Originally posted by RJHindsLet's see. A spokesman for the 'Messiah College" I think it said. Sure, REAL unbaised reporting there. It's not everyday a Phd has sold out to the religious establishment.
You did not pay close attention to the video. So it appears you are the one kissing the pigs ass. 😏
It's not like the stuff he is talking about, the finely tuned universe, called the "Anthropic principle' if you dare to actually google it, but I'm sure you won't since you don't want what is left of your brain to be contaminated by actual science.
Most Anthropic dudes bring up the multiverse where this is the universe tuned for life but that alone is just the throw of the dice in that view, since there are perhaps an infinite number of universes, some of them where the speed of light is one inch per second, others where there are no electrons and others where the laws of physics are so close to ours that life can also form there.
This is not exactly ground breaking stuff here. I think he is presenting this stuff as if he were the original author to thoroughly impress and brainwash his witless audience, the whole game here is to win votes to force creationism to be taught in a science class ass if it were a science. Oh, did I say ass, sorry.
Originally posted by sonhouseRecent Peer Reviewed Intelligent Design Paper Exposes Serious Flaws In Evolution Theory
Let's see. A spokesman for the 'Messiah College" I think it said. Sure, REAL unbaised reporting there. It's not everyday a Phd has sold out to the religious establishment.
It's not like the stuff he is talking about, the finely tuned universe, called the "Anthropic principle' if you dare to actually google it, but I'm sure you won't since you don't want ...[text shortened]... creationism to be taught in a science class ass if it were a science. Oh, did I say ass, sorry.
Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time
Posted on March 13, 2015
Dr. Behe explains why most examples of evolution in bacteria and viruses entail loss or modification of function rather than gain of a new function at the molecular level. In Behe’s view, this could pose a challenge to Darwinian explanations of molecular evolution.
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf
http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/03/michael-behe-challenging-darwin-one-peer-reviewed-paper-at-a-time/
Originally posted by RJHindsI am embarrassed that a university I actually did engineering work for would hire a known creationist in a scientific position, knowing he would be biased in his research.
I know. The main purpose of the thread is to give evidence for Creation (Intelligent design) over evilution. I just happened to start off with physics.
Originally posted by sonhouseI am embarrassed and disappointed that any US school is teaching the fairy tale of evilution as science instead as myths and legends in literature where it belongs. 😏
I am embarrassed that a university I actually did engineering work for would hire a known creationist in a scientific position, knowing he would be biased in his research.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd yet, if most represent modification or loss of information, that would leave some where information is gained. Thank you, that's all evolution requires. Good night.
Dr. Behe explains why most examples of evolution in bacteria and viruses entail loss or modification of function rather than gain of a new function at the molecular level.