What's Wrong with You Linear
You seem to be so bent on believing that evolution occurs, yet you fail to acknowledge the mountains of mounting evidence that demonstrates that so-called evidence for evolution has been regularly produced fraudulently.
Name 20 evidences for evolution and your verifiable evidence that they have been produced fraudulently.
As I have explained in great detail in previous posts, evolution is a social control being used to dethrone the God of the Bible and to put the current banking elite in His place.
No. You have stated that evolution is social control but produced no evidence that can be verified in support of your statement.
Of course, the Bible predicted that this would happen thousands of years ago, but so many stubbornly refuse to examine this evidence. Have you?
The Bible doesn't state the means by which the major apostasy will occur. Why do you presume it is the promotion of evolution that causes it. Maybe the insistence by the fundamentalists that belief in evolution means you must deny God, is the cause of people turning away because they see the evidence supporting that evolution occurred.
I previous said:
"The small non-complex mutations that are becoming part of a complex system would certainly be harmful, useless mutations and would be selected out long before they ever had a chance to develop more complexity."
...(snip out propaganda)....
Nevertheless, the truth that small mutations, although nearly always harmful, form components that are beneficial to the organism, is now discredited because of what we now know about the cell.
This is different than the statement above. Small harmful mutations do not remain in the population. Small beneficial mutations do.
In short, regardless of the alterations of genetic information, the parts that are constructed of proteins are themselves dependent on an immensely complex array of nanomachines that produce proteins and facilitate protein folding, not to mention those nanomachines involved in DNA duplication and transport. The chance that this multilayered machinery that is interdependent across multiple layers formed by mutation is, in all honestly, completely on par with a belief in magic.
But you do believe in magic and miracles so this can't be much of a stretch.
Could you go into detail concerning this statement? What specifically within this "complex array of nanomachines" prevents alterations of genetic "information" from being passed on to offspring?
Furthermore, when you add the requirement that each part of a mutation must be beneficial as a more complex system develops as is required by natural selection, you have exceeded the bounds of absurdity.
How far beyond the bounds of absurdity does it take us? Can you quantify where those bounds of absurdity exist insofar as cellular biology is concerned?
Irreducible complexity is one of many brick walls to natural selection, and intellectually honest scientists must humbly let the data lead them rather than relying on fanatical arguments like so-option to save their dying faith.
I guess most scientists are not intellectually honest by your assessment.
Please point out 1 irreducibly complex system within any creature then show me what makes it irreducibly complex.
I will not address the second statement because you seem to be having trouble supporting the first one.
You said,
"The widespread acceptance of Literal Genesis Creationism in the face of mountains of evidence to refute it, is little more than a demonstration of the sheep-nature of Evangelical Christians."
[quote](1) As you explore the "mountains of evidence to refute it", you discover that each and every one of these arguments break down into fantastically ridiculous assumptions.
When you provide an example of a "ridiculous assumption" and a refutation of it, maybe I could accept this statement as something other than a mere assertion.
(2) You have yourself put your faith in those who have attempted to discredit intelligent design, and as ironic as it is, you have not studied ID enough to make a good argument against it. Ironically, this is your faith.
I have studied it enough to know that the "theories" and "evidences" provided to support it, don't meet the criteria to even call it a viable hypothesis much less a theory. Michael Behe, himself stated on the witness stand in Dover, PA that the requirements of science would have to be lowered in order for ID to be considered a theory. In fact, he agreed that if the standards were lowered enough for ID to pass the test, then astrology would also meet the criteria for a viable theory.
I read it. I guess you don't believe in a Literal Genesis Creation since you don't think the stars were put in on day 4.
Evolution is a social control.
Another unsubstantiated assertion.
Evidence please.
