Question for Creationists

Originally posted by Lionhearte

Originally posted by auraelium

Originally posted by boony
I use to believe in evolution until I researched the evidence for evolution, and still I havnt seen or heard anything that would convince me evolution has any evidence.
Evolution is a far harder religion to support that any other religion on offer.

You havent done much research then.if you think that there is little evidence in the scientific world that refutes creationism. Considering there are millions of papers written by hundreds of thousands of scientists on the subject going back 120 years.
Especially since we have mapped the DNA for most animals and can trace their evolution back through millions of generations.

edit on 15-9-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)

Uhh, sounds like you're just pulling numbers out of your bum. It also sounds like you're just talking about Micro-Evolution, which Creationists actually believe in, as it's just evolution through the same species, which is why you can trace their DNA back generation after generation and find similarities.

What you will NOT find, is one species turning into another species. You'll not find the so called "missing link", because the missing link is missing, not because of like of searching, but because it doesn't exist.

Please clarify if I'm wrong in making my previous assertion about Micro-Evolution, however.

Oh please ... so you believe in evolution within a species but you dont believe one species can evolve into another... Then explain why humans share 98% of DNA with chimpanzees or 18% of DNA with plants.why do we share 44% of our DNA with the common house fly?

bah i must duck out of this, the idiocy of creationists is just too much for me to read. basically this is an argument that will never be won for either side. us scientists know the truth and the creationists will always be absolutely sure that their make believe world is true so i suppose we just leave it at that. someday i hope for the segregation of the religious from the non religious and we will thrive and they will kill each other

Your words condemn you.
I don't know the truth. If you WERE a Scientist you would admit that neither do you.

I find the discussion tedious. More tedious is the hypocrisy of those who claim to know the answer to something that has not yet been resolved.

are we talking about the same science that believed the earth was flat, that drilling holes in some ones head would cure them of a cold and alchemy, were some geniuses believed lead can be turned into gold.

and just to add to a point, einstein, arguably one of the smartest scientists to ever live, argued for the concept of a static universe and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity.

it has since been proven numerous times that einstein's static universe is false and since he included these calculations in the theory of relatively, the whole theory could be completely flawed.

what's incredible is that modern scientists are working and basing future theories on something that includes false calculations.

it may be possible to travel faster than the speed of light, but as long as physicists keep using einstein's theories like they're the 10 commandments, humanity maybe in a scientific dark age.

it would be like charting the world, using the theory the earth is flat. which humans have done.

so if you believe your ancestors were orangutans, humanity in the future is going to laugh at you like we laugh at the yokels of the middle ages.

if you want another blow, look up our most common ancestor. according to scientists, he lived between 3000 to 5000 years ago and all humans on earth, even ones on different continents have his dna.

sound like someone familiar in the Bible?

so if you want to believe some bitter hermit who lived 150 years ago and had no modern technology and who believes we came from monkeys because he saw one pick up a stone and had no clue about anything, just observations he made of animals, then go ahead.

it isn't fact just the ramblings of an idiot.

when science tries to prove the Bible and not try to contradict it, then true scientific achievement and medical breakthroughs will occur.

Originally posted by randomname
are we talking about the same science that believed the earth was flat, that drilling holes in some ones head would cure them of a cold and alchemy, were some geniuses believed lead can be turned into gold.

and just to add to a point, einstein, arguably one of the smartest scientists to ever live, argued for the concept of a static universe and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity.

it has since been proven numerous times that einstein's static universe is false and since he included these calculations in the theory of relatively, the whole theory could be completely flawed.

what's incredible is that modern scientists are working and basing future theories on something that includes false calculations.

it may be possible to travel faster than the speed of light, but as long as physicists keep using einstein's theories like they're the 10 commandments, humanity maybe in a scientific dark age.

it would be like charting the world, using the theory the earth is flat. which humans have done.

so if you believe your ancestors were orangutans, humanity in the future is going to laugh at you like we laugh at the yokels of the middle ages.

if you want another blow, look up our most common ancestor. according to scientists, he lived between 3000 to 5000 years ago and all humans on earth, even ones on different continents have his dna.

sound like someone familiar in the Bible?

so if you want to believe some bitter hermit who lived 150 years ago and had no modern technology and who believes we came from monkeys because he saw one pick up a stone and had no clue about anything, just observations he made of animals, then go ahead.

it isn't fact just the ramblings of an idiot.

when science tries to prove the Bible and not try to contradict it, then true scientific achievement and medical breakthroughs will occur.

