Previous 21 - 30 Next
I just did, but to be more specific, the rotor stator found in cells. Or the assembly instructions found in the DNA molecule. No one has ever satisfactorily explained how information evolved. How can non organic material turn into the most complex information coding in the known universe?
Oops, you made a mistake. I offered a couple of examples for you. But it must be reasserted that you offer no evidence that you would change your mind even if we collectively wrote hundreds of pages of such refutations. You haven't the slightest interest I knowing what's true. You're just making posts in the hope that it can make you feel better about what you already believe. While it might be entertaining for you, it isn't of much value. You still have to come to grips with this question: What if you are wrong? And that means acknowleding that it is a possibility in the first place. I hold out little hope for that.
Stupid spell corrector. It's supposed to read "to write that story," not "tourists."
But there's more. Even if the fossil was complete, the fossil didn't leave any ancestors to examine. Lots of imagination is required tourists that story. And it goes on with the silly story about whales having the vestigial legs. These bones support the reproductive organs and are not connected to the spinal column. And yet this is commonly used as an example that proves evolution. I could literally go on for pages with this stuff. You can find it for yourself if you want to. But I'm pretty sure you have a psychological barrier that keeps you from wanting to know about problems with evolution.
I suppose you are talking about evidence for evolution/creation, rather than my assertion about worlviews. Okay. Here's one: Ambulocetus. The claim is that this is a transitional fossil preceding a whale, but with legs. The fossil bits are from different strata and are too few to draw any such conclusion. Very creative people have filled in the missing bones and then went on to imaginately draw pictures of their imaginary transitional creature.
The assertion I made is that evolutionists post on these sites in a desperate attempt to justify their worldview. I offer as evidence for that claim all your posts.
I enjoyed reading through the site. I have bookmarked it as a reference. I hope you are aware of the fallacy you committed. It's called the ad populism fallacy. It argues that something is true because a lot of people believe it is true. It was once almost universally believed by scientists and non-scientists that the earth was the center of the universe. By the way, there is a lot of good evidence that supports it, even though it's wrong. Scientists are like everybody else. There is an echo chamber, as they rely on each others' journals for research. False beliefs can linger on far too long as they confirm each others' errors by citing one another. It's an academic hazard.
I looked at all of these. Nothing new. The story goes that because we know of simpler and more complex eyes, that the eye could have evolved (not that it did). It relies on an old strategy of the evolutionist, oversimplification. It ignores the complexity found deep inside the tiniest cell in the least complex eye.
Why should I have to do your work for you? I was once a hard core evolutionist. I changed my mind over a number of years by reading books and journals on both sides if the issue. I did the research, and you can too. But only if you are willing. I know perfectly well that if I offer a source, you will do a quick Google search in order to find some biased evolution site that has something nasty to say about it. Then you'll repost it here, claiming that no real scholars are creationists. I will not be drawn into a conversation with those who do not seek truth, but only fight to uphold their preconceptions. Such discussions are futile. My only hope is that I can convince you of your need for openmindedness.
It's interesting how theses articles always draw out the evolutionists who must desperately justify their worldview. The ad hominem attacks are always there. The claim that only evolution is science, justifying the automatic dismissal of other views. Endless fallacies abound. Evidence is offered that those of us who have studied the problems with evolution can easily refute. But the most important common thread is that none of this is about science (as they claim). There is no openmindedness, no desire to seek truth. No attempt to seek out the best research that opposes them. It is rooted in a deep need to avoid the thought that they might be accountable to a creator. Please don't ask me to prove creation here. Do some honest research.
I think it's called putting word in his mouth.
Previous 21 - 30 Next