Natural selection v Intelligent design

Poster0 · Aug 30, 2015

paulm50 said:
To claim that was gods work or remotely intelligent is, in my opinion, ignoring the obvious.

Not if you consider that part of life that we dont see. There is a spiritual realm, death is not the end necessarily. So what if things in creation die? When the season changes then the plants die but their seed remains, and they are born again in the spring. So it is with life on earth. We must die before we can be born again. To die is not the end necessarily. All of creation speaks a mystery concerning God and us. If we use our limited perspective then we will not see the big picture.

In my opinion, evolution and many sciences are looking at the world as if it were flat. Sure, from ones limited perspective the world does appear to be flat, but once viewed from atop the highest mountain then you can start to see the curvature of the earth, and when seen from orbit we can clearly see that its round, not flat. However even that is not a complete picture when we consider that the earth has a moon which plays a vital role in the earths survival. The moon seems to act like a counter weight, it seems to to be at the correct distance to block many meteorite impacts, and possibly even some solar flares energy. I believe that all science sometimes views things as if the world were flat. It sometimes thinks that it knows what its looking at but the complexities of time and space and all creation itself is much too vast to actually see a complete picture. Much of science is an incomplete picture. Just like when a plant drops its seed and then dies, and is born again, so it is with us. Only we are born again into an eternal spiritual body, not a temporary natural one.

If science proves that we are not intelligent, then science is declaring that science itself is also not intelligent. Why would you trust it then?

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 30, 2015

Poster0 said:
However even that is not a complete picture when we consider that the earth has a moon which plays a vital role in the earths survival. The moon seems to act like a counter weight, it seems to to be at the correct distance to block many meteorite impacts, and possibly even some solar flares energy.

A 'counter weight'? Please provide sources, links, or references for these claims.

If science proves that we are not intelligent, then science is declaring that science itself is also not intelligent. Why would you trust it then?

Nobody is saying we're not intelligent (paulm was saying natural selection isn't intelligent), and science isn't in the business of proofs (that's pure maths, if anything). Science is about explanatory models.

Poster0 · Aug 30, 2015

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
A 'counter weight'? Please provide sources, links, or references for these claims.

Nobody is saying we're not intelligent (paulm was saying natural selection isn't intelligent), and science isn't in the business of proofs (that's pure maths, if anything). Science is about explanatory models.

He said natural selection isn't intelligent therefore Gods creation isn't intelligent. I was only saying that we cannot possibly see the whole picture and also cannot possibly claim to know if the design is intelligent or not. I have heard people look at the design of cars nowadays and talk about how flawed the design is, how unintelligent it is. They point out how there is not enough room to replace components and how the positioning of certain components could have been better, However there are reasons for those things but they don't see it. The engineer however knows exactly why he designed and built it that way That example wouldn't even begin to compare to us humans trying to judge creation in all its mystery and complexity. I guess the moon counterweight thing was something i once read about the effects of the moons gravitational pull. Never mind.

Poster0 · Aug 30, 2015

paulm50 said:
Men once laughed at the idea we were related to Apes. No DNA has proven beyond any shadow of doubt we are related, so close that at some point in time we were the same species.

We are related to everything. Everything came from one source, both evolutionist and creationists agree on that at least. Everything dies and returns to the earth as well. Why is it surprising that men may share some of the same DNA as animals? Man is an animal after all. How though do we know that we evolved from an unintelligent ape like creature? Isn't this just speculation? I mean how can you actually prove that men evolved from unintelligent creatures into intelligent ones? Are you not really just saying that man seems to have evolved from his earlier form over time? That's not surprising is it? How though can you prove that man was once a unintelligent beast? Isn't that just mere speculation? Do you look at the evolution of technology as evidence that man was once an unintelligent beast? If that's the evidence then isn't it flawed? I mean we were living like savages for thousands of years and then all of a sudden, in only a couple hundred years, discovered many technological advancements. Did we evolve in those 200 years? Is that proof that man was once unintelligent and much like a dumb ape like beast who couldn't think or speak, or create? What does evolutionists base this theory on?