Your lack of knowledge and level of ignorance is breath taking.

No, you mean the same science that proved the earth wasnt flat? I think you will find it was the church that persecuted people for beliveing the earth was round.It was science that settled the argument and proved it wasnt flat.It actualy stated in the early editions of the Bible that the earth was flat but it was taken out after the church realised it was wrong.

You cant compare Einstens theorys in quantum mechanics to evolution there not comparable.Evolution has been proven many aspects of quantum physics have not.Mainly because we can see evolution all around us,as aposed to quantum physics where we are dealing with invisible forces.If all Einsteins theorys were wrong then we never would have split the atom and we obviously have so your wrong their as well.

No one ever said we are decended from Orangutans they are cousins not ancestors.We know we are related to Orangutans because we share 98% of their DNA

Your theory on a common ancestor has never been proven,we know the human species fell to low numbers at different points and nearly became extinct but fossil remains have been dicovered from well before this period so you cant twist that round to an Adam & Eve hypothesis it doesnt fit.Nice try though to use DNA evidence to back up your crack pot theory,when it is DNA technolgy that has completly disproven the creation theory over the last 20 years.The first humans in their current form appeared 200,000 years ago in africa.The oldest human DNA extracted from bones was found in Australia it is 60,000 years old so that blows your 3000 - 5000 for the oldest humans out of the water.In fact the Babylonian civilisation is 6500 years old.we dont even need carbon dating to date the sumerian civilisation because they recorded what the sky looked like on stone tablets,we know from the precession of the equinoxes that they are 6500 years old.

As far as Darwins theory is concerned it has been proven with modern DNA technology so its not open for debate any longer.
Why should science try and prove the bible ? when its crackpot nonsence and science has proven most of it to be so.And what is their to prove in the Bible anyway? and even if they did prove something creationists wouldnt listen, because to creationists facts dont matter.

As a person who has had their had head on both sides of the argument, I will leave you with one question...

If the bible is to be believed, then it is one amazing tale to be told. If the bible isn't to be believed then it still means at some point the bible was written, then what was the authors true intentions for writing it?

Personally through experience I am in no doubt of a higher power, however, I do also believe in evolution, perhaps not in the exact way that is flaunted by the science community today (I will leave this conversation for another day.)

The evolution theory removed God and replaced Him with the mother Gaia “nature worship" - you know, her law called  “survival of the fittest.” Charles Darwin studied theology, never biology.

Charles Darwin's grandfather was one of the highest ranking Masons in his time and had strong ties with other higher Masters and with the Illuminati, whose prime cause was fostering hostility to religion. There is so much evidence that they simply desired to destroy a belief in God and replace it with a naturalist philosophy and a human centred model.  And guess what? Several centuries later, our young children are all exposed to this 'belief as fact' that evolution, not God, is the reason for existence. Once again, we have been unknowingly subjected to brainwashing by Freemasons/Illuminati. The entire purpose of these Satanists was, and still is, to remove God from as many loves as possible. Thus their destruction could truly begin. 

The cold hard fact remains - the probability of ONE unique species developing  it's intricate limbs, body, fur, eyes, DNA and thought from primordial goo is next to zero. Next to zero. 
And yet people who believe this theory of evolution think that MILLIONS of species had to do the same process. The probability of millions of unique species, all independently evolving from goo, is ZERO.

God created all life on this planet. And His masterful creation was us, in His Image.

i do think that people should be free to beleive what they want without anyone questioning it, but when you think about it parents rarely let their children choose their own religion, its always forced onto them by their parents. if you wanted a truely free system then all children would be given the info on all the religions (and athiesm) and then given the choice of what they want to beleive, but sadly that will never happen.

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
The evolution theory removed God and replaced Him with the mother Gaia “nature worship" - you know, her law called  “survival of the fittest.” Charles Darwin studied theology, never biology.

