evolution is not atheism

[phoenix4jesus]

Hi all First post here, thought I would begin with this thread since I dont see any with this topic.
I am a christian evolutionist.
I thought I would just say hi and also say.

Evolution is not Atheism.
God spoke the Universe into creation right?
So the way I see it Science is the study of Gods Word.

evo is not about IF God created, but about HOW GOd created.
And all the evidence shows that Evo is how God created.

Science is not Athiestic nor antiGod....because of the limitations of the scientific method, science defaults to agnostic.. it can only deal with things that can be tested, measured, observed.
Because science defaults to agnostic, doesnt mean it is antigod or Atheist.
It just means the question is outside the limitations of science,

[newseed]

So do you think man evolved from apes?

[phoenix4jesus]

So do you think man evolved from apes?

no not at all,

lets say you aquire a virus, the virus inserts its own gene in your gene ( so the virus can replicate itsself useing your own genetic matierial, this is how viruses reproduce)...this virus insertion-information will forever be a part of you genetic information , and your direct desendants for all long as you desendants keep reproducing will always have that original virus information that you your self aquired.

we did not evolve from apes , but share a common ancestor, as evidenced by retrovirus insertions in the genomes of primates and man ( and all other animals closely related)...the exact same retrovirus insertions in the exact same place in the genomes, indicate at one time in the past primates and humans shared the exact same genome.

viruses do not insert genetic info in the exact same place everytime..there are millions if not billions of places to insert...the fact that primates and humans share the same insertions, is empirical evidence that they both at one time shared the same common ancestor in the past

[newseed]

So do you think man evolved from apes?

no not at all,

lets say you aquire a virus, the virus inserts its own gene in your gene ( so the virus can replicate itsself useing your own genetic matierial, this is how viruses reproduce)...this virus insertion-information will forever be a part of you genetic information , and your direct desendants for all long as you desendants keep reproducing will always have that original virus information that you your self aquired.

we did not evolve from apes , but share a common ancestor, as evidenced by retrovirus insertions in the genomes of primates and man ( and all other animals closely related)...the exact same retrovirus insertions in the exact same place in the genomes, indicate at one time in the past primates and humans shared the exact same genome.

viruses do not insert genetic info in the exact same place everytime..there are millions if not billions of places to insert...the fact that primates and humans share the same insertions, is empirical evidence that they both at one time shared the same common ancestor in the past

Peace Phoenix4Jesus,

So basically you are saying that man's and apes genomes came from the same ancestors....who (or what?) were the original anscestors? Man? Ape? ??

BIC,
Eddie

[Jovaro]

That is asking for an answer no-one has...

[webmaster]

Maybe we just share the same virus's?

While this young boy was dying, the world of virology and infectious diseases was shocked by the fact that the influenza strain which affected this small child was a strain that was previously thought to affect only birds. Never in mankind's history had this type of influenza been isolated from a human. This virus, however, went on to infect 18 people, killing six of them.

The only way for people to become infected by this avian- flu strain was to come into contact with infected birds. A University of Hong Kong study of Hong Kong's open meat markets found that 10% of the chickens in these markets contained the virus. It was also found that the duck and geese carried the same avian-flu virus. Humans infected with this virus may have caught it with contact so casual and mundane that they would never have known that they were in danger.

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~issues/spr ... icken.html
I guess we are related to chickens also?

[Jovaro]

Read again webmaster:

the exact same retrovirus insertions in the exact same place in the genomes, indicate at one time in the past primates and humans shared the exact same genome.

[phoenix4jesus]

Maybe we just share the same virus's?

While this young boy was dying, the world of virology and infectious diseases was shocked by the fact that the influenza strain which affected this small child was a strain that was previously thought to affect only birds. Never in mankind's history had this type of influenza been isolated from a human. This virus, however, went on to infect 18 people, killing six of them.

The only way for people to become infected by this avian- flu strain was to come into contact with infected birds. A University of Hong Kong study of Hong Kong's open meat markets found that 10% of the chickens in these markets contained the virus. It was also found that the duck and geese carried the same avian-flu virus. Humans infected with this virus may have caught it with contact so casual and mundane that they would never have known that they were in danger.

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~issues/spr ... icken.html
I guess we are related to chickens also?

???????????????????????????

