DNA Evidence for Special Creation

Originally posted by catstorm
Darwin did not write of 'molecules to man'. He discovered a mechanism to explain speciation, a fact accepted by everyone but you.
Transitional fossils are in museums all over the world.
See Answers in Genesis' list of 'Arguments Creationists should never use'
Creation 'Science' has changed vastly in the last 30 years. If it is the clear teaching of Genesis, then why does it change all the time?

In truth, the only thing factual about it is its own evolution from Charles Darwin’s original postulation – the alleged common ancestry of all plant and animal life - to today’s new-Darwinism which claims that the universe, including all organic life, created itself - out of one atom whose origin is “unknown.” What’s more, the only thing scientific about it is the fact that a substantial number of its proponents consider themselves and each other to be scientists. But stark reality exposes the new Darwinism as a pseudo-science at best, one whose claims cannot be confirmed or falsified by the time-tested scientific method. In fact, molecule-to-man evolution, stripped of all the obfuscating layers that insulate it from reality, is nothing more and nothing less than an opinion factory, generating in school textbooks and the mainstream media only those opinions that foster and further its doctrine.

David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection (the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago), observed: "[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." (David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25)

One of the most famous proponents of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. In a 1977 paper titled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Gould wrote: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."

The senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, put it this way: "Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils."

When scientists change their minds they do not claim that it is God who is talking. Genesis has remained the same but creationism has changed. Disagreeing with you does not mean disagreeing with God. Can you quote Darwin regarding molecules to man or only CreationWiki, whom you dismiss as being wrong about speciation. A smaller number of transitional fossils than scientists would like is not the same as none.

Originally posted by catstorm
When scientists change their minds they do not claim that it is God who is talking. Genesis has remained the same but creationism has changed. Disagreeing with you does not mean disagreeing with God. Can you quote Darwin regarding molecules to man or only CreationWiki, whom you dismiss as being wrong about speciation. A smaller number of transitional fossils than scientists would like is not the same as none.

Any example I give, Archaeopterix for example, you will dismiss, as it is given by evolutionists. Exactly as you dismiss speciation because it is accepted by CreationWiki, with whom you also disagree. You did not answer my question. Since Creationism changes over time, how can it be the teaching of Genesis, which does not change? Will you admit that it is opinion? I am curious to see how many paragraphs you will use to snswer a yes or no question.

Originally posted by catstorm
Any example I give, Archaeopterix for example, you will dismiss, as it is given by evolutionists. Exactly as you dismiss speciation because it is accepted by CreationWiki, with whom you also disagree. You did not answer my question. Since Creationism changes over time, how can it be the teaching of Genesis, which does not change? Will you admit that ...[text shortened]... opinion? I am curious to see how many paragraphs you will use to snswer a yes or no question.

Creationism, or the latest version of it, is also man's opinion. God forming Adam out of the dust of the ground is also 'molecules to man'.
It is meaningless for creationists to deny transitional fossils between kinds and then refuse to define what a kind is. May God forgive Creationists for driving young people out of the church. Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolution is man's opinion; creation is God's word. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

When creationism contradicts itself, are both versions the Word of God, or only one?

Originally posted by catstorm
Creationism, or the latest version of it, is also man's opinion. God forming Adam out of the dust of the ground is also 'molecules to man'.
It is meaningless for creationists to deny transitional fossils between kinds and then refuse to define what a kind is. May God forgive Creationists for driving young people out of the church. Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by sonhouse
Creation is made up of the words of man not some deity. So why don't you have your deity tell us directly about the age of the Earth? Surely an omniscient being can do that.

You still did not answer my question. When creationism contradicts itself (see Arguments Creationists should never use) are both versions the Word of God or only one? I am not denying God, but merely disagreeing with fallible men.

Originally posted by catstorm
You still did not answer my question. When creationism contradicts itself (see Arguments Creationists should never use) are both versions the Word of God or only one? I am not denying God, but merely disagreeing with fallible men.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not control God. God can do anything He wishes. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by sonhouse
So "he" wished for 100 million people to die in WW2. Gotcha.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Hitler was one of them, so what is so bad about that. Remember the Jewish race was saved from annihilation in the process. Besides where is your evidence that God started WWII?