Deidre32 · Aug 30, 2015

If a god should exist, why couldn't it be both ideas coming together? I used to think when I was a Christian, that evolution was still true, and that God was the designer. I think people struggle too much to try to figure out who or what a god might be, and frankly, none of the religions sound logical.

stevevw · Aug 30, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
Hang on, so you finally concede that natural processes are capable of producing complexity?

No I am repeating back to you what you claimed.

Yes, in phylogeny.

No this isn't direct testable evidence as science states should be used to verify evidence. This is a hypothesis based on indirect from the tree that evolution has made. The tree that evolution has made is being proven wrong and being dismantled. Observation evidence can be misleading and only the genetic evidence can completely verify things. The genetic evidence doesn't support the tree of life. Many other forces in which I have posted evidence for such as HGT, endosymbiosis, symbiosis, epigenetics are also responsible sharing genetic material between animals which means that mutations and natural selection are not responsible or play a minor role in things.

And even if you want to persist with saying the phylogeny does prove evolution then this still doesn't prove things as the evidence would also fit design which also fits the phylogeny. It only through the genetic evidence that you can truly verify things and as I said the tests done show there are limits to how mutations can create new genetic info and functions and make better, fitter and more complex living things.

Where?

Then you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, not taking notice. I have posted this evidence many times in the tests done to show the limits of evolution through mutations and natural selection.
Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283604007624
Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 1077, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.
So 10^77 (written out as 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) as a chance of success is really no chance of success for evolving functional proteins through random mutations.
The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1

You appeared surprised to learn that human beings are apes. I don't think it is a matter of mere disagreement. You don't understand the fundamentals.

No once again this is your projection. You want to put it down to me not understanding because you would rather that be the case then for someone to understand what evolution claims and dispute it. It means you have to face the fact that people disagree with evolution and therefore you have to deal and face those objections. I completely understand that evolution states that humans have a common ancestor with modern apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Why wouldn't I understand this as I have been going on about the tree of life that evolution has built in many posts which claims to show the routes and branches for all these lines of common decent.

I just dont agree with it. Evidence has shown that tree to be wrong. Evidence shows that it is more like a forest which means that there isn't just one trunk but many. It means that because there are many trunks then there are many starting points which means that many creatures had the same genetic info from an early stage in existence. It means that complex genetic info was around from an early stage with fits the evidence such as the Cambrian explosion. It means that complexity was there from the beginning which is way to early for evolution to have evolved things through slow and gradual mutations and natural selection.

And yet you continually behave as though a crocoduck is what one ought to expect!

No thats the box you want to put me in. By doing this you then try to make out I am another creationists who doesn't know what they are talking about. You can then use this as a tactic to undermine me. But you ignore the many times I have clarified my position in saying I understand how evolution works through small gradual changes from mutations and natural selection slowly over a long period of time. This all goes back to your continued attempt to say that I dont understand evolution which is part of what you are trying to use to show I am wrong in everything I say. By trying to undermine my knowledge you are trying to undermine my credibility and therefore undermine me rather than the evidence. Its an old atheists trick in playing the man and not the ball.

I checked. Found no refutation.

OK well I'm thinking that your objection to me saying that an animal doesn't gradually become a different animal through mutations and natural selection was the replies you gave saying that I expected a crocoduck. As I said I had addressed this before stating that this is not what I am saying. As above I have said several times I understand how evolution claims to work through a slow and gradual method of small incremental changes until they eventually become another animal.

Archaeopteryx · Aug 30, 2015

stevevw said:
No this isn't direct testable evidence as science states should be used to verify evidence. This is a hypothesis based on indirect from the tree that evolution has made. The tree that evolution has made is being proven wrong and being dismantled. Observation evidence can be misleading and only the genetic evidence can completely verify things. The genetic evidence doesn't support the tree of life. Many other forces in which I have posted evidence for such as HGT, endosymbiosis, symbiosis, epigenetics are also responsible sharing genetic material between animals which means that mutations and natural selection are not responsible or play a minor role in things.

Already addressed this. Go back, re-read.

And even if you want to persist with saying the phylogeny does prove evolution then this still doesn't prove things as the evidence would also fit design which also fits the phylogeny.

