“Species do experience mutations, however, a dog will always be a dog no matter how many mutations it goes through. A dog will never be a cat. Mutations do not cause an animal to change species, rather they cause an animal to change within its species. Mutations can be observed, as we see even in humans. However, mutations are not evidence of evolution because of the following fact: your children will all be humans. And guess what: so will their children. And so will their children. Etc.”

You are wrongly assuming that evolution requires an organism to give birth to offspring of a different species than itself. To show where you’re wrong, I’ll give an example. However, be aware that this example is just an exaggerated, simplified, cartoon version of evolution. This is not how evolution actually operates.

First, we need to define the term “species.” This is actually more complex that it first seems, but for our purposes it will suffice to define a species as a group of creatures who can breed with one another and produce fertile offspring, but cannot breed with any creatures from outside the group.

Lets arbitrarily say that if there is a 2% or greater genetic difference between two creatures they cannot interbreed i.e. they are of different species (Humans and chimpanzees have about 98% of their DNA in common.)

Now lets imagine a series of generations of creatures, and that in each generation there is a genetic change of 0.0001%. This is a very slight change and would not be noticeable. Each “child”, of course, will not exactly resemble its “parent.” However, the difference would be no greater than that between you and your father or son.

As this process goes on, after 20,000 generations, with that 0.0001% difference accumulating each time, the genome of the 20,000th generation will now be 2% different than the first generation. In other words, a new species will now have arisen. However, this will only be apparent if a member of the 20,000th generation compared itself with a representative of the 1st generation (say, if a fossil specimen existed). Throughout the process, no creature gave birth to a creature who was more than 0.0001% different from itself.

Too many people believe that evolution claims that, at some point, a chimpanzee gave birth to a tall, hairless, bipedal child with a big brain, and hence the human race began. That’s not how it happens at all.

Now, I haven’t presented any evidence that this process actually occurred (or, more correctly, is occurring right now, as we speak), even though this evidence exists (See the comments on the “Is Evolution Compatible with Christianity?” article) That was not my intention. I only intended to show the flaw in the logic of your argument.

As far as instances of observed speciation, here are a couple of (incomplete) lists:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

“By saying that something is testable you are saying that it can be seen taking place. Evolution cannot be observed. I am going to ask you the age old question against evolution: were you there? Did you or Darwin, or anyone else that you know, see this evolution happen?”

That’s a very narrow definition of science. It’s true that a multi-billion year process cannot be observed within a human lifetime. However, that process still leaves evidence in, e.g., the fossil record, homology of physical traits, molecular genetics, etc. It’s similar to how someone can be convicted of a crime even if there were no witnesses. One can still rely on fingerprints, DNA testting, etc.

By your reasoning, we would have to conclude there is no God, since no one has ever seen him.

“Looking at logic alone, there are only three possible options for the origin of the universe. 1) It is self-existent, meaning that it has always been there. 2) It is self-created, meaning that it came about from nothing by no outside intervention. 4) It was created by an inteligent outside force that is self-existent.”

Your entire argument here has nothing to do with evolution, which says nothing about the origin of the universe. Therefore, this entire section is irrelevent. (It is also wrong, but that’s the topic of a different discussion).

And the fossil record only shows what was alive, not necessarily that A gave birth to B.

Your definition of a species?

As far as speciation, I don’t believe many people will disagree with you, like what Daniel stated earlier, they all have stated the same, finch to finch, dog to dog

I would be interested in seeing Steve’s references.

You both refute the claim that there is evidence of “one species becoming another”, correct?

The correct terminology is ’speciation’. Would it surprise you to know that there are many recorded instances of speciation having occurred, both in the laboratory and in the ‘wild’?

Would you like references?

“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science” says James Gunn of Princeton University co-founder of the Sloan survey. “A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.” Science [317, 1850 (2007)]

Makes one wonder what else this can be said about…

You said, “The Bible says the Earth is flat and the moon produces its own light. Hardly a scientific standard from which to start.”

