Mutations disprove the theory of upward evolution

[Captain Colostomy]

"I will not buy this record, it is scratched." -John Cleese(The Tobacconist Sketch), Monty Python.

[Chas]

Saved by grace, I asked you privately now I ask publicly, to a debate thread with me. any topic you choose.

We are discussing the topic at hand.

You have failed to refute the post for this topic.

The conclusion stands.

---

So Grace, I've slept on it: do you have a scientific source to back up your claims that evolution is dogs breeding not-dogs, yet?

If not, are you ready to admit that this was a deliberate distortion?

Oh, and hey, since in these last few pages you seem to have a real boner for evidence, how come you just ignored the many links I gave you to some real science? Why not go back, look at them, and refute them, if you can?

PS: You can't.

Darwin's book is titled "The Origin of Species" In it Darwin tried to explain where all the species in the world came from. His thesis was not dogs produce dogs. His thesis was all dogs come from some species way back in time that were not dogs through evolution.

Creationists dispute that.

Creationists do not dispute dog breeding.

If you are saying that you are only claiming dog breeding as evolution, then you are a creationist.

---

JUst one thing to add, you know there never was a theory of upward evolution right?

The evolutionist world disagrees with you.

Go google it.

---

How about chimps and humans? We have a common ancestor.
Richard Dawkins, Ph.D.

Chimps and man do not have a common ancestor. Did anyone actually see that happen? Or is it just a conclusion from assumptions.

Your assumption is not evidence.

The shared DNA is evidence.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

We are discussing the topic at hand.

You have failed to refute the post for this topic.

The conclusion stands.

---

Darwin's book is titled "The Origin of Species" In it Darwin tried to explain where all the species in the world came from. His thesis was not dogs produce dogs. His thesis was all dogs come from some species way back in time that were not dogs through evolution.

Creationists dispute that.

Creationists do not dispute dog breeding.

If you are saying that you are only claiming dog breeding as evolution, then you are a creationist.

---

The evolutionist world disagrees with you.

Go google it.

---

Chimps and man do not have a common ancestor. Did anyone actually see that happen? Or is it just a conclusion from assumptions.

Your assumption is not evidence.

The shared DNA is evidence.

All intelligent designers reuse common design structures.

So shared DNA cannot be used to argue for evolution without God versus creation by God.

So you assertion is incorrect.

However an analysis of DNA does proof evolution without God to be false, as I have done with this topics's post

[Chas]

The shared DNA is evidence.

All intelligent designers reuse common design structures.

So shared DNA cannot be used to argue for evolution without God versus creation by God.

So you assertion is incorrect.

However an analysis of DNA does proof evolution without God to be false, as I have done with this topics's post

Are you acquainted with "all intelligent designers"? Please introduce me, I would love to chat with them.

You have done nothing but make unfounded assertions and

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

All intelligent designers reuse common design structures.

So shared DNA cannot be used to argue for evolution without God versus creation by God.

So you assertion is incorrect.

However an analysis of DNA does proof evolution without God to be false, as I have done with this topics's post

Are you acquainted with "all intelligent designers"? Please introduce me, I would love to chat with them.

You have done nothing but make unfounded assertions and

What part of the topic's post is false.

at least 30 mutations per generation
mutations are errors
After that it is just simple mathematics.
The conclusion results from that.

[Bucky Ball]

All intelligent designers reuse common design structures.

So shared DNA cannot be used to argue for evolution without God versus creation by God.

So you assertion is incorrect.

However an analysis of DNA does proof evolution without God to be false, as I have done with this topics's post

No dear.
Your 4 sentences constitute great examples of what are called non-sequiturs.

Your unspoken premises are also not substantiated.

After you decide to get your GED, maybe take a course in what grown ups call "logic". It may, or may not, help you.

From the looks of things, there is very little that could help you.



meow

[Tonus]

You see what I mean? It's as if the refutations posted are in another language.

Yeah, but it draws a lot of attention because it's such low-hanging fruit. The benefit of a discussion like this is not that the obstinate creationist refuses to have an honest debate; it's that it creates a lasting record of the way he/she dealt with both questions and answers. There are a number of useful links and explanations in this thread now, as well as a perfect example of what happens when you make yourself immune to reason and logic.

[Cyberman]

What part of the topic's post is false.

The words.

[Whateverist]

The vast complexity of the life forms in the universe and the universe, with all its orderly laws, must be explained.

That in itself argues for God.

No explanation without God has explained it.

Therefore God must exist.

Next step is to identify God.

But why do you persist in thinking that attributing what science cannot yet explain to an all-powerful genie actually counts as explaining anything?

[popeyespappy]

Chimps and man do not have a common ancestor.

Chimps and humans do have a common ancestor. No one alive today had to see it to know it is true. I provided the evidence that proves the relationship on page 5 with my post of the distribution of ERVs in the DNA of the two species. Since you have chosen to ignore the evidence and continue to make false claims to the contrary the only conclusion available to me is that you are lying. And that my little Christard makes baby Jesus cry.