BirdofPrey Posted:

There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don’t evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don’t have the genes to do it.

To show that all life evolved from a single cell, which itself came from some type of chemical soup, there would have had to be mbumive genetic information gains.

But evolutionists have failed to show how this gain of new information occurred. Where did the information come from for the first bristles, stomachs, spines, intestines, complex blood circulation systems, intricate mouthpieces to strain special foods out of the water, and so on, when these are not found in the ancestral species?

The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.

But mutations and natural selection do not show gain in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there — therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase in genetic information.

Mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths in England decreased and dark moths proliferated (because during the industrial revolution the light moths on dark tree trunks were more easily seen and eaten by birds), but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths do not have the genetic information to evolve into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them.

Or, we’re playing in copy-n-paste. Good.

This text could came for example from http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/begin2.html.

And of course there’s already replies to it.

For example this:

http://scepticalpreacher.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_archive.html

just stumbled across this clbumic example of creationist self-contradicting cobblers. The title of the article is Three fatal flaws in evolution. Here is what it boils down to. Fatal problem No. 1 There is no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing. Okay, then let’s apply this to creationism. Where did God come from? Does the creator have a creator? Presumably the answer is yes! Why are you worshipping the creator when you could worship their creator – cut out the middle-man. Hey, what about the creator’s creator’s creator? Fair enough, this is a valid question. How did this all start? Where did the universe come from? How did life first spring from inorganic substances? The difference between science and creationism is that science is asking this question. Creationism is happy to accept the the scribbling of the ancients. Fatal problem No. 2 No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life.This is pretty much a re-hash of problem 1. There are certainly scientific theories but no definite answer. Again though, science is actively searching for answers. Remember that life (by some estimates) took 1 to 2 billion years to appear after Earth formed. I am not surprised if any scientist has been able to receive enough funding to run a billion year experiment. It is fair to question the scientific theories but completely unreasonable to ignore them. Fatal problem No. 3 There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind.The writer goes on to state that gradual evolution through genetic mutation is not possible since it produces handicapped life-forms. Yes, a mutation of an important gene could be fatal for it’s host but this is natural selection for you. If the gene is ‘bad’, it’s host will die and the gene will not be pbumed on, thus removing it from the gene pool. If the mutation is good or very minor, it may be pbumed on. Gradual great timesulative change is how the species evolves. If evolution is false, why did God create so many species over the past 6000 years only to allow them to go extinct? Why did he keep tweaking his designs? If he is perfect, he would know the optimal configuration for each species and just build them that way to begin with. Why do we have so many design flaws if we were created by God?