Re: Misrepresenting Creationism


mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Genetics is clearly understood as the fact that the parent has genes
that are passed down to the children. If a white and a black mate a
brown often results. This is genetically understood and proves that
traits are passed down and are not new. Evolution believes that all
change is due mostly through mutations. The brown, however, is not the
result of a mutation, it's the result of a white and black mating.
It's really easy to understand, and clearly this shows how God created
traits as limited.


those of us who have tourette's syndrome...caused by a dominant
gene....with no other family members having this trait..understand
that mutations can, and do, happen.

apparently he doesn't understand the concept of recessive vs dominant
genes, regulatory genes, etc. so he makes stuff up as he goes along.

and there's no proof god even exists, let alone causes anything
genetic.



Your unprovable view is that these genetic traits, from magic,
evolved. This has not been demonstrated.

my genes are different from any handed down to me by my parents since
neither of them has tourette's syndrome. thus a mutation took place.
it HAS, indeed, been demonstrated that mutations exist.

Ancient records and drawings
indicate that traits have remained the SAME since those times.
Diversity has always existed. This diversity is proven by Egyptian
drawings. So historic documents reinforce creationism, and
creationist assertion that change is limited.

?? uh..wrong.

american indians are virtually 100% O positive. why?
most europeans are lactose tolerant. why?

evolution...


Evidence mounts that evolutionists see what they want to see. An
evolutionist looks at a monkey and says, "that's what are ancestors
looked like." He decries the idea that he is trying to escape from
an intelligent creator and the Ten Commandments and says such claims
are false,

you're a fanatic. you think ONLY your view of religion is true AND
that your view of religion is science. no scientists share that view.
not all christians do, either, yet they are christians

if your view was the majority, science would never have been born.

And of course the great evolution scientist Henry Fairfield Osborne
passed off his Nebraska Man in a peer reviewed scientific publication
as a true ape man. It was just a tooth. Hey, if peer review will
allow an evolutionist in with a tooth, why can't they let my critique
in too?


and, i suppose, no fraud was ever committed in the name of
religion....no waco...no jim jones...no mountain meadows
massacre....no slaughter of the cathars...no 9/11....



Evolutionists see what they want to see. Do you disagree with that?

and religious fanatics live a thousand years ago, trying to force
their perversion on today's world.



.

Relevant Pages