You don't understand.

When too many changes accumulate over the generations and two tribes of one species are close to becoming two species, angels intervene and forbid the animals to procreate, hence the species barrier is never broken.

Note that Creationist use the word "species" to refer to mean "different-looking animals". That's not what the word "species" means in biology, but that's OK because Creationists only use scientific terms; they do not understand them.

IN REALITY now, what happens is that when you take two populations A and B of animal species X and let them evolve independently, populations A and B will eventually be unable to interbreed and will have become to species Y and Z. This can be observed in nature and in labs. The claim that something will stop them from becoming two species is a Creationist lie.

Two species evolving independently (and they always do, because that's what "species" means) will eventually take different evolutionary paths and their descendants will eventually look quite differently from the ancestors. Again, there is NOTHING to prevent such changes from accumulating. And Creationists have never explained what exactly it is they believe happens to stop evolution from changing animals too much.

Either way, it always astounds me that the "Christian Principle of Honesty" of which we have heard here so much never seems to stop Creationists from lying about evolution, no matter how often they are told about them.

Whenever I read the terms "random chance", "macro-evolution", and "species" (in the sense of "different-looking animal" rather than "animal that cannot interbreed with another animal) I know I am confronted with lies.

So there are two reasons Creationism should be taught in science class. It's not science, and it's not religion. (If it were religion, why does it encourage lying?)

There are no fossils I can find of my ancestors five generations back. Hence I cannot be their descendant.

Whew!  I thought I was going to have to carry the guilt of that blackguard around with me for the rest of my life.

LULA POSTS:

Back in the 90s, the true science of molecular genetics has discovered the ever bewildering complexity of DNA...DNA is the mechanism (the barrier) that stops one organism from evolving into a completely different one. Analysis of DNA sequences in various species show similiarities within species and big differences between systemallically far-removed ones...and apes and humans are systematically far removed...as are reptiles from birds, etc.

Molecular genetics confirms the accuracy of taxonomy and doesn't confirm postulated evolutionary sequences. There ARE NO PROGRESSIVE CHANGES FROM FISH TO AMPHIBIANS, TO REPTILES TO MAMMALS. Sorry about that, Leauki, Taltamir, and others. Molecular genetics confirms systematics, not crossover changes from one species to a completely different one. Molecular genetics confirm Linnaeus, not Darwin.

The science of Molecular genetics, particularly DNA, supports Special Creation as explained by God's words in Genesis. Creationists have known all along that, by definition, science cannot contradict Sacred Scripture. We know this by faith and reason. Almighty God is the principal Author of Scripture, is Truth Himself and free from all error. Since God is both Creator of the universe, including space, time and matter, and principal Author of Scripture, the Scripture can't contradict science.

Creationists have faith in the trustworthiness ofo God as a reliable eye-witness to Creation. Our faith enables us to begin a particular hypothesis about our Origin events with something more than a hunch. The historical events, the Genesis testimony on Creation and historical geology and now molecular genetics, cannot be dismissed as irrelevant.

 So,,,,Genetics has no proof for Evolution Theory...it can't explain it let alone give evidence of it...and that's why over all these years Evolution Theory keeps postulating evidence of it and failing to find it, and then moves on to other postulates. This IS NOT SCIENCE...and a whole age of sceintific endeavor was wasted searching for a phantom. It's time to stop and recognize what is....natural science fail to supply empirical evidence for Evolution Theory....they must be taken on faith alone.

Lula, you are still evading the subject. None of what you write is relevant because you simply don't understand evolution and you refuse to learn.

As long as you don't understand that Darwinism is not about "macro-evolution" and "random chance" and that there simply is no definite border between species that could possibly, through any mechanism, halt evolution before it creates a new species, everything you say will remain pure nonsense.

Once I meet a Creationist who knows as much about evolution as I know about Abrahamic religions, I will listen carefully. But until then my own research into both fields effectively stops me from listening to statements I know to be lies (like anything about "random chance" and "macro-evolution") and consider them as arguments.

If you cannot be bothered to learn Darwinist theory, I cannot be bothered to take seriously what you have to say against it.