Charles Darwin's grandfather was one of the highest ranking Masons in his time and had strong ties with other higher Masters and with the Illuminati, whose prime cause was fostering hostility to religion. There is so much evidence that they simply desired to destroy a belief in God and replace it with a naturalist philosophy and a human centred model.  And guess what? Several centuries later, our young children are all exposed to this 'belief as fact' that evolution, not God, is the reason for existence. Once again, we have been unknowingly subjected to brainwashing by Freemasons/Illuminati. The entire purpose of these Satanists was, and still is, to remove God from as many loves as possible. Thus their destruction could truly begin. 

The cold hard fact remains - the probability of ONE unique species developing  it's intricate limbs, body, fur, eyes, DNA and thought from primordial goo is next to zero. Next to zero. 
And yet people who believe this theory of evolution think that MILLIONS of species had to do the same process. The probability of millions of unique species, all independently evolving from goo, is ZERO.

God created all life on this planet. And His masterful creation was us, in His Image.

Your talking complete nonsence,DNA technology backs up darwins theory and we can observe it.DNA technology ended the evolution debate about 10 years ago. But a few backward people living in the US bible belt who are complety ignorant of science wont except it, thats the problem. In Europe if you announced that the earth was 12,000 years old and there was no evolution, you would probably put in a lunatic asylum.Well maby not quiet but creationists like to think its a global issue when realy its not. Its not realy an issue outside the US bible belt. Its a majority world concensus against a small religious fundamentalist christian minority.Even Islamic teaching has embraced Darwinism for the most part as it belives that although man did not decend from apes but it agrees that human evolution was a very slow process and animals evolved through natural selection.

Originally posted by GmoS719
reply to post by Zeer0

 

Although there isn't much physical evidence that proves the contents of The Bible are true.
There isn't any physical evidence to say the contents in The Bible are untrue.
It's up to the individual to either have faith in God, or not.

Can I ask YOU a question?
Why is it so hard for you to let Christians believe in something?
To each his own.

There is evidence that says the creation story is untrue, the global flood is untrue, the ten plagues is untrue, etc. etc.

There are plenty of things within the bible that are demonstrably false.

As far as letting Christians believe something, no one is trying to force them to change their faith. However, people do try to reason with them and demonstrate their ignorance about various subjects. Deny ignorance, remember?

When something that is based on zero evidence, has done so much damage to the world, is constantly trying to gain more power over the lives of others, and constantly tries to invade the science classroom with something that is clearly not science than it must be confronted.

People have tiptoed around religion for far too long. It is time for it to be confronted and no longer treated as some sacred cow immune from criticism.

reply to post by GmoS719

Why is it so hard for you to let Christians believe in something?

Maybe because 90% of them spend 99% of their time bashing us over the head with their beliefs. Just take a look at your precious religion forum. Now, who are 99% of those posts aimed at? Exactly.

To each their own indeed, we'll start with the ones "damning me to hell" because I don't believe what you believe.

/end transmission

someone doesnt like that yellow fonted revelation guy very much....but i can understand that

biblicalstudies.info...

Here is one link and I would say for starters but honestly....the short OP is seemingly awaiting evidence. Why? If you really want answers....they are found everywhere. Archaeological evidence that may back up the Bible looking out of my eyes may not be evidence for you.

Research and don't take peoples words for it. Or....are you just wanting to sit back and collect data from ATS Members just so you can pick it apart and create animosity? I really hope not. Also, I really hope that if you are sincere in finding evidence then you research yourself. It took me about 10 years of daily reading of A LOT of stuff before I was satisfied (I still read daily) and had my own conclusion.

It takes a lot of time and research on your part, unless you want to be blindly lead to believe something. If that is the case....take your pick of a post on here and go with it.

There is evidence that says the creation story is untrue, the global flood is untrue, the ten plagues is untrue, etc. etc. There are plenty of things within the bible that are demonstrably false. As far as letting Christians believe something, no one is trying to force them to change their faith. However, people do try to reason with them and demonstrate their ignorance about various subjects. Deny ignorance, remember? When something that is based on zero evidence, has done so much damage to the world, is constantly trying to gain more power over the lives of others, and constantly tries to invade the science classroom with something that is clearly not science than it must be confronted. People have tiptoed around religion for far too long. It is time for it to be confronted and no longer treated as some sacred cow immune from criticism.

reply to post by megabytz


First, I really want to know where this evidence is that proves there has not been a global type flood.

Second, where is your evidence things within the Bible are false?

