More proof Evolution is not true

[FriendlyJosh]

It is, but words mean nothing to humans without interpretation, and what we have in this situation is varying interpretations -- and the Church has yet to dogmatically declare one or the other as correct. Until it does, it is unfair and uncalled for to hint that someone in the Church 'doesn't believe the Word of God' when really, they just interpret it differently, and the Church has not definitively pronounced your interpretation to be true.

How hard is it to interpret something that's word for word clear? If you saw a sign in the park that says "Beware bears live here!" what is there to interpret?

Let me show you just a few things that man's science goes against in Genesis.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth

scientists, evolution goes against this, it doesn't believe The Lord created the earth it believes in the big bang and millions of years of organisms "evolving".

That's the FIRST chapter in The Holy Bible, the very first, and what shocker, we already have man and his science that says that didn't happen... Scientists have no idea what the origin of life is, but they "know" it's not The Lord Almighty, even though He Himself says He is... Like I told you before think of me as ignorant, uninformed, below you, however you like, but know this, I believe in The Lords words, because they are the TRUTH. Real science doesn't conflict with that, and since evolution does, it's not real.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I don't know about the validity of that statement but I will say no one is denying genes and such play a part in biological makeup. And I can also say, a bulldog didn't "evolve" from a completely different specie. It wasn't a whale to a cow for instance like lot of silly scientist claim. And that person who said Evolutionist don't believe we evolved from monkies, I don't think they've taken a walk in any scientific institutions then, or read any evolutionary related science books. For not believing in that funny how they have re-enactments of such things

*I have read a good deal of material on Evolution and am currently taking a course on evolutionary biology.*

Actually, the theory of evolution does NOT say we "came from monkeys" or such. Some evolutionary researchers posit that all primates (humans, apes, monkeys, etc.) came from a similar, related ancestor - which is quite different.

All evolution is is the result of the accumulation of mutations and adaptations - via both natural and sexual selection, and other factors - until two groups can no longer reproduce viably, at which point they are considered separate species.
All other factors that people associate with the Theory of Evolution are debated and contested within (and without) the scientific community.

Never does it suggest that the existence of God is not possible or that God did not orchestrate the overall differentiation of the species. Indeed, it leaves quite a gap in that respect - whether you fill that gap with God or chance is all a matter of faith and belief.

**Science makes predictions that involve the mechanisms explained by known processes. It focuses on the data and realities of the world. The idea of "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism" are not testable, nor can one prove or deny them - therefore they are not an issue, nor should be hindered by, science.

 

[Gwendolyn]

There are no contradictions in The Bible. If you feel as though one seems like it is, Google it, and i'm sure you'll find the answer. In terms of your reference to Genesis, again there wasn't any contradiction, it like many other Chapters in The Bible, it was simply the same thing repeated and or shown only in a different way. And yes the stories were written by different people, but the source is the same, and that is The Lord. And how are you so sure as to what The Bible was meant to be?

How are YOU so sure as to what the Bible was meant to be?

If you believe this, then you have never done any academic or historical scripture study. There are contradictions in tales, timelines don't match up, etc. That does not invalidate the truths found in the Bible. Only those with weak faith try to force the pieces together.

I don't waste my time with the evolution debate. I wasn't here during creation, I have no idea what the heck happened except God is the Cause. But when it comes to scripture, fideism and literalism only harm the integrity of the truth.

 

[ivebeenshown]

How hard is it to interpret something that's word for word clear? If you saw a sign in the park that says "Beware bears live here!" what is there to interpret?

And what if "Beware bears live here" was printed on my bedroom door? Context is everything.

Let me show you just a few things that man's science goes against in Genesis.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth

scientists, evolution goes against this, it doesn't believe The Lord created the earth it believes in the big bang and millions of years of organisms "evolving".

Neither science nor evolution 'goes against this.' Saying that 'the big bang happened' does not automatically exclude God as the cause of the big bang.

That's the FIRST chapter in The Holy Bible, the very first, and what shocker, we already have man and his science that says that didn't happen... Scientists have no idea what the origin of life is, but they "know" it's not The Lord Almighty, even though He Himself says He is... Like I told you before think of me as ignorant, uninformed, below you, however you like, but know this, I believe in The Lords words, because they are the TRUTH. Real science doesn't conflict with that, and since evolution does, it's not real.