How does it fit design? You've never explained this point.

Then you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, not taking notice. I have posted this evidence many times in the tests done to show the limits of evolution through mutations and natural selection.

Already addressed.

No once again this is your projection. You want to put it down to me not understanding because you would rather that be the case then for someone to understand what evolution claims and dispute it. It means you have to face the fact that people disagree with evolution and therefore you have to deal and face those objections. I completely understand that evolution states that humans have a common ancestor with modern apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Why wouldn't I understand this as I have been going on about the tree of life that evolution has built in many posts which claims to show the routes and branches for all these lines of common decent.

Why wouldn't you understand it? Because you are continually surprised by the fact that new bat species look like their ancestors! Of course they do! What else would you expect?!

I just dont agree with it. Evidence has shown that tree to be wrong. Evidence shows that it is more like a forest which means that there isn't just one trunk but many. It means that because there are many trunks then there are many starting points which means that many creatures had the same genetic info from an early stage in existence. It means that complex genetic info was around from an early stage with fits the evidence such as the Cambrian explosion. It means that complexity was there from the beginning which is way to early for evolution to have evolved things through slow and gradual mutations and natural selection.

Already addressed.

No thats the box you want to put me in. By doing this you then try to make out I am another creationists who doesn't know what they are talking about. You can then use this as a tactic to undermine me. But you ignore the many times I have clarified my position in saying I understand how evolution works through small gradual changes from mutations and natural selection slowly over a long period of time. This all goes back to your continued attempt to say that I dont understand evolution which is part of what you are trying to use to show I am wrong in everything I say. By trying to undermine my knowledge you are trying to undermine my credibility and therefore undermine me rather than the evidence. Its an old atheists trick in playing the man and not the ball.

Dude, you've barely even kicked the ball.

OK well I'm thinking that your objection to me saying that an animal doesn't gradually become a different animal through mutations and natural selection was the replies you gave saying that I expected a crocoduck. As I said I had addressed this before stating that this is not what I am saying. As above I have said several times I understand how evolution claims to work through a slow and gradual method of small incremental changes until they eventually become another animal.

And yet you are continually surprised whenever it is pointed out that, as a consequence, a new species of bat will look like its ancestor.

stevevw · Aug 30, 2015

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
So now you know.

Can you link some evidence for this as I am interested in discovering more.

There probably is life elsewhere; but your second supposition is incorrect - the presence of water is necessary but not sufficient for life as we know it.

Why.

The link you posted contradicts you - liquid water has been found on four bodies in our own solar system; and frozen water appears almost ubiquitous (on comets, moons, and in interstellar space), It's all H2O, Earth's water isn't 'special'. If you want to use science to support your argument, you need to learn a little of it (and read the links you post!).

No thy have hypothesized that there is water in these places they havnt proven this. It could be another liquid of some sort and not water as we know it. They would have to go there and test it to find out which they havnt done. So actually I do understand the science and science states that you dont assume but do tests to verify things. Even so I am not going to get into a debate about whether there is water elsewhere in the universe. Lets say there is then the type of water that these places will have will not be the same as water on earth. We can tell this without having to test it because the type of water on earth needs certain conditions. One of those is oxygen. For oxygen you need to have the right atmosphere which is like earths. As far as we know all these places we have thought to have water do not have the same atmosphere as earths.

Remember the point was that earth is special and has many finely tuned conditions to give it what it has. One of those is an atmosphere which will produce the unique water we have which is a prerequisite for life itself. Life demands many finely tuned conditions which makes things hard to believe that it all just blew into place by naturalistic processes and then happened to fall into exactly the right place in our part of the universe. Not just with a few right conditions but 100s. Thats why scientists like to use the multiverse as a way of explaining our finely tuned universe. But they would rather believe that there are millions of other universes with millions of other conditions and life forms than believe that maybe there is some ID in ours.

Which undermines the fine tuning argument as far as life is concerned. The universe appears, in general, extremely hostile to life as we know it.