Third, Why call someone ignorant because they do not think like you? Get over yourself...please. Stop looking at a difference as ignorant and try to embrace the difference. It is called unconditional love and having that for your fellow man is quite a challenge but you may find it to be a satisfying challenge.

You speak of "invading science". Well, looking out of my eyes I see us on a Planet that spins at a very rapid rate. Anywhere from 800 to 1100 MPH is actually the speed of rotation. We are but specks of matter/atoms spinning and we are obviously a part of a "system" that may not be needed per say but we are indeed the Big Dogs of the Planet. My point is if you really get into science and metaphysics you may find yourself leaning toward a singularity as others in the community. The more I learn the more I realize that this singularity I call God is THE SCIENCE. Science is invading and looking for answers. They are desperately in search for "Proof" so they may believe. What kind of proof will it take? There is already a lot.

I personally do not think it is right that we play around with our own Planet and hamper with the Human Race just so we can say...aha....we found the God particle (LHC, RHIC). We do not need to screw up the Earth anymore...we found Him....all the while the Earth moaning and groaning because of an extremely energetic/magnetic atom smashing machine or possibly a. Mans digging and fracking and b.oil spills splitting the ocean and possibly c.new teenie weenie black holes are eating us up.

I mean come on already. Science is awesome...love it but there are some real goof balls in the community who run the show obviously and hold us back because of their bias.

Either way...it all boils down to.....

It is a choice.

There is a law of cause and effect we see every day all day with all kinds of scenarios.

You choose.....(cause) and there will be a consequence (effect). This is life here on Earth and I have no idea if this law will continue on with our Soul/Spirit. I would say so though.

reply to post by Jim Scott

So, if I understand what you are saying, I should be able to prove the existence of something while not using anything that proves its existence. Tough to do. Like to see you do that with science, too... (Wait for it....) Your statement is somewhat ironic to me. However, there are other ancient texts that are not in The Bible that prove the existence of Jesus, for example the Jewish historian Josephus writes of Jesus.

Josephus did not write that, scholars are in agreement on this. The writing style was different, and the ink was newer, tests revealed. There is a book that fully details this forgery, I fail to remember the name of it. Check this:

A False Witness eusebius church historian catholic imageDespite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious, an interpolation and a forgery. As Dr. Gordon Stein relates: "...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."

www.truthbeknown.com...

So in effect, using Josephus as proof is supporting a forgery of proven validity. If you really wish to prove it, look at Roman records, these people were anal about this stuff, they kept a record of every grain of wheat, and supposedly executed Jesus, and yet, there is no mention, not one. Philo of Alexandria lived at the time period, and wrote volumes, but again, never mentioned Jesus. Plainly, there is no proof.

Originally posted by GmoS719

Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxx



when thinking about the timeline of the universe or even just the timeline of life, why would you believe in something that was concocted in the last 2000 years over the history of the physical world over the last 14 billion years.

edit on 9/14/2011 by xxblackoctoberxx because: (no reason given)

You do realize that the "Theory of Evolution" has only been around for 150 years. Right?
You are contradicting yourself.

Actually the understanding of evolution has been around much longer. Darwin wasn't ot the first to notice it and in fact he had to race to publish his findings when he learned someone else was about to do the same thing.




It's true that Darwin deserves alot of the credit for the theory of evolution,for explaning of the mechanism behind it, natural selection, he was by no means the first person to discuss the idea of evolution. Alfred Russell Wallace is often co-credited with the theory. In 1858, he sent some of his papers to Darwin, who realised how similar Wallace's ideas were to his own. This prompted him to write "The Origin of Species", which he had put off writing for twenty year.

The French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) offered his own theory for how evolution occurred: soft inheritance. The continous use of muscles and organs strengthened them and made them more efficient. Meaning, a giraffe that stretched its neck to reach leaves on tall trees would gradually strengthen and lengthen their necks. These benefits would then be passed on to their offspring. Though it doesn't really work that way. It would be more of a case that if there's more food at the top of a tree eventually the animal will adapt to get at it.


What is often not mentioned is the writings of the Roman philosopher Lucretius (ca. 99-ca. 55 BC). In his Epicurean epic poem "De rerum natura" or "On the nature of things", he puts forward an idea remarkably similar to Darwin's theory of natural selection.
He notes that the animals alive in his time must have survived by being specially adapted to their environment, that they were either cunning, brave or fast. Other animals like dogs, cows and sheep had survived under the protection of human beings. He then says that there must have been other species of animals that were not as well adapted and these, being vulnerable to predators or unable to find food, were sure to die out.