Do you not know that not ALL scientists are atheists?

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

I don't know about the validity of that statement but I will say no one is denying genes and such play a part in biological makeup. And I can also say, a bulldog didn't "evolve" from a completely different specie. It wasn't a whale to a cow for instance like lot of silly scientist claim. And that person who said Evolutionist don't believe we evolved from monkies, I don't think they've taken a walk in any scientific institutions then, or read any evolutionary related science books. For not believing in that funny how they have re-enactments of it in broad, proud displays.

....and you claim I was "attacking" you on another thread by suggesting that you weren't well read ?



(Again, I'm not clear on what that yellow thing is but I assume its some kind of friendly closing since you use it a lot at the end of your posts)

 

[ChiRho78]

There are no contradictions in The Bible. If you feel as though one seems like it is, Google it, and i'm sure you'll find the answer. In terms of your reference to Genesis, again there wasn't any contradiction, it like many other Chapters in The Bible, it was simply the same thing repeated and or shown only in a different way. And yes the stories were written by different people, but the source is the same, and that is The Lord. And how are you so sure as to what The Bible was meant to be? For not a science book it sure does have a lot of science, that "modern" science seems to just "discover" so many hundreds to thousands of years later...interesting. I see The Bible as a book of truth, all of it, not just the parts that seem to go against mans "modern" half baked science theories.

Wow that is quite a rebuttal, google it [/sarcasm].

The bible is full of contradictions. Sometimes in the same book (Genesis, Galatians, etc.)



Some popular stories today weren’t even added in till the middle ages.

You are a perfect example to the danger of Sola scriptura.

 

[FriendlyJosh]

Wow that is quite a rebuttal, google it [/sarcasm].

The bible is full of contradictions. Sometimes in the same book (Genesis, Galatians, etc.)



Some popular stories today weren’t even added in till the middle ages.

You are a perfect example to the danger of Sola scriptura.

Does that make you feel good, to insult and belittle myself? Hey I have an idea, instead of making such claims, how about instead we put your misunderstandings to the test, name one thing you feel is contradictory in The Bible, i'll be happy to look it up for you.

 

[ebia]

How hard is it to interpret something that's word for word clear?

various esteemed scholars from Augustine of Hippo to Benedict XVI have disagreed with your understanding, ... So either it's not as straightforward as you make out or one of you and the Pope is being stupid.

but know this, I believe in The Lords words, because they are the TRUTH.

TE doesn't disagree with that. The question is what sort of truth - an account of "what you would have seen had you been there" or something more parabolic.

Nathan's story in 2 Samuel 12 is just as true as the account given in 2 Samuel 11. They are both true accounts of the same event, but one is roughly what you'd have seem had you been there; what a camera might have recorded. The other is a parabolic telling to highlight the significance of the event.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Alright, since you want contradictions so badly...

Genesis creation:
The two creation accounts are contradictory. Gen 1:1-2:3, Gen 2:4-25
How long did creation take? 1:3-2:3, 2:4
Were plants created before or after humans? 1:11, 2:4-7
When were the stars made? 1:16-19
From what were the fowls created? 1:20-21, 2:19
From what were the animals created? 1:20, 2:19
Were humans created before or after the other animals? 1:25-26, 2:7, 2:18-22

If you take creation literally, it doesn't make sense.

Then there is the issue of Nebuchadnezzar being named as the King of the Assyrians in Judith, when he wasn't king of the Assyrians, he was king of the Babylonians... and he wasn't even kings of the Babylonians in the time of the story of Judith.

Here are a few more:

When was Peter predicted to deny Christ?
Before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crows - Mt 26:34
Before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crows twice - Mk 14:30
How many times did the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] actually crow?
Mk 14:72 At that moment the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crowed for the second time. Then Peter remembered that Jesus had said to him, ‘Before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crows twice, you will deny me three times.’ And he broke down and wept.
Mt 26:74 Then he began to curse, and he swore an oath, ‘I do not know the man!’ At that moment the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crowed. Then Peter remembered what Jesus had said: ‘Before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crows, you will deny me three times.’ And he went out and wept bitterly.