You don't even know how ridiculous you sound to anybody who knows anything about Darwin's theory.

I'll tell you again, and I hope that you listen, in the interest of promoting Creationism if not in the interest of convincing you of the validity of scientific theory:

1. Darwin's theory is NOT about random chance events.

2. The theory of evolution does NOT include what you call "macro-evolution" and never has. "Macro-evolution" is not a type of change but an overview. Evolution according to Darwin consists ONLY of small changes (i.e. "micro-evolution"). You can simply forget about the two terms "micro" and "macro", because the difference you see between them has absolutely nothing to do with Darwinism.

3. There is NO definitive border between two species. Not only is there no mechanism for changes to stop before a new species is created, but there isn't even a border between species that could possibly trigger or even define a goal for such a mechanism.

Any statement or claim you make about evolution that uses any of the three lies Creationists constantly use is completely meaningless in the context of discussing evolution. Whatever merits Creationism has must be compared against scientific theory, NOT against your understand of science or the lies Creationists tell about it.

Let me make it perfectly clear, so you cannot wiggle out again:

Claiming that evolution is about random chance is a lie. Claiming that evolution knows micro-evolution and macro-evolution as two types of change is a lie. And claiming that there is a border between species that cannot be crossed is a lie (because there is no such border according to the theory of evolution).

If you tell any of these lies, you are not only making it obvious that Creationists are liars (hence harming your cause), but you are also violating the laws of your religion (hence harming yourself).

Again:

1. Evolution is _NOT_ about random chance.

2. There is _NO_ such thing as "macro-evolution" in Darwin's theory.

3. There is _NO_ border between species (and it is therefor logically impossible for evolution to stop before it crosses that border).

You have been told these things again and again. And I don't care if you tell me that you don't believe in them. Darwinists do and their world view contains those three principles. So if you want to disprove or discredit their world view you better address those points instead of lying about them.

Darwinism:

1. NOT about random chance.

2. NO macro-evolution.

3. NO border between species.

Get that into your head.

True.... nor me of mine.

Two things....

Fossils don['t form when plants, animals or humans die and rot away. To have any chance of being preserved as a fossil a plant, animal or human must be buried rapidly under a heavy load of sediment which also must harden relatively rapidly to exclude oxygen and bacteria. Otherwise, scavengers or forces of erosion and decay destroy the specimen.

The absence of phylogeny (development by ET) in the fossils has now been established beyond reasonable doubt. The field evidence is fully consistent with the enormous Flood of world wide proportions and Darwin's gradualistic Evolution Theory is confounded by this evidence. 

Creationists believe that most of the fossils were formed during the year long Flood recorded in Genesis 6-9. The order in the fossil record is due to the order of burial during the Flood and the local catastrophes that followed. Hense, there are no fossils being formed since the ones formed as a result of Noah's Flood.  

Every one of those human fossils are our ancestors which date back to Adam and Eve.

leauki posts:

Again:

1. Evolution is _NOT_ about random chance.

2. There is _NO_ such thing as "macro-evolution" in Darwin's theory.

3. There is _NO_ border between species (and it is therefor logically impossible for evolution to stop before it crosses that border).

You have been told these things again and again. And I don't care if you tell me that you don't believe in them. Darwinists do and their world view contains those three principles. So if you want to disprove or discredit their world view you better address those points instead of lying about them.

Darwinism:

1. NOT about random chance.

2. NO macro-evolution.

3. NO border between species.

Get that into your head.

End of quote

Leauki,

Obviously you won't take my word for the definition of macro-evolution or Darwin's Evolution theory....so I googled Darwin's theory of evolution....and this is part of the first selection....  

You are here: Science >> Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

Creationists believe all human life is related and has descended from a common ancestor...those being Adam and Eve. Humans are not related biologically or any other way, shpae or form to birds, bananas, fish or flowers or apes for that matter.

From these discussions,  I understand better now why Darwinists claim they are related to bananas and evolved from ape-like pre-humans which themselves had "evolved" from a simple cell billions of years earlier, but I and my family were created by God.