[Ecclesiastes76]

Just because it isn't atheism doesn't mean that it is Christian. Evolution goes against the teachings of the bible every step of the way. Seriously, how powerful is your god? Because my God is perfect and got things right the first time. He didn't need "millions of years" to get to man. Besides, the bible teaches that death entered the world because of man's sin, but evolution is opposite that, saying that death is the process for superior life. Don't let the enemy trip you up people. The bible is perfect just the way it is, it doesn't need us to change it up to fit with a bunch of stuff scientists believe.

[phoenix4jesus]

Just because it isn't atheism doesn't mean that it is Christian. Evolution goes against the teachings of the bible every step of the way. Seriously, how powerful is your god? Because my God is perfect and got things right the first time. He didn't need "millions of years" to get to man. Besides, the bible teaches that death entered the world because of man's sin, but evolution is opposite that, saying that death is the process for superior life. Don't let the enemy trip you up people. The bible is perfect just the way it is, it doesn't need us to change it up to fit with a bunch of stuff scientists believe.

maybe God doesnt need millions of years to get to man, but that Adromeda Galaxy you see did take 200 millions years for the light to reach your telescope...

[phoenix4jesus]

so i have two choices when looking at Adromeda galaxy thats 200 MILLION light years away.

I can beleive Gods First Word, as in the Universe that was created when God spoke it into existence. I can accept Natural Law of the Speed of Light, the Law that God created, a Constant of Nature that man is powerless to change..

Or I can beleive mans interpretation of Gods Word , in the Bible. ( the bible never claimed to be a science book, that was mans idea).

Who should I trust more for accurate information?
The Constant God-made Speed of Light that man cannot change,
Or Mans fallible interpretation of the bible?

[Nickatwarwick]

Better yet you can look at the universe that God has created. Then you look at his Word, and see that amazingly, if interpreted correctly, it DOES NOT GO AGAINST SCIENCE AT ALL!!

What a suprise! Two of God's most fantastic creations actually go hand in hand! Makes sense to me.

Nick

[Nickatwarwick]

Why don't we look more in depth about the Andromeda question. We know this galaxy is many many light years away, and we know it because God has created so many distance markers in space [cepheid variables, neutron stars etc].

Therefore, if the universe was created only 10000 or so years ago the light from Andromeda simply could not have reached us. We would not be able to see it in the sky. Indeed, if you cling to a recent universe creation you are forced to accept a misleading God. Any bungled answer about God speeding up light, creating the light in transit or similar leads to him pulling the wool over our eyes.

My God, the God of the Bible, does NOT lie.

Nick

[Ecclesiastes76]

Answers to the speed of light and distance of stars question.

[Aineo]

Although there is no discrepancy between God's truth and what science has been able to describe, evolution is a scientific impossibility. Evolution is not supported in the fossil record. No transitional fossil has even been discovered to establish that higher mammals evolved from fish. Have you studied what has become known as the Cambrian explosion or the Biological Big Bang? There are no pre-Cambrian fossils that support evolution.

[Non-Christian]

Answers to the speed of light and distance of stars question.

Uh, huh. That's a fine example of crappy science.

[Ecclesiastes76]

Instead of just telling us that its "crappy", why not explound and explain?

[Nickatwarwick]

Aineo, could we leave evolution itself out of this one? [not only cos i'm not an expert on it, but ther are a whole lot of other threads focusing on it]. Why don't we have a look at the whole astronomy for ancient universe lark, I know you've got knowledge in this area too, and it would be good to discuss it with other Christians, as well as others on the forum.

Ecclesiastices76, we're not rubbishing you or your beliefs, but DrDino and his webpages are, to be honest, bo**ox. Talk of the speed of light "decaying" is equivocal to saying that the number one is slightly less than it used to be. In his page he's keen to claim that astronomers can only guess distances in space, but does not elucidate on the plethora of alternative means they utilise other than parallax.

More worryingly, he goes on to talk about cooling light down, seconds after claiming that no-one knows exactly WHAT light is! You can only cool down actual matter, by definition, so how he interprets cooling light down I do not know. More importantly, if the speed of light had been shown to vary in a vacuum beyond experimental uncertainty, it would be no little thing. Not just a notion pasted on a website or a couple of articles in a magazine. Ask any physics professor at any university, and they'll tell you just how much.

Breaking the speed of light would mean the removal of one of the most scientifically verified theories of all time. The accuracy of general relativity has been tested to a degree almost unimaginable. In fact, it's the science that claims the universe actually has a beginning.

