To: Paul

Here is a little reply to his comment on one of my previous articles: ""Absolutely no evidence in support of creationism? How would he know..."
So, present some. Evidence, I mean. You know, in favour of creationism. Just one piece. "

So here's some evidence "you know, in favour of creationism" Just it's not going to be one piece:

-The fact that they haven't found any "missing links". In short, the fossil record shows that living species emerged suddenly and perfectly formed, not by following a process from primitive forms to advanced ones as evolution claims.

-Probably the biggest hit: The CHANCE of even the SIMPLEST PROTEIN or CELL being formed is about 10 to the 950th power. If you don't understand let me put it in perspective: That's the same thing as finding a winning lottery ticket on the floor! Everyday, for 1000 years!!! That's just for the most simple building block of a being, so look at the numbers and think how much more impossible it is to create the great human being "by chance."

-The fact that they've found fossils of insects like ants and other species that are still the exact same as today's species.

-If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

-It is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, is quite clear on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grassé compared mutations to "making mistakes in the letters when copying a written text." And as with mutations, letter mistakes cannot give rise to any information, but merely damage such information as already exists. Grassé explained this fact in this way:
Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.24
So for that reason, as Grassé puts it, "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."So for that reason, as Grassé puts it, "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. 24 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 97, 98


-As we have seen, mutations are harmful to living things and no example of a beneficial mutation has ever been observed. The examples put forward by evolutionists as "beneficial mutations" all actually consist of distortions. In none of these examples have the benefits necessary for the evolution of an organism-that is, an increase in genetic information-ever come about. Let us now examine why the instances of "beneficial mutations" put forward by evolutionists are not actually useful at all, and cannot lead to evolution.
Sickle-Cell Anemia:
The only instance evolutionary biologists give of "useful mutation" is the disease known as sickle cell anemia. In this, the hemoglobin molecule, which serves to carry oxygen in the blood, is damaged as a result of mutation, and undergoes a structural change. As a result of this, the hemoglobin molecule's ability to carry oxygen is seriously impaired. People with sickle cell anemia suffer increasing respiratory difficulties for this reason. However, this example of mutation, which is discussed under blood disorders in medical textbooks, is strangely evaluated by some evolutionary biologists as a "useful mutation."
They say that the partial immunity to malaria by those with the illness is a "gift" of evolution. Using the same logic, one could say that, since people born with genetic leg paralysis are unable to walk and so are saved from being killed in traffic accidents, therefore genetic leg paralysis is a "useful genetic feature." This logic is clearly totally unfounded.

Bacterial resistance to antibiotics:
Another example of evolutionists' "beneficial mutations" is the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. Like all the other examples, this one, too, is a deception. It is no secret that bacteria gradually develop a resistance to antibiotics over time. What happens is this: Most bacteria subjected to an antibiotic die, but some remain unaffected by it, and multiplying rapidly they come to comprise the entire population. In this way, the entire population comes to be immune to the antibiotic.
Evolutionists, however, claim that bacteria evolve according to the conditions in which they find themselves. The truth is, however, rather different. The Israeli biophysicist Professor Lee Spetner is one of the figures who have carried out the most detailed studies in this area. Professor Spetner explains how this resistance comes about by means of two separate mechanisms, neither of which makes any contribution to evolution. The two mechanisms in question are:
1) The transmission of already existing immunity genes in the bacteria and
2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation.
The first mechanism is no evidence for evolution:
In a 2001 article Professor Spetner describes the first mechanism in this way:
Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... [T]he organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.12
This is no proof of evolution, as Professor Spetner describes:
The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species.13
In other words, there is no evolution here because no new genetic information appears. All that happens is that genetic information that already exists is transferred among bacteria.
There is no instance of a mutation that "improves genetic information," and the immunity mechanisms in bacteria do not represent evidence for the theory of evolution. The basic process in evolution is just not possible.

-All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:
Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?20

-Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies, as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. The evolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:
It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world- flies which produce a new generation every eleven days-they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.21

-

The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings have had deleterious results. All mutations that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. Needless to say, a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary mechanism"-evolution is supposed to produce forms that are better fitted to survive.

-A great problem for the theory of evolution by natural selection, is that it cannot enable new organs or traits to emerge in living things. Natural selection cannot develop a species' genetic data; therefore, it cannot be used to account for the emergence of new species. The greatest defender of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, Stephen Jay Gould, refers to this impasse of natural selection as follows;
The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.17
Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as an intelligent designer. However,natural selection has no intelligence. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living things. As a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems and organs that possess the feature of "irreducible complexity". These systems and organs are composed of a great number of parts cooperating together, and are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. (For example, the human eye does not function unless it exists with all its components intact).
Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to foresee the future and aim directly at the advantage that is to be acquired at the final stage. Since natural selection has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing. This fact, which demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin, who wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."



-Here is a small list of methods Darwinists use to persuade people to their side. I'll bet you've fallen to them by one of these methods namely, the second one:

Method # 1. They depict evolutionist scientists as very learned, superhuman individuals
Method # 2. Those who accept the theory of evolution are presented as respected scientists; those who do not accept it are branded as conservatives
Method # 3: They try to influence people by using scientific terms and concepts that laymen cannot understand
Method # 4: In order not to break the spell of Darwinism, they themselves do not read, nor do they want their followers to read anything that criticizes them
Method # 5: They pass over questions about evidence for the collapse of the theory of evolution with dismissive responses and later, give the impression that they answered them
Method # 6: Darwinists resort to every kind of rhetorical device toget people under their influence
Method # 7: They try to prove evolution on the evidence of irrelevant topics and discoveries




-In the end after some evidence is presented and people still don't want to believe it is because they are bigots. There is a chance they have a great skepticism for God as well, I wouldn't blame them
because I also don't like the Bible. It's been revised so many times by different sects that the actual meaning is distorted and the book has many inconsistencies. I don't mind if anyone is a Catholic or
what not, but I believe the Qu'ran is the most consistent piece of writing people should read. The problem is, they don't because they feel weird thinking about Arabs and have probably been
taught their whole life not to believe our "nonsense." I say, read what I have and learn. Ask what you want, but if you still don't believe what I say, I'll just say "so be it" and leave you alone.
I just say that because in the Qu'ran it says that you can't convert all people, if he really wanted everyone to believe in Him he would have. That's why this life is just a "test" I hope for your sake
you believe what I have to say. Life is too complex and beautiful in every way to be here by chance. So for any questions, go ahead and ask away.