John & Luke adhere to Matthew's interpretation. Mark disagrees.

Also, the Gospels do not agree on the Paschal narrative - they disagree with each other on just what happened on which day around which festival.

What colour was the robe Christ wore for his trial?
Mt 27:28 says scarlet; John 19:2 says purple.

From the OT...
How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
2 Kings 8:26 says 22
2 Chronicles 22:2 says 42

Who was the mother of Abijah?
2 Chronicles 11:20 says Maachah the daughter of Absalom
2 Chronicles 13:2 says Michaiah the daughter of Uriel

When did Baasha die?
1 Kings 16:6-8 says he died during the 26th year of the reign of Asa
2 Chronicles 16:1 says he died during the 36th year of the reign of Asa

How many kids did Saul's daughter have?
2 Samuel 6:23 says she had none.
2 Samuel 21:8 says she had five sons.

How long did Jehoiachin reign, and how old was he?
2KI 24:8 He was 18, and he reigned for three months.
2CH 36:9 He was 8, and he reigned for three months and 10 days.

NT: Who was St. Joseph's father?
Mt 1:16 says it was Jacob.
Luke 3:23 says it was Heli.

Then there is the whole issue of the census mentioned in Luke 2:1-2:
In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

Quirinius did order a census, but he did so in 6-7AD.

This "worldwide census," however, in which individuals had to return to their ancestral cities, never happened. No other documents record such an event. There was also no practice in the Roman Empire which required people to return to an ancestral city for a census.

Matthew offers a different birth narrative, and describes Jesus' birth taking place during the life of Herod the Great, who died ten years earlier, in the spring of 4 BC.

That is a 12-13 year discrepancy in when precisely Jesus was born. Which date is correct? Luke's, or Matthew's? Modern scholarship sides with Matthew on the issue.

All of these contradictions are well-known.

The Bible contradicts itself. That is a problem only if you treat it as a foolproof history book. The inerrancy of Scripture does not depend on such things. It depends on the story of our Salvation, the truths of what God has shared with humanity, and the theology and morality contained within the Bible. The Bible itself is comprised of several different forms of literary writing - apocalyptic literature, which was never meant to be taken literally; poetry and song; allegory; fables; prophecy... etc. Taking everything, or even most things, literally really lessens the beauty and impact of it all.

 

[FriendlyJosh]

Alright, since you want contradictions so badly...

Genesis creation:
The two creation accounts are contradictory. Gen 1:1-2:3, Gen 2:4-25
How long did creation take? 1:3-2:3, 2:4
Were plants created before or after humans? 1:11, 2:4-7
When were the stars made? 1:16-19
From what were the fowls created? 1:20-21, 2:19
From what were the animals created? 1:20, 2:19
Were humans created before or after the other animals? 1:25-26, 2:7, 2:18-22

If you take creation literally, it doesn't make sense.

Then there is the issue of Nebuchadnezzar being named as the King of the Assyrians in Judith, when he wasn't king of the Assyrians, he was king of the Babylonians... and he wasn't even kings of the Babylonians in the time of the story of Judith.

Here are a few more:

When was Peter predicted to deny Christ?
Before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crows - Mt 26:34
Before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crows twice - Mk 14:30
How many times did the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] actually crow?
Mk 14:72 At that moment the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crowed for the second time. Then Peter remembered that Jesus had said to him, ‘Before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crows twice, you will deny me three times.’ And he broke down and wept.
Mt 26:74 Then he began to curse, and he swore an oath, ‘I do not know the man!’ At that moment the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crowed. Then Peter remembered what Jesus had said: ‘Before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crows, you will deny me three times.’ And he went out and wept bitterly.


John & Luke adhere to Matthew's interpretation. Mark disagrees.

Also, the Gospels do not agree on the Paschal narrative - they disagree with each other on just what happened on which day around which festival.

What colour was the robe Christ wore for his trial?
Mt 27:28 says scarlet; John 19:2 says purple.