In short, claiming that the constancy of light is insubstantial enough to produce worthy debate in other fields is akin to saying arithmetic can't be used to count apples.

Nick

[Aineo]

Nickatwarwick, it is a bit difficult to leave evolution out of this thread in view of the thread topic "Evolution is not atheism".

[faithman]

The whole premiss of evolution, was to give another account of origin out side of a creator. And that is not atheism because......

[Ecclesiastes76]

If you have a spare 25 minutes, give this a listen. I've been listening to Chuck Missler's study of Genesis over the last few days and Chuck is just awesome. The one that deals with what we're talking about can be found by clicking here, then click on Part 3 of the study "The Illusion of Time". I think you'll enjoy it.

[i just wanna be a sheep]

So if God made Eve out of Adam's rib, then would that mean Adam came from evolution, but Eve came from Adam's rib. Come on, I believe this whole evolution stuff is totally against the Bible. Darwin's theorys and the Bible have always contradicted.

[Nickatwarwick]

Aineo. Good point. Looks like a sometimes forget where these threads begin. My apologies.

OK then. Evolution. What exactly do we mean by this? At present I believe that the process of natural evolution is going on around us, and that animals have been evolving with a whole load of supernatural bumps and pushes for the past few millions of years. What I do not believe is that the same is true for man.

We are God's special creation. God made us selectly and differently from the rest of nature, just how I don't pretend to know, but you're certainly not going to catch me claiming we're some mutant offspring of a gorilla.

Ecclesiastes, many thanks for that link. I'll get back to you once I've given it the time and attention it deserves.

God Bless,
Nick

[faithman]

There is absolutely no evidence of new kinds of creatures being produced out side their kind. There is great diversity with dogs, yet they are still all dogs. When man makes creatures reproduce out side there kind, the hybred cannot reproduce on their own. there is absolutely no evidence in the world that mutation is a good thing. Adaptability is built into creation to make allowances for climate, and geological differences.

As far as biological science goes, there was not a human scientist around to observe the beginning. There for from a strictly scientific point of view, any thought on the subject is theory. We can, how every, make observation, and statement of fact, as far as the disipline of social science in comparing the effect these two theories have had on mankind .

The creation based faith of Christianity, has been a great boon for man kind. Christians have been at the for front of estabishing educational institutions, hospitals, orphanages, and governments with liberty and justice. It was christians who pionered womans sufferage, abolition of slavery, and civil rights. The reason is simple. Christians believe that human life is sacred, created in the image of God. There for all human life, from the womb to the tomb, should be treated as a divine gift of God.

Evolution, on the other hand, produced Carl Marx, Joseph Stalin, Adaulf Hitler, Mao Sa Tung, Margret Sanger. All who rejected God. All who embraced evolution, all were mass murderers. Evolution was the excuse used by the slave holder, to deny humanity to folks of African desent. Evolution excused the colonial imperalist of Europe, as they exploited other peoples because they were "less than human", and thus nothing more than apes in the way of their "progress". Evolution is the genesis of the religeon of secular humanism, which is a godless faith, hell bent on destroying American as we know it. Evolution most assuridly is the foundation of atheism, and the enemy of all that is good and Holy. These are observable facts, from the social history of man. Evolution places all human life at risk from despots who can deny humanity to people groups, and thus slaughter them by the millions.

For a Christian to compromise with this damnedable religion in any way, is to agree with the enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Ecclesiastes76]

Amen brother!

I would also like to add that any mutation ever observed has been a loss of genetic information, not a gain.

[Nickatwarwick]

I think that's going a bit far.

There's been a whole lot of evil done in the name of Christianity. Like many things, if taken wrongly and used incorrectly, it can promote suffering.

Nick

[Ecclesiastes76]

Just because people claim to do things in the name of Christianity doesn't mean that it is Christian. Even the KKK thinks they are doing God's work.

[Ecclesiastes76]

More Turmoil in Physics:
Is Light Slowing Down?
by Chuck Missler

In earlier articles, we discussed the nature of time and the fallacy of linear and absolute time concepts. We now know that time is a physical property and varies with respect to mass, acceleration, and gravity.1

Time is tied to our concepts of the curvature of space-time, and the velocity of light. The velocity of light is, in fact, a parameter which appears to affect almost every aspect of both cosmological physics on the large scale, as well as quantum physics in the particle scale. It is, of course, considered to be the fundamental constant of physics.

