is it consistant or hypicritical to one's faith to believe that one exists but not th

[rambot]

instead of doing a personal attack--prove i am wrong with credible sources and links to back you up instead of malicious statements.

The problem is that the mistatements you make don't REQUIRE a cited "credible source" in a debate. Your misinformation is just THAT basic; your thought processes so messed up that it's difficult to truly understand how lost you are when you are missing such basic information (like trying to do a puzzle without any puzzle pieces).

this is where evolutionists lose, all their work and efforts come down to declarations and inferrences and not one study to show that evolution is actually responsible.

I'm not sure if you are aware of something called "Genetics". It's a very important field of study that I suggest you read up on with Wikki. I think that would give you a decent basis of understanding.
Also, seeing as how you are keen to give evolutionists are hard time because they don't "have one study to show that evolution is actually responsible", might I suggest that you read a few ACTUAL, peer reviewed studies of cases where evolution is said to have occurred. You will/would find a WEALTH of explanations, as to how evolution is responsible for change in microevolution (since, at its VERY core, evolution is about change...).
FYI: The world "evolve" means "change". It would seem REALLY weird if "evol"ution was not, in any way, connected with the "changes" we see in the natural world.

 

[Hnefi]

there you go--no evolution.

this population idea of evolutionists is just a mind game meant to confuse those who have no grasp of scientific or logical thought.

it also plays upon those who have one idea what the word 'individual' means while evolutionists use another meaning of the same word.

this type of mind game is used by evolutionists as they are desperate to proclaim what they have spent their life working on as true and do not want to see such work declared false.

too late, it is false and a lot of work and time has been wasted.

I had to respond to this, because it shows a misunderstanding of how not only evolution, but our own life cycle as individuals, works on the most basic level.

Archie, please read the below text carefully. I will explain these matters as best I can, without insults.

As you know, we all have something called DNA - our genetic code. It determines what we are. We get it from our parents when the sperm and the egg fuses at conception. Which parts come from which parent is more or less random and results in a unique combination for each child. The sperm and the egg form a single cell, which then starts dividing. Every time the cell (and its offspring) divides, its DNA is copied into the new cells. Eventually, a child is born, with billions of copies of one string of DNA. This string of DNA never changes throughout the life of the individual.

Now, suppose some cells were to mutate in a child, which happens constantly. Well, a child consists of billions of cells. If a cell mutates, it's literally a drop in the ocean; since there are so many other cells in the body and cells in the same individual do not compete, changes in one or a few cells do not propagate throughout the individual. The changes might establish themselves locally, but generally have no effect on the individual as a whole (unless the mutations result in cancer, of course).

So the genome of an individual never changes. Ok. But where does that leave evolution? Well, the answer is simple - sperm and egg cells. Both male and female reproductive cells usually have quite a few mutations. IIRC, the combined genome of a human sperm and a human egg usually has about 150 mutations. In other words, the very first cell - the one that results from the union of the sperm and the egg at conception - contains a mutated genome. Since this is the very first cell of the individual, those mutations will propagate to every other cell in the individual.

So there you go. The individual never changes, yet each new individual is different due to mutation. If the net result of the original mutations in an individual are beneficial as far as reproductive success goes, those mutations will spread throughout the population because genes are inherited, and the advantage will therefore be carried from parent to child. If the mutations are harmful, they won't spread for the very same reason.

And that is evolution.

Please, archie, don't just skim through the above text. Read it. Understand it. Because before you do, you can't claim to understand even the most basic fundaments of either evolution or biology. Your criticisms are like those of an analphabet complaining about the flaws of written language.

 

[Hnefi]

Thank you for your response.

I wasn't trying to invent a new language, I was just explaing how I understood it. I have read definitions that explain it like that. I stand corrected.

Fair enough. Everyone can make mistakes. Your attitude is admirable.

Although I appreciate this analogy, it still does not swing it for me.

Yes the branch devides from the parent branch and there may be differences between the two smaller branches. However they are still both oak branches. This is the way I see it with any lifeform.
Allopatric speciation as shown in the fruit fly, sure it shows speciation but what did they end up with? Fruit flies. This holds for all other methods of speciation.

Now the leap from speciation as above to evolution from a common ancestor is huge.

