Palpazzar:
OK, we have Darwin, and we have Mendel. Two men working at roughly the same time. One describes evolution; one begins the study of genetics. Darwin gets his theroy by looking at birds and describing how their genetics changed to better suit the environment. He simply reasons this out because he cannot observe such a process. Mendel looks at how traits are passed down causing variations in things like plants.

Now in Mendel's work, red and white flowers were crossbred to create pink ones. Are the pink flowers on an evolutionary rung above the red and white ones? No. The genetic traits were passed according to observable patterns.

All of this comes to one point: Gene pools allow for plants and animals to diverge or converge BUT they do not gain information. The pink flowers did not gain a 'pink' gene, they had white and red - previously existing traits.

The birds that Darwin observed were on an island where there was an isolated gene pool. The finches he observed were recombinations of existing finch DNA, not some evolved form of Finch.

Lindsley & Grell found something interesting. In 1910, the first mutation was discovered in bred fruit flies. Since then, only 3,000 mutations have been found. All have either had no effect on the fruit fly or have been harmful to it. None of these mutations involved the sudden adding of genetic material. DNA strands did not suddenly gain the information to create the fly equivalent of Broca's Area in the brain. The implication is clear: mutation does not result in evolution.

So my challenge is this. If someone wants to begin to convince me that evolution rather than genetics is responsible, then show me where a mutation has resulted in the addition of genetic information that was not previously present in a species' genetics.

BTW, creationism is a science because it uses a model based on the idea of creation to make observable and testable predictions. Creationism is NOT about proving that God created the universe. If one wants to knock it, fine by me. But at least get the facts strait [sic] about what it is that is being "evaluated".

Fat_Fett:
Snowdog, if you keep criticizing us (the Creationists) for attacking old, 100 year old theories, why do you believe in something based on an argument started over 150 years ago..

...something that has to continually change after being debunked by Creationists.

If your argument had such an old, weak base to begin with that it had to be constantly changed, why do Evolutionists base their ideas on it exactly?

Edit: My Sources

1. Saint, Phil. Fossils that Speak Out: Creation vs. Evolution. Melbourne, Florida: Dove Christian Books, 1989.

2. "Creation vs. Evolution: Part II." 2001. Library.Thinkquest.org. 30 Sep. 2001.
<http://www.library.thinkquest.org/29178/>

3. "Creation Science Homepage." Emporium.turnpike.net. 2001. 27 Sep 2001.
<http://www.emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm>

4. "Answersingenesis.org." Gospel Communication Network. 2001. Answersingenesis.org.
27 September 2001. <http://www.answersingenesis.org>

5. "Pathlights.com." Sword of Orion Productions. 2000. Pathlights.com. 10 October 2001.
<http://www.pathlights.com>

6. "Creationism.org." 2001. Creationism.org. 8 October 2001.
<http://www.creationism.org>

Palpazzar:
First having an extra X chromosome is not adding information. X chromosomes are already present. There is merely an extra copy made. No new material.

To name a Creationist question is this: Using the Creation model, can accurate predictions be made about the magnetic field strength? Oh, wait. I bet you didn't know real science was used by Creationists because you don't care enough o at least investigate what they do.

You are ignorant of the aims of Creation. It is not about disproving evolution.

I disagree, but in any event it is not science.[blockquote]Your baseless accusations reveal your devotion to stereotyping the beliefs of a group that I personal believe you cannot stand.

???[blockquote]It is an inaccurate stereotype BTW. Creationism has nothing to do with theology at its root. No there has been no formal paradigm put forward yet which I hope happens soon. However the scientific method (which is the same as 100 years ago, merely more tools availible) is the basis for creationism.

I have already given an example of Creation science - magnetic fields. That is VERY empirical and testable. Does anyone care disagree with that point?

Palpazzar:
My first source for this Hox gene says that it causes an abnormality in limbs.

The transformation of a zygote to an animal of specific form depends on the controlled expression in the developing embryo of special regulatory genes called Hox genes.

Among cases in women were effects resulting in infertility. That is not very adaptive.

Anyway, if this is the correct Hox gene, the website inculdes this:

"The mutation they found was a coding change from the amino acid tryptophan to a nonsense or stop codon which resulted in a HOXA13 protein which was missing the last 20 amino acids."

