Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You know Hhr, Dennis Prager hit it on the head when he said that evidence should never upset a scientist. Secondly, "beginning" raises an unanswerable question to the atheist! This is why they avoid it like the plague! This is also why they always cop-out with, "well, we are not concerned with how life started, we only study how it changed over time through gene duplication and mutation. Gene duplication does nothing to increase information in the cell NOTHING! And, mutations are always downward, never upward. It's a double whammy and when you call them on it? What is their response? "You don't understand Evolution" Dennis Prager also stated that if you give them evidence for design, which by the way, is so overwhelming in all we observe in our world from life forms to the perfectly ORDERED universe, they say "Oh no! Science can never argue for design!" Why not? It's exactly what science is discovering! And the more science is discovering, the more it points to a designer! So why keep kicking the goad of truth? As Dennis states, it is a fraud, atheist scientists do not go where the evidence dwells. They go where the evidence serves their atheism! Bottom line!
And this is exactly what we see here. So, their denial of an omnipotent and incomprehensibly intelligent mind behind all of the EVIDENCE in life structures and reproduction from the pre-Cambrian that's right in front of their face, they deny it! What more can you offer? They are completely blind to the truth of their own castigation! I have very little time to spend here. I'll check back in the next day or so, but dont spend too much time trying to help them with reason, logic, common sense or evidence for that matter, because they refuse the true meaning of these things. Did you ever notice that my original question of where did the massive information (substantiated by science) in the cell come from has not been answered in any meaningful way? You know why? Because only an incomprehensibly intelligent mind outside of our universe could possibly have created in the way it was done in six literal 24 hour days! Science knows nothing, proves nothing, that contradicts a six day creation, NOTHING! This should be a clue to the simplest of minds.
Wow, such denial. Let's go over gene duplication and further mutation. When a gene is duplicated that could be claimed not to be "New information". But once that does occur and it has been observed many times, then that allows a process that originally was a very knotty problem for evolution to occur. The question wass how does a key gene undergo evolution? If a bad mutation occurs that gene will not function as it should and the organism will die. Gene duplication changes all of that . Gene duplication allows one copy to keep doing the essential work while the other is free to mutate and possibly create a new function.
And yes, by definition, when a gene duplicates and one gene mutates that is "New information". That gene is different from the old one, therefore good or bad it is new information. I am pretty sure that this obvious correction will have to be made many many times.