It's only a big leap if you do it in one big step. I agree that it's mind boggling to consider that amoeba and giraffes belong to the same family tree, but it's at least as difficult to imagine the distance to the moon or the depth of the ocean. We are not equipped to fathom these things "just like that" - we must concentrate on small parts at a time in order to not get overwhelmed. When we do, it is clear that there are no strict boundaries between species - at least not until long after they have established themselves. Early dogs looked so much like wolves that they were indistinguishable, but today noone would mistake a jack russel for a timber wolf.

Similarily, there was a time when the early mammals were very hard to tell apart from the early reptiles, but gradually, they diverged. I guess I can't explain it better than that - to be convinced, I think you need to look at some primary sources, which you might not have the time to do since it takes a lot of effort to sift through.

No I can't do that, but isn't that the problem we both have? There is no difinetive test for either side. If there was wouldn't we all be huggung each other in church, or not and there would be no debate.

The only thing I can say to that at this moment is; from subatomic on up, as far as I observe, there is design. The watchmaker!!

Well, I did give an example of a test of evolution in another thread recently. There are dozens of such tests that, if any one of them turned out a certain way, evolution would be falsified (the result would have to be repeated and confirmed of course). For example, if one could point to a biological structure that could not have evolved gradually, evolution would be falsified. Several attempts at doing so have been made, but none of them stand up to scrutiny.

There are other tests as well. Evolution passes all of them. There are none such tests for God, nor for a "watchmaker". Tell me, how could you tell if something was created by an unknown designer as opposed to unguided natural processes?

As incredible as you find my way of seeing things, I find yours just as incredible. I cannot understand how if I showed you my precision timepiece and told you that a long, long time ago all the individual elements etc. that were necessary for it's existence had come together in one place and that recently I had looked in the bucket and it had put itself toghether into the form it is now. You would count me as crazy and laugh in my face. And yet you can look at the whole of existence and say that's how it happened.

The difference between clocks and creatures is that clocks do not reproduce. If they did, they could very well have evolved. There is a nice video to demonstrate this concept at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

Also, there are many examples where evolution is being used in technical applications. I know of one group who accidentally evolved a functioning radio receiver from a set of transistors that had the ability to adapt to certain parameters. In the end, evolution isn't so much a biological phenomenon as a mathematical one. It is simply a consequence of statistics. Biology is only the biggest real-world example of it in action that we have.

 

[archaeologist]

I had to respond to this, because it shows a misunderstanding of how not only evolution, but our own life cycle as individuals, works on the most basic level.

if i had a dime...
basically what you are saying is the whole debate boils down to semantics. what you call mutations i will defects, what you call evolution at work, i say it is the results of the fall of man.

what i really loved was this gem:

(unless the mutations result in cancer, of course).

you are really caught up in your theory if you have to call a disease, that has been common for millenia, a mutation.

i am beginning to think that evolutionists do not understand the basics of life at all.
( yes i am cranky, i was napping and woke up to this post)

i think that the reality of life is lost on those who delve into evolution.

 

[archaeologist]

The problem is that the mistatements you make don't REQUIRE a cited "credible source" in a debate. Your misinformation is just THAT basic; your thought processes so messed up that it's difficult to truly understand how lost you are when you are missing such basic information (like trying to do a puzzle without any puzzle pieces).

'sigh!' i thought we were past all these childish statements.

yes you do if you want to be taken seriously

 

[Hnefi]

if i had a dime...
basically what you are saying is the whole debate boils down to semantics. what you call mutations i will defects, what you call evolution at work, i say it is the results of the fall of man.

No, it's not a question of semantics. It's a question of basic understanding.

Mutations are not synonomous with defects, because mutations are not always harmful. There are plenty of examples of mutations that are beneficial and even more examples of mutations that simply don't have any effect at all. Mutations are simply variation, good or bad. That variation is all that is required for evolution to occur can be shown both mathematically and empirically.

what i really loved was this gem:
[snip my quote]

you are really caught up in your theory if you have to call a disease, that has been common for millenia, a mutation.

You do realize that cancer IS a certain type of rare and particularily harmful mutations, right? This isn't a question of semantics or even evolution; it's a question of microbiology, directly observable at any given moment.