Anyway it's been around longer than 150 years.

Originally posted by auraelium

Originally posted by Lionhearte

Originally posted by auraelium

Originally posted by boony
I use to believe in evolution until I researched the evidence for evolution, and still I havnt seen or heard anything that would convince me evolution has any evidence.
Evolution is a far harder religion to support that any other religion on offer.

You havent done much research then.if you think that there is little evidence in the scientific world that refutes creationism. Considering there are millions of papers written by hundreds of thousands of scientists on the subject going back 120 years.
Especially since we have mapped the DNA for most animals and can trace their evolution back through millions of generations.

edit on 15-9-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)

Uhh, sounds like you're just pulling numbers out of your bum. It also sounds like you're just talking about Micro-Evolution, which Creationists actually believe in, as it's just evolution through the same species, which is why you can trace their DNA back generation after generation and find similarities.

What you will NOT find, is one species turning into another species. You'll not find the so called "missing link", because the missing link is missing, not because of like of searching, but because it doesn't exist.

Please clarify if I'm wrong in making my previous assertion about Micro-Evolution, however.

Oh please ... so you believe in evolution within a species but you dont believe one species can evolve into another... Then explain why humans share 98% of DNA with chimpanzees or 18% of DNA with plants.why do we share 44% of our DNA with the common house fly?

Evolution within a species is common knowledge. Creationists don't argue that. Macro-Evolution is put under question because there has never been any observation of one species turning into another species. As I said, the missing link isn't missing because of lack of searching, but because it doesn't exist. It's like the Loch Ness monster. People who believe in it are chasing fairy tales.

As to why DNA is similar.. DNA is is the genetic make up of an animal, and if they have a similar make up, it shows that whatever -designed- them knew that things needed to function similarly in a similar environment.

Now let me ask you a question, why are there so few Humans alive today? There's barely 7 billion Humans alive on this planet. If Evolution was to be believed, there should be BILLIONS more alive today. Math itself proves Evolution wrong.

Take a look at this site here.

It argues that whole question I brought up. Here's a highlight near the bottom of the page, but certainly isn't the central point:

A study at the University of California at Berkeley reports that according to their research of DNA, people started about 200,000 years ago in Africa. A similar study at Emory University in Atlanta says that we started about 140,000 years ago in Asia. Both cases are trying to say (through the statistics above, that it took over 5,500 years AT LEAST for the population to double, even though the current growth rate does it in 39 years.

Evolution within a species is common knowledge. Creationists don't argue that. Macro-Evolution is put under question because there has never been any observation of one species turning into another species. As I said, the missing link isn't missing because of lack of searching, but because it doesn't exist. It's like the Loch Ness monster. People who believe in it are chasing fairy tales.

Evolution from one species to another species is a gradual process often taking millions or tens of million of years that is why we cant observe it in real time.it is a common argument put forward by creationists and has been proved wrong time and time again.What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution. see www.talkorigins.org...

As to why DNA is similar.. DNA is is the genetic make up of an animal, and if they have a similar make up, it shows that whatever -designed- them knew that things needed to function similarly in a similar environment.

Now let me ask you a question, why are there so few Humans alive today? There's barely 7 billion Humans alive on this planet. If Evolution was to be believed, there should be BILLIONS more alive today. Math itself proves Evolution wrong.

I cant see any sense in your argument here.Humans only took control of their own food sources 12,000 years ago with the introduction of farming.Before that they were at the mercy of nature and were hunter gatherers and were in the same boat as any other animal on earth, so why isnt there 20 billion polar bears roaming the arctic? or 100 billion Lions in Africa? easy answer to that is food.Any creatures numbers can only increase to a level which is sustained by it food source.Disease and climate will also play a big part.Are you aware that 2/3 of the entire population of the known world died from beubonic in the 14th century? or did you ever hear of the pneumonic plague that wiped out 50% of the population of Euro/Asia in the 15th century? Or the great Influenza outbreak at the turn of the 20th century that wiped out 10% of the population of Europe?.are you aware that 4/5 of the entire population of the Americas died from diseases brought by the spanish conquistadores? have you ever heard of smallpox and tuberculosis that have killed 10s of millions ?, and all that in just the last 700 years.Thats why there isnt billions more alive today.