No that would make out little spot even more finely tuned for life. If the entire universe which is unlimited as far as we understand is hostile to life then our spot would be like the smallest pin point on an area well as big as the universe. Why would this particular point have all the right conditions and not others if the universe is unlimited. It stands to reason that chance would have it that there were other places. If evolution claims to be so easy to happen then it stands to reason that there would be life elsewhere in an unlimited universe.

Foxhole87 · Aug 30, 2015

I wish I had the resources for a lengthy reply, but Steve doesn't understand that water is not sufficient for life, despite his attempts to convince all of us that he's more credible on biology and chemistry and the actual experts on the topic.

"Water is not sufficient for life" means a drop of water does not contain life because it is one of the things needed for life. If one of those other things is absent, it doesn't produce life in any way that we know of.

ALSO:

Steve, how do you go about functionally discerning "finely tuned" from "a tremendously rare but inevitable outcome given the scale of a galaxy"?

stevevw · Aug 30, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
Already addressed this. Go back, re-read.

And I disputed that go back and re-read. Humm I can see where this is going.

How does it fit design? You've never explained this point.

The first point which has been going on for a while now is to disprove the claims that evolution makes as being the cause and creation of life. I have already posted how this shows design. Design would also infer that everything has similar features and genetics as everything has been made from the same basic blue prints for life.

Just as different model cars are adjusted without changing their basic building blocks. This fits the evidence better a it not only accounts for the similarities but can account all the other inconsistent evidence that disproves evolution. Such as the forest of life in that all living things were made with all the genetic info that was needed from an early stage.

The Cambrian explosion in that because the genetic info didn't have to evolve and was already there we would expect to see sudden emergence of many complex life forms from nowhere. The incongruousness also fit as all life doesn't have to be accounted for as having sprung from each other but only that they have access to the similar genetic material that maybe needed. If all living things had and have a greater capacity for genetic material sitting in their genomes awaiting the time when they need to be used or activated then this explains much better a lot of the evidence we see.

Already addressed.

And I also disputed your claims if you go back and read. See it works both ways. You claim that the other evidence which shows other driving forces for change are only small side issues and that evo0lution via mutations and natural selection doesn't stand. The so called small side issues of HGT, symbiosis, epigenetics and the rest as now seen as the main sources of change and natural selection through adaptation is a small influence.

The other evidence proving that mutations cannot evolve functional proteins that I have posted, the time factors for even trying to evolve simple mutational changes I have posted, the fitness costs of mutations I have posted help support what I have said. The developmental biology evidence, other genomic evidence and inconsistencies in the fossil records, lack of transitions, ect that make up the rest of the evidence help support this. Put together it makes a strong case for showing that evolution is unlikely to have evolved all life on earth.

Why wouldn't you understand it? Because you are continually surprised by the fact that new bat species look like their ancestors! Of course they do! What else would you expect?!

Ah if you trace other examples of creatures such as birds we get a different story. We have dinos becoming strange Dino cross bird creature and then becoming birds. If you look at the whales. We have dog like creatures becoming strange half do half aquatic type creatures then becoming fully aquatic creatures and then whales. Fish become some strange half land and aquatic creature and then become a reptile. That is the story evolution makes.

So a bat should become so other makeup of a creature that is becoming something else just like all the other examples. Instead just like most species they only show great variety of their own kinds. Many different varieties of bats that are all defined as bats and will always be bats. But evolution assumes just because all the bats dont look the same all the time and some vary that this is a sign they will become something completely different. They take variations with a species and make other new creatures.

Already addressed.

Yep so have I. So it seems we have to agree to disagree.

Dude, you've barely even kicked the ball.

Thats what you keep saying despite the volumes of links and evidence I have posted.

Archaeopteryx · Aug 30, 2015

stevevw said:
And I disputed that go back and re-read. Humm I can see where this is going.

Already addressed.

The first point which has been going on for a while now is to disprove the claims that evolution makes as being the cause and creation of life. I have already posted how this shows design. Design would also infer that everything has similar features and genetics as everything has been made from the same basic blue prints for life. Just as different model cars are adjusted without changing their basic building blocks. This fits the evidence better a it not only accounts for the similarities but can account all the other inconsistent evidence that disproves evolution. Such as the forest of life in that all living things were made with all the genetic info that was needed from an early stage.