I'm starting to think that you are questioning the entire field of medicine. That baffles me, considering how astoundingly successful it has been.

i am beginning to think that evolutionists do not understand the basics of life at all.
( yes i am cranky, i was napping and woke up to this post)

i think that the reality of life is lost on those who delve into evolution.

How can you say that? You didn't even respond to the relevant points in my posts, which exposed a misunderstanding of yours that is so extreme that I would normally attribute it to a child that has not yet gone through elementary school. And yet, you accuse the entire field of medicine, which has saved untold millions of lives, and biology which is intrinsically linked to medicine, of being based on ignorance and misunderstanding? Can you not see the arrogance, to the point of idiocy, in this?

 

[notto]

'sigh!' i thought we were past all these childish statements.

yes you do if you want to be taken seriously

So then you can explain your comparison of antibody generation and population genetics with credible sources.

Why don't you back up your comparison with some credible sources and explain to us with those sources why the comparison is valid?

You are demanding we show you where you are wrong.

Why don't you start by showing us where you are right?

(You have refused to do that so quit with the demands for credible sources - it is obviously a tactic to avoid dealing with your misinformation and silly statements related to the topic)

Why don't you show us with credible sources that you know what the heck you are talking about?

 

[archaeologist]

Why don't you show us with credible sources that you know what the heck you are talking about?

why? you wouldn't listen anyways, i don't know how many times i placed credible sources in my posts only to be acccused of quote mining, which would happen in this case.

so i guess you just have to provide your own quotes and sources...

 

[notto]

why? you wouldn't listen anyways, i don't know how many times i placed credible sources in my posts only to be acccused of quote mining, which would happen in this case.

so i guess you just have to provide your own quotes and sources...

I guess we can say the same thing. You won't listen when you are told that you are clearly saying things that are absurd and they you refuse to demonstrate that your statements are correct.

You are what you rail against archaeologist. You won't support your claims so why demand others do?

Why not just drop the whole charade that you actually know anything about evolutionary theory?

If you do know something, why don't you demonstrate it?

Why start threads about a topic that you have no desire to demonstrate you know anything about?

Why can't you just admit your own ignorance of the subject. After all, you have demonstrated it repeatedly.

Now you are making excuses instead of backing up your statements.

You are a great creationist.

 

[archaeologist]

I guess we can say the same thing. You won't listen when you are told that you are clearly saying things that are absurd and they you refuse to demonstrate that your statements are correct

how many times have i asked Te's topost links and sources to prove their statements, you know what the answers were?

basically, 'we do not have to'

so stop being hypocritical and trying to turn things around on me when your side is far guiltier than I.

the restof your post is ignored as it is baiting, a derailment of the thread and just plain off topic.

i have noticed a game here. the TE's love to accuse a person of quote mining when a poster posts quotes to support their views then if a poster does not post a quote, they are immediately accused of not knowing what they are talking about and complaints arise about not proving yoour point.

all this goes on while TE's ignore cries to post links or sources to back up their own unsubstantiated statements.

(of course, if a dissenting poster to the TE side of the argument did post something, it wouldn't be accepted for the mere fact that an evolutionary scientist didn't write it)

 

[notto]

how many times have i asked Te's topost links and sources to prove their statements, you know what the answers were?

basically, 'we do not have to'

so stop being hypocritical and trying to turn things around on me when your side is far guiltier than I.

the restof your post is ignored as it is baiting, a derailment of the thread and just plain off topic.

i have noticed a game here. the TE's love to accuse a person of quote mining when a poster posts quotes to support their views then if a poster does not post a quote, they are immediately accused of not knowing what they are talking about and complaints arise about not proving yoour point.

all this goes on while TE's ignore cries to post links or sources to back up their own unsubstantiated statements.

(of course, if a dissenting poster to the TE side of the argument did post something, it wouldn't be accepted for the mere fact that an evolutionary scientist didn't write it)

Another post where you don't back up your previous statements on evolution.

Why are YOU ignoring the requests for you to demonstrate what you are saying about evolution is true?

You are simply claiming 'you do not have to'.

It is obvious that it is you who would like to avoid discussion what the theory of evolution actually says.

It is clear to all that you don't understand it and you refuse to demonstrate that you do.

Comparing antibody resistance to evolution is simply silly. That was your claim. If it is a valid comparison, the burden of proof is on YOU to show that it is

You have failed to do so after the cry for requests to.

