Why evolution is bogus.

The genetic changes are random, but the way that favourable changes are preserved and accumulated, and unfavourable changes are rejected, is a systematic process and is not random.  Over millions of years, these accumulated favourable changes result in "information, knowledge and meaning".

Ahem : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

But it was found only 150 years ago, maybe you haven't heard the news.

I would be on Xieff's side, saying that evolution is wrong, but then the forum would probably get closed.

Well I am on Xieff's side with evidence that cannot be proven wrong.

• Darwinian evolution: has it ever happened?
• How can you prove the Bible false? The Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth.
• If you believed in evolution, where did the first matter appear? I have heard that the probability of matter all coming together perfectly is 10 to the 123th power, pretty much impossible.
• Where did we come from? From some alien who planted something, and then the plant evolved  into something.. and yeah, it is foolishness. Where then, did the aliens come from?

• "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature has been clearly seen, being understood with what has been made, so that men have no excuse." ~Romans 1:20
• Romans 1:20
  proves that since God has created intellegent design, men cannot say, "There is no God". 

So all this points us to a intellegent creater, God, who created all things.

So I believe that evolution is bogus and that Christianity rules!

Is this hard to prove wrong? I'm not suprised.

where did god come from?

anyway why dont you guys just spen a couple of minute to google your questions to see if you dont find answers and then come here??

we waste our time answering and reanswering questions and you guys never listen....

Just look up the Bible. God did not have a creator, because he is God, atheist.

ok well in that case the universe didnt have a creator.... you cant argue with that logic apperently...

also why did you use the word athiest as an insult?? it makes no sence....

no, in that case, God created the Earth in intellegent design.

 Comments in red.

Basically, your claims are vague, so no precise answer can be given.

By the way, the "institute for creation science" is just as laughable as a random youtube video as a source. I have better though : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php

if you go to bed a 2 year old and dont wake up and adult then aging doesnt exist....

Does anyone think they're actually gonna convince the other side?

So...

The world was created in seven days, because the Bible says so ? No way that it could be metaphorical ?

I suppose, then, that women who have sex before marriage should be stoned :

"But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." (Deuteronomy 22: 20-21)

Also, thieves should have their hand cut off :

"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched." (Mark 9:43)

Also, widows should marry their brother in law :

"Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother." (Mark 12:19)

I mean, if you read the Bible literally, you cannot just do it when you wish to.

I just read a few pages of this post.  One thing I would like to add is that there is many scientific and intellectual reasons that one may disagree with the scientific portions of evolution.  If you study DNA and these processes there are significant stumbling clocks to this.  Such as the fact that the simplest organisms have complex chains which could never have been randonmly put together added with the fact that every mutation never gains genetic information rather every mutation loses genetic material.   Also mutations are random and cannot form complex systems that are reliant on each part.  Also you have issues such as so called transition fossils are lacking along with organisms by the evolutionist in which the label early and late are in the same fossil layer, ie Cambridge explosion also there has been red blood cells found in dinosaur bones (which only can survive for a few thousand years).  There are many intellectual reasons to not believe in evolution.  

With this said the guy that went on this rant went about this in a horrible way.  He did not supply reasons or facts for his beliefs nor tried to have a discussion that would have substance.  As well it is wrong for people to say that people that believe in creation to not be able to allowed to vote.  

The design in the world is truely astounding in which many aithest believe that life in no way could have origanted on earth or came by chance.  There are aithest which believe in intelligent design such as life from another planet.  This gives credence to the idea that creation is a plausible idea.  

I look forward to a respectful and a debate of substance rather then spouting off "so called facts" and opinoins that have no merit 

I just read a few pages of this post.  One thing I would like to add is that there is many scientific and intellectual reasons that one may disagree with the scientific portions of evolution.  If you study DNA and these processes there are significant stumbling clocks to this.  Such as the fact that the simplest organisms have complex chains which could never have been randonmly put together added with the fact that every mutation never gains genetic information rather every mutation loses genetic material.   Also mutations are random and cannot form complex systems that are reliant on each part.  Also you have issues such as so called transition fossils are lacking along with organisms by the evolutionist in which the label early and late are in the same fossil layer, ie Cambridge explosion also there has been red blood cells found in dinosaur bones (which only can survive for a few thousand years).  There are many intellectual reasons to not believe in evolution.  

