Good article commenting on more junk science.
Good article commenting on more junk science.
lol
Hey! Look, I know none of the equations, science, and evidence support atheistic evolution, but just throw in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to any argument, and Time becomes the wild card in the Sophistical game.
More complex still is a blind man carrying a legless man across a street while reading an article about it in braille. Unless the legless man read it, or maybe they both do. Need more research on that.
Very interesting but I’m not convinced by the logic. I assume that, like the combination of a legless and blind man, the molecules in question have become more complex and have continued to perform their original functions using a different configuration.
If such a thing were possible, I think a blind man and legless man merging together would indeed be more complex and might benefit by virtue of 2 brains, 2 personalities. 4 ears, 4 arms, etc.
It was, after all, their analogy.
We don't observe God creating living things out of nothing in a flash. He takes his time. It took 13.7 billion years to create us.
Hey decimon, thought you might like to see this! :-)
Please, please go away, creationists.
You are making we educated Christians look almost as stupid as liberals and Muslims.
If you insist on the earth only being around 4k years old, you may as well also decide that the earth is only one second old, and we’ve just been imprinted with our memories.
Evolution doesn't necessitate either an increase or a decrease in complexity, just that those variations that inevitably arise because DNA is mutable will be subject to natural selection such that those variations that lead to better survival/reproductive outcomes will predominate in subsequent generations.
I love the studies done by Randy Jirtle at Duke University on the Agouti mice. He is a leader in the field of epigenitics and showed that the DNA when methylated reverted back to the original un-mutated state. This would suggest that their is some sort of an ideal or norm and diversions from it, not an evolutionary free form adaptation.
Nova ran a special explaining his discovery. I don’t think science has comprehended his discovery to date.
Ping
We all came about by random evolution in a meaningless world, so there is no right or wrong. Somehow, there is a right and wrong way to evolve, though.
Finnigan, G. C. et al. Evolution of increased complexity in a molecular machine. Nature. Published online January 9, 2012
Is anyone going to read Finnegan’s article?
I read the Kelo vs. New London opinions. I tried to discuss them with the “Constitutionalist” libertarians campaigning for Paul in 2008 and they never heard of it. They thought Kennedy’s opinion had something to do with TED Kennedy. So I gave up. And so I don’t read many SCOTUS cases anymore.
That could explain why I am not reading Finnigan’s article.