Page 6 of 11

Re: The theory of Evolution

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 7:41 am
by RickD
Kenny wrote:
bippy123 wrote:
Kenny wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:I already know there is no evidence anybody who accepts evolution can give that proves,shows or demonstrates scientifically life evolves.
It has been proven countless times that life evolves. The theory of Evolution plays a major part of modern medicine.

K
Kenny there is evidence that life adapts and micro evolves and there is massive evidence that microevolution has a limit that simply can't be breached.
They have tried to with bacteria
They have also tried with fruit flies and even speeded up the evolutionary process to the equivalent of a million years but still no proof if what u are talking about Kenny.
I am simply refuting your claim that life does not evolve. It has been proven countless times that it does. Now if you disagree with specific claims that are put under the umbrella of Evolution, I can understand that; but to claim the whole theory is false..... well lemme put it this way; if you or anybody else were able to demonstrate what you've claimed, you would be world famous as the person who disproved evolution. I see a lot of people claiming this and that, but nobody is putting anything down for review.

Ken
Ken,

Bippy never said that. It was Able.

Re: The theory of Evolution

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 7:52 am
by Audie
RickD wrote:
Audie wrote:
I'd agree that those arguing for creationism do so w/o regard to or information on science. We have abe arguing for what he thinks the bible says and jac taking the hilariously uneducated stance that a scientific law has been proved. Bold font, even.
Audie,

I couldn't find in this thread where Jac bolded anything about a scientific law having been proven. Could you post the quote?

Thanks

And FYI,

Abe hasn't only been arguing from the bible. His argument comes also from how he interprets scientific evidence. So your assertion that creationists argue without regard for science is misleading.

***Edit

And, Bippy just posted a video with scientists, who are discussing science.

so solly, it was a mistype. It was you, not jac.

Re: The theory of Evolution

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 7:56 am
by RickD
Audie wrote:
RickD wrote:
Audie wrote:
I'd agree that those arguing for creationism do so w/o regard to or information on science. We have abe arguing for what he thinks the bible says and jac taking the hilariously uneducated stance that a scientific law has been proved. Bold font, even.
Audie,

I couldn't find in this thread where Jac bolded anything about a scientific law having been proven. Could you post the quote?

Thanks

And FYI,

Abe hasn't only been arguing from the bible. His argument comes also from how he interprets scientific evidence. So your assertion that creationists argue without regard for science is misleading.

***Edit

And, Bippy just posted a video with scientists, who are discussing science.

so solly, it was a mistype. It was you, not jac.
Where did I put something in bold. I only put it in larger letters because you asked me to enlarge it. :mrgreen:

Re: The theory of Evolution

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 8:05 am
by MrSpock
Kenny wrote:
bippy123 wrote:
Kenny wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
I am simply refuting your claim that life does not evolve. It has been proven countless times that it does. Now if you disagree with specific claims that are put under the umbrella of Evolution, I can understand that; but to claim the whole theory is false..... well lemme put it this way; if you or anybody else were able to demonstrate what you've claimed, you would be world famous as the person who disproved evolution. I see a lot of people claiming this and that, but nobody is putting anything down for review.

Ken
Hey Ken,
Are you saying science has proven that something (life) can evolve even from nothing? Sorry I'm getting in on this late, but I'm merely trying to understand what evolutionists believe. Thanks,

Spock

Re: The theory of Evolution

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 8:14 am
by Audie
RickD wrote:
Audie wrote:
RickD wrote:
Audie wrote:
I'd agree that those arguing for creationism do so w/o regard to or information on science. We have abe arguing for what he thinks the bible says and jac taking the hilariously uneducated stance that a scientific law has been proved. Bold font, even.
Audie,

I couldn't find in this thread where Jac bolded anything about a scientific law having been proven. Could you post the quote?

Thanks

And FYI,

Abe hasn't only been arguing from the bible. His argument comes also from how he interprets scientific evidence. So your assertion that creationists argue without regard for science is misleading.

***Edit

And, Bippy just posted a video with scientists, who are discussing science.

so solly, it was a mistype. It was you, not jac.
Where did I put something in bold. I only put it in larger letters because you asked me to enlarge it. :mrgreen:
Abes so often repeated statement that there is no evidence for evolution and yours that
Scientifically, life cannot come from non-life. (bold font supplied)
demonstrate that neither of you have educational capacity to discuss science in any meaningful way.