Since no one, ever since Evolution Theory came into play as a worldview, has ever seen Darwin's Evolution take place and cannot come up with proof of the missing links, I am unwilling to disbelieve the Torah account of Creation in Genesis or the teachings of the Catholic Chruch on this matter.

There is absolutely no proof that you are related to bananas or descended from ape-like sub-human, pre-human or proto-humans, but you are free to exercise your fancy. Good day.

Ya, that's what the nuts who try to breed cats with dogs and inject ape sperm with a human egg say. The DNA says no way and God gave us our DNA. Get that into your head.

Since no one, ever since the dawn of time, has ever seen or proven a God created the species and cannot come up with such proof, I am unwilling to believe the Torah account of Creation in Genesis or the teachings of the Catholic Church on this (or any other!) matter.

Ouch.   I prefer to believe what I see...science minded, that I am.  This creationism bullshit perfectly illustrates that quote, though.

Oh, that is lovely.

~Zoo

Lula -

With all respect, this is irrational and a lie.  It exposes your lack of understanding of the nature of science.  Genome analysis and the simple observations of embryology are powerful evidence of the theory of evolution through natural selection, to mention only two.  Nothing about evolution, however, precludes a God or other divine being by some other name and there is no 'evidence' that religion and evolution theory are mutually exclusive.  This issue has been beaten to death so many times, I won't revisit it at length here or in future replies.  It certainly has nothing to do with the topic of this article anyway.

KURTIN POSTS:

Yawn...why waste money supporting the secular and atheist humanist Hollywood crowd? He's hustling atheists and naysayers. I never watch him on TV why go to one of his movies especially one that hatefully mocks Judaism and Christianity and Islam , maybe?

Would you please take note of how much he mocks Islam and Muslim beliefs and practices and give us a report?    

KFC POSTS:

Maher put this movie out trying to aggravate Christians. I bet it's a box office flop.  

Yes, ....FIREPROOF...is the one I want to see.

hey Bud, you really really need to take off those very dirty sunglasses when you watch TV next time.  You're way off on this one this time.

  exactly right D. 

Iceciro,

Look in the mirror....you're proof positive as am I and all living things that God created us. Nature itself reveals God quite apart from experimental science or technology.

From the Book of Wisdom, "All men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God; and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman...For by the greatness of the beauty and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby."

OT, I know, but didn't he sing at BO's Invesco coronation?  Kind of ironic.

I wonder how lula explains ALMOST aspeciated creations (the process of evolving from one into two species) like mules (a horse and donkey hybrid, always sterile) or like lions and tigers (tigons and ligers, depending on the gender of each parent, where Male tigons are sterile while the females are generally fertile)

You're going to make me hug you...even if we disagree over politics.

Believing in something when the evidence says otherwise is not faith, it's delusion.  You can choose not to believe in gravity (Or the Devil's Magnet as you might call it) but that doesn't change the reality of it.

~Zoo

you may or may not have noticed how infrequently i've been around over the past 10-12 months.  almost all of that has been "out" time; not by choice, but circumstance.  pretty ironic advice from someone who may hold some sorta record for hangin "in".

haven't heard or read those two words--"talking points"--in a long while.  ever wonder what it was like to be one of them demented old guys, came of age during the roaring 20s and could still occasionally be heard some 80 years later yellin stuff like "23 skidoo"?  

now ya know.

gettin gullible as well as senile i see.

it's got nothin to do with hatred.  it's anger and it's entirely rational considering how shamelessly cheney abused his office, our consitution and the one or two people who considered themselves his friends.  maybe you'll luck out and he'll move into your neighborhood next year.

jeez i wasn't gonna ask what that stuff was...you know, all around your mouth?  i'm truly relieved to learn it's nothin but good ole foam, and not what it appeared to be at first glance.

  Oh Zoo, that is priceless!!  Glad to see I'm not the only one tired of Lula's lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.  There is science, and then there are those transparent replies that indicate extreme religious bias and a desperate attempt to circle back to the Bible.

