Perth try pinging objective.jesussave.us

I get

66.28.153.39

I get the same thing. Weird.

we must live in parallel universes but somehow the internet has enabled a gateway to be opened to allow us to communicate..

or we could look for a rational explaination..

nah why bother, people are bound to prefer the exciting one ;)

:band:

Very good.

well said. evolution theory makes no direct claims as to the actual creation of life on earth, simply how and why it has changed in certain ways.

Newton was a fraud! The theory of gravity is just a theory and no school should teach it as fact -- or, at least, they should provide competing theories.

After all, no one really knows how or why two massive objects have a tendency to want to snuggle up with each other. Maybe it's interplanetary romance. Perhaps, when the dinosaurs were killed off, the Earth was just looking for love.

Small changes accumulate over time.

Oh my God perth, that site was freaking hysterical.

"This is also the first year that Muslim students from the Al-Jannah Islamic school have been invited to participate; two of their students presented a project on human anatomy entitled "Allah (SWT) Created Me" which, while it was found ineligible for a prize due to a number of Biblical inconsistencies, did win a special Interfaith Outreach ribbon."

I especially liked the middle school "experiments:"

"Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes."

"Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets... social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker."

I mean come on, at least the high school kids tried... I thought the "Maximum Packing of Rodentia" project was kind of cool.

Oh, don't miss the "4 Kidz" section, linked on the left. Out-fucking-standing stuff there. Especially Mr. Gruff.

Anyone want to contribute to their collection of artwork?

umm....I think physicists do actually...

the "how" part yes, but ultimately there is a dearth of answers to the "why" questions.

If you mean why as in what caused it fine, but if it's why as in what ultimate reason or purpose was there in this happening....I dont really think there is a why to look at. It happened because it happened. It happened because various events caused other events to happen resulting in a chain of events....there was no purpose behind it.

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Hey, if you wanna believe in something even though you're wrong, knock yourself out.

there may or may not be purpose, who is to say for sure? the point i am making is that the why questions can quickly end up outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

Well...as I understand it ( and forgive me if this is inaccurate as i am not a physicist) Physics has moved on since Newton was writing. He has provided some of the basics....but it didnt all just end there.

Originally posted by beavis
Good. That's what I was advocating. The Why question is outside the realm of scientific inquiry

I suspect that creationists who "accept microevolution but deny macroevolution" still haven't gotten over the idea that life has been around on the Earth for more than ~6000 years.

"" from sciencenet.org
Einstein went on to show that light would bend in a gravitational field.

Since light had no mass Newton’s theory could not explain this bending. Einstein’s great contribution was to show that spacetime actually curved due to mass. Like a bowling ball sitting on a rubber sheet, space would curve near the mass but remain reasonably flat farther away. Only if light passed close to the large mass would its path be appreciably deviated. Experiments have now been performed which show that light really does bend near a mass due to the curvature of spacetime.

But this is not the final answer to what gravity is. General relativity cannot be reconciled with quantum mechanics and there is a lot of ongoing research in this field. Gravity is only one of four fundamental forces which are all equally mysterious. The four forces are gravitation, related to mass, electromagnetic, related to the charge of a particle, the strong force and the weak force which are both related to properties of particles in the nucleus. The reason why these forces are linked to certain particles properties is not very well understood. The most promising theory is superstring theory. But until a full theory a quantum gravity is devised the question “what is gravity?’” will remain unanswered."

Fair enough. We dont know ultimately what gravity is.

i lost track of this thread, and have not yet taken the time to catch up, but.....

i wanted to drop this little gem into the pot:

I heard an argument for creationism that trumps all arguments against it:

when god created the heavens and the earth, and all of space and time, he created it complete with already ancient fossils and extinct creatures. Even if faced with irrefutable proof of evolution, their faith muscle is so strong, that their grip on their belief will not waver.

i can only express my frustration with it, because they have every right to believe in Genesis. And obviously nothing I say can change their minds.

whatever.

Yet another reason for me not to be a Christian. C'mon, a deity that plants red herrings, and then fucks you over if you buy his little diversions?

