Replies

"references" "flesh man's" or "divine". The data - evidence show that fossilized creatures such as snails, etc., that still survive are the same today. That gives proof - evidence of "kind after kind". Not all species survived, what we do not find in fossils to those that do survive is a disorganized evolution which could only be the case if "evolution" is what is going on.

The "natural" order of things continues. Gravity has not evolved. The sun still rises the same and those laws of nature have not "evolved" and if evolution was a fact all things would be in disorder to the point that "man" itself and all creatures would each be in a state of evolution.

Evolution the "theory" of either is organized or disorganize and that is left out of the equation. If organized or follows that natural order who "ORDERED" it? If it is not organized then true evolution would show up in the data.

The knowledge of recent data of DNA should wake alot of people up. DNA removes all credibility of "evolution" cause "evolution" itself is disorder not order. There is no making a mistake of "human" DNA to the other creatures DNA.

The mind can choose to believe anything or nothing and that does not make the belief a fact. The "theory" of evolution came out of, figuring out that those who claimed this earth was six thousand years old were just plain wrong.

Evolution is a religion, a religion is what one believes and puts their faith into.

So rather than finding out if in fact that is what is "WRITTEN" the whole thing was rejected and "flesh man" devised his own ideas as to age of earth, with some facts, and how living creatures got here. However, rejecting a "CREATOR", one who is in control was in fact the foundation of their "THEORY".

Some were in fact, created in the flesh with "freewill" so they will do what they do, doesn't make it fact or truth.

The data - evidence show that fossilized creatures such as snails, etc., that still survive are the same today.

Actually, it doesn't. Some creatures are very similar to creatures that existed millions of years ago, but most, if not all, have some differences to their ancestors. Further, evidence shows that many life forms that exist now did not exist millions of years ago, meaning that they did not come about until later..

That gives proof - evidence of "kind after kind".

"Kind" is a creationist term that has no meaning in biology.

Not all species survived, what we do not find in fossils to those that do survive is a disorganized evolution which could only be the case if "evolution" is what is going on.

Disorganized evolution? Could you perhaps explain this rather than assert it without information?

The "natural" order of things continues

Uh, okay. Meaningless in a scientific explanation, but okay.

Gravity has not evolved.

Of course it hasn't. Gravity is not an imperfect replicator. Evolution does not apply to gravity. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

The sun still rises the same

Actually, the sun only appears to rise to observers on earth. It's the earth that moves around the sun (the sun moves within the galaxy, but that's not something that is casually observed). Also, the movement of the earth around the sun has changed gradually over billions of years. Still, this has nothing to do with biological evolution.

and those laws of nature have not "evolved"

Evolution applies to biological life forms, not "laws of nature". You're babbling nonsense, trying to throw out meaningless philosophical babble in an attempt to cloud the issue in leiu of real knowledge.

and if evolution was a fact all things would be in disorder to the point that "man" itself and all creatures would each be in a state of evolution.

What do you mean "disordered"? And all creatures are in a state of evolution. You don't seem to understand evolution enough to have any basis for attacking it.

Evolution the "theory" of either is organized or disorganize and that is left out of the equation. If organized or follows that natural order who "ORDERED" it? If it is not organized then true evolution would show up in the data.

I can't even parse this. Nothing that you've stated consitutes an argument against evolution. Nothing that you've stated even indicates that you have a functional understanding of what evolution is or how it works.

The rest of your post, including the bit on DNA, indicates that you don't have any background whatsoever in biology. You're throwing out a bunch of words, tossing in "order" and "disorder" and somehow claiming to have disproven evolution. When you learn what evolution actually is rather than this strawman that you think that it is, come back to us and we might be able to have an intelligent discussion.