Leauki, read the posts after that specific reply of mine which you grabbed those lines from if you have a question about what I was getting across.  In replies and reiterations, I have made clear the meanings of those statements.  I'm upset that I even have to write this message to tell you to look back for that information, since I've already been through it.

Agree.

True science describes evolution as gradual change within species (phyla). This happens becasue the Creator has impressed complex information into cells which can reproduce and pass on that information to the next generation. In Creationism, this comes about via secondary causes.  

Scientists have bread unusual varieties among species, but never have their experiments gone across basic types. Scientists cannot wiith plants, insects, nor animals, produce from them something that crosses the species barrier. molecular biology with its discoveries of DNA has confirmed this cannot be done. Variations can operate but only within a certain range specified by the DNA. Take the horse...there are many different types but each one is a horse. A mule is a cross between 2 species the horse and the donkey. But again this is a cross not a crossover and within the range of species. It's interesting though that when a female donkey and a male horse cross breed, the mule produced is ususally sterile. In the very few cases where the female mule does have offspring, they revert back towards the horse or donkey species.

The fly experiment that you described as dividing into 2 separate species isn't actually what happens.. Such flies become not separate species but sub-species and sub species are only a reassortment of what is already there. This isn't evolution, micro or macro.

Darwin's ideas attempt to explain how  all plants, animals and humans came about through purely natural processes. His followers picked it up, expanded it and it has become the dominant theory of Evolution taught and defended by the world's leading evolutionary scientists..it explicitly rules out God. Evolution theory states that not only did mankind  evolve from an ape-like creature, but that ultimately everything evolved from a single celled organisms that happened (by accident or chance?) to arise from non-living matter.  They claim that similiarities between things are proof that they evolved from common ancestors.

Modern Science has dealt Evolutionary Theory some major blows. There is no empirical evidence in the history of the whole world that even one new  true species has formed from other species. This would require cross-over between species and the DNA genetic barrier renders that virtually impossible.

So that's provable?  Ugh.  You can't argue against one theory being unproven and then retaliate with unproven, non-scientifc information of your own.  That's really, really uncool.

I'm sure that Palin is probably a nice person if you meet her. My problem is when she talks politics. She sounds like she knows nothing at all. McCain talks about Obama not being qualified ot be president, then he pics a running mate who is not only unqualified but also lacks basic knowledge required. She should never do interviews and, more importantly not talk politics. She also lies so often that she can not be trusted. Her past is always catching up with her. Everyone says how she is always in the spotlight and outshines McCain, but she is in the spotlight because of her lies and lack of knowledge.

As mayor and governor of Alaska, she knows politics plenty. She doesn't talk Washington talk that's for sure.

Unlike Obama's and Biden's lawyer language, her plain talk and happy demeanor is refreshing and she seems to be the only one with the will to change what's rotten in Washington....and she knows rotten when she sees it no matter if rotten has an "R" or a "D" following it.   

If you saw the debate, then you know what's wrong with Palin.

Holy crap was she ever owned.

~Zoo

I believe it was Michael McDonald who wrote, "What a fool believes, he sees."

True science doesn't know of a mechanism that would stop gradual changes from creating two species out of one. Only Creationism knows of such a mechanism.

Yes. That is also my impression of her.

I also find that lawyers going into politics is like virus-scanner companies writing viruses. They just create more work for themselves.

Perhaps we need fewer lawyers and more plumbers/scientists/doctors/drivers/electricians in parliaments and cabinets.

Actually that is as simple as changing one or two genes that related to the reproductive process.

Several people posted those already, I would suggest you start by simply reading the very basic introduction wikipedia is giving:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

You don't understand.

When too many changes accumulate over the generations and two tribes of one species are close to becoming two species, angels intervene and forbid the animals to procreate, hence the species barrier is never broken.

Note that Creationist use the word "species" to refer to mean "different-looking animals". That's not what the word "species" means in biology, but that's OK because Creationists only use scientific terms; they do not understand them.

IN REALITY now, what happens is that when you take two populations A and B of animal species X and let them evolve independently, populations A and B will eventually be unable to interbreed and will have become to species Y and Z. This can be observed in nature and in labs. The claim that something will stop them from becoming two species is a Creationist lie.

Two species evolving independently (and they always do, because that's what "species" means) will eventually take different evolutionary paths and their descendants will eventually look quite differently from the ancestors. Again, there is NOTHING to prevent such changes from accumulating. And Creationists have never explained what exactly it is they believe happens to stop evolution from changing animals too much.

Either way, it always astounds me that the "Christian Principle of Honesty" of which we have heard here so much never seems to stop Creationists from lying about evolution, no matter how often they are told about them.

Whenever I read the terms "random chance", "macro-evolution", and "species" (in the sense of "different-looking animal" rather than "animal that cannot interbreed with another animal) I know I am confronted with lies.

