- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by RJHindsdna does not help verify evolution ----- wrong.
What specifically do you think was some of his errors, so I can evalute them.
The Instructor
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?
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieIf 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.
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?
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
1 edit
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.
Originally posted by sonshipI 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.
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]
The Instructor