From the OT...
How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
2 Kings 8:26 says 22
2 Chronicles 22:2 says 42

Who was the mother of Abijah?
2 Chronicles 11:20 says Maachah the daughter of Absalom
2 Chronicles 13:2 says Michaiah the daughter of Uriel

When did Baasha die?
1 Kings 16:6-8 says he died during the 26th year of the reign of Asa
2 Chronicles 16:1 says he died during the 36th year of the reign of Asa

How many kids did Saul's daughter have?
2 Samuel 6:23 says she had none.
2 Samuel 21:8 says she had five sons.

How long did Jehoiachin reign, and how old was he?
2KI 24:8 He was 18, and he reigned for three months.
2CH 36:9 He was 8, and he reigned for three months and 10 days.

NT: Who was St. Joseph's father?
Mt 1:16 says it was Jacob.
Luke 3:23 says it was Heli.

Then there is the whole issue of the census mentioned in Luke 2:1-2:
In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

Quirinius did order a census, but he did so in 6-7AD.

This "worldwide census," however, in which individuals had to return to their ancestral cities, never happened. No other documents record such an event. There was also no practice in the Roman Empire which required people to return to an ancestral city for a census.

Matthew offers a different birth narrative, and describes Jesus' birth taking place during the life of Herod the Great, who died ten years earlier, in the spring of 4 BC.

That is a 12-13 year discrepancy in when precisely Jesus was born. Which date is correct? Luke's, or Matthew's? Modern scholarship sides with Matthew on the issue.

All of these contradictions are well-known.

The Bible contradicts itself. That is a problem only if you treat it as a foolproof history book. The inerrancy of Scripture does not depend on such things. It depends on the story of our Salvation, the truths of what God has shared with humanity, and the theology and morality contained within the Bible. The Bible itself is comprised of several different forms of literary writing - apocalyptic literature, which was never meant to be taken literally; poetry and song; allegory; fables; prophecy... etc. Taking everything, or even most things, literally really lessens the beauty and impact of it all.

I'm going to take the time a bit later to look-up all those, I hope you take the time to read the answers and open your eyes. And after which stop with this notion that there are any misconception in The Bible.

For a quick two second google response for one though(that shows you could have easily found this answer yourself...if you had really wanted to know it)

How many kids did Saul's daughter have?

[SIZE=-1]

Before being returned to David (2 Samuel 3:14), Michal gave birth to five sons to Adriel, the son of Brazillai (2 Samuel 21:8). However, on account of her conduct, it appears that the Lord shut up her womb, and she bore no children to David. The writer's comment in 2 Samuel 6:23 would seem specific to her barren nature before David, as the same writer shortly thereafter mentions the five sons bore to Adriel.​

There is no contradiction.
[/SIZE]
http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20020203.htm

 

[chilehed]

source Science and the bible part 2 (read for some other great stuff on the page)
....

I call Poe.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Josh, I really wish you would spend some time reading some actual Biblical scholarship. The fact that contradictions exist DOESN'T devalue scripture and it DOESN'T mean that scripture isn't inerrant.

I have several years of Scriptural study under my belt, and I once studied under a prominent scholar in my country. Not one of those professors felt that reading scripture literally was the only way to read it, and they are bound by the bishop to teach orthodox Catholic interpretations. Some of my profs were even priests. If you understand history and context and literary genre, then numbers and who-bore-whom and colours and lists of things don't matter.

The only people who read Scripture literally are fundamentalists who reject deeper Scriptural study and history because they think contradictions, however small, will shatter their faith and mean that those evil atheists must be right. That is a very, very basic and elementary view of what Scripture is, and it isn't a view that Catholicism holds. JPII himself, in his Theology of the Body, read Genesis allegorically, not literally.

What are you so afraid of if you admit that there are contradictions? What would contradictions mean for you? Would that shatter your faith or something?

 

[FriendlyJosh]

Josh, I really wish you would spend some time reading some actual Biblical scholarship. The fact that contradictions exist DOESN'T devalue scripture and it DOESN'T mean that scripture isn't inerrant.

I have several years of Scriptural study under my belt, and I once studied under a prominent scholar in my country. Not one of those professors felt that reading scripture literally was the only way to read it, and they are bound by the bishop to teach orthodox Catholic interpretations. Some of my profs were even priests. If you understand history and context and literary genre, then numbers and who-bore-whom and colours and lists of things don't matter.