The Cambrian explosion in that because the genetic info didn't have to evolve and was already there we would expect to see sudden emergence of many complex life forms from nowhere. The incongruousness also fit as all life doesn't have to be accounted for as having sprung from each other but only that they have access to the similar genetic material that maybe needed. If all living things had and have a greater capacity for genetic material sitting in their genomes awaiting the time when they need to be used or activated then this explains much better a lot of the evidence we see.

I already addressed this.

And I also disputed your claims if you go back and read. See it works both ways. You claim that the other evidence which shows other driving forces for change are only small side issues and that evo0lution via mutations and natural selection doesn't stand. The so called small side issues of HGT, symbiosis, epigenetics and the rest as now seen as the main sources of change and natural selection through adaptation is a small influence. The other evidence proving that mutations cannot evolve functional proteins that I have posted, the time factors for even trying to evolve simple mutational changes I have posted, the fitness costs of mutations I have posted help support what I have said. The developmental biology evidence, other genomic evidence and inconsistencies in the fossil records, lack of transitions, ect that make up the rest of the evidence help support this. Put together it makes a strong case for showing that evolution is unlikely to have evolved all life on earth.

Already addressed.

Ah if you trace other examples of creatures such as birds we get a different story. We have dinos becoming strange Dino cross bird creature and then becoming birds. If you look at the whales. We have dog like creatures becoming strange half do half aquatic type creatures then becoming fully aquatic creatures and then whales. Fish become some strange half land and aquatic creature and then become a reptile. That is the story evolution makes. So a bat should become so other makeup of a creature that is becoming something else just like all the other examples. Instead just like most species they only show great variety of their own kinds. Many different varieties of bats that are all defined as bats and will always be bats. But evolution assumes just because all the bats dont look the same all the time and some vary that this is a sign they will become something completely different. They take variations with a species and make other new creatures.

It seems you don't understand how evolution works. Of course new species resemble their ancestors. That's what "descent with modification" means. That's what evolution is.

Thats what you keep saying dispite the volumes of links and evidence I have posted.

Been there, done that. You got nothing.

Poster0 · Aug 30, 2015

It seems that the current theory of evolution is far from proven, and its this theory itself that will need to evolve more, before it can be taken seriously.

pshun2404 · Aug 31, 2015

Indeed! Just consider the origin of the laws of physics? There are in the universe 117 different elements, each with its own properties as a solid, liquid or gas. There are also forms of energy, and the many other forces at the subatomic level. There is the dimension of time. All forms of matter and energy are governed by the laws of physics, which govern both their structure and their behavior.

The rules governing the number of electrons in each electron cloud (no matter what model we assume), determine the properties of these elements and their ability to combine with other elements to form compounds. The lawfulness governing these had to exist before any complex atoms manifesting those behaviors had ever come into existence. It simply cannot be said with any scientific credence that the laws somehow “evolved” coevally along with the “evolution” of the material structures that manifested those laws…because the changes and processes producing the results could not have taken place if those laws and guiding principles were not already imposing their effect on the matter/energy to begin with. The highly specific laws of electron valence are inherent everywhere in the universe that we can detect. Laws do not create themselves for they would already have to be there to do so and this is scientifically (as well as logically) absurd and irrational.

The laws that govern the formation of the complex elements and compounds pre-exist and govern even the formation of those elements and compounds. So where or how did those laws exist prior to the existence of elements and compounds? They are non-material in nature thus clearly demonstrating that the non-material reality precedes and effectually shapes the material reality.

Poster0 · Aug 31, 2015

I think that the theory of evolution is really nothing more than a religion. Its a religion for people who refuse to accept the possibility of a creator. They, for some reason, cannot accept the possibility that this universe was created, even though it is completely logical to accept this possibility. So they end up trying to explain how things were created without an intelligent creator. Its really not based on pure science but is polluted with idealism. It really doesn't take a scientist to see this. Once explained anyone can understand science, but so far science has not given any credible explanation for evolution, and it really does seem to more of a religion for atheism, rather than a scientific fact.. Pure science can be followed by creationists, and science is still a vast mystery.

