Natural selection is where preferable traits are selected over less preferable traits. Hence, there are different traits between dog species from the equator and the arctic regions. There is no mechanism in natural selection where new information can be added, only taken away.
Where do you think the "preferable" traits comes from?
It isn't exactly Darwinism because information is taken away, not added, to the genome.
Darwin didn't know about the genome so he never claimed that information was being added to a "genome."
Besides we can observe "information" being added to a genome.
Here is just one small example fromn the first page of a google search.
http://brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2004-05/04-147.html
Also see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposon
Transposons are sequences of DNA that can move around to different positions within the genome of a single cell, a process called transposition. In the process, they can cause mutations and change the amount of DNA in the genome.
So lets say that a retrotransposon duplicates and finds its way into another part of the genome. It then undergoes mutation. Later it is transcribed into a new protein. This constitutes an increase in information and a new function for the DNA.
If this new trait is selected for, then it is considered neutral or beneficial.
There is no implication that this includes things that would not die in an aquatic environment.
Yes there is.
If an animal lived on land, it was condemned.
There are many organs where it is impossible for them to function without being in their complete state.
Not true.
From your favorite guy, Dick Dawkins.
YouTube - Dawkins Makes an Eye
Natural selection can only take away genes, it cannot add to the genome.
I just showed you that this is incorrect.
You can't use science to determine the past for certain.
Of course you can't. But what makes you think a book of writings 2000-4000 years old will be better?
The blood that Christ shed is what covers us, not His death in and of itself. Blood is what is required to forgive our sins.
Ridiculous. This is some throwback to animal sacrifice in ancient Judaism.
Do you believe that animal sacrifice made JHWH happy back in those days?
We do question. We have faith, but it is not blind. We do not have to go back and edit the Bible to make it jive with what we know for a fact. The worst we ever have to do is ask what God really meant by what is written.
Yet the Bible has been extensively edited over time.
You can't do science to figure out the past unless you make an assumption that you cannot prove. Creation scientists assume the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, evolutionary biologists assume that nature is responsible for the past.
What is nature? What is your definition of natural?
Once we can hammer down a definition of the term natural, you will see that things we call supernatural are purely outside the realm of science.
My definition of natural is that which is regular and predictable and happens through physical causal relationships. Science cannot be used to determine the cause or effect of a supernatural agency.
No, we are starting with an assumption, as do you. You are starting with the idea that nature can explain what has happened in the past and going forward with that premise. We are starting with the assumption that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
But this assumption leads to demonstrable absurdity, like trying to fit the flood story to geological evidence.
As for a flood laying down layered rock, the layered rock is nearly all near the surface. Creation scientists note the passage (Genesis 7:11) that states "...the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were open."
Is this the literal inerrant word of god?
Are there windows in the heavens?
And the whole Bible cannot possibly be inerrant because there are simple contradictions throughout. These surely look like simple human error. The differences in the Easter stories in the Gospels comes to mind.
Many creation scientists take this to mean that volcanoes, earthquakes, and geysers happened alongside the Flood. These are what caused the vast majority of the rock layers, and that is how many of the fossils came into being. The rock layers are exactly what a creationist would expect from the Flood. This process is also thought to have caused the split between the continents.
Wow. How long do you think this process took? Was it all within the 150 days of the flood? That's a huge release of energy that would heat the Earth's surface to beyond human habitability.
And it all had to happen underwater. When lava erupts underwater you get pillow lava. The whole earth should be covered in pillow lava, but it's not.
I am not starting with a conclusion, I am starting with an assumption. Everyone must start out with an assumption to be able to conduct any sort of logical argument. We happen to have diametrically opposed assumptions, so we confuse each other's assumptions with conclusions.
Could any physical evidence make you doubt your assumption then?
Or no matter what, you will continue to retain your assumption. Nothing will convince you that these assumptions are incorrect?
God condemns incest at this point probably because it creates mutants. Prior to this, the curse had not had such a great effect as to make the odds of mutant children from incestuous relations very high, and that would mean that the primary reason for not having incestuous relations (other than them being physically revolting) would be moot.
This is an example of some of the absurd results that come about from taking the Bible literally.
