Intelligent Design and The Holy Bible

Originally posted by stellspalfie
the only thing irritating about this video is that uneducated people watching this con-man believe anything he says. what a steaming pile of dog poo.

What specifically do you think was some of his errors, so I can evalute them.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
What specifically do you think was some of his errors, so I can evalute them.

The Instructor

dna does not help verify evolution ----- wrong.
the mathematical odds of dna happening ----- wrong.
penicillin had to evolve first ---- wrong
penicillin turned into a fruitfly-------- wrong
horsefly and tomato are twins ----- wrong
humans will evolve into tobacco ----- wrong
evolution can by put in order by quantity of chromosomes ----- wrong
evolution can be put in order by length of life ---- wrong
evolution can be put in order by length of pregnancy ------ wrong
evolution can be put in order of weight of animal ------ wrong


do you agree with him on every point? which points do you disagree with him on?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
dna does not help verify evolution ----- wrong.
the mathematical odds of dna happening ----- wrong.
penicillin had to evolve first ---- wrong
penicillin turned into a fruitfly-------- wrong
horsefly and tomato are twins ----- wrong
humans will evolve into tobacco ----- wrong
evolution can by put in order by quantity of chromosomes ----- wrong
ev ...[text shortened]... ----- wrong


do you agree with him on every point? which points do you disagree with him on?

If you have ever listened to him before, you would have known he accepts evolution as a fact at the microevolution level, which he prefers to call variations. When he says evolution now, he is referring to macroevolution, which I call evilution.

So he is saying that the discovery of the DNA molecule with its programming information points to an intelligent programmer and designer and does not help evilution. And there are many reasons for that which he does not elaborate on here.

On your second objection on the mathematical odds of DNA happening by chance, he is only giving one estimate. What is your calculation?

On the other points you object to about penicillin, fruitfly, etc., he was simply making fun of evilutionsts who present charts in an attempt to prove their theory. He did not mean he believed such things. Use your brain for once. I should not have to tell you this because all it takes is common sense to know that he meant it to be a joke and something to laugh about.

The Instructor

RJHinds, I know you don't probably like Creationist Astrophycist Hugh Ross.

But you may find some things in this talk which are useful and impressive. I do.

"Scientific Evidence for the Christian Faith" Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe.

He says he was doing testable predictive modeling in the ID field before there was the modern ID movement.

YouTube

Originally posted by sonship
RJHinds, I know you don't probably like Creationist Astrophycist Hugh Ross.

But you may find some things in this talk which are useful and impressive. I do.

[b]"Scientific Evidence for the Christian Faith" Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe.

He says he was doing testable predictive modeling in the ID field before there was the modern ID movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKGFezN0Cd4[/b]

I don't dislike Hugh Ross at all. I just disagree with him on the ages of the universe, Earth, and humans. He still shows signs of evilution influence on those topics instead of accepting the clear word of scripture.

The Instructor