I’d like to point out to Duane Kimme, in his Dec. 20 letter to the editor, that every statement he made was false. Natural selection cannot select for what does not already exist in the genome, making it an elimination of the weakest and not a creator of additional information.
No new biological system can have a selective value unless the DNA code to build it already exists in its entirety. This might require hundreds of new proteins and must be complete before it could function. Each different kind of organism has its own unique DNA that must be complete before it could live and reproduce, leaving nothing to be left to evolve later on. Creation scientists realize that each kind of organism had to originate fully complete in a moment and not a piece at a time, as evolutionists believe.
There is no known process or theory of how evolution could be possible, and no evidence favoring a belief that it ever occurred. Thus the only real definition left is “a belief” that an alternative to God exists. Knowing that God created everything is not a religion; only the worshipping of God is.
After 150 years of trying to find a scientific alternative to God creating all life, the evolutionists have failed to find even one honest argument. This is why they use only fraud and deception for their arguments. I challenge anyone to present to me a scientific argument for a belief in the fable of evolution.
Champaign
Mr. Miner obviously has never benefited from agriculture or medicine. I feel sorry for him, but seeing him attempt to talk about science is like watching a dog attempt to pilot an F-22.
…seeing him attempt to talk about science is like watching a dog attempt to pilot an F-22.
I’d like to see that actually. As long as I didn’t like the dog very much.
As would I, but it doesn’t seem too likely right now. Maybe they’d be really good at it, but they are sadly lacking opposable thumbs. We can only hope that adaptive technology will be available someday. Imagine the beauty of the Cyborg Rottweiler Squad flying in formation!
Wingnuts are such a neurotic tangle. The old evolution denialists were adamantly opposed to the moral implications of random mutation and their own conception of what natural selection means. But why should evolution have any moral implications at all? Human conduct is informed by so much more than that. It’s not as though creation with a purpose would stop wingnuts from looting, lying, laying waste and killing. They’d still be rotten people.