Not really msharmony. I believe in some evolution, we were created with that ability to evolve yet retain the same basic gene shape and size, the way evolutionists describe evolution contradicts the bible. Which is ok if they have evidence for their extreme DNA lengthening theories, but they do not.

Well this thread is more about empirical evidence, which is a level I'm happy to debate on. So we have two opposing concepts

1) I think there's a supreme being that created matter, and this supreme being always existed
2) You think that matter probably always just existed

I have no problem with a stale mate on that basis, what I do have a problem with is when evolutionists appear arrogant yet without facts to back themselves up.

On a seperate note, I personally feel that there are enough supernatural occurrences in life to acknowledge a whole supernatural world out there, just ask your neighbour, your best friend etc etc. Most people will acknowledge having seen a spirit, had a wierd experience with an Ouija board, a prophecy fulfilled, a healing. People normally come across these occurrences a couple of times in a lifetime. There's a spiritual world out there inexplicable to science.

When you have a child, that child has the same DNA size and structure as yourself. The genes are a combination of both parents, yet the DNA has the same human genetic structure. No matter what you eat, you can have no effect or change on the DNA of your child.

1) It is only mutations , mainly through insertions or duplications of sections of DNA, that increase the size of the DNA.
2) These mutations have to be beneficial to become naturally selected and dominant in a population
3) This has not yet been observed yet, its just an idea.

If the whole population starts eating fatty foods, there will be signs after a few generations of a change to the "allele frequency" of the population. ie the gene combinations within the human population that involve a metabolism that handles the fatty foods better will start to show in an increased proportion of the population through natural selection, but this involves a few generations.

I'm happy with those scriptures and personal experience and other people's testimonies as enough for me. Daniel 11:1-35 has a very detailed sequence of events written hundredds of years before they were fulfilled by the interrelationships between the kings of Egypt and Persia from the time when Alexander conquered both regions. ie the bible is a proven supernatural book, I do not doubt it one iota. Personal experience of myself and others includes many miracles, even if its a little dream of warning, or a personal prophecy fulfilled or a person miraculaously healed.




I am glad you have progressed to placing the two theories on an equal empirical basis, because the evidence for both involves processes that we do not yet have enough evidence for.

According to evolution, DNA has lengthened in some organisms.

Some organisms have stayed the same length and yet evolved within their gene pool without the requirement for mutation. I do not dispute this type of evolving. This could explain the variety of dogs, I'm sure that you can get a lot of varieties and even new species from evolving within a species' gene pool.

The alternative that an organism of about 32000 useful functional genes containing about 3 billion base pairs spontaneously appeared is statistically impossible and also a completely different theory to evolution which assumes an evolving and increasing complexity over time. To explain some modern organisms, evolution requires significant beneficial increases to the genome length which have never been observed in nature. It is thus merely an interesting idea, no more scientific than that.

RKISIT presented himself as an atheist and an evolutionist, my arguments were related to him being an atheist and so you are correct to point out my error in semantics, let me then repeat my point with the more correct semantic wording which is important to you:

ATHEISTS also believe in miraculous processes.

1) The spontaeous creation of matter from nothing.
2) The spontaneous creation of DNA, the smallest observed is over 500000 base pairs long, how did it get there?
3) Favourable increases in the DNA length from less than 1 million base pairs to organisms of over 150 billion base pairs.

It takes an extreme faith to believe in all these processes that are never observed in reality. As unbelieveable as the thought of an eternal loving all-powerful being is, the alternatives are also unbelieveable. If you take a perfectly scientific approach, I believe the balance of evidence points to a creator, that is how little actual evidence there is for beneficial DNA lengthening on which the whole concept of evolving is based.

Now you also point out a strawman argument? Could you tell me where? Also where is your proof that DNA can lengthen in a beneficiial manner to an organism and to such an extent that it would result in natural selection of the mutated organism? Without that proof you do not have any evidence for evolution as an explanation for the appearance of modern advanced life-forms. Its just an hypothesis, let's say an interesting idea without any backup.

Evolutionists also believe in miraculous processes.

1) The spontaeous creation of matter from nothing.
2) The spontaneous creation of DNA, the smallest observed is over 500000 base pairs long, how did it get there?
3) Favourable increases in the DNA length from less than 1 million base pairs to organisms of over 150 billion base pairs.

It takes an extreme faith to believe in all these processes that are never observed in reality. As unbelieveable as the thought of an eternal loving all-powerful being is, the alternatives are also unbelieveable. If you take a perfectly scientific approach, I believe the balance of evidence points to a creator, that is how little actual evidence there is for beneficial DNA lengthening on which the whole concept of evolving is based.

Thanks for acknowledging this, but I was referring more to knowledgeable evolutionists correctly observing natural selection and variation and incorrectly applying it to a process that requires beneficial increases to the genome size.


Sure DNA lengthens through whatever process, insertions, duplications etc. However these are nearly always neutral or damaging. The only beneficial mutations I have ever heard of do not involve significant increases to the length of the genome. There are very few (I've heard of one, maybe two) beneficial mutations ever recorded.


Yes I'm referring to observed and documented mutations. I have never heard of a beneficial mutation that involves significant increases to the size of DNA. If you can find a documented case, then evolution could be classed as a theory rather than just an hypothesis (guessing without evidence).


LOL I enjoyed the nastiness :)


You are correct here, I was making assumptions based on the fact that organisms showed an increase from single cell organisms to arthropods.


The evidence that is lacking relates to beneficial increases to the DNA size. This puts into doubt evolution as the source for higher life-forms with increased DNA sizes, which is the essence of the whole creation/evolution debate.

The whole problem with this creation-evolution debate is that evolutionists often misunderstand the evidence on which the whole hypothesis of evolution is based. Natural selection alone cannot explain the observed organisms that contain 3 billion DNA largely functional base pairs. To increase the length of the DNA requires mutation. Mutation is nearly always neutral or damaging. In the rare cases when mutation has been favourable, it has not involved any significant increases to the length of the DNA. Thus the whole theory of evolution shouldn't even be given the label of "theory" its merely a hypothosesis based on projecting a few minor observed mutations and absolutely ASSUMING that these mutations occurred in major favorable mutational jumps in DNA length when nothing like that has ever been observed. The sudden observance of massive increases in the length of the DNA during the Cambrian explosion of higher life forms cannot be explained by any observations of mutation and the theory of evolution is merely a hypothesis based on no evidence.