The only people who read Scripture literally are fundamentalists who reject deeper Scriptural study and history because they think contradictions, however small, will shatter their faith and mean that those evil atheists must be right. That is a very, very basic and elementary view of what Scripture is, and it isn't a view that Catholicism holds. JPII himself, in his Theology of the Body, read Genesis allegorically, not literally.

What are you so afraid of if you admit that there are contradictions? What would contradictions mean for you? Would that shatter your faith or something?

They don't exist and I just showed you a prime example that took me 2 seconds to lookup. You keep holding this notion tightly that they do, but they don't, and i'm going to show you with every single thing you listed as a contradiction with an answer. At this point it doesn't appear you'll even bother to read them, that's unfortunate but maybe someone else will and it won't be for not.

And no if they did exist they would by no means "shatter my Faith", but the reality is they simply don't exist.

 

[Aeneas]

How hard is it to interpret something that's word for word clear? If you saw a sign in the park that says "Beware bears live here!" what is there to interpret?

Let me show you just a few things that man's science goes against in Genesis.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth

scientists, evolution goes against this, it doesn't believe The Lord created the earth it believes in the big bang and millions of years of organisms "evolving".

That's the FIRST chapter in The Holy Bible, the very first, and what shocker, we already have man and his science that says that didn't happen... Scientists have no idea what the origin of life is, but they "know" it's not The Lord Almighty, even though He Himself says He is... Like I told you before think of me as ignorant, uninformed, below you, however you like, but know this, I believe in The Lords words, because they are the TRUTH. Real science doesn't conflict with that, and since evolution does, it's not real.

I like how you ignored my pointing out observable human evolution within recorded history.

Adult humans can drink milk. If you don't understand how that it is significant, you need to take introductory biology before making these kinds of threads.

 

[Aeyamar]

Wow! A creationist! How does it feel to be one of the people that drives Christians away from the church by falsely pitting science against religion?

You're also totally in the wrong place here, since the Catholic Church was one of the few churches that never denied evolution and currently has a pope that recognizes it as scientifically true.

 

[MKJ]

They don't exist and I just showed you a prime example that took me 2 seconds to lookup. You keep holding this notion tightly that they do, but they don't, and i'm going to show you with every single thing you listed as a contradiction with an answer. At this point it doesn't appear you'll even bother to read them, that's unfortunate but maybe someone else will and it won't be for not.

And no if they did exist they would by no means "shatter my Faith", but the reality is they simply don't exist.

I don't think you realize that this kind of demand for Scripture comes from exactly the same historical movement that produced the kind of scientific-atheism you are fighting against. Both come from a worldview that seek only absolutes and ways of expressing truths that are "factual" only. Neither leaves room for the other ways of expressing religious truth through poetry or theological stories that were understood from the Jews up through the Renaissance. Both come from a view of God that is essentially totally cataphatic and imagines that it can completely describe God's truths with human words and in human terms, as opposed to the earlier understanding that very often we could only point in God's direction and even then it was through layers of stories and images.

This way of thinking really came after the Enlightenment - first the scientific claims, and then in reaction to that but out of the same spirit came this fundamentalist view of Scripture. But it is totally alien to the Jews and the Fathers of the Church.

 

[Aeneas]

Symphony of Science - 'The Unbroken Thread' (ft. Attenborough, Goodall, Sagan) - YouTube

 

[FriendlyJosh]

I like how you ignored my pointing out observable human evolution within recorded history.

Adult humans can drink milk. If you don't understand how that it is significant, you need to take introductory biology before making these kinds of threads.

More insults. Again, does that make you feel big?I need to know because i'm getting rather tired of reading them, so i'll make this easy for you. If you want to be taken seriously, from this point on, stop making it so difficult with your petty insults.