Re: The theory of Evolution

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 8:19 am
by Audie
Philip wrote:Again, arguments over "smoke and mirrors!" Let's repeatedly and redundantly argue about some process that - even IF it happened as asserted - still doesn't disprove God. Nor does it negate the absolute certainty that a God must exist, One whom was the cause of ALL that came FIRST, as before NOTHING existed. Matter, energy, dimensions, EVERY building block of the universe that immediately came into existence with untold power, complexity, and extraordinary, necessary and interactive specificity, only moments before, did not exist. Explain THAT, and then we can chat about evolution.

And people have read the same atheist websites over so many times, they foolishly think knowing a few basics (or even significant details) of evolution proves anything about the non-existence of God. ?

ToE has zero to do with disproving god. That isnt even smoke and mirrors from you, its just a silly s-man.

ToE has zero to do with the origin of the universe. Why not demand that the origin of the universe be explained before you will listen to anything about chemistry? (or do you? :D)

Ever notice how many creox, knowing nothing but a few mixed up ideas about evoltuion, still think they know that its wrong, and by extension, more than any scientist on earth?

oh, and we dont doubt YOU have absolute certainty about a god.

Re: The theory of Evolution

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 8:38 am
by Kenny
RickD wrote:
Kenny wrote:
bippy123 wrote:
Kenny wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:I already know there is no evidence anybody who accepts evolution can give that proves,shows or demonstrates scientifically life evolves.
It has been proven countless times that life evolves. The theory of Evolution plays a major part of modern medicine.

K
Kenny there is evidence that life adapts and micro evolves and there is massive evidence that microevolution has a limit that simply can't be breached.
They have tried to with bacteria
They have also tried with fruit flies and even speeded up the evolutionary process to the equivalent of a million years but still no proof if what u are talking about Kenny.
I am simply refuting your claim that life does not evolve. It has been proven countless times that it does. Now if you disagree with specific claims that are put under the umbrella of Evolution, I can understand that; but to claim the whole theory is false..... well lemme put it this way; if you or anybody else were able to demonstrate what you've claimed, you would be world famous as the person who disproved evolution. I see a lot of people claiming this and that, but nobody is putting anything down for review.

Ken
Ken,

Bippy never said that. It was Able.
You're right! My mistake. Thanks for pointing that out for me.

K

Re: The theory of Evolution

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 8:42 am
by RickD
Audie wrote:
RickD wrote:
Audie wrote:
RickD wrote:
Audie wrote:
I'd agree that those arguing for creationism do so w/o regard to or information on science. We have abe arguing for what he thinks the bible says and jac taking the hilariously uneducated stance that a scientific law has been proved. Bold font, even.
Audie,

I couldn't find in this thread where Jac bolded anything about a scientific law having been proven. Could you post the quote?

Thanks

And FYI,

Abe hasn't only been arguing from the bible. His argument comes also from how he interprets scientific evidence. So your assertion that creationists argue without regard for science is misleading.

***Edit

And, Bippy just posted a video with scientists, who are discussing science.

so solly, it was a mistype. It was you, not jac.
Where did I put something in bold. I only put it in larger letters because you asked me to enlarge it. :mrgreen:
Abes so often repeated statement that there is no evidence for evolution and yours that
Scientifically, life cannot come from non-life. (bold font supplied)
demonstrate that neither of you have educational capacity to discuss science in any meaningful way.
Audie,

Would you prefer it if I said that life coming from non life, is scientifically unsupportable?

Would that make me able to have the capacity to discuss science, at least in a partially meaningful way?

This is very important to me because I desperately need your affirmation before I discuss anything regarding science. You being an expert, and all.

Re: The theory of Evolution

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 8:46 am
by bippy123
RickD wrote:
bippy123 wrote:
Philip wrote:Again, arguments over "smoke and mirrors!" Let's repeatedly and redundantly argue about some process that - even IF it happened as asserted - still doesn't disprove God. Nor does it negate the absolute certainty that a God must exist, One whom was the cause of ALL that came FIRST, as before NOTHING existed. Matter, energy, dimensions, EVERY building block of the universe that immediately came into existence with untold power, complexity, and extraordinary, necessary and interactive specificity, only moments before, did not exist. Explain THAT, and then we can chat about evolution.