Let's look at this objectively...if you met a person who needed constant praise, someone who would, say, let some poor fucker all but kill his own son in order to prove his loyalty and obedience;someone who would, in fact, procreate, knowing full well that his progeny would be tortured to death; someone who believes that freedom of choice only includes two possible ultimate choices; someone who insists that you do not like anyone better than them...

Wouldn't you avoid this person like the plague because they were *FUCKING INSANE??!!*

Questions for Evoutionists. (I don't expect an answer to these, this is rhetorical.)

What's your point?

oh and Itself

If they're rhetorical, then why post them and direct them at Evolutionists?

Good question Syc! ......Or was that rhetorical?:blunt:

Well, you're going to get one anyway.

Nobody knows. NO ONE knows. Just to be clear, "no one" means that everyone (as in every person on the planet) is to be included in the group that doesn't know.

I'm sure that someone has a theory that is at least based on information derived from study as opposed to someone simply pulling it out of their ass.

Nobody knows. NO ONE knows. Just to be clear, "no one" means that everyone (as in every person on the planet) is to be included in the group that doesn't know.

I'm sure that someone has a theory that is at least based on information derived from study as opposed to someone simply pulling it out of their ass.

Nobody knows. NO ONE knows. Just to be clear, "no one" means that everyone (as in every person on the planet) is to be included in the group that doesn't know.

I'm sure that someone has a theory that is at least based on information derived from study as opposed to someone simply pulling it out of their ass.

1) You are presupposing that there is a desire on the part of the plant as well as the ability to judge its own survival needs.

2) Nobody knows. NO ONE knows. Just to be clear, "no one" means that everyone (as in every person on the planet) is to be included in the group that doesn't know.

I'm sure that someone has a theory that is at least based on information derived from study as opposed to someone simply pulling it out of their ass.

It creates improved varieties by producing a variant member of the species with traits that differ from the norm. In theory, beneficial traits improve the survivablility of the variants with the mutation.

As to the letter analogy, that variation is only applicable within a species (or language). Those mutations may give us new words that are more useful. Mutation will not turn a dog into a cat.

Possible? Yes, but there is no evidence of any sort to point to that.

Which raises another question. Why does everyone presume a christian creation myth. Wouldn't it make more sense that an older religion would have more accurate information about creation since it was closer?

Similarities brought about by environmental needs at least make sense.

Change occurs over time, mutation as well as evolution. As mutations occur, benign or malign, complexity increases. If a malign mutation occurs, evolution may occur to compensate, increasing complexity. As the environment changes, evolution occurs to compensate, increasing complexity.

Nobody knows. NO ONE knows. Just to be clear, "no one" means that everyone (as in every person on the planet) is to be included in the group that doesn't know.

I'm sure that someone has a theory that is at least based on information derived from study as opposed to someone simply pulling it out of their ass.

Nobody knows. NO ONE knows. Just to be clear, "no one" means that everyone (as in every person on the planet) is to be included in the group that doesn't know.

I'm sure that someone has a theory that is at least based on information derived from study as opposed to someone simply pulling it out of their ass.

Nobody knows. NO ONE knows. Just to be clear, "no one" means that everyone (as in every person on the planet) is to be included in the group that doesn't know.

I'm sure that someone has a theory that is at least based on information derived from study as opposed to someone simply pulling it out of their ass.

All that being said, no one espousing a religious first cause for anything cannot say so with any authority at all, other than what they derive from inside themselves.

Without evidence of any sort it is simply fiction.

Edit: fixed a typo

I have no problem reconciling evolution with creationism. If Deity wants to create the world through evolution, who's to say S/He can't? Seems logical to me. Stir up the soup and see what happens. A science project on the cosmic scale.

Evolution is proven, and in fact, we see it happening even now. I don't believe in all that Six Days of Creation BS. How long is six days to Deity? 60 million years?

We can't prove that Deity exists, but neither can we prove that deity does not exist. We CAN prove evolution, despite the Fundies.


Sidhe

Agreed

"10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?"