It is kind of hard to add information to genetics when information is being lost. This is not evolution and falls in line with what I described earlier. However, I will ask if I have the wrong gene so that I may find the truth.

Palpazzar:
I have told you time and again what creation is. If you want to examine the research, then look it up.

I don't have to report on findings which I fully admit I do not have training to understand.

However, the example of magnetic fields that I referred to used a creationist model of planetary conditions to predict the strength of fields around other planets in the solar system. According to the study I read which I have not mentioned because I have not fully checked its validity yet (and I hate to report possibly flawed studies).

Nevertheless, according to the study, the predictions were supported after the fact by the Viking satellite. I believe that Uranus was the planet cited in the study. This is science.

Anywho, creation did start with the literal interpretation of Genesis, but as Creationists are scientists, they also know that the Genesis account cannot be proven. The method is not possible. So instead, creationists look toward other questions. That is what plenty of sciences have done, psychology for example.

I cannot believe how unwilling people are to think for themselves.

All you have accepted is creation is about proving God created the earth. No. Creationism uses the scientific methods of research, hypothesis, experimentation, interpretation, peer review, and reevaulation. Science isn't believing in evolution and accepting nothing else. Science is using objective data to search for truth. That is what creationists do.

Snowdog, I would suggest for you that you do what you claim you have done all along, break out of your preconceptions and look at the evidence of how creationism works. I know you will not agree with the findings. But if you would look at the ontology, epistemology, and methodology you would see Creationism is a science. That goes for others as well.

Palpazzar:
Nodule,
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not used by Creationists in the field. That is the argument of laymen only. Even I disregard it now.

In conclusion,
1. The Second Law applied to the whole universe is the death-knell for any proposed evolutionary scheme.

A number of scientists believe the 2nd Law, when truly understood, is enough to refute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is one of the most important reasons why various Evolutionists have dropped their theory in favor of Creationism.

It is the Second law (of thermodynamics), however, that wipes out the theory of evolution.

Fat_Fett:
The Bible has fulfilled hundreds of prophecies, many more than any other religions' text (including Hinduism). The Bible is so historically correct that archeologists use it as a reference and study guide to ancient Semite and Middle-Eastern life! Yet this is the same Bible that you say cannot be proved to be correct!

If the Bible is so much more HISTORICALLY and prophetically true than any other religous book around, but you and the other evolutionists on this board regard it as "scientifically unproven".......I wonder how much more "true" a.k.a. "totally false" your other religious texs are.

To the person who asked me "If God is omni-powerful as you say He is, why did He have to rest on the 7th day?" -God "rested" is not to be taken literally as 'He slept.' The actual translation can be 'He did not work on the 7th day'.

Before you all go criticizing the Bible, perhaps you should first get the smallest notion of what you are talking about. In case you didn't know, the Bible is translated from 3 languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) and has now been translated into English. Write a sentence and put it through a translator 3 times (each through a different language), then tranlate it back into English. Are you going to get the same definition for "slept"? Of course not!

If you want to think that you are right and that I am wrong, even though I too list my facts that I believe to be true.....you are being a naive hypocrite! If evolution is a theory and not a law, it cannot be right in every aspect! Get over it!

If you cry for me, thank you for your cause of concern. Perhaps you secularists here aren't as cold-hearted and anti-Christian as you make yourselves out to be.

I mourn for you becuase I KNOW what will happen to you if you don't change your ways. However stubborn you want to be, the Bible, THE most prophetically correct book in the history of the World (!) says, that one day "every knee will bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." Don't even try to argue RELIGION with me and how my religion is wrong if YOUR religious books can't even compare to the historical and prophetical truths of the Bible.

Watch this, Palpazzar. They will probably accuse ME of being close minded "just like every other Christian," when they themselves shut off all the scientific truths of Creationism and the numerous flaws in Evolutionary theory......total hypocricy. They will even deny being hypocrites!

I have a question for those secularist evolutionists here. Do you believe in, do you have faith in, do you KNOW that what you say is true? Are you willing to to risk your soul on the theory of Evolution?

I am right and you are wrong, there are no second chances, and there is no abrupt end. I will spend the rest of eternity with my Heavenly Father in Heaven, and you will not.....you'll spend your eternity separated from God, in Hell.