As for arguments for a Creator from design arguments: While you cannot PROVE God through such arguments, they do powerfully show that it is unreasonable to believe that such unfathomable sophistication of systems, laws, chemistries, DNA, etc was produced from nothing, by themselves, all from pure, dumb randomness. And as things can't create themselves, nor can they create astounding complexity and ordered functioning of such tremendous detail, design and on such an extraordinary scale, to believe they can is unreasonable, unscientific, inexplicable - MIRACULOUS! Explain the first moments of the Big Bang, the following 10+billion years, and then we can chat a bit about how non-life became life, by itself, uncaused, and just by being dang lucky, and THEN, if we have enough time, we can talk evolution and I might even tell a few bawdy Darwin jokes. And, even if you COULD prove evolution, you've still not taken away the need for a Beginner of immense intelligence and power to create and sustain. And people have read the same atheist websites over so many times, they foolishly think knowing a few basics (or even significant details) of evolution proves anything about the non-existence of God. Evolution, IF true, also requires God, as it still requires uncountable impossibly sophisticated mechanism to develop independent functionality, but also interactive and dependent functionalities. But there is so much more that requires God. Really, EVERYTHING that came into existence at the very beginning. And no amount of smoke and mirror attempts to focus on evolutionary arguments will ever change that!

So, per Kurieuo, here's some questions: What exactly IS "science?" What CAN it show us and what can't it? Thoughts?
Philip it is the specified complex info within DNA that basically de converted me from an evolutionist to an ID advocate .
The burden of proof isn't on the intelligent design advocate to explain this away , it is on the evolutionist to do so because throughout our experience on this planet as human beings specified complex information has only been shown to arise from a mind and most of the believers of evolution on this thread can't sustain the burden of proof to explain this away by any known evolutionary mechanism .

It was when I saw this explanation by doctor stephen meyer in his video that the light bulb went on in my mind and I had an ah ha moment . It was the one most significant video that shattered my belief in evolution

http://youtu.be/yLeWh8Df3k8

I've posted this a billion times here fir believers of evolution . Pay special attention to minutes 3 through 8
Bippy,

That was a good video. Perhaps you could explain why this changed your mind about evolution. I can see how naturalistic evolution would have problems. But why would you have a problem with theistic evolution, or God-guided evolution. God would still be the designer under TE, as He would under ID.

Thanks
Rick, awesome question .
This kind of blurs the line between what theistic evolution is and intelligent design is.
My point is when does theistic evolution cease being theistic evolution and becomes intelligent design ?

You urself even said that god would still be the DESIGNER under theistic evolution .
This is when you would need to look at other areas of life such as the ape like creature to man evolution, or the whale transitional chart .
You could also look at genesis where it says God created every creature according to its own kind .

For me the evidence points easier to a designer intervening to add this information at steps to create new life a little better then A designer preprogramming the steps or front loading the steps into life.

I think the ID advocate who comes closest to the position you just addresses is michael behe .
Behe believes in common descent but also believes in intelligent design so I would call him an idvolutionist :mrgreen: .

William lane craig first called michael behe a theistic evolutionist , but I would call behe a hybrid of both.

But superb question Rick

Re: The theory of Evolution

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:02 am
by bippy123
Rick we also know that the very first life was simpler then the life we have today , meaning that information would have to be added to it . The question is could it have been added through a designer adding information into the life firm itself or could it have been preprogrammed into the first cell itself ?

To me it seems like this information had to have come from outside of DNA because of the video I just gave you

This video here http://youtu.be/rwCf24fVb3g talks about how the theistic evolution if initial conditions would be I possible because of what we know about information , but I don't think that doctor Meyet deals with the theistic evolution that you talk about which is the "creating life and then preprogramming evolution into that cell""

This is what u are talking about isn't it Rick?

Re: The theory of Evolution

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:06 am
by PaulSacramento
I think the difference between TE and ID is that TE demands that God be responsible for the process of evolution, that God is the sustainer of all and that, regardless of how random or not the process may be, it is God that drives it and sustaines it, even if He does not shape every single "mutation" Himself.
ID seems to imply that the design could have come from any intelligent source and that ID proponents simply thing that source is God.
ID also has to address what could be "flaws" or "issues" in the designs also ( like parasitic wasps- why would a designer design such an horrific mode of reproduction, or appendicitis for example).

