You've got to be kidding.  Good grief, what nonsense.

actually, scientists admit that IF the problem of irrevocable complexity was real it would be proof that evolution is wrong. That if the individual components of something serve no purpose of their own then how did they all come together? (well, it could potentially be useless non damaging genes floating about but...)

Anyways, this focused on three examples, prominent among them is the flagelum.

However, while those individual structures had no KNOWN uses at the time the accusation was first made by creationists, scientists have since disected the individual components and found each and every one of them has a use, and is comprised of components that ALSO have a use, and so on down to the most basic of components.

Just like the missing link theory, this is based on pointing out to lack of knowledge from the 1800s or early 1900s and pretending that we STILL haven't figured it out thus it must be false (instead of just unknown, which is a falacy), yet they were all figured out BECAUSE they were used as examples by creationists, real scientists, curious to see if they were wrong about evolution, set about to disect those examples and find out for themselves. And they have found creationists to be wrong.

AND I STILL SEE ALL THE CREATIONISTS IGNORE WHAT I AM SAYING ABOUT MACRO EVOLUTION, THAT IT IS BASED ON THE NOTION THAT MUTATION IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Lula posts:

Let me begin by saying of course Creationists believe mutations exist...and we also know that ever since evolution biologists finding absolutely no evidence supporting natural selection (Darwinism) as the mechinism switched to the new idea of mutations (Neo-Darwinism) plus natural selection or adaptation as the mechinism by which the theorized cross species changes occurred and thus produced all life forms on planet Earth.  

But truth is even after decades of experiments, we have no proofs of Evolution from mutation or mutation research. Mutations are sometimes neutral or mostly harmful and detrimental. Positive ones, in nature, are random and too rare to be noticeable, proving stability in nature is the rule. If, it's as you say Leauki, mutations are the mechanism, they could not be random. In this context, genetic drive is postulated as distinct from genetic drift. But who or what does the driving? Empirical science of genetics knows only random mutations.

So were are back to claiming false science is true science for the purpose of furthering Evolution THeory.  

We must have been posting at the same time. We know mutations are possible and occur in nature.....the point that must be recognized is that mutations are always random and never directed.

But this truth is what neo-Darwinists avoid at all costs. They speculate that mutations accomplish all cross-over species and then natural selection afterward somehow refines them. This assumes a lie...that mutations and natural selection are positive and purposive. When in reality, mutations are very rare, which dooms the possibility of mutational evolution to oblivion. When in reality, mutations are always random and occur with only with great rarity. When in reality, evolution requires improvement and mutations do not help or improve, only weaken or injure. In reality, in most cases, mutations are harmful to the organism to the point that it or its offspring if it is able to have any will not long survive.  

I just caught this in one of your earlier replies.

Since when is science attempting to contradict religion and the existence of God?  Science attempts to explain observed evidence, period.  It has no goal or endpoint in mind other than knowledge & understanding of the real world.  This is a maddening aspect of creationists's nonsensical diversionary arguments, constantly condemning science to be something it's not, to impute motives to science which don't exist.

BS.  Only if you believe the world is a mere 4000 years old and that we walked with dinosaurs, despite all evidence to the contrary.  Key word believe.

Lula doesn't know what science is.

lula posts:

Daiwa posts:

Where's the evidence they were not designed by a Master Designer and Lawmaker? That's what's unanswerable!

Yes, Paley was brilliant .....he joined reason with faith....and came to the knowledge and understooding that just like an intricate watch is made by someone, so the universe, all laws of nature, the plants, animals and people is made by SOMEONE.

Mine is not circular reasoning but an open ended spiral one. Empirical Science (ES) supports Paley and Creationism and gives evidence of a Master Designer and Law Maker and not randomness of mutational evolution.  

Empirical science seeks to develop our understanding of matter, its behavior and can do so only becasue all laws of nature are law abiding. So, ES is a growing body of knowledge and discovery at the same time. ES can't explain with absolute certainity the existence of matter, the laws of nature, or why laws of nature are in operation. ES can't say anything about good, evil, justice, beauty or love becasue these exist beyond it's scope. Es cannot fully explain the questions of Origins, but it can discern the existence of truth beyond itself.

The fantastic complexity of DNA condensed into an incredibility tiny size suggests the work of a Masterful Intellect rather than random mutation processes followed up with natural selection and adaptation. The science of Genetics has opened up something Darwin never dreamed of, that is the sheer density of program after program packed into tiny cells of every living creature suggests powerful thought has gone into their design...not randomness.

If the wonders of computer or space technology aren't the result of random processes, but rather the design of intelligent humans, then it's hardly (any of the descriptions that some have called me on this thread), unreasonable or unscientific put together with common sense and reason to deduce an Intelligent Being behind the complexity of plant, animal and human life.

To me, the message sequence of the DNA molecule alone is prima facie evidence of design by Almighty God as our Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier.

Daiwa,

Put up all this so called evidence to the contrary.

The idea the universe is billions of years old and the earth is hundreds of millions of years old comes from false science that seeks to keep God and His word out of the picture and promote atheism.   

Yes this where the real drama is.....if you want to believe you descended from apes, then have at it....but ol' Lulapilgrim was created by God descended from Adam and Eve.   

And to back up Lulapilgrim here, evolution is largely a way to promote atheism.  If you haven't seen Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which I mentioned earlier, it has an interview with Dr. Dawkins in which he says that belief in evolution does lead to atheism.  As he is an evolutionist (and a prominent one at that), I am inclined to agree with him.  Not only that, but his beliefs led him to write an entire book on how God is a myth.

Ah, can't answer (since there is none) so it's 'challenge the opponent to prove a negative' time.  That'll get 'im, Ha Ha.  And, no... I haven't stopped beating my wife.  Pathetic, simply pathetic.

More that Lula doesn't care what science is.

Bless you, Lula, your avatar should be an ostrich, with it's head in the... no, more appropriately up its...

Bullshit.  False charge.  Some athiests may claim it as evidence of the absence of a God but they're just as whacked as the creationsists who cite the Bible as evidence of creationism.  Evolution cannot prove that God does not exist and doesn't try.  People try, but not the theory of evolution - it has nothing to say about or to do with theism or atheism.

This is the exact OPPOSITE of what creationists are saying (and what you were saying before). By admiting that mutations exist you just contradicted the creationist movement notion of "there is no source of new information". A sensible religious person would say "god makes it so that the mutations occur in ways he desires, thus controlling the evolution of species". While an atheist would say "mutations are completely random and uncontrolled". But the key is that they exist, and "new information" gets added, which allows for what creationists call "macro evolution" (a term they invented in order to debunk with fake info).

So to sum things up. You PERSONALLY (lula) constantly change your reason as to why evolution can't work. Demonstrating that not only you fail to understand evolution, biology, radiology, and many other scientific branches (since for you creationism is about more then evolution), you demonstrate that you don't understand the creationist drivel either. That or that you cannot admit to yourself to supporting something so stupid, and resort to doublespeak/newspeak instead in order to justify creationism.

Whoever said that quote in the above post...I gotta say.  Atheism doesn't need promotion.  Thanks.

Just using what Richard Dawkins has said before.  Perhaps you think he's off the deep end Dawia, but he's pretty famous anyway.  No need to be upset with me about what he said.