Faithful Evolution Believers

Now, creationists, tell me what mechanism prevents small mutations in D.N.A that creates adaptation from piling up into big changes over time, how does this mechanism work, and when does it activate to prevent the build up of mutations.

you know, some people are NOT religious

AND

don't believe in evolution as currently defined.

Then what alternative do you push forward instead of creationism or evolution?

Every example can be an appeal to authority fallacy.

Everything can be a fallacy.

Can you stick to the subject at hand?

Can you admit that richard dawkins is the current topdog of atheism and evotardism? Can you at least admit to that? Or is this just 'an opinion' in 'your reality' and not our shared reality of current world affairs?

i too am very curious to know what other possibilities are out there, please share with the group, please don't say x the process of evotardism.

x created the process of evotardism

Everything can be a fallacy? That's complete nonsense. You're saying that logic itself doesn't exist. Some arguments are fallacious, some aren't.

I am on the subject at hand. You implied that 'evolutionists' shift the goal posts, shifting the goal posts is a logical fallacy. You fail to understand that no matter how smart someone is, their argument stands on its own merit. If an idiot is right, they're still right. Some rocket scientists are atheists, some are religious. I would say most of them accept evolution.

And Dawkins? Dawkins passed the height of his popularity years ago in my opinion. He was made famous by 'the God Delusion.' He might be the most famous evolutionary biologist, but what you don't get is that most Scientists accept evolution, and if Dawkins suddenly said 'I was wrong, evolution doesn't exist,' scientists wouldn't just change their mind. Unless he had compelling evidence.

There is no 'top dog' of Atheism. I personally enjoy watching debates with Matt Dillahunty, and I'd say he's the best debater I know of when it comes to the subject of theism.

Both creationism and evolutionary theory as they stand leave more questions than they answer.

I just don't know how life began, or how a totally new life form emerges. I'm not afraid to say so.

It irks me that other people feel that THEY know.

Although, I do have some of my own theories. I don't KNOW that they are true.

Creationists seem to not want to answer my question....

DNA is Proof of God.

No, D.N.A is proof of chemistry.

Then why do you write, 'yeah but he is not a biologist'? What is the point? He studied the subject and concluded naturalistic philosophy (such as evolution theory) was true. He later realized it was not true, for very valid reasons.

Again this is all just perception, in the end where one sees design, you just see evolution, whatever the rational is behind that reasoning, it is not science, it is inference.

Which characteristics does design require for you to be accepted as an example of design?

DNA is information.

Definition of information
1 : the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence

Which, we all know by now, due to a mountain of evidence, is the result of a random process leading to a working billion 4 letter code, roger that.

I didn't write that he's not a biologist, that was someone else, but it should be obvious to you why they said it. Evolution is part of biology. Flew wasn't a biologist, meaning he was not an expert on anything related to evolution.

It's difficult to express just how terrible your argument is. Not only is Flew's opinion irrelevant, but you don't even understand his opinion.
Show me where Flew ever said that he didn't believe evolution and show me what those 'valid reasons' were. Abiogenesis is not evolution. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp, but you can believe in God and believe in evolution at the same time. It's not a naturalistic philosophy, it's a scientific theory.

"Again this is all just perception, in the end where one sees design, you just see evolution, whatever the rational is behind that reasoning, it is not science, it is inference."

You are in no position to tell anyone about science. It's not just perception, it's a matter of fact. Biological evolution is genetic change in a population over successive generations, which is an observable fact. You have mutations that are not present in your parents.
We already know evolution happens, and is determined by natural laws. The only question is whether those natural laws were put in place by God, which would make evolution part of God's design.

"Which characteristics does design require for you to be accepted as an example of design?"

We recognize things that are designed by contrasting them against things that are created by natural processes. Reproduction is a natural process.

Chemistry is Proof of The Chemist.

Dude, do you not read what you linked? He was arguing abiogenesis never took place, nothing about evolution.

You do realize that we know that the building blocks of life such as nucleotides and amino acids have had experiments done proving they can arise naturally, yes?

God created every molecule of you

and your heart continues beating in your chest by His Permission.

You do realize this, right?

Where’s the proof of this? It’s alreasy been demonstrated that the conditions and mechanisms behind abiogenesis are possible one way or another, yet no physical proof for God. That’s not even counting evolution, which, unlike abiogenesis, has been obseved.

Actually if you lose a rib your body can regenerate it. And bone marrow from ribs can also be worth checking out.

I think the term he used was the obviousness of integrated complexity. You know, the stuff you think happened by itself or by random chance events and call it science.

The process isn’t entirely random though. The organic molecules were going to react with each other, one way or another. The Miller-Urey experiement already proved that the building blocks of life can arise naturally.

Something complex doesn’t need to be designed. A puddle of water outside right now is perfectly made for that exact puddle, yet it was not designed...

Atheism is some kind of insanity.

To claim everything is created by itself is just insanity.

There’s no evidence that a creator did create anything right now.

An experiment designed by intelligent agents that excluded oxygen.

So stuff needs oxygen to evolve, but it all evolved without oxygen in the first place. Because science!

Sadly it is.

The question is, why are the skeptics (evotards, atheists and the likes the alphas) not skeptic about their own beliefs.

Cells got more complex

The end

Why are the atheist alpha in this world?

Well, let's not speculate but I guess it has to do with their lack of belief: