The so called Science of Evolution ' Is anything but Science ! (Page 354)
Blackshoes: "We’re sure you’ve heard this claim before, probably hundreds of times: “Science has proven evolution is fact.” It’s like a strange Darwinian chant that emanates from atheist blogs and secular universities. Too bad (for them) it’s not true.
In fact, refuting evolution doesn’t require complicated equations or lab experiments—though those do the job, too. Just remember the two fundamental flaws we can use to show evolution to be, well, not even scientifically viable.
Lifetime Boarding Pass
Get lifetime admission to the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum plus exclusive benefits. Available for a limited time!
Where’d You Get Your Information, Bub?
Everything that makes up your body requires genetic information. You’ve got hands and feet because your genes code for it. The same is true for any creature—dogs, camels, you name it.
The genetic information in humans varies from the information in animals, plants, and so on. Seems obvious, so why point it out? Because for animal kind A to somehow “presto-change-o” into animal kind B, the information’s got to change. A fish doesn’t just morph into an amphibian without something changing in the genes. It would have to gain some new information.
Here’s the clincher: when we use operational science—the kind involving observable, repeatable, testable results—we have never observed, repeated, or been able to test animal kind A turning into animal kind B—at all. Sure, there’s some genetic “do-si-do” going on through mutations and gene drift, but there’s no way fish are going to sprout hair and opposable thumbs. Just in case you think by “no way” we mean there’s still a chance, there’s not—none, zilch, nada, not going to happen. What if we add billions of years and cool artistic renderings? Still no.
Refute evolution in less than three minutes with this exciting mini-video from Check This Out! (a DVD or download featuring six warp-speed videos sure to spice up your teaching). Share everywhere.
That first point is devastating enough. But here’s how evolution gets buried even more.
You’ve probably heard news accounts about how life could have started on earth “gazillions” of years ago in volcanoes, slush pools, crystals, rocks, you name it. Maybe you’ve heard something about “artificial” life or test-tube life or rotten-food-in-the-refrigerator life (okay, maybe not the last one).
Those are interesting speculations, but they overlook one important rule in biology: life doesn’t, cannot, and will never come from non-life. Life comes from life. Always. That’s the law—the Law of Biogenesis, to be exact.
All these failed experiments, like the Miller-Urey experiment, really show us just how much intelligence is required for life to begin in the first place. (That is, way smarter than us.)"
Blackshoes: “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
In order to discover the character of people we have only to observe what they love.
Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.
The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.
Corwin: "Life comes from life. Always. That’s the law"
But that's exactly what Evolution proposes, that new species are the descendants of previous ones. It's the Creationists who are proposing that life materializes out of thin air, and that this has happened millions upon millions of times.
Blackshoes: I rather not, However. Kind would be simply put any animal that cannot change into another species, change happens, how drastic the change is', can only be determined by what it was from the beginning. Wolves are still wolves and remain wolves even though we now call many of them dogs. No animal, virus, bacteria can become a tree or vice versus..
Cow\s do not become whales, and whales do not become cats
Corwin: Well... if "kind" means Species, there's a hell of a lot more than 5,000.
We've catalogued over 1.5 million species of animals, and it's estimated that many times more than that are yet undiscovered. And that's not taking into account all the millions of extinct Species that existed in the past.
If "kind" is a broader definition, like perhaps Genus, or Family, and all the present Species are descendants of those "original plans", then we're talking Evolution and speciation, which you've claimed can't happen.
Corwin: Animals becoming plants, and vice versa??
Well there's a Strawman argument. Anybody who would even suggest such a thing obviously has absolutely no understanding of Evolutionary Biology. Stating something that would be impossible according to Evolutionary Biology, and then using that as an argument AGAINST it, is absurd.
AchillesSinatra: "No animal, virus, bacteria can become a tree or vice versus.. Cow\s do not become whales, and whales do not become cats" - Blackshoes
I just want to say it's an honor and a pleasure to learn from someone as well versed in evolutionary biology as yourself, sir.
Blackshoes: Corwin, You're 100% correct . Evolution is impossible, otherwise, it would be easily observed'. That's the point! If animals supposedly have a common ancestry with plants. You can assume whatever you want about me. Without any Biological Fossil or DNA evidence, you cannot make such wild assumptions within any science and get away with what evolutionists do!
It's just as ridiculous to say Model T's can become a Saturn five, as long as you add enough time
Corwin: Common ancestry... yes... but that doesn't mean that trees will be spawned from cats... or that watermelons will give birth to Anthropologists.
Back to "taxonomy"... when "Plant" and "Animal" became two separate things (Kinds )... back billions of years ago... when single-celled life branched into "Animal" -- bacterium and protozoa -- and "Plant" -- green algae that mastered photosynthesis... branched... forever will the two never meet as far as breeding.
Look up the term "Phyla".