Does this mean that you believe that the vast majority of mutations is NOT destructive?
Yes
There is a population of organisms consisting of 50 million individuals. Let's say that there are 5,000,000 new individuals born each year to that population and 5,000,000 individuals die. There are 10,000 mutations among those new individuals. Over a span of 10 years, all but 2 of those mutations are harmful. 1 of the 2 is neutral and the other is beneficial. How long would it take for the beneficial mutation to spread to 90% of the population?
Today, we see systems within systems within systems.
For example, the eye, has an iris, internal fluid that consists of feedback systems that control interocular pressure, muscles that most the eye, a socket in the skull that holds the eye, a nervous systems that carries electrical impulses to the brain, perfectly-formed rods and cones in just the right area of the eyes to catch the light coming through the pupil, and outer surface covering, and much, much more interdependent, systematic, detached yet dependent systems that work together to make vision possible.
Now consider that this entire highly-complex system formed again in a perfect mirror image that works with the first system.
Now consider that this happened over and over in the human body in all parts of the body that are symmetrical.
Any thinking person will conclude that these kinds of vast improbabilities simply do not occur.
It's astounding that people still accept this stuff, especially considering that we know so much more than Darwin did.
What does your reply have to do with the question I asked? Stop the diversionary tactics and answer the question.
Exactly how does evolution contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Matter settles into its simplest stable form.
Which is simpler...Water or Hydrogen and Oxygen separate from each other?
Evolution claims that it continues to build in complexity over time.
These are incompatible belief systems.
Why? Can't a complex molecule be the simplest stable form of matter for a particular environment? If not, then how does life exist at all? Is God keeping all life alive by constantly putting molecules back together while they fall apart?
The 2nd law is established. Is is true science and is constantly observed.
Does the Sun violate the 2nd law by making more complex matter out of simple Hydrogen?
Evolution meets none of this criteria, despite the desperate religious cries of its fanatic fundamentalists.
Emotionalism used as a debate tactic.
Paleontologists claim that they have found transitional forms. Could you point out a particular one and show how it could not possibly be a transitional?
Darwin claimed that very small changed happened over time.
This is not what we see in fossils. We see sudden systematic changes.
We don't have fossils that meet even Darwin's criteria for transitional forms. None at all. Zero.
Sorry...I didn't follow that very well, I guess. What part of that actually answered my question?
Paleontologists claim that they have found transitional forms.
And these claims are ridiculous on their face. They are job security and grant-seeking.
This is the unspoken truth among paleontologists.
If they are unspoken, how is it that you know about it? Just wishful thinking on yours, AIG's, Hovind's, and ICR's parts?
Could you go over this in detail? My common sense tells me that if things change a little bit each generation, then we would see a lot of change in 1000 or 10,000 generations. If I take one step toward California each minute, eventually I will reach California. Common sense.
Your reasoning is childishly simplistic.
If you took one random step over and over, you would never reach California.
Never.
This is a more accurate model.
However, I would get somewhere with a high probability that I would not wind up in the same place. You conveniently forgot that the theory of evolution does not claim to have a "direction". So the small changes would result in evolution occurring.
What part of Darwin's theory advocates abortion and euthanasia?
Is it your contention that inappropriate or horrific application of a scientific theory, automatically invalidates that theory? Since E=mc^2 was used to kill thousands at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is the conversion of mass to energy now unscientific and a conspiracy? Is chemistry now incorrect because gunpowder and chlorine gas have killed millions?
Is Christ's teaching incorrect because some believers used His Great Commission as a reason to torture people into professing belief?
Your response here is completely nonsensical in the context.
What makes the response nonsensical?
The fact is, evolution boldly states that survival of the fittest philosophies are beneficial for the survival of a "species".
In fact, this very philosophy is used to justify genocide, euthanasia, and even chemtrail spraying today.
Matthew 28:19 and 20: "19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."
Should this teaching be banned or considered wrong because overly zealous priests tortured people until they either died or professed belief in Jesus as the Son of God?
Should it be banned because Baptists removed native American children from their homes to turn them into Christians?
Are you so blind that you don't see that something is true whether people abuse that truth or not.
Propaganda. These just show people who abuse the theory. Just like with the Inquisition, the abuse doesn't change the truth.
You don't think we should breed organisms for particular traits? Basically, if a farmer tries to breed horses for speed or strength, isn't that farmer spitting into God's face by believing that the original horse design wasn't good enough?
Does this mean that dogs are an unnatural organism?
Again, your conclusions are completely off-base here.
Selective intentional breeding is not a problem. Genetic engineering is.
You're the one who stated that changing the "design" was wrong. How is selective breeding not changing the design?
Diversionary tactic not directly related to the truth or falseness of evolution.
Why is it that in an industrialized nation like Sweden, where the cleanliness and nutrition are as good or better than the US, did whooping cough, Diphtheria and Polio increase when parents decided to stop immunizing their children?
Again, you've bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
Dispelling the lies about vaccines that you've been indoctrinated into is a process that takes a couple hours of scientific study and searching through history and medical journals.
Dr. Tenpenny does just this in her video:
http://herballure.com/vp/strbcI'm not buying anything from you. You want to tell me something then just write it. I can venture a guess the Dr. Tenpenny doesn't address a single statistic from Sweden that shows the change in autism rates when parents stopped vaccinating (because there was no change) nor does the good doctor address the increase in Whooping Cough and Diphtheria when parents stopped vaccinating. Besides, the video is a red herring anyway. The use of vaccines is not an indicator of the truth or falseness of the theory of evolution. Besides, you didn't answer my question: What natural remedies are there to prevent Whooping Cough or Diphtheria?
I guess that leaves dictatorship or anarchy. Which one would you prefer?
Why do you play such games?
Biblical law provides personal freedom and personal responsibility. This is the law that the United States grew up under and became powerful and prosperous under.
That would be a republic.
When this law was changed, we began to sink, as we are now.
What exactly don't you understand?
Sounds like this is just up your alley.
What law was changed? Is the US no longer a republic? What does evolution have to do with this?
Please provide evidence that the owners of Time magazine are God haters and have no morals. If you don't have evidence about Time magazine in particular, any evidence that the "research" of your "mind" can provide on any other mass media owners will do.
Glad to.
Again, this type of research is lengthy, so, since you are inquiring about this subject, I trust you will watch these videos in their entirety.
If you do not, you are obviously being disingenuous.
http://urlbam.com/ha/M002wAn advertisement for a book. How does this advertisement show that the "mass media" owners are "God Haters"? Seems like the book is about how the founders of the US government were putting things in place to usher in the NWO in 2012.
This show that different religious groups have changed the Bible to closely support their favored beliefs. Are you saying that the religious groups responsible for the New International Version of the Bible also run the mass media in the US? Are the Assemblies of God and other Pentecostal denominations (they prefer the NIV) actually "God Haters"?
Those groups are some of the most vocal objectors to the theory of evolution. So, how is their love of a "false" translation of the Bible an indication that the "mass media" is owned by "God haters" and that the theory of evolution is responsible for the "false" translations of the Bible?
Your logic(?) is dizzying.