Some of these have answers. Mutations that are beneficial come from oopsies. We can use the moth example. I don't remember the specific details such as the name of the town, but:

In this town, the moths all tended to be white with gray speckles, and matched the trees, and were thus camoflauged and had a better chance of surviving. The moths that were black were easily seen against the trees, and eaten. When coal power, and the resulting ash, came to the town, the trees ended up with a layer of soot on them, which made the white moths stand out. The black (mutated) moths survived and outbred the white moths.

Mutation can either be an oopsie that generally kills the organism, or it can be brought about by environmental situations that favor the mutation, such as with the black moths. Mutations that help the organism survive continue to be bred into the offspring. Those that do not help the organism survive are bred out, because these organisms die before they are able to pass on the mutation.



The similarities only serve to prove evolution to me. I'm not quoting this as scientific fact, so don't take it that way, but it seems to me that as organisms begin to branch out more and more (for instance, the Mudhopper, a fish that has both gills and lungs, and can spend a significant time out of the water) that the ones who have certain traits will tend to do better, and thus branch out even MORE, and those who are best suited to survive in the new environment will breed that suitability into their offspring, which is what evolution is all about. I think that would answer #12, also.


The first example, of the moths, is the only actual scientific observation that I can say with certainty. The other two are just my educated opinions.


But then again, like I said before...I have no problem reconciling evolution with creationism. I believe in a Deity, and I believe that Deity gave the space dust the first shove in the right direction, then just sat back and let it go on its merry little way.

Here are some interesting links:

http://www.biology-online.org/2/11_n..._selection.htm
http://www.alternativescience.com/darwin's_finches.htm

Sidhe

edit: addition of links

Too bad. ;)

6) It didn't. It came from nonliving matter. How? Unknown.

7) It didn't 'learn' anything. Crystals reproduce themselves easily. Life reproduces itself in a more complicated, but also more adaptible method. When, where, why, and how are unknown.

8) (I'm making this up, not speaking from research. It's just one possibility.) The first non-asexual reproduction was bisexual - two critters swapped DNA, neither was male or female (DNA swapping has an adaptability advantage). Amid the random variation, one variety developed a tendency to go after another variety. A symbiotic relationship developed, with the two varieties dependent upon each other.

9) Want doesn't enter into it. Non-reproductive strains die out. There is no "drive to survive", as you use the term. Species which were more suited to continue, did continue. In the case of some of the more complicated animals, a mental "drive to survive" in the individual might increase the chance of replication.

10) But mutations in binary code can change Shakespeare to Sun Tsu. DNA is much closer to binary code (actually it's base 4) than it is to English.

11) Yes, but evidence suggests otherwise. And no evidence suggests a creator. That's why faith is necessary for such a belief.

12) Random mutations cause more complicated and less complicated results. The less complicated ones are often more successful - bacteria don't end up on the endangered species list - but all that is needed is for a species to be successful enough to survive. If a bug with a horn can fight off enough bugs without horns to successfully mate, that's enough. It is primarily our perspective that makes it seem like complexity is increasing - most life is still single cell. But for any complicated life to exist at all is what takes millennia.

13) Two and three-celled life forms are unlikely (I'm not ruling it out, though. You never know.) Much more likely is a mutation that a) prevented a cell division from fully completing, and b) did not cause death. From then on, it would continue to grow, each division making it bigger. Slime mold is an example. Such a colony needs to have a certain shape, or some members won't get food. Or, perhaps, the members that don't get food die, providing a conduit for their neighbors to get food, which ends up producing a structure. A sponge, perhaps. I provided a link a while back that discusses the various transitions between fish, amphibians, reptiles, etc.

14) a) probably from a hippo-like creature.
b) I don't know.
c) probably from something resembling a flying squirrel
d) See here.
e) Ears are just flesh ridges around vibration sensors, and vibrations are probably the very first sense evolved. (perhaps after temperature, doesn't matter either way).
f) On a colony of critters as mentioned in 13), the outermost layer probably evolved to be the most hardy - I'm not saying it was a different species, just that exposure to the 'outside' caused it to be more defensive. Thus, perhaps, the origin of skin. Everything after that is based on the environment it found itself in.

