For Christians (or anyone else) who deny Darwinian evolution.

[Godscreated]

 Those creation scientist you like to refer to as not understanding evolution know are great deal about it, many were atheist and evolutionist that just couldn't reconcile it with the information that was available. Many of the scientist that work for the Creation ministries are hired from secular universities where they were taught evolution and not creation science. All these scientists have PHD's and I have personally seen debates between an evolutionary scientist and a creation scientist, I guess I do not have to tell you who came out on top of the debates, I will say this the evolutionary scientist didn't stand a chance, after two debates he gave up and hasn't had one since that I know of.

Of course it looked like that to you because you don't understand the theory evolution by natural selection. You do not understand what science actually is. Nor do you want to because you want your fantasy to be true. Debates are not a useful way of determining fact from fiction and only really serve as entertainment. This is why science relies on papers and presentations. Disingenuous religionist tactics like a gish gallop, arbitrarily limiting the debate and equivocation don't work if you have time to explain. This is why religionists fail when they try to peddle their fantasises on these forums. Most of the creationists on the lists that religionists like to show off have PhD in other areas. I have a related PhD and use the theory of evolution every day. It works in practice. Religionist explanations have no practical purpose.

For all the creationists you can show me, there will be even more genuine scientists that do believe in evolution. Project Steve is an excellent example of this.,

Seems you ignored the evolutionist who couldn't make things fit because of the information at hand. You still can't show that new info can be added to DNA and if no new info no new kinds and no dinos to chickens can exist.

By the way no new information can be added to DNA and without that no new kind can evolve. A mutation is a step backwards even some of the other atheist have said this.

 
 

You're just blindly continuing to assert the propaganda that you wasted your time reading and not answering  my question about information and data . If you did then I could show you why you are wrong, so I shall repeat the question. Or if you want I can give you the peer reviewed papers that explain how mutation adds new information to a population. Because at the moment it looks like you don't even understand what information is, and if that's true then why would anyone listen to you on how it applies to the genotype?

No new info has ever been observed being added to DNA through natural processes and you seem to be ignoring that some atheist here agree that mutations are a step backwards.

Which string contains the most data and which contains the most information?


String A:

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000


String B:

123456789012345678901234567890


String C:

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ1234

[/quote]

 There equal because non of them represent information nor data. The numbers and letters have nothing assigned to them to believe they are anything at all.

GC

---

I've breed and been involved in breeding Rottweilers for many years and they are still dogs and not only that they are still Rottweilers. We breed out certain things we do not want in the breed, yet they keep popping back up after hundreds of breedings, the info was never lost it just wasn't dominate until the right dogs were breed and bang there is that old thing we were trying to breed away into a recessive gene that wouldn't rear it's ugly head. We even have data bases with dogs to help us to breed out traits we do not want to have such as the white patches that come up on their chest from time to time, this gene is hundreds of years old and try as we may it is still rearing it's ugly head, even in the highest quality Rottweilers.

It's precisely because the white patch is produced by a recessive gene that it's difficult for you to breed it out. It means that you could be propagating the genes for this trait throughout your population of dogs without realising it. And not all genes are recessive. If they were then we wouldn't have to call it a recessive gene, we'd just call it a gene. If it was a dominant gene then it would be easy to get rid of.

What this should be telling you is just what kind of time scales are involved with the evolutionary process. Religionists always make an unfounded assumption that natural processes work on timescales relative to their lifetime yet they have no basis for making this assumption.

And ironically, having recessive genes helps a species avoid becoming trapped in evolutionary dead-ends because the genes can persist in the population without lowering the fitness of the carrier, yet can prove beneficial if the environment changes later on.

I'd just like to finish by saying that pedigree dog breeders are evil scum who breed populations of unhealthy dogs fated to either suffer from birth or have a short life span. And they do this merely for their own arbitrary aesthetic satisfaction.

Just let dogs be happy, healthy dogs and stop using some kind of canine eugenics to breed fucking short lived freaks destined to suffer.

 Thank you for admitting you know nothing about the breeding of Rottweilers, they were brought back from a gene pool of 19 dogs and are now healthier and certainly happy dogs who serve the human race in beneficial ways, so just lay off the crap we are hurting dogs because you hate this particular Christian. I have several vets who have been impressed with the care we give our Rottweilers. 
Breeding dogs to a certain physical standard if for their benefit and in many ways I know you can't understand so i want even bother to confuse your mind with such necessary things as good posture in a dog helps it live a more productive and healthy life with far less pain in it's older age. Breeding dogs to a standard has nothing to do with their longevity. There are dogs that have been breed for looks alone and suffer a great deal and most of the responsible breeders do not like it, we can't stop it so it will go on. 

 You might see dogs as pets and it is that very attitude that has brought into existence puppy mills, the knowledgeable dog owners understand the devastation of such breeding practices. All the people I associate with breed to produce healthy dogs because we enjoy our breed and desire to preserve it to the extent that when we sale pups of non show quality the person buying the dog signs a contract that the dog they buy will be spayed or neutered. So you see your opinion of myself and those I associate with in breeding Rottweilers means nothing except your ignorance as to what we are trying to accomplish.

GC