You are what you rail against.

You are a great creationist.

Let's take a look back at this thread.

In response to a sourced and referenced discussion of antibiotic resistance given by shernren (you know, that post where he provided a link and the research to support his claim), you posted this unsupported claim . . .

It kills me in a humourous waywhen i hear evolutionists cite this example. why? well when i person gets sick and recovers from the illness, never to have a reoccurrance of the disease again, we usually say they are immune tothe disease, never that they evolved to a higher level. we even take their blood to use in others to pass that immunity on so that others can avoid the effects of the crippling disease.

never do we claim we are evolving. YET when it comes to bacteria it is a different story. when a bacteria becomes drug resistant, it is called a super bug and it has miraculously 'evolved' into something more dangerous.

when in reality all it has done is become immune and neutralizing the drug's effect. it hasn't evolved nor mutated but reacted in a manner that is the result of God's creative work and of the affects of the fall of man.

Can you support these claims and this comparison or not? Can you demonstrate that this is not simply a misrepresentation of evolution? Where are the sources that support what you say? Can you explain what you think the theory of evolution is that would make you claim these things?

It is funny that you suggest that others don't support their claims. You were responding to a poster that did just that.

Not only are your claims about other posters behavior hypocritical, they simply are not true.

Will you ignore this once again or will you actually support your claims and demonstrate that they are true? Will you continue to demonstrate ignorance of evolution or will you keep playing games?

 

[archaeologist]

Another post where you don't back up your previous statements on evolution.

Why are YOU ignoring the requests for you to demonstrate what you are saying about evolution is true?

You are simply claiming 'you do not have to'.

It is obvious that it is you who would like to avoid discussion what the theory of evolution actually says.

It is clear to all that you don't understand it and you refuse to demonstrate that you do.

lackof understanding, false accusations ignored. re-read my post.

 

[notto]

re-read my post.

I did. Can you support your comparison with actual sources?

You are simply claiming it is true and that you understand evolution.

Why don't you show us by supporting your claims?

You made an unsupported claim in response to a linked and referenced claim.

Why do you keep avoiding the opportunity to support your claim with some references?

Could it be that you can't?

That would seem to be the case. There really doesn't seem to be any other reason why you won't.

when in reality all it has done is become immune and neutralizing the drug's effect. it hasn't evolved nor mutated but reacted in a manner that is the result of God's creative work and of the affects of the fall of man.

Can you support this claim with some references that demonstrate this? What references can you provide that show that this view is true?

Come on man. Own up and show us why your claims are valid.

We're waiting.

 

[archaeologist]

You are simply claiming it is true and that you understand evolution.

well if you can, i can. whenyou start responding with the posts you want me to do then you have something to squawk about.

oh wait...it doesn't matter if i do or not because there will always be some evolutionists that says i do not understand it.

go play your own game.

You made an unsupported claim in response to a linked and referenced claim.

i don't recall seeing it. but guess what, isn't thatwhat science is all about...being refuted? oh wait... it has to be done by like-minded people or it doesn't count.

when in reality all it has done is become immune and neutralizing the drug's effect. it hasn't evolved nor mutated but reacted in a manner that is the result of God's creative work and of the affects of the fall of man.

right, i provided a probable possibility and instead of discussing such a thing with an open mind, evolutionists jumped on the poster and did not address that option rationally or intelligently.

you want me to post links--ha ha ha. how do you know it wasn't an original thought, discovery, revelation?

We're waiting

i am stillwaitingfor you and your friends to prove evolution exists and that God used it while creating everything. so far, all i have been geting is--- 'we don't have to...', 'read...' (which was one phrase in the genesis account, mis-interpretated, taken out of context, and doesn't even come close to to what the verse really says.

but that is what evolutionists** do...they muddy the waters, cloud the issues so it seems like they are right and have done nothing to actually prove their theory really exists. evolutionists are just wrong.


** i have decided to drop the 'theistic' for now as there is no difference between them and their secular counterparts.

 

[notto]

right, i provided a probable possibility and instead of discussing such a thing with an open mind, evolutionists jumped on the poster and did not address that option rationally or intelligently.

Yes we did. We asked you to support it.

What is more rational or intelligent than that?

Here again you avoid an opportunity to demonstrate that what you said was a probable possibility.