Chapter 3: Natural Selection vs. Evolution - Answers in Genesis

We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation … –Professor Jerome Lejeune, in a lecture given in Paris
on March 17, 1985, translated by Peter Wilders


Textbooks present evolution in two different ways—small, observable changes (natural selection, speciation, adaptation) and large, unobservable changes (molecules-to-man evolution). They show evidence for the former and then conclude that this proves that the latter took place as well.
As our understanding of genetics has improved, it has become increasingly clear that mutations + time + chance do not equal evolution. All observed mutations demonstrate a loss of genetic information from the genetic code, or they are neutral. Evolution claims that the process has no direction or goal. If you look at the complexity of the “first” organism, it must be accepted that a massive amount of information has been produced to explain the variety of life we see today. Mutations cannot generate new genetic information; so they cannot be used to explain how evolution has proceeded from a cell with less information than is present in modern cells.
Despite the claims of evolution, the appearance of new species, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance, and sickle-cell anemia are not evidence in favor of evolution. They do, however, demonstrate the principle of natural selection acting on existing traits—a concept that creationists and evolutionists agree on. The creationist model of how life spread across the globe after the Flood of Genesis uses many of the same principles of natural selection and adaptive radiation that are used in the evolution model. One of the main differences is that the biblical creation model recognizes that one kind cannot change into another and that the changes are a result of variation within the created kinds—not descent from a single common ancestor. As a result of the Curse, genetic mutations, representing a loss of information, have been accumulating, but these do not cause new kinds to emerge. Accepting the idea of a single common ancestor denies the authority of God’s Word.

 

[JesusIsTheWay33]

FriendlyJosh: I suggest you read some St Augustine.

Specifically, De Genesi ad Litteram. You may then wish to consider:

(a) Why the Doctor Gratiae felt the need to write such a book;
(b) The fact that St Augustine is a saint;
(c) The consequences for the requirement, in order to be saved, to believe literally in Genesis;
(d) That St Augustine does not come to the conclusion that Genesis is literally true;
(e) The continued attachment of both your right hand and your right eye to your body (cf: Mt 5:30), among other such passages.

 

[Aeneas]

More insults. Again, does that make you feel big?I need to know because i'm getting rather tired of reading them, so i'll make this easy for you. If you want to be taken seriously, from this point on, stop making it so difficult with your petty insults.

I'm not insulting you, I'm pointing out that if you don't have a basic grasp of biology, you really aren't capable of discussing this topic.

Chapter 3: Natural Selection vs. Evolution - Answers in Genesis

We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation … –Professor Jerome Lejeune, in a lecture given in Paris
on March 17, 1985, translated by Peter Wilders

A 26 year old quote is rather irrelevant.

Textbooks present evolution in two different ways—small, observable changes (natural selection, speciation, adaptation) and large, unobservable changes (molecules-to-man evolution). They show evidence for the former and then conclude that this proves that the latter took place as well.

False dichotomy. You separate evolution into two arbitrary categories because it is convenient for your position, nothing more.

As our understanding of genetics has improved, it has become increasingly clear that mutations + time + chance do not equal evolution. All observed mutations demonstrate a loss of genetic information from the genetic code, or they are neutral.

This is simply untrue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics)

Evolution claims that the process has no direction or goal. If you look at the complexity of the “first” organism, it must be accepted that a massive amount of information has been produced to explain the variety of life we see today.

What first organism? Source?

Mutations cannot generate new genetic information; so they cannot be used to explain how evolution has proceeded from a cell with less information than is present in modern cells.

No...

Deletions and Insertions

Despite the claims of evolution, the appearance of new species, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance, and sickle-cell anemia are not evidence in favor of evolution. They do, however, demonstrate the principle of natural selection acting on existing traits—a concept that creationists and evolutionists agree on.

Those traits don't exist in the first place.

The creationist model of how life spread across the globe after the Flood of Genesis uses many of the same principles of natural selection and adaptive radiation that are used in the evolution model. One of the main differences is that the biblical creation model recognizes that one kind cannot change into another and that the changes are a result of variation within the created kinds—not descent from a single common ancestor.

All you have to do now is define "kind" and explain the cellular mechanism preventing them from changing into one another.

As a result of the Curse, genetic mutations, representing a loss of information, have been accumulating, but these do not cause new kinds to emerge. Accepting the idea of a single common ancestor denies the authority of God’s Word.

That's convenient, since you have no idea what a "kind" is, or what stops them from changing.

And once again, your claim that mutations are always deleterious is factually incorrect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vlrTVC2tQ