A study at the University of California at Berkeley reports that according to their research of DNA, people started about 200,000 years ago in Africa. A similar study at Emory University in Atlanta says that we started about 140,000 years ago in Asia. Both cases are trying to say (through the statistics above, that it took over 5,500 years AT LEAST for the population to double, even though the current growth rate does it in 39 years.

So as a scientist myself if i was head of Berkeley and i found out that someone had done a study and was puzzled by the fact that population growth rates 140,000 years ago on the plains of Africa did not match today i would probably sack them.This is not even my field of study but a first grader could tell you that they are not comparable and the unknowns ie. Climate,droughts,floods,disease, and many other things would prevent any study from reaching an accurate conclusion.

reply to post by idonotcollectstamps



You just quoted four people who individually wrote about it.............mathiew, Mark, Luke, John......Tom Brokow wasn't around to report it, you know this right????

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
I hear a lot of back and forth from those of you who have totally closed minds about creationism.

I want you to know that I have a questioning mind....which is why I am on ATS, actually. Just so you will know that I am not a mindless moron, following my Church without questioning, I'd like to disclose that I am a member of Mensa, and I do not believe ANYTHING without questioning it. I read, and read, and read some more.

I really do wish you would watch "The Case for Christ" which I posted earlier. It makes a strong case for intelligent design. Very strong.

No, I didn't watch the video someone put up as a rebuttal (it isn't actually a direct rebuttal of MY video, just a rebuttal of Christianity.) Here's why:

From the title, I gather it is about how many Christian traditions are descended from Pagan traditions. I don't need to watch that video...I've explored that evidence before.

Figures.
Ive watched both. It isn't what you think. Assumptions are the mother of all mistakes. Why not apply everything you can get from either side, to formulate your own beliefs. haha.

reply to post by auraelium


It would be helpful if you split up your wall of text into paragraphs, just for future reference.

Evolution from one species to another species is a gradual process often taking millions or tens of million of years that is why we cant observe it in real time.it is a common argument put forward by creationists and has been proved wrong time and time again.What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution. see www.talkorigins.org...

You contradict yourself. If you cannot observe it in real time, you can't prove the argument wrong. We're at an impasse. The burden of proof, however, is on the one making the claims. The claims of Macro-Evolution.

I'm well aware of how evolution "works" in theory, but for your sake, I'll educate you on how exactly it functions.

Natural adaptation is the function of micro-evolution. There are three plainly observable principles to micro-evolution:
1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus.
2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions.
3. No new information is added to the DNA.

That said, the argument you are making here (if I'm correct) is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species.
There are three critical flaws with this "gradual change":
1. Dysfunctional change
2. The DNA code barrier
3. Natural selection which removes DNA information but does not add new information.


Dysfunctional Changes are irreducibly complex. When a trait is critical for the survival of a species, it must maintain full functionality or the species will die off, and any 'evolutionary progress' will have been lost. Example; a bat could not have evolved from a rodent because it is completely dependent on its wings for survival. A half-evolved wing could not be used for walking because of its awkward length and shape and would also not be functional for flying. The entire idea of a "half-evolved" bat is illogical. It would be easily killed off by predators and would be helpless getting food/surviving on its own.

This "need" for completeness can be clearly observed from the most primitive of single celled animals to the most complex mammal. To contradict this idea would be a clear contradiction to Darwin's principle of natural selection.

Secondly, the DNA code barrier. It's an irrefutable fact of genetics that traits have a ceiling. Each rung of DNA is made of four chemicals called nucleotides, A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cytosine), and T (thymine). These rungs are combined to provide a blueprint of the traits that organisms will have. If you took all the DNA in the human body and put it in written format, it would fill up one million volumes the size of a 500 page encyclopedia. With all this data, if two people could have as many children as there are atoms in the universe, no two children would be identical (in fact, no two humans are alike, even genetic twins have very slight differences).

Though there are countless combinations of traits that we possess, there is a limit to how far each trait can change. There's a limit to the number of combinations of these chemicals; therefore there are a limited number of trait VARIATIONS.

No new genetic material can possibly be added.