You are making a claim and refusing to support it.

Let see how you presented this probably possibility.

this example provided by laptoppop is often championed by evolutionists as proof for some form and i use it here not as an attack on him but onthose who look to this as proof for evolution.

it kills me in a humourous waywhen i hear evolutionists cite this example. why? well when i person gets sick and recovers from the illness, never to have a reoccurrance of the disease again, we usually say they are immune tothe disease, never that they evolved to a higher level. we even take their blood to use in others to pass that immunity on so that others can avoid the effects of the crippling disease.

Not exactly being presented as open to debate, is it. You simply claim the referenced evidence (you know, the evidence that was provided in the post you were responding to) was wrong.

You provided nothing to respond to except your lack of knowledge on the subject.

You seem to want us to forget it instead of you just supporting it.

It is clearly obvious that you can't demonstrate a reasonable knowledge of evolution to the point where we should accept your claims about it.

You can't even get the basics right.

Now, can you support your claims or not?

 

[Hnefi]

oh wait...it doesn't matter if i do or not because there will always be some evolutionists that says i do not understand it.

But that's because you yourself continually demonstrate that you don't. Some of us have tried to educate you, but you either don't reply at all or respond with a very hostile, arrogant attitude and a refusal to listen. Obviously, people don't react well to that.

i don't recall seeing it. but guess what, isn't thatwhat science is all about...being refuted? oh wait... it has to be done by like-minded people or it doesn't count.

No. It has to be done by people who understand the issue at hand and can present arguments in favour of their position, and do so with an honest and open mind from a variety of scientific disciplines. This is to ensure that any criticisms presented are based on rational, valid complaints. The process described by ICR doesn't live up to those criteria.

right, i provided a probable possibility and instead of discussing such a thing with an open mind, evolutionists jumped on the poster and did not address that option rationally or intelligently.

What you did was demonstrate an extreme lack of understanding of the issue. When someone thinks that bacteria and humans gain resistance against disease through the same mechanism, everyone with even cursory knowledge of the issue will shake their heads in disbelief. It's akin to trying to use your computer screen as a cell phone because both have an LCD display.

you want me to post links--ha ha ha. how do you know it wasn't an original thought, discovery, revelation?

I'm sure it was an original thought, but it was certainly neither discovery or revelation.

If you have an original idea with merit, then you obviously don't need links to prove it. What you do need, however, is significant factual support, a coherent argument and sound justification. I've never seen you produce any of that - ever. Though I haven't read all your posts, of course.

i am stillwaitingfor you and your friends to prove evolution exists and that God used it while creating everything. so far, all i have been geting is--- 'we don't have to...', 'read...' (which was one phrase in the genesis account, mis-interpretated, taken out of context, and doesn't even come close to to what the verse really says.

Well, technically nothing in science is ever proven. But if you want to see a small part of the massive amounts of evidence in favour of evolution, you only need to look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ for a good introduction. The view that God used it in his creation is, of course, not science and I personally neither believe nor support that position, but I also realize that I can present no positive argument against it.

Personally, I'm more interested in the mathematical applications and ramifications of evolutionary theory, and I'd be happy to demonstrate that the process as such can lead to arbitrarily complex and advanced changes, if you'd like.

 

[archaeologist]

not to is ignored until he can learn to post with respect and stop insulting.

hnefi:

But that's because you yourself continually demonstrate that you don't

that is because you look at what i say from the wrong perspective. you haven't figured it out yet.

. It has to be done by people who understand the issue at hand and can present arguments in favour of their position, and do so with an honest and open mind from a variety of scientific disciplines

sorry, but i don't follow secular science's rules, i follow the way God wants me to post it which means you may or may not get what you want.

What you did was demonstrate an extreme lack of understanding of the issue

not at all. i was just reminding everyone that there is/was another way to look at things until evolution clouded the issue and tries to hide the truth.

i am reminded of the George Carlin monologue on the politcal correctness effect on veterans. he made a good point. post traumatic stress is a p.c. term which confuses a lot of experts concerning treatment. he observed that ifwe called it what it was called in world war I, and maybe II, 'shellshocked' experts would understand what it was and could treat the malady.

whether he is right or not, i don't care, it is his observation that is illuminating as evolution, like p.c., clouds issues and confuses people sothat they are seeing something that isn't there while missing what is.