With this said the guy that went on this rant went about this in a horrible way.  He did not supply reasons or facts for his beliefs nor tried to have a discussion that would have substance.  As well it is wrong for people to say that people that believe in creation to not be able to allowed to vote.  

The design in the world is truely astounding in which many aithest believe that life in no way could have origanted on earth or came by chance.  There are aithest which believe in intelligent design such as life from another planet.  This gives credence to the idea that creation is a plausible idea.  

I look forward to a respectful and a debate of substance rather then spouting off "so called facts" and opinoins that have no merit 

Actually any theologian can easily support all of this, as your statement is not having any understanding of what you are posting.   Those verses as a bible believing Christian that believes in science cause no problem for me or any other bible believing Christian

I will tell you guys what... you tell me why you dont beleive in all the other 10000 gods that have been invented, and I will tell you why I dont beleive in your god...

@knightmight

Your reference to materials put up by the Institute for Creation Research brings back memories. They are not in the news much any more, but they were the only group going out and debating against evolution back in the day, and they have an active publishing program. I remember visiting the Institute in summer 1980. I met Henry Morris, watched a film on the Paluxy River tracks, bought some books, and signed up to receive their newsletter.

When I returned the following summer, the offices were quieter as both Morris and Duane Gish were out of town. Even so, I was able to stock up on more pamphlets and may have bought another book.

Those were happy days. I was so secure in my knowledge that a couple of books with the sorts of assertions you are putting forward put me ahead of those deluded evolutionists who had spent a lifetime writing peer-reviewed articles, making breakthroughs in medicine in their laboratories, developing plants that could revive agriculture in some parts of India where pests had devastated old crops, and spent decades teaching young arrogant pups like myself.

I was a Creationist and I was proud!

The great thing about arguing on a college campus, though, is that your adversaries are often well-informed. I read those newsletters the ICR kept sending me. I wrote an excellent paper for a course in state and local government about the merits of teaching evolution and Creationism together in public schools. I deployed legal arguments and pedagogic arguments, bracketing (as the phenomenologists say) the scientific questions. It was heady stuff reading a 70 page article in the Yale Law Journal for a paper in a 200 level college course. I read that article and the most important Supreme Court Cases that it referenced. My professor graded the paper as an A and wrote "excellent paper in all respects." Then he erased "in all respects," but I was still able to read it. While my friends told me they were being persecuted for their beliefs, showing me papers that were embarrassing at best, that erasure was the closest that I ever felt to being persecuted.

I argued with a lot of my professors. I argued in science, history, poilitical science, and even philosophy of religion. It took a lot of time, but bit by bit, my arguments picked up from Morris's and Gish's books and pamphlets fell to better information and real science.

For a long time, though, even into graduate school after a few years out of school, I clung to ICR's argument about entropy (you know, the Second Law of Thermodynamics). How could a planet form that would sustain life when the whole universe tended toward disorder?

During my second year of graduate school I was helping a friend clean his apartment. He and I had argued Creationism versus evolution for many hours stretched over more than a year. His roomates had left a bunch of half empty beer bottles strewn about. As we drained them into the sink, he explained that the beer falling from the bottle was a system of disorder. No argument there. I was with him all the way. The air bubbles that formed, however, were pockets of order. Each bubble in that emptying beer bottle was a pocket of order in a system of disorder.

I saw the light. My argument concerning entropy had no foundation. Finally, the brainwashing that I received summer 1980 had been fully eradicated. Once again, I could look at science with an open mind.

A few years later, in a graduate seminar--Advances in Anthropology--after a three week introduction to human evolution from a prominent archaeologist, I wrote my paper, "Confessions of a Ex-Creationist." That paper, too, garnered an A. I might still have a copy around here somewhere in my files. Maybe you would like to read it. 

And YOU NEVER listen....

You won't answer because you don't have an answer.

Newton theory of Gravitation 1687

Einstein's Theory of GR             1916.

 200 years.

Darwins Theory  1859.

Newer theory      2059?

 Things might change.