Wow, I guess I missed the boat on that evidence...  Hmm, all those dinosaurs must have missed it too

Don't be silly, it is not the devil's magnet.. it is "Intelligent Falling"

Burtin, the funny thing is that not all religious people are like that. There are plenty who say gravity and evolution are there because god willed it so. But then you have people saying that the sun revolves around the earth and that "scientific proof shows evolution works in line with biblican reasoning".

Although I would say it appears most of christians are choosing to wallow in ignorace. And I don't even see why.

According to christianity, God guided the hebrews by speaking to a few select men, and creating the tablets with the 10 commandments, and the hebrews wrote their history as it was passed down through oral tradition, then jesus was born, and he took disciples who, after his death, told people their RECOLLECTIONS of what he tought them of morality and love of god. And later recounts of those recollection were compiled along with the torah, more history, and the additions of priests into what is now known as the bible... So the only thing that the bible claims came directly from God, is the 10 commandments. And maybe some quotes of jesus.

And yet they deny simple observable truths based on the ignorant rambling of our ancestors... At least in Islam mohamad says that the koran is the word of god in its entirety and mustn't be changed and translated; so a muslim can point at it and say "the prophet said to take this entire book literally". But Jesus did not write the bible. So to insist the sun revolves around the earth, and god made us from mud rather then by directing evolution is sheer lunacy.

Then again, the average "beleiver" knows very little about their so called faith. Several of us have pointed out we know ancient hebrew and have read the original untranslated (as well as the translated) scripts. I somehow doubt those creationists did the same.

Than again, they have so far ignored every significant proof or argument to repeat the same lies.

As a bible believing Christian and a studier of the bible for over 30 years now reading it almost daily, I can absolutely say without a shadow of a doubt that much of what you said here is false.  In order for me to prove it to you would be to quote scripture which I could do easily enough but wish not to turn this into a biblical debate.  Let's just suffice it to say, you are NOT an expert on scripture.

like you have?  Is this the kettle calling the pot black? 

Yes, all science is lies.  You have uncovered our horrible conspiracy, KFC.

~Zoo

This is typically how creationists think:

Oh...and by the way, that is a real quote...

"I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?"

Not from that pleasant fellow in the picture, but from some jackass on a school board pushing for its teaching.  I have doubts it'll happen, creationism is solely religion based and that's a big no-no...thank God. (heh, heh)

~Zoo 

Hey Zoo, how many times have I said I have NO PROBLEM WITH SCIENCE?  It's the subjective opinion of SOME of the evidence when it comes to origins I have trouble with. 

Did I tell you back along my son was collaborating on a TBI (traumatic brain injury) with a very liberal but seasoned Scientist in the field of neuro Science?  They had quite a conversation one day (pretty much one sided tho because my son kept his mouth shut for the most part). 

It was about a year ago and the press was going crazy about the new Creation Museum.  The Liberal Scientist went on and on about the stupid Christian people who don't understand Science one whit.  What he didn't know was he was conversing with one right at that moment and he just happened to be a Scientist to boot.   This guy didn't think my son was a Christian because he not only received a 4.0 in the very strenuous Ph.D program but he's being touted as one of the brightest up and coming research Scientists on the horizon.....and he's (gasp) a Christian.    So who's the stupid one? 

How can that be? 

Widely accepted scientific views are anything but subjective.  When you interpret data and evidence in science, there's only one right way to do it....it's not like in literature where there are infinite possibilities.

Evolution is not an origin story...it's a process of development.

You can be Christian and be a scientist.  I don't see why that's not possible.  However, to ignore the piles and piles of evidence for something(see: evolution, 4.54 billion year old earth) in favor of belief is not being honest to the field...frankly, it's being delusional.

Religion and science are pretty much polar opposites.  Where one has faith with little to no evidence, the other has faith because of evidence.

Religion can answer the why where science cannot.  It gives you a feeling of purpose and a sense of importance in the world.

Science can answer the how where religion cannot.  It shows you how the world works in a consistent and organized way.

But you cannot honestly tell me that a person who says this:

"I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?" (bolding and italics are mine)

Knows anything about science at all...or how to properly dress themselves without help.

~Zoo