Replies

I've read ID articles. The gist of them is "I can't imagine how this would have occured without a designer, therefore a designer exists."

Appeal to ignorance is not a method of scientific reasoning.

"I've read ID articles. The gist of them is "I can't imagine how this would have occured without a designer, therefore a designer exists."

Which articles would that be?

Most I've read have used logical reasoning based on mathematical probablities. I'm sure you've read about the ridiculously low probability of stringing together two lines of a Shakespere play by randomingly picking scrabble letters, and the probability of stringing together the equivalent of a hundred pages of complex information required for the first DNA molecule, which of course would be needed to make that first cell replicate.

I just can't get past that jump of faith required to believe the first DNA randomly evolved.

I generally buy into the theory of microevolution (intraspecies adaptation). I understand how DNA would be altered via natural selection, within the species, because then new information would be there from a mate.

I just don't find the evidence for macroevolution as convincing. My "faith" in macroevolution was shook when I found out Haekle's woodcuts were known frauds, shortly after their original publication in the 1800s. Today's ultrasounds clearly shoe that a fish embryo is nothing like a human embryo. Next, I learned about the whole speckled moth scandle. I read evo- junk science more and more, like a newspaper article saying that this new generation is taller than their parents- clear proof of evolution. I learned that after DNA matching, one "missing link" turned out to be the the scull of a man, paired with the jaw of a gorilla, after DNA matching.

I've seen the theory of evolution be stretched into proof positive that the universe is timeless. Remember Carl Sagan saying, "The universe is all that is, was, and shall ever be." Where did he get this from? This is inconsistent with the "Big Bang" theory, which claims the universe has a definate starting point, and is slowly unwinding to some eventual end. Yet our kids are being taught both timeless evolution and the "Big Bang" theory, without critically analyzing the possibility of these two theories working together.

If evolutionists insist they're so scientific, they need to clean their oun house first.

"I've read ID articles. The gist of them is "I can't imagine how this would have occured without a designer, therefore a designer exists."

Which articles would that be?

Most I've read have used logical reasoning based on mathematical probablities. I'm sure you've read about the ridiculously low probability of stringing together two lines of a Shakespere play by randomingly picking scrabble letters, and the probability of stringing together the equivalent of a hundred pages of complex information required for the first DNA molecule, which of course would be needed to make that first cell replicate.

I just can't get past that jump of faith required to believe the first DNA randomly evolved.

I generally buy into the theory of microevolution (intraspecies adaptation). I understand how DNA would be altered via natural selection, within the species, because then new information would be there from a mate.

I just don't find the evidence for macroevolution as convincing. My "faith" in macroevolution was shook when I found out Haekle's woodcuts were known frauds, shortly after their original publication in the 1800s. Today's ultrasounds clearly shoe that a fish embryo is nothing like a human embryo. Next, I learned about the whole speckled moth scandle. I read evo- junk science more and more, like a newspaper article saying that this new generation is taller than their parents- clear proof of evolution. I learned that after DNA matching, one "missing link" turned out to be the the scull of a man, paired with the jaw of a gorilla, after DNA matching.

I've seen the theory of evolution be stretched into proof positive that the universe is timeless. Remember Carl Sagan saying, "The universe is all that is, was, and shall ever be." Where did he get this from? This is inconsistent with the "Big Bang" theory, which claims the universe has a definate starting point, and is slowly unwinding to some eventual end. Yet our kids are being taught both timeless evolution and the "Big Bang" theory, without critically analyzing the possibility of these two theories working together.

If evolutionists insist they're so scientific, they need to clean their own house first.