To be fair, most issues that can be pointed out in ID can also be pointed out in TE BUT since TE does NOT state that life was designed THIS way but "designed" to be able to evolve and adapt and IF it turned out "this way" then a TE exponent can simply say that, taking the parasitic wasp for example, life evolved that way simply because it was the most beneficial for that living organism at the time ( or something like that).
TE doesn't have to address the "purposely designed that way" argument.

Re: The theory of Evolution

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:21 am
by bippy123
Audie wrote:
Philip wrote:Again, arguments over "smoke and mirrors!" Let's repeatedly and redundantly argue about some process that - even IF it happened as asserted - still doesn't disprove God. Nor does it negate the absolute certainty that a God must exist, One whom was the cause of ALL that came FIRST, as before NOTHING existed. Matter, energy, dimensions, EVERY building block of the universe that immediately came into existence with untold power, complexity, and extraordinary, necessary and interactive specificity, only moments before, did not exist. Explain THAT, and then we can chat about evolution.

And people have read the same atheist websites over so many times, they foolishly think knowing a few basics (or even significant details) of evolution proves anything about the non-existence of God. ?

ToE has zero to do with disproving god. That isnt even smoke and mirrors from you, its just a silly s-man.

ToE has zero to do with the origin of the universe. Why not demand that the origin of the universe be explained before you will listen to anything about chemistry? (or do you? :D)



Ever notice how many creox, knowing nothing but a few mixed up ideas about evoltuion, still think they know that its wrong, and by extension, more than any scientist on earth?

oh, and we dont doubt YOU have absolute certainty about a god.
Audi , or maybe we know a lot more then your willing to admit we know. I saw absolutely nothing wrong with Philip's post . In fact he pointed out that the theirs of evolution can be interpreted in many ways . And as far as chemistry is concerned you have hide from the specified information their that ID brings. Throughout our history and experience as humans on this earth we have never had an example of Chemistry producing specified complex information . NOT ONE.

What we have seen time after time is specified complex information arising from an intelligent source , so Philip and others are absolutely right in positing that it's you that carries the burden of proof in showing AT&T specified complex information arises this way , not only at the beginning if life but throughout the time that life has arisen .

And frankly I don't think that you have been able to show this , other then you making assertions that me, Philip and others simply don't understand chemistry . Your positing that something we have never ever seen happening before (specified complex information arising from just brute chemistry ) has happened . The burden of proof is on you dude .

And as far as creationists not knowing about chemistry , maybe u should take your multiple phd's and tell professor James Tour one if the most famous chemists in the world how he doesn't understand chemistry lol.

He has offered to pay for lunch and a discussion on how evolution can be explained through chemistry so Audi , this is your chance .

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig ... evolution/

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine – VJT):

Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?

…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

In a more recent talk, entitled, Nanotech and Jesus Christ, given on 1 November 2012 at Georgia Tech, Professor Tour went further, and declared that no scientist that he has spoken to understands macroevolution – and that includes Nobel Prize winners! Here’s what he said when a student in the audience asked him about evolution:

… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, “I don’t understand this”? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.

Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.

I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”

If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I’m not going to try to change you – not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have.

But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, “This enzyme does that.” You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward.

The Atheist Society contacted me. They said that they will buy the lunch, and they challenged the Atheist Society, “Go down to Houston and have lunch with this guy, and talk to him.” Nobody has come! Now remember, because I’m just going to ask, when I stop understanding what you’re talking about, I will ask. So I sincerely want to know. I would like to believe it. But I just can’t.

Now, I understand microevolution, I really do. We do this all the time in the lab. I understand this. But when you have speciation changes, when you have organs changing, when you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time – not just one line – concerted lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment … this is very hard to fathom.

I was in Israel not too long ago, talking with a bio-engineer, and [he was] describing to me the ear, and he was studying the different changes in the modulus of the ear, and I said, “How does this come about?” And he says, “Oh, Jim, you know, we all believe in evolution, but we have no idea how it happened.” Now there’s a good Jewish professor for you. I mean, that’s what it is. So that’s where I am. Have I answered the question? (52:00 to 56:44)

Professor Tour’s online talk is absolutely fascinating as well as being deeply moving on a personal level, and I would strongly urge readers to listen to his talk in its entirety – including the questions after the talk. You won’t regret it, I promise you. One interesting little gem of information which I’ll reveal is that it was Professor Tour who was largely instrumental in getting Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley, winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, to reject Darwinian evolution and accept Old Earth creationism, shortly before he died in 2005. It was Tour who persuaded Smalley to delve into the question of origins. After reading the books “Origins of Life” and “Who Was Adam?”, written by Dr. Hugh Ross (an astrophysicist) and Dr. Fazale Rana (a biochemist).. Dr. Smalley explained his change of heart as follows:

Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading “Origins of Life”, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, “Who Was Adam?”, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death.