15) These are all questions that can be answered with very little imagination needed.
a)Food came first - plants. Then animals which ate plants. Then animals which ate animals. "Ability to find" started off as "random bumping into", then as senses and mobility improved, became hunting. Digestive juices increased in potency just behind stomach lining resistance.
b) Ability came before desire. Desire is the mechanism by which creatures with consciousness are governed. Simpler creatures react simply by stimulus-response.
c) Simple lungs, then mucous. The throat is just the hole from the outside to the lungs. The air was already there. It wasn't "the perfect mixture", it was what was available. Critters that could use it did so.
d) I don't remember enough about DNA/RNA interaction. But as I recall, there are very simple critters with just RNA, so I guess RNA probably came first.
e) Flagella predate termites. But I expect that cellulose digestion is something that slowly built up, providing proto-termites with wider and wider variety of potential food sources. Wood turned out to be resistant to predators, so it was preferred.
f) Plants first, generally reproducing by wind. Insects started eating plants, but also spreading pollen more efficiently than wind. Plants that attracted more insects reproduced better. Plants that attracted insects, and provided them with food that was undamaging to the plant (nectar) survived longer.
g) blood first - food source for cell colonies. Then muscles. See squid, octopi, slugs, etc. Bones provide structure and make animals less appetizing. Ligaments and tendons are increase efficiency of muscle movement.
h) I don't know enough.
i) The need, of course.
The only puzzle for most of these is assuming that one part of an animal evolved to its complete modern state completely separately from another part. In fact, the parts evolve together.

I'm 33 years old, and I've never been taught creationism in school. When people try to teach creationism, it generally goes to court and gets thrown out.


Sidhe

I really wasn't being sarcastic. I was just posting my opinion.

Sidhe

Single celled organisms grouped together (like flocks and herds) into colonies such as Volvox (which so happens to be the name of my Linux box). Volvox are massive colonies of thousands of flagellate single cells organisms. They reproduce by forming daughter colonies within the colony, which grow for a while inside the parent colony before being released into the wild. They're also very pretty (and my Linux box is named volvox ).

I hope, after all these replies, in detail, to your silly questions and sillier arguments you can see how arguing for creationism from a scientific basis is frankly, stupid. If you want to believe some wonderful deity made everything that's cute, but don't pretend there is any science whatsoever in any form backing you up. The fact that around half your 'unanswerable' questions can be answered says more than enough about the scientific ineptitude of the entire school of 'thought' you champion.

What shits me about creationists is that despite any supporting evidence whatsoever (the scant and weak evidence against evolution is exactly that and provides no support to creationism more than any other crackpot theory) they seem to feel that it should be taught alongside evolution in schools and is somehow equal in scientific stature. Each and every one of those people is personally contributing to the dumbing down of society and the education system and should hang their heads in shame. religion is not science, teaching it as such is lying to kids.

That's why I won't keep it friendly*. Because fuckwits who believe absolutely in a badly translated book want their ideas taught like legitimate science and that I find repugnant in the extreme.

* This applies to all groups that pursue agendas by attempting to hijack the school system, political (RIAA, anti-drug), religious or otherwise.

I agree with your basic ideas here. While I do believe in a Deity, albeit not the "christian" one, and believe that a Deity gave the first shove to the primordial soup, I would probably classify myself as an "Pagan Evolutionist." Science has proven evolution, and it seems to me that the only reason that religious groups insist upon creationism is that they don't like the idea that they may have evolved from lower organisms.

Religion is NOT science. Science is much more objective, and doesn't tend to have an agenda as religion does. Religion is based on faith, not logic or facts. There's nothing wrong with having faith in a Deity...however, it shouldn't be taught in schools, especially not as science.

Religion is for church. We don't teach the three R's in sunday school, so they should keep their noses out of our classrooms. One has nothing to do with the other.

