You're the one making the claims. You back them up.
Who ever said that random mutation can build a man? In clear writing, please show me where somebody said that random mutation can "build a man".
Darwinism Dar·win·ism (där'wĭ-nĭz'əm)
n.
A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited [random]variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.
"The conventional view is that genetic change comes from stochastic, accidental sources: radiation, chemical, or oxidative damage, chemical instabilities in the DNA, or from inevitable errors in the replication process.Tests show that the mutations produced via chance to be selected is detrimental to life." (Shapiro, A 21st Century view of Evolution)
Nobody ever said that lots of muscle change = forklift, and if they did, they're an idiot. Exercising of an individuals body, and the process of evolution are two completely different things. Stop comparing things which cannot be compared. Lots of small changes equalling one big change is just common sense.
Only in recognition of a fraction of what scientific research has revealed. That muscles vary. Continuing on to the rest of science we find that it is not random but a directed process of repair and adaptation, and it is not unlimited. Organisms' adaptation to a stress environment is the same at the molecular level, where it is again, not random, and it is not unlimited. No, in regards to research it is not two completely different things but produce the same results through testing and observation.
You've made it clear you don't understand or accept science, since science has no "completion", only striving for greater levels of understanding. Again, please display how science reveals only creation.
See above.
Science only reveals more and more information as it goes by, it doesn't undiscover things. Think of all the things mankind has discovered over the years, things that we used to attribute to supernatural entities, which we now know to be completely natural. Evolution is no different than how mankind discovered why earthquakes happen, or lightning. Science revealing creation to be true is like saying science will eventually reveal that it really rains because people do rain dances, or that lightning is actually caused by Zeus throwing down lightning bolts. Atheism isn't required in order to believe in evolution, quite rightly, just an ability to accept the facts laid before you.
Thats the Darwinist belief.You and yours try to ride Galileo to convince people that Darwinism is true. Your understanding of the past is equally flawed and just as relevant in attempting to use it as the engine for the conjecture that chance can build a man.
Nobody ever said chance can "build" anything. There is no construction, here, only adaptation.
Every time Darwinism is revealed for what it really is, the chance assembly of a man, you always try to bend it and put up a front so that it cannot be judged for what it truly is. But you will put it on the table, so everyone can see. Don't be ashamed. You actually believe that chance can build a man.
What facts are us "Darwinists" supposedly escaping? Please. Facts. State them. With citation. Stating something is a fact without anything to back it up is just plain foolishness.
Start
here.
Like I said, I can manipulate radio waves, that is proof they are there. If I stand in front of the radio, I block the signal, if I raise the antennae, it is more likely to receive a good signal. I can also rely on the fact that I've seen the inside of a radio, and there's no little men in there, and the fact that there's no evidence of such little men. There is at least a shred of evidence supporting radio waves from the sheer fact that I can block the radio waves by standing in the way of them, and that when I drive through a tunnel, I lose the signal. It all fits. Also, what tests have been performed? Citation, please.
All you've done is say what tests you have concluded to see that radio waves are real. You manipulation of the radio waves is with instrumentation. I am using your logic. You have never seen radio waves therefore they are not real. Detection via a secondary means does not count. The tests we have conducted and have concluded design in the human system is just as viable. And the observations beyond that point. You look for little men, we also "looked for little men". You have only recognized the limits of the apparatus, we have recognized the limits of chance in the case of the human body, the limits of flesh in latter studies, and the scope of mind in even further.
Why should I start with something that isn't a fact, but in fact, an unsupported claim? A claim filled with bias.
Then this is where we will meet. Don't ask me for anything beyond that point.
Yes, it does matter whether you know how it was done. The how is just as important as the why. The real fact is, we know that the engineer created the computer because we can replicate it, because he documented it, because it's testable. Creation is none of these. It's a claim, without anything to back it up.
No, we know that the computer was designed having never met the engineer, having never seen the engineer, as tests reveal that a computer cannot be assembled through chance, together with the integrated complexity of said system. Equally, we don't need the Great pyramid to be rebuilt, or to go back in time to see Egyptians building said structure. It is determined to be designed having never encountered any one of them. The fact is intelligence is not bound to the Egyptians. We observe replication by intelligence, not the Egyptians.
I haven't made any "random mutations assertions", I've merely said, life adapts. Which it does. Seriously, again, what tests. You may not have requested data, but I am. You claim that science validates creation, yet have nothing to back it up.
You say life adapts. Then you stop there. You don't list the rest of science. Thats what where we differ.
More tests
Bananas aren't capable of painting a chicken, or a hat. See, I can do that, too.
Thats another one confirmed in testing.
Complexity is an indicator of years of evolution. See, I can make claims, too. Computers aren't lifeforms, they cannot be compared to them. You're choosing something which is man-made, on purpose, because it's man-made and you're hoping it'll prove your point. It doesn't. Computers are computers, life is life. The two things are different.
Humans are more complex than computers. Man made structures are
being reproduced.The complexity in the human will be matched with something which is just as complex. Even though in most cases, it is the man made structure which cannot match up.
Nobody is requesting anybody ignores anything. All we're requesting is that you simply LOOK at the evidence. Rather than already deciding it is already false because it doesn't fit in with your holy books. That's it.
We do. We ask that you look at the rest.
.
Creationism isn't science, it's a pre-packaged answer designed to fit in with ancient scriptures.
Except that science in its completion does not comply with Darwinism. That creationism is constantly being confirmed.
The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is constantly being updated and revised, as we find out more information about it. That's science. Creationism isn't.
You cannot "revise" the assertion that bacteria can turn into men through random mutation, with data showing that adaptation is not unlimited, that random mutation is not a viable means. Unless you plan to leak into Creationism while retaining your Darwinism title.