Strong words indeed, for a Nobel scientist. Readers can find out more about Professor Richard Smalley’s change of views here.

Why should we believe macroevolution, if nobody understands it?

Now that Professor Tour has informed the world that even Nobel Prize-winning scientists privately admit that they don’t understand macroevolution, a layperson is surely entitled to ask: “Well, if even they don’t understand it, then why should we believe it? How can we possibly be obliged to believe in a theory which nobody understands?”

That’s a good question. And it’s no use for Darwinists to trot out the standard “party line” that “even if we don’t yet understand how it happened, we still have enough evidence to infer that it happened.” At the very most, all that the current scientific evidence could establish is the common descent of living organisms. But that’s not macroevolution. Macroevolution requires more than a common ancestry for living organisms: it requires a natural mechanism which can generate the diversity of life-forms we see on Earth today from a common stock, without the need for any direction by an Intelligent Agent. But the mechanism is precisely what we don’t have evidence for. So the question remains: why should we believe in macroevolution?
Audi here's your chance to make history man . You can now explain the chemistry of Macroevolution to a world famous
chemist and gain your yoir Nobel prize in chemistry .

Re: The theory of Evolution

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:23 am
by bippy123
PaulSacramento wrote:I think the difference between TE and ID is that TE demands that God be responsible for the process of evolution, that God is the sustainer of all and that, regardless of how random or not the process may be, it is God that drives it and sustaines it, even if He does not shape every single "mutation" Himself.
ID seems to imply that the design could have come from any intelligent source and that ID proponents simply thing that source is God.
ID also has to address what could be "flaws" or "issues" in the designs also ( like parasitic wasps- why would a designer design such an horrific mode of reproduction, or appendicitis for example).

To be fair, most issues that can be pointed out in ID can also be pointed out in TE BUT since TE does NOT state that life was designed THIS way but "designed" to be able to evolve and adapt and IF it turned out "this way" then a TE exponent can simply say that, taking the parasitic wasp for example, life evolved that way simply because it was the most beneficial for that living organism at the time ( or something like that).
TE doesn't have to address the "purposely designed that way" argument.
Paul ID is a but more then that . ID also I plus that the designer had to intervene
At certain points of life to create other kinds of animals .

Re: The theory of Evolution

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:27 am
by bippy123
Kenny wrote:
bippy123 wrote:
Kenny wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:I already know there is no evidence anybody who accepts evolution can give that proves,shows or demonstrates scientifically life evolves.
It has been proven countless times that life evolves. The theory of Evolution plays a major part of modern medicine.

K
Kenny there is evidence that life adapts and micro evolves and there is massive evidence that microevolution has a limit that simply can't be breached.
They have tried to with bacteria
They have also tried with fruit flies and even speeded up the evolutionary process to the equivalent of a million years but still no proof if what u are talking about Kenny.
I am simply refuting your claim that life does not evolve. It has been proven countless times that it does. Now if you disagree with specific claims that are put under the umbrella of Evolution, I can understand that; but to claim the whole theory is false..... well lemme put it this way; if you or anybody else were able to demonstrate what you've claimed, you would be world famous as the person who disproved evolution. I see a lot of people claiming this and that, but nobody is putting anything down for review.

Ken
Ken what I claim is that 2 of the biggest parts of the theory namely Macroevolution and specified complex information arising through blind chance and chemical interactions are false and those are the 2 biggest claims in order for the evolution that's being taught in classrooms to be correct.
I'm in total agreement with microevolution or adaptation which has been proven to be a fact .
Hope that clears up my position on this :)

Re: The theory of Evolution

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:34 am
by MrSpock
If Dr. Tour and Dr. Smalley don't understand macro evolution, and these two people are supposedly tops in their field, it makes me wonder how anyone could understand it? Well, maybe that comment is a bit over the top.