I'm sure it was an original thought, but it was certainly neither discovery or revelation

your thinly disguised insult isignored as is the rest of the paragraph. learn to think instead of blindly accepting evolution.

Well, technically nothing in science is ever proven

But if you want to see a small part of the massive amounts of evidence in favour of evolution,

both are just smoke screens and excuses. i remember during the O.J. Simpson case where the prosecution said they had a massive amount of evidence to convict him of murder. the problem was, none of that evidence could prove he was evenat the scene of the crime at the time and when push came to shove, their most damming piece of 'evidence' did not fit.

the same for evolution, they cry and scream that they have a massive amount of evidence yet not one piece proves evolutionexists oris responsible for what we see inthe world today.

the most damming piece of evidence aginst them is the fact, which i quoted in another post and possibly thread, is that they do not know the original conditions which sparked evolution into existence in the first place;

they cannot reproduce such origin in the laboratory to back their words up;

they cannot explain why only one planet among the myriads has evolution present (another fatal flaw of evolution);

they cannot demonstrate the process is actually responsible for life and its changes;

they cannot overcome the fact that everything takes place as instituted by God's creative act and as a result of the fall of man.

**i can go on but i think that is enough to prove the fallacy of evolution.

 

[notto]

that is because you look at what i say from the wrong perspective.

There is no perspective that makes your claim valid.

The content of the comparison doesn't match reality from any perspective.

What you described does not happen.

It was a demonstration of ignorance.

(unless of course, you would like to try to defend or support it with actual evidence and a demonstration of knowledge of the theory of evolution - )

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Archie, have you read Darwin's book?

 

[notto]

the same for evolution, they cry and scream that they have a massive amount of evidence yet not one piece proves evolutionexists oris responsible for what we see inthe world today.

Wrong
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

the most damming piece of evidence aginst them is the fact, which i quoted in another post and possibly thread, is that they do not know the original conditions which sparked evolution into existence in the first place;

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#fundamental_unity

According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life. Some of the macroscopic properties that characterize all of life are (1) replication, (2) heritability (characteristics of descendents are correlated with those of ancestors), (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree.
If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion). Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes.
Confirmation:

The common polymers of life

The structures that all known organisms use to perform these four basic processes are all quite similar, in spite of the odds. All known living things use polymers to perform these four basic functions. Organic chemists have synthesized hundreds of different polymers, yet the only ones used by life, irrespective of species, are polynucleotides, polypeptides, and polysaccharides. Regardless of the species, the DNA, RNA and proteins used in known living systems all have the same chirality, even though there are at least two chemically equivalent choices of chirality for each of these molecules. For example, RNA has four chiral centers in its ribose ring, which means that it has 16 possible stereoisomers—but only one of these stereoisomers is found in the RNA of known living organisms.

they cannot reproduce such origin in the laboratory to back their words up;

We can't create a sun either yet we know the mechanisms involved. This argument shows a lack of understanding of scientific method.

they cannot explain why only one planet among the myriads has evolution present (another fatal flaw of evolution);

Umn. Sure we can. Lack of life = lack of evolution.
If you are confusing the creation of life with evolution then you are simple putting forth a strawman.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

they cannot demonstrate the process is actually responsible for life and its changes;

Actually, yes we can. We can observe the process in the wild and in the lab. You were presented with an example in this very thread and then you made your silly claim about disease immunity

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#genetic_change

Extremely extensive genetic change has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. We have seen genomes irreversibly and heritably altered by numerous phenomena, including gene flow, random genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions (Futuyma 1998, pp. 267-271, 283-294).

they cannot overcome the fact that everything takes place as instituted by God's creative act and as a result of the fall of man.

Not really a hypothesis that has explanatory power.

I'm in the middle of a lighting storm right now. What causes lightening? God's will at this point in time?

**i can go on but i think that is enough to prove the fallacy of evolution.

An unreferenced rant does nothing to prove your point. Can you provide any references or sources for your claims?



The theory of evolution explains the diversification of life and is based on observed processes and mechanisms.

It is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence as supported by the following link and the reference above.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I await your well referenced rebuttal included an actual discussion of the real theory of evolution and not a strawman.

(any comparison to antibody development will be ignored )