Replies

This is ludicrous.Natural selection (Darwinism)has been thrown out because it requires more time than even the evolutionist time frame allows ie;to be correct the sun would be exhausted before the process would get us to where we are.

Oh dear. First attempt at presenting a fact and you present some common creationist nonsense. Still, I'm willing to entertain this amusing comment. Why would the sun be "exhausted" in the timeframe? Post facts to support your assertion.

This was supplanted by the "hopeful monster"theory to explain how evolution could make huge jumps in a short period of time.In other word beneficial random mutation.

Er, beneficial random mutation has always been a part of evolution theory. It wasn't something just recently posited.
The two laws of thermodynamics say that 1)new matter is not being created and 2)all matter is in a state of decay.

I'm not aware that thermodynamics covers "matter cannot be created or destroyed", but that's irrelevant because evolution does not propose that new matter is being created. I also know that it does not say "all matter is in a state of decay". Only someone who hasn't actually studied thermodynamics would think that it says such a thing (feel free to correct me by citing a scientific refrence that supports your side).

What this means is there is no scientific basis for a fish to grow claws,a reptile to grow hair or feathers.The gene that causes these traits would have to have appeared out of nothing and repeated the process again and again.

Appeared out of nothing? No. The gene appears as an imperfect copy of the gene of its parent(s), and that gene was an imperfect copy of the gene of its parent(s). Clearly you don't understand basic biology to assert that evolution claims genes coming about ex nhilo.

Mutations when occurring are almost always regressive in nature and are not beneficial to the original species.

Citation for this assertion? Word is that mutations are most commonly

They are also usually sterile so that the mutation stops with that individual whether animal or human.

1) Humans are animals.

2) Animals (including humans) are not the only organisms subject to mutation.

3) No, most mutations don't lead to sterility.

Evolution can no more be compared to gravity than a horse to a unicorn.

Evolution and gravity are both scientific theories. That you don't like this fact is immaterial.

Gravity is the name given to the force one mass exerts on another,call it anything you like but it can be demonstrated by anyone dropping a ball.

The theory of gravity would attempt to explain what causes this force. Thus far, that is less well understood than evolution.

Evolution cannot nor has been demonstrated by any means what so ever.

Now you're just demonstrating ignorance of current events in science. In addition to the evidence in the fossil record and DNA, evolution has been observed occuring.

Evolution is the religion of those who would elevate man above God.That is why when challenged on the merits no rational argument is presented only assumptions and presumptions that require as much or more faith in the unseen or unprovable as intelligent creation.

Oh, geez, not another creationist who dishonestly asserts that all who accept evolution are atheists.

I also know that it does not say "all matter is in a state of decay".

Oh, it's the usual hilarious Creationist misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics and entropy, of course.

Any summer you can see amorphous and disorganized masses of clouds "spontaneously" organize themselves into hurricanes with perfectly circular eyes surrounded by spiral bands. They 1) aren't even alive and 2) aren't being directed by any higher intelligence to organize.

The earth isn't a closed system and gets a net energy input from the sun.