How come if a frog turns to a prince fast it's a fairytale but in it takes millions of years its evolution?

Answer 1

Good question.

To go from that first single celled organism to a human means finding a way to generate enormous amounts of new information. You need the recipes to build eyes, nerves, skin, bones, muscles, blood, etc. Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists agree with this and so they point to mutations (copying errors in the genetic code) to provide the new information for natural selection to act upon. So, the question is, can mutations produce new information?

Dr. Lee Spetner (a highly qualified scientist who taught at John Hopkins University) said, “All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.” He also said, “The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the NDT [Neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up in volume.”

Dr. Warner Gitt (Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology) in answering the question (Can new information originate through mutations?) said, “...this idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information.”

Even the somewhat beneficial mutations they point to like antibiotic resistance in bacteria are always a rearrangement or loss of information, never a gain. For instance, a mutation that causes a defect in the bacteria's ability to transport the antibiotic into the cell. You see, it is resistant because of a loss of an ability.

This kind of stuff is used as evidence for evolution, but in every mutation (even the beneficial ones), this is always the case. All we see is a downhill change that fits with the fall in Genesis 3. Evolution requires new information, not a loss of information.

So here is the question: What is more absurd? To believe God designed all of this, or given enough time, hydrogen turns into humans, molecules to man, particles to people, microbes to microbiologists, protozoa to ponies, pelicans and politicians? If a frog turns into a prince in an instant—well, that’s a fairy tale. But if a frog turns into a prince over millions of year—well, that’s evolution. But I still say it’s a fairy tale.

Answer 2

Clearly you have no concept of what evolution even means. If a million year old Frog poofed into a prince that would be evidence for a god not evolution.

Answer 3

From the tale the Princess and her Golden ball used to be it? The tale is going because the Princess threw her golden ball by accident right into a pond a frog is of the same opinion to get it in trade for a night time on the fortress in which the Princess lives. The Princess is of the same opinion and at night time the frog requested for a kiss the Princess gave it and the frog changed into a Prince. A spell used to be solid on him or whatever. And i do wish your Prince will come quickly!:)

Answer 4

Mechanism: Mythology vs. 3.7 billion years of mutation and natural selection. ... PLUS Frogs *do not* mutate to princes.

(Nor did the grasses exist until *after* the dinosaurs.)

Answer 5

Actually we're not descended from frogs, which began somewhere during the age of dinosaurs, after mammals had evolved from the reptiles.

Nice try tho' ;-)

Answer 6

Well it isn't exactly the same animal the evolution way, now is it? I mean it isn't like that same frog morphed.

Answer 7

So you would rather we believe someone changed water into wine, and multiplied loaves and fishes...

Answer 8

Read a highschool biology book.

Answer 9

Amphibians did not turn into monarchy.

Answer 10

are you serious?

**drink**