If a religious parent wishes to teach creationism to their child, then that's their perogative. Do it at home. There's no proof for it. Whether you or I believe in the intervention of a Deity makes no difference. There is no proof for it, whereas there is scientific proof for evolution.

Religion sticking its nose in education has led to beliefs such as the idea that the earth is the center of the universe--Copernicus got into all kinds of trouble with the church when he said that the sun was the center, remember? The theory behind the idea that the earth was the center of the universe was this: Heaven was furthest from the center. Everything towards the center was increasingly more evil and sinful. Hell was in the center of the earth, being the most sinful and evil and thus the furthest away from heaven. But the church felt that earth's sinfulness and evilness was just a step above Hell, so it was the "center," furthest away from heaven.

That's not science. And it's wrong. This is why religion should not have influence on school teaching. There are no facts and no scientific method in the religious worldview, only faith, and that doesn't work when it comes to secular education.

I don't think that anything other than education should be taught in school--what I mean by that is: no religion (unless one chooses to take a religion class), no pushing sexuality on people (such as "Daddy's Roommate" and "Heather Has Two Mommies" for fifth graders)--Sex Ed is one thing--advocating a particular form of sexuality, straight or otherwise, is not. Religion and sexualityare two subjects that, while interesting if one chooses to take classes concerning them, should not be FORCED upon students. Those subjects are best taught at home, because they have no usefulness in the classroom beyond the fact that they can be interesting.



Sidhe

A minor note - those two books don't "advocate" any form of sexuality. Most obviously, there is no sexuality in the books of any kind. Also, you can't advocate having two parents of the same sex - there's nothing the kid can do about it either way. You might as well "advocate" having interracial parents or immigrant parents.

I disagree on that. I have no problem, personally, with homosexuality, or with gays adopting or having children. I think that what should concern folks is the quality of life the child has with the parents, straight or gay, not the sexuality of the parents.

However, those two books were REQUIRED reading for fifth-graders in New York about five years ago. I don't know if they still are, because of the big to-do that resulted.

Some parents don't want their young children taught about sexuality at school, and that's valid. Sexuality, like religion, is something that is the parent's responsibility to teach, not the school's. Those books shouldn't be required reading any more than the bible should be required reading, and for the same reason: it serves to promote a non-educational viewpoint. If you want to assign it as extra credit, fine. If you put it on a book list for the parents to review and approve or disapprove, that's fine. But to make it a requirement is wrong. The purpose of school is to teach skills and facts, not promote particular social viewpoints.

That was the point I was trying to make.


Sidhe

Er, I can't find this word. Just a minute...

Minute's up....;)

Sidhe

Huh? I had thought that Onyx was playing the devil's advocate, or maybe trolling.

Some of her points are well founded: if we accept evolution without thinking critically about it, then what difference is there (to the lay man) between science and religion? The scientists, sure, many of them are thinking critically about the basic concepts they hold dear, and they test them experimentally, with controlled testing and reviewed critically by their peers. The person that does not understand evolution and how it works, who cannot test it, who cannot do the math -- they have to take it on faith.

Unfortunately, many people do not understand even how the scientific community operates. I have occasionally visited a Hare Krishna cafe down the street, and the most inflammatory line that I've ever read in their literature went along the lines of: "I have met scientists who did not accept evolution. The scientists disagree amongst themselves, but they project a (falsely) unified front. However, all of the cultists that I've brainwashed believe wholly in the idea that all life came from our God. There is no dissent among us. Therefore, because every one of us agrees, we must be right."

Unfortunately, most of the debate over whether or not evolution is valid takes place at the behest of the religious loyalists of the old model, who believe that an superman formed of absolutes -- knowing everthing, capable of anything and everything, etc -- simply placed us here. Most of the examples used in the debate are ones picked up by the faithful after they saw that the scientists had already disproven them. Please, please, stop trotting out the fucking moths! Most of the debate is based in the narrowness of minds and our concept of time. Can we accept that slight changes, over thousands to millions of years and over millions to billions of iterations, can accumulate into substantial and significant changes? Most of the debate is based on the nobility of our origins. Can we accept that In The Beginning, instead of paradise, instead of the good old days, instead of a rib and a snake, there was pond scum being thrown against the rocks by the crashing waves?