Historical Perspective

The early Greek philosophers generally followed Aristotle's belief that the speed of light was infinite. 2 As late as 1600 a.d., Johannes Kepler, one of the fathers of modern astronomy, maintained the majority view that light was instantaneous in its travels. Rene Descartes, the highly influential scientist, mathematician and philosopher (who died in 1650), also strongly held to the belief in the instantaneous propagation of light. He strongly influenced the scientists of that period and those who followed.

Speed of Light Measured

In 1677 Olaf Roemer, the Danish astronomer, noted that the time elapsed between eclipses of Jupiter with its moons became shorter as the Earth moved closer to Jupiter and became longer as the Earth and Jupiter drew farther apart. This anomalous behavior could be accounted for by a finite speed of light.

Initially, Roemer's suggestion was hooted at. It took another half century for the notion to be accepted. In 1729 the British astronomer James Bradley's independent confirmation of Roemer's measurements finally ended the opposition to a finite value for the speed of light. Roemer's work, which had split the scientific community for 53 years, was finally vindicated.

Over the past 300 years, the velocity of light has been measured 163 times by 16 different methods. (As a Naval Academy graduate, I must point out that Albert Michelson, Class of 1873, measured the speed of light at the Academy. In 1881 he measured it as 299,853 km/sec. In 1907 he was the first American to receive the Nobel Prize in the sciences. In 1923 he measured it as 299,798 km/sec. In 1933, at Irvine, CA, as 299,774 km/sec.)

Recent Discovery

Australian physicist Barry Setterfield and mathematician Trevor Norman examined all of the available experimental measurements to date and have announced a discovery: the speed of light appears to have been slowing down over the years! [Roemer, 1657 (Io eclipse): 307,600 5400 km/sec; Harvard, 1875 (same method): 299,921 13 km/sec; NBS, 1983 (laser method): 299,792.4586 0.0003 km/sec.] They all are approximately 186,000 miles/second; or about one foot/nanosecond.)3

While the margin of error improved over the years, the mean value has noticeably decreased. In fact, the bands of uncertainty hardly overlap.

As you would expect, these findings are highly controversial, especially to the more traditional physicists. However, many who scoffed at the idea initially have subsequently begun to take a closer look at the possibilities.

Alan Montgomery, the Canadian mathematician, has also analyzed the data statistically and has concluded that the decay of c, the velocity of light, has followed a cosecant-squared curve with a correlation coefficient of better than 99%.

A New Perspective

This curve would imply that the speed of light may have been 10-30% faster in the time of Christ; twice as fast in the days of Solomon; and four times as fast in the days of Abraham. It would imply that the velocity of light was more than 10 million times faster prior to 3000 b.c. This possibility would also totally alter our concepts of time and the age of the universe. The universe might actually be less than 10,000 years old!

Other Implications

The key properties of the vacuum of free space include electrical permittivity, magnetic permeability, zero-point energy, and intrinsic impedance. If any of these properties change isotopically, then both atomic behavior and the speed of light would vary throughout the universe.

The product of magnetic permeability and electrical permittivity is the reciprocal of c2 . The permittivity of free space has not changed, but permeability has. It is related to the "stretching out" of free space at the time of creation. The "stretching" of the heavens is mentioned many times in the Bible. 4 Setterfield has analyzed 164 measurements of c, the velocity of light, gathered over the past 320 years, which reveal a statistically significant decay in c. When coupled with associated c-dependent "constants," the data includes some 639 values measured by 25 different methods.5 A comparison of dates in orbital time from history, archaeology, tree rings, etc., with atomic dates from a variety of radioactive isotopes has provided some 1228 data points over 4550 years.

Relaxation, or release, has set in, perhaps after the fall in Genesis 3. The shrinkage of free space could be the cause for the observed slowing down of the velocity of light. The "Redshift" may be caused by a decay of c. In fact, the universe may be contracting, not expanding.

A Tiff about Tifft

William Tifft, an astronomer at the University of Arizona, has been collecting data for about 20 years on redshifts, and it now appears that the universe might not be expanding. In the 1970's, Tifft noted that the redshift seemed to depend upon the type of galaxy that was emitting the light. Spiral galaxies tended to have higher redshifts than elliptical galaxies in the same cluster. Dimmer galaxies, higher redshifts than brighter ones.