If you would care to show me where in the Bible this is stated, I would appreciate it.

You said, “Umm, evolution is highly testable, and there is massive evidence supporting it.”

By saying that something is testable you are saying that it can be seen taking place. Evolution cannot be observed. I am going to ask you the age old question against evolution: were you there? Did you or Darwin, or anyone else that you know, see this evolution happen?

You said, “This variable shows to me that even within faith, nothing is certain.”

I would disagree. The truth of the Bible is absolute. Only our limited understanding leads to disagreement.

I hope you are still reading these comments because I would like to show you, on a purely logical basis, how that evolution cannot be true.

Looking at logic alone, there are only three possible options for the origin of the universe. 1) It is self-existent, meaning that it has always been there. 2) It is self-created, meaning that it came about from nothing by no outside intervention. 4) It was created by an inteligent outside force that is self-existent.

By using logic we can narrow this down a bit. First #2 is false because of the law of causality. For an effect to take place, there must be a cause. Using the law of causality we can and must agree that the effects, which we see today in the form of you and me, were caused by a previous cause. And that cause was the effect of a previous cause. And so on. We must logically trace all these causes and effects back to an uncaused cause. There cannot logically be an effect that caused itself. (Hence, the argument that God created Himself is unlogical.) Evolution is false because its basic belief is that the universe created itself. This defies the law of causality.

We are now left with two options: Either the universe itself is the uncaused cause (and I would add, an uninteligent cause) of all things, or an inteligent designer is the uncaused cause of all things. Which of these two is more logical? To say that the universe is the uncaused cause is illogical because something would have to cause life to begin. An inanimate object, such as the universe, would have to be acted upon in order for life to begin. Even in saying the universe is an uncaused cause we would have to logically admit the fact of an inteligent designer. There is no other logical explanation for the starting of life. The law of causality rules out the option that life began on its own, even if the universe was always there. The only logical explanation of the universe is that an inteligent designer, as the first cause of all things, created life.

It would be foolish to say that He created life as we see it today, however. Even in saying this, I am not saying that species evolved into what we see today. Species do experience mutations, however, a dog will always be a dog no matter how many mutations it goes through. A dog will never be a cat. Mutations do not cause an animal to change species, rather they cause an animal to change within its species. Mutations can be observed, as we see even in humans. However, mutations are not evidence of evolution because of the following fact: your children will all be humans. And guess what: so will their children. And so will their children. Etc.

You speak of massive evidence, yet even many prominent evolutionists admit that they only believe in evolution as a means to escape the fact that they are accountable to their creator.

We have now gone through a purely logical reason why evolution is false. If any of the logic shared above is false, then please share that with me. If it is not, then I would hope that the “religion” of evolution will be abandoned.

My sleep has nothing to do with what I don’t know, but what I do know. “I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, LORD, only makest me dwell in safety. ”

My sleep is fine because of the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keeps my hearts and minds through Christ Jesus, not the prejudiced word of men of science.

I sleep well, because I have rest in Christ in the forgiveness of sins.

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

I know you were trying your best to be clever and your remarks were ad hominem. Your greater concern is the state of your soul. God has given us His word, and we are required to abide by it. What you think about it doesn’t change it’s authority. That word declares us all sinners and in need of a Saviour. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved

Evolution is still a theory because you can not test your hypothesis by doing an experiment. That is fact. Your whole-hearted belief in evolution and rejection of a creator is not based on scientific evidence to prove otherwise, but your world view. You don’t believe in God, so you reject any and all evidence that proves such. That is a mighty faith in your religion.

Despite the evidence of a creator, despite the evidence of God, despite the evidence of the bible (which by the way is indeed infallible, and the bible does not say the moon produces it’s own light nor does it say the earth is flat) you still deny the evidence over your religion and your faith. How can you claim to be objective when you dismiss anything that goes against what you believe?

The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.