolution, Evolution scientists will have you beleive that these mutations would happen by the millions and in groups, Not just in individuals here and there, but waves of mutations would hit whole groups of colonies,Mutating them as colonies, Up the ladder of evolution, becoming more complex and ordered each time.
But you know or should know that it is the opposite, As scientific findings say NO.
There is a bloke in England well respected and one of the leading fellas of Science and Medicine,Sir Peter Medawar is the bloke, This is what he said "there is no genetic process that science knows of that could produce the changes required for the process of evolution."
Genetic mutation has never been observed to improve, modify or make an organism more complex. Not one convincing case exists FACT! Mutations are always detrimental to the species concerned. It has been widely accepted by mugs who just accept things without actually studying or looking into the evidence themselves that evolution is, in fact, true, So lets look to find a mechanism which demonstrates the process of evolution.
Evolution requires billions of positive mutations in millions of different species of both plants and animals. Literally trillions of positive mutations would be required and yet no one has been able to show one single,Honest, convincing case. This completely blows out of the water the belief that evolution has happened by genetic mutation, So off you go back to the drawing board and revise your theory of evolution for the 100th time.
And while you are at it explain these :
Who are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects ?
Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA which can only be produced by DNA?
Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Yes there should be billions ! Not a handful of questionable transitions, Why dont we see a reasonably smooth continuing pattern among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both ?
How did sexual reproduction evolve, You know with the sex organs of opposites Male and Female that when used "CREATE life? Are you going to tell me they evolved to create ? And when did evolution throw up its hands and say "Thats it evolution is no longer needed they know have opposite sex organs to create"
If you are would you like me to give you the odds of it happening by random chance, Selection or whatever you want to call it ?
Again explain when and where one species has evolved into a totally different species, Not within their own kind or a slight transformation a totally different species.
X SAID
"Point is, Evolution shows us how things developed, how things progressed and the dynamics of composition of life. But that is it. It never proves fully why things have occurred.
TIM REPLIED
"Yeah I agree X"
So if you agree with that (never proves fully why things have occurred)
You would then be open to the suggestion that things could have possibly occured with a design and with a purpose then ? Great thanks for clearing that up."
-------------- So I agree that evolution doesn't prove the reason why things have occured, because it's not a good idea to say something is proven when it is always open to investigation in science, yet the creationists latch onto this and try to jam god into any gap they can find!---------
---I'm really impressed with this reply he made to a person's claims concerning the geographic record:----
"So where you get that the earth is billions of years old ? Looking at the strata ?
Using radiometric dating ? Well we can throw that out of the discussion they are so unreliable and inaccurate its a Joke. Example, Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) radiometric dating method used to date the Earth at billions of years old also dates the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption to have occurred 2.8 million years ago, But of course they wont tell you that
And also you dont know how long it takes for the layers to form, Add to that, And there is evidence that suggests there was a worldwide flood and the catastrophic damage it would do to the earth would age the earth making it virtually impossible to come a sound conclusion on its age, A simple example is put your hand in a bowl of water and leave it in there for a week, Take it out see how old it looks compared to the rest of your body, Like I said thats a simple example,The damage a catastrophic flood would have is unmeasurable as you would need the data before and after to compare the effect it would have.
"Like I said geologists have fossil records that go back billions of years. My question to you is, how come if we look back five billion years ago, all we find are single celled organisms and that is all. There is nothing else that exists during that time period. Than if we look back lets say 2 or 3 billion years, we find a little more complex organisms. And nothing else. This pattern keeps continuing throughout the fossil record. And when you go back that far, it is easier to see the new additions to species. when you have A single cell, than another couple billion years you have AB with something added . etc."
Again where you get these billions of years from ?
"My question for you is, How did new species come to be ? How come there once was life and it was only single cell simple organisms and that is it during the early history of the earth, and than billions of years later more and more species kept on showing up. Its obvious God did not create all living things or all animals at one time. So what is your belief about it? Do you think God created each species at different times? Cats and dogs were not wondering the earth back when the dinosaurs were around, so how did they come to be? Why have so many animals and creatures died off and also came to be throughout the history of the earth"
The animals that have become extinct found the new world to be much different than the one before the Flood, Due to competition for food that was no longer in abundance, And man killing for food and the destruction of habitats,etc, etc, Many species of animals eventually died out. Mate loads of animals become extinct each year, Extinction seems to be the rule in Earth history it is not the formation of new types of animals as you would expect from evolution, So your question would be better aimed at a Evolutionist.
Another question, Why does all living things have the same exact genetic code. like everything came from a single source? For example if you take a look at our entire DNA code, it will be over 99 percent the same as a chimp. Our genetic code contains the same information as all life before us within it. Why is that?
The tapeworm has 75% the same DNA code as humans so whats your point ? There is no way that chance or natural selection could invent the chemical code of a first cell and use it to write information instructing the cell to make just the right proteins, Fold them properly and send each one to the only place in the cell where it will fit, You said it yourself "like everything came from a single source?" Ever wondered what that source was ?
"Genetic evolution of species is a process that takes billions of years. Most mutations cause defects and would die off, others do not. We see genetic mutations happening today. When someone has twins that is a genetic mutation.
There are also animals today we have observed genetic mutations that have lived on and passed their genes. There was a shark that was newly discovered that grew a couple of extra tail fins. i forget the name of it. and that is the very very very very short term"
Again where you get your billions of years from ?
So a shark grew a couple of extra fins, Big deal its still bloody shark.
"talking about observing evolution, is like saying you want to watch a seed grow into a plant and only watch it for one hour and conclude that it will never grow into a plant and walk away"
I aint talking about observing it, If it as already happened then there would have been evidence of it so we can see it, It is you thats saying the earth is billions of years old surely over those billions of years there would be a bomb load of clear cut evidence showing a unquestionable evolution from one species to another, But there aint no matter how you try to cut it.
Mate you stick to thinking a shark growing a couple of extra fins as clear evidence of evolution, Ill stick to believing it is still a shark."
--------------This line in particular just amazed me
" there is evidence that suggests there was a worldwide flood and the catastrophic damage it would do to the earth would age the earth making it virtually impossible to come a sound conclusion on its age, A simple example is put your hand in a bowl of water and leave it in there for a week, Take it out see how old it looks compared to the rest of your body, Like I said thats a simple example,The damage a catastrophic flood would have is unmeasurable as you would need the data before and after to compare the effect it would have."
------I have never in all my life read something so amazingly stupid. I'm still in shock after reading that. I would love to see his evidence that exposure to water changes the age of rocks. And claiming that because your hand wrinkles in water and looks older, the same thing happens to rocks... is just...wow....
I'm kind of glad that he locked the thread so I couldn't reply, there is just no point trying to use logic to try and change a view that is so divorced from it.