Even more disturbing, Tifft has discovered that some clusters and pairs of galaxies exhibit only certain discrete values, rather than the more random distribution one would expect if the shifts were distance related. These redshifts appear in discrete quantum levels, similar to the energy states of subatomic particles in quantum physics. 6

These findings are not popular with astronomers or cosmologists, and emotions, even in physics, run deep. If the redshift is not a simple measure of velocity, then the conjectures about the Big Bang, and its derivative issues such as "dark" matter, 7 etc., tend to fall apart. The elaborate theoretical models of the Big Bang traditions may be headed for the scrap heap.

There is also the disturbing evidence that the redshifts change over time. There seems be some basic physics involved that has yet to be understood. These changes could be due to basic life cycles of galaxies, the nature of space or light itself, or other possibilities. 8

There have been a number of attempts to refute Tifft's observations. One recent one by Bruce Guthrie and William Napier, at the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, measured the redshifts of 89 spiral galaxies. The results surprised the skeptics by uncovering data that supports the case for quantized redshifts.

If Setterfield proves correct, then this might also explain the quantization of the redshifts. Specific values of c govern the quantization of the emitted wave lengths, and quantized redshifts could result. 9

Radioactive Dating

Radioactive decay rates have changed. The decay of c affects the speed of nucleons in the atom, and the alpha particle escape frequency. Thus, all radioactive decay rates have decreased in proportion to c throughout the recent history of the universe. For many other reasons, the radio dating methods, carbon-14, potassium-argon, or any other atomic-clock method, are unreliable for very large ages.

Entropy

The Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates that in a closed system, as time flows forward, energy in the universe is becoming less and less available. "Entropy" is the measure of the state of "energy unavailability" in an energy-containing system. Entropy always increases.

Orderly systems of molecules represent low entropy systems. Orderly systems tend, on their own, to become disorderly and chaotic through the processes of decay and disintegration. With passage of time the normal tendency of things is for such systems to become disorderly, chaotic, and randomized. Their "entropy" increases.

We experience this in our daily routine: we spend effort to organize our desktop, our garage, our school locker. Soon, however, as "random" events take their toll, everything tends toward randomness--the entropy increases. To bring order out of chaos, we must put in outside energy or information: instructions, codes, blueprints, and effort. Order comes from chaos only if someone makes it happen. Time plus chance always leads toward chaos--not order--without the intervention of outside intelligence.

Genesis

In the beginning, there apparently was a close connection between the spiritual and physical realms, until the fall of man in Genesis 3.

The universe was pronounced "good"--free of defects--by the Creator. A high degree of order originally existed; that is, there was very low entropy.

But then Adam fell and the curse of sin began. Disorder and entropy began to increase. Could the slowing down of the speed of light have begun with the increase of entropy and, thus, both be a result of the curse brought about by sin?

The subsequent death, dying, decaying, and destroying processes affected not only man, but nature as well (Romans 8:19-23).

Caveat

The possibility that the speed of light is not a "constant" after all and has been slowing down is highly controversial and conjectural. Yet, some of the most dramatic changes in scientific perspective come only after much debate, vigorous opposition, and the like.

The entire field of physics is presently in a state of upheaval. The particle physicists have decided there is no causality, and that the universe has at least 10 dimensions. The redshift has been discovered to be quantized and that may shatter previous conceptions of our universe. Particle physics has totally altered our concepts of reality.

Many of today's scientific orthodoxies, however, originated from yesterday's unpopular heresies. The apparent decay in the velocity of light may be another of these controversial "heresies" looming on the horizon of modern physics. Only time will tell.

But the Bible changes not. It doesn't need to.

The Reality of Eternity

There is part of you that is not physical, and therefore has no time: it is eternal.

Our Creator has provided a destiny for us that is so fantastic that it is entirely beyond our own eligibility, or ability, to earn it. That is why God has provided for our eligibility through His Son. His plan of redemption is available for the asking. But it's up to us to accept it. Throughout eternity you will either be in the presence of God, or separated from Him.

What will it be for you?

[Ecclesiastes76]

WOW!

Ok guys, here is some more stuff to just blow your mind about the nature of light.

Take 25 minutes and listen to The Mysterious Nature of Light.

I just stumbled across Chuck Missler's teachings a few days ago and can't get enough of it. I've been listening to about 2 or 3 hours of this stuff a day now and his insight into the world of physics and the Bible are just mind boggling.