(Gene mutation said linked to evolution.)
 

March 24,004.

By:Joseph B Verrengia.Associated Press,science writer.

Igniting a scientific furor,scientist say that thay may have found the genetic mutation that first seperated the earliest humans from there apelike ansestors.

(Do you have a link? Because without it, the point isn't worth much.)

(No link,)
 

was provided in the article but it should make thinking people think.

Iff you realy are interested,see iff you can find an Associated press link.

Re: (No link,)
 

Not really. Watch this:

May 21, 2004

By:Mike Hawksred.Associated Press,science writer.

Igniting a scientific furor, scientists say that they have found irrefutable proof of God's existence.

See how I've provided no credible proof of the above statement, making it absoutely worthless in this or any other context? You can't make a statement or provide a quote like this without backing it up and expect to be taken seriously.

(Evolution,)
 

Means nothing more than change,if you do not look the same today as you did the day that you were born then you have evolved to what ever it is that you see when you look into your miror.

Evolution is just the change in alleles over time, and that is quite factual work. Why must everyone decide to altercate about such impossible subjects. Too many people will believe what they state no matter how much irrefutable evidence the other side uses. So everyone is a winner. :o

(Pot)
 

A mind altering substance for mindles people.

Re: (Pot)
 

It is good that you stick a Pot thread in the middle of an evolutionary science vs. Creationism thread, because that makes perfect sense. But hey-maybe you are high. I guess that alochol and tobacco would be mind altering substances for mindless people because there is not much of a difference-by your logic.

Does tobacco count as mind-altering? I have never really thought of it as such. And Kite, don't try using logic with him, it won't work. Call him names instead.

I should have said nicotine because that is what I meant. Since it is addictive it is mind altering. Also it changes your blood pressure and heart rate. It does move through your bloodstream to your brain, so I would considier it psychoactive and therefore mind-altering.

Central and south american natives use nicotine as a mind altering drug because their tobacco has almost twenty times the nicotine.

Imagine one whole cigarette in each drag...

*sobs quietly and rolls a joint with no tobacco in it*

Cool.

This is of what I speak:
Would this, in and of itself, be a correct assertion?

Reasons Why God didn't use evolution.
 

The idea that God used evolution as an engine of creation (progressive creationsim) doesn't work, for the following reasons:

Evolution teaches that the sun came before the earth.
The bible teaches the earth came before the sun.

Evolution teaches that death, disease, and natural selection preceded mankind.
The bible teaches that the reason there is sin and death is because of Adam's rebellion against God. Also, if there was death and disease, God wouldn't think "it was good."

Progressive Creationism teaches that when the bible says "day" it could mean "millions of years".
In the bible, the Hebrew word for day, yôm, as it is used, can only mean a single, 24 hour period. In addition, when God says to keep the Sabbath Day, does he mean the Sabbath "millions of years"? It's the same contextual word in the Hebrew.

Before we had people telling us what the book meant (and we just read the book for ourselves), a day meant a day. Then Darwin showed up and suddenly, "day" meant millions of years. That is compromising your position.

And for those who say, "Yeah, but what about Second Peter, where it says a day is as a thousand years?" Please see this reply.

Evolution teaches that information is ADDED to the genes as generations progressed.
The bible says it was created whole, through God's word. In addition, the mutation, or speciations we OBSERVE have a LOSS of information, the opposite of what the Evolutionists say is required to go from amoebas to man.


So "Progressive Creationism" doesn't, IMO, make sense. I can see being an evolutionist, I can see being a creationist, but it's a one side or the other deal.

Also, submitted to those who advance the story of Jesus is copycatted from other religions:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html

For your perusal ;)

That's only true for literalists, who do not comprise all Christians. There are any number of complicated natural processes that are not fully described in the Bible, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
What we see in mutations is a change in information. Things one could term "losses" are more likely because things one could term "gains" are less likely to be advantageous. But loss and gain of information is an imprecise terminology anyway.