So there are two reasons Creationism should be taught in science class. It's not science, and it's not religion. (If it were religion, why does it encourage lying?)

There are no fossils I can find of my ancestors five generations back. Hence I cannot be their descendant.

Whew!  I thought I was going to have to carry the guilt of that blackguard around with me for the rest of my life.

LULA POSTS:

Back in the 90s, the true science of molecular genetics has discovered the ever bewildering complexity of DNA...DNA is the mechanism (the barrier) that stops one organism from evolving into a completely different one. Analysis of DNA sequences in various species show similiarities within species and big differences between systemallically far-removed ones...and apes and humans are systematically far removed...as are reptiles from birds, etc.

Molecular genetics confirms the accuracy of taxonomy and doesn't confirm postulated evolutionary sequences. There ARE NO PROGRESSIVE CHANGES FROM FISH TO AMPHIBIANS, TO REPTILES TO MAMMALS. Sorry about that, Leauki, Taltamir, and others. Molecular genetics confirms systematics, not crossover changes from one species to a completely different one. Molecular genetics confirm Linnaeus, not Darwin.

The science of Molecular genetics, particularly DNA, supports Special Creation as explained by God's words in Genesis. Creationists have known all along that, by definition, science cannot contradict Sacred Scripture. We know this by faith and reason. Almighty God is the principal Author of Scripture, is Truth Himself and free from all error. Since God is both Creator of the universe, including space, time and matter, and principal Author of Scripture, the Scripture can't contradict science.

Creationists have faith in the trustworthiness ofo God as a reliable eye-witness to Creation. Our faith enables us to begin a particular hypothesis about our Origin events with something more than a hunch. The historical events, the Genesis testimony on Creation and historical geology and now molecular genetics, cannot be dismissed as irrelevant.

 So,,,,Genetics has no proof for Evolution Theory...it can't explain it let alone give evidence of it...and that's why over all these years Evolution Theory keeps postulating evidence of it and failing to find it, and then moves on to other postulates. This IS NOT SCIENCE...and a whole age of sceintific endeavor was wasted searching for a phantom. It's time to stop and recognize what is....natural science fail to supply empirical evidence for Evolution Theory....they must be taken on faith alone.

Lula, you are still evading the subject. None of what you write is relevant because you simply don't understand evolution and you refuse to learn.

As long as you don't understand that Darwinism is not about "macro-evolution" and "random chance" and that there simply is no definite border between species that could possibly, through any mechanism, halt evolution before it creates a new species, everything you say will remain pure nonsense.

Once I meet a Creationist who knows as much about evolution as I know about Abrahamic religions, I will listen carefully. But until then my own research into both fields effectively stops me from listening to statements I know to be lies (like anything about "random chance" and "macro-evolution") and consider them as arguments.

If you cannot be bothered to learn Darwinist theory, I cannot be bothered to take seriously what you have to say against it.

You don't even know how ridiculous you sound to anybody who knows anything about Darwin's theory.

I'll tell you again, and I hope that you listen, in the interest of promoting Creationism if not in the interest of convincing you of the validity of scientific theory:

1. Darwin's theory is NOT about random chance events.

2. The theory of evolution does NOT include what you call "macro-evolution" and never has. "Macro-evolution" is not a type of change but an overview. Evolution according to Darwin consists ONLY of small changes (i.e. "micro-evolution"). You can simply forget about the two terms "micro" and "macro", because the difference you see between them has absolutely nothing to do with Darwinism.

3. There is NO definitive border between two species. Not only is there no mechanism for changes to stop before a new species is created, but there isn't even a border between species that could possibly trigger or even define a goal for such a mechanism.

Any statement or claim you make about evolution that uses any of the three lies Creationists constantly use is completely meaningless in the context of discussing evolution. Whatever merits Creationism has must be compared against scientific theory, NOT against your understand of science or the lies Creationists tell about it.

Let me make it perfectly clear, so you cannot wiggle out again:

Claiming that evolution is about random chance is a lie. Claiming that evolution knows micro-evolution and macro-evolution as two types of change is a lie. And claiming that there is a border between species that cannot be crossed is a lie (because there is no such border according to the theory of evolution).

If you tell any of these lies, you are not only making it obvious that Creationists are liars (hence harming your cause), but you are also violating the laws of your religion (hence harming yourself).

Again:

1. Evolution is _NOT_ about random chance.

2. There is _NO_ such thing as "macro-evolution" in Darwin's theory.

3. There is _NO_ border between species (and it is therefor logically impossible for evolution to stop before it crosses that border).

You have been told these things again and again. And I don't care if you tell me that you don't believe in them. Darwinists do and their world view contains those three principles. So if you want to disprove or discredit their world view you better address those points instead of lying about them.

Darwinism:

1. NOT about random chance.

2. NO macro-evolution.

3. NO border between species.

Get that into your head.