[Aineo]

Scientific information concerning the speed of light has changed. ON THE CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT

[phoenix4jesus]

qoteing faithman......

Evolution, on the other hand, produced Carl Marx, Joseph Stalin, Adaulf Hitler, Mao Sa Tung, Margret Sanger. All who rejected God. All who embraced evolution, all were mass murderers. Evolution was the excuse used by the slave holder, to deny humanity to folks of African desent. Evolution excused the colonial imperalist of Europe, as they exploited other peoples because they were "less than human", and thus nothing more than apes in the way of their "progress". Evolution is the genesis of the religeon of secular humanism, which is a godless faith, hell bent on destroying American as we know it. Evolution most assuridly is the foundation of atheism, and the enemy of all that is good and Holy. These are observable facts, from the social history of man. Evolution places all human life at risk from despots who can deny humanity to people groups, and thus slaughter them by the millions.

For a Christian to compromise with this damnedable religion in any way, is to agree with the enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ.
....end quote


geez faith man how many falsehoods can you put in a single paragraph?

It was the Christian churches ( except Quaker) that supported Slavery in the USA, I will give you historic evidence if you like. They supported it useing the bible in fact.. if you want google the words.. Slavery, Quaker and youll discover that the Quakers were about the only offical christian institution that was against slavery

The source of social Darwinism ( which you are confusing with accual Evolution) was not Darwin but Herbert Spencer and the tradition Protestant nonconformism going back to Hobbes via Malthus. Spencer's ideas of evolution were Lamarckian. The only real connection between Darwinism and social Darwinism is the name.

Evolutionary theory shows us that the long term survival of a species is strongly linked with its genetic variability. All Social Darwinist programs advocate minimizing genetic variability, thus reducing chances of long term survival in the event of environmental change. Understanding of evolution should then rebuke any attempt at social Darwinism if the long term survival of humanity is treated as a goal.


Darwin wrote a letter declining the dedication of an unnamed book on atheism, but he wrote it to Edward Aveling. Aveling's common-law wife was Elanor Marx, Karl's daughter, and she inherited his papers. They got mixed up with Karl Marx's papers, and the letter was assumed to have been to Marx. This view found ideological favor in Russia, so it got widely repeated. Later, a letter from Aveling, requesting permission to dedicate his book The Student's Darwin to Darwin, was found among Darwin's papers. Darwin declined permission and argued that science should not address religious matters directly. [Colp 1982; Carter 2000]

Evolution properly understood refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.





Hitler hated Athiests, and I ll will provide quotes if you like.

Hitler based his ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy:
Thus, it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, through this knowledge, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe. [Hitler 1927, 383]
The first edition of Mein Kampf indicates that Hitler was a young-earth creationist at the time of its writing; it says, "[. . .] this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men." (p. 65)


"Evolution is Athiesm"
For a claim which is so obviously false, this claim gets repeated surprisingly often. Evolution does not require a god, but it does not rule one out, either. In that respect, it is no different from almost all other fields of interest. Evolution is no more atheistic than biochemistry, farming, engineering, plumbing, art, law, etc.


No increase in genetic information?????huh

It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of:


increased genetic variety in a population [Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991]
increased genetic material [Brown et al. 1998; Lynch and Conery, 2000; Ohta, 2003; Hughes and Friedman, 2003; Alves et al. 2001]
novel genetic material [Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996]
novel genetically-regulated abilities [Prijambada et al. 1995]

If these don't qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.


A mechanism which is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, where a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations which change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances where this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors [Lang et al. 2000].
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. [Zhang et al. 2002] Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. [Brown et al. 1998]

[Aineo]

a·the·ist
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

ag·nos·tic
n.

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
3. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

adj.
Relating to or being an agnostic.
Doubtful or noncommittal: “Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous ‘acquisitiveness’ for discovering patterns” (William H. Calvin).

[Ecclesiastes76]

"Evolution is Athiesm"
For a claim which is so obviously false, this claim gets repeated surprisingly often. Evolution does not require a god, but it does not rule one out, either. In that respect, it is no different from almost all other fields of interest. Evolution is no more atheistic than biochemistry, farming, engineering, plumbing, art, law, etc.

Evolution doesn't discount God, but it does say that God isn't smart enough to create something correctly the first time around. It says that he lied to us in the Bible.