Archaeopteryx · Aug 31, 2015

Poster0 said:
It seems that the current theory of evolution is far from proven, and its this theory itself that will need to evolve more, before it can be taken seriously.

It's considered foundational to contemporary biology, so it's already taken seriously.

stevevw · Aug 31, 2015

Foxhole87 said:
Steve, is a physical dice roll a truly random outcome, or (a mutually exclusive alternative) does the end result of the dice manifest as a matter of physical (and natural) laws?

You are using "random" in such an incredibly wrong way, and you seem to have a penchant for having a hard time with the word.

Then can you describe to me what is random.

stevevw · Aug 31, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
It seems you don't understand how evolution works. Of course new species resemble their ancestors. That's what "descent with modification" means. That's what evolution is.

But they are exactly the same and havnt changed for millions of years. The variations are no more than the scope of variation we have between the same species of say dogs or humans. That because they are all the same being bats no matter if you call them different species or not. Their shape and features are the same and they are all bats and have all been bats from the beginning. There is no sign of gradual morphing from some other shaped creature which is what evolution claims.

Evolution just makes up stories that they use to be another type of animal that was a different shape and the bat eventually morphed into its present shape. In fact evolution claims the bat use to be some animal without wings just like the bird. But there is no evidence for this. The bat appears in the fossil record millions and millions of years ago just the same as it is today. Most animals dont look the same as the ancestors evolution says they came from. Its a fallacy to say they do according to evolution. Our ancestor is an ape and we dont look like apes the same way bats look like each other.[/QUOTE]

Archaeopteryx · Aug 31, 2015

stevevw said:
But they are exactly the same and havnt changed for millions of years. The variations are no more than the scope of variation we have between the same species of say dogs or humans. That because they are all the same being bats no matter if you call them different species or not. Their shape and features are the same and they are all bats and have all been bats from the beginning. There is no sign of gradual morphing from some other shaped creature which is what evolution claims.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10914-013-9248-z

Evolution just makes up stories that they use to be another type of animal that was a different shape and the bat eventually morphed into its present shape. That gradually it will morph into another shape. Most animals dont look the same as their ancestors and its a fallacy to say they do according to evolution. Our ancestor is an ape and we dont look like apes the same way bats look like each other.

steve, we are apes.

Poster0 · Aug 31, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
It's considered foundational to contemporary biology, so it's already taken seriously.

This man disagrees with you. He says that observational science deals directly with the present and is testable, observable, and repeatable. It’s what builds our technology and makes medical innovations. Evolutionary ideas however have little to do with observational science. Most scientists engaged in observational science rarely reference or refer to evolutionary ideas. However, there are instances where beliefs about evolution have actually held observational science back. See the article below.

Two Kinds of Science
But is it really impossible to understand biology without understanding evolution? Well, the many PhD scientists who study biology but reject evolution—like anatomist Dr. David Mentonand molecular geneticist Dr. Georgia Purdom (both on our staff)—would certainly disagree with this statement! You see, there are two different kinds of science: observational and historical science. Observational science deals directly with the present and is testable, observable, and repeatable. It’s what builds our technology and makes medical innovations.

Evolutionary ideas have little to do with observational science. Most scientists engaged in observational science rarely reference or refer to evolutionary ideas. However, there are instances where beliefs about evolution have actually held observational science back. For example, since researchers assumed evolution happened, they assumed that our bodies would be full of junk and useless leftovers from our evolutionary past. So many evolutionists didn’t bother to investigate the purposes of seemingly useless organs and structures like the appendix or the coccyx. But we now know that the organs and structures once labelled as vestigial have been found to have an important purpose. This is the same thing that happened with large sections of DNA. This DNA was labelled leftover junk because it didn't appear to do anything and the idea of genetic junk makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. However, we now know that these sections of DNA have a vital purpose—they are far from junk! So belief in evolutionhas held observational science back from making discoveries that contradicted evolutionary predictions. But, by and large, evolution really has little if anything to do with observational science. Since my debate with Bill Nye "the Science Guy" in 2014, I’ve been challenging evolutionists to name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with a belief in molecules-to-man evolution, and they (even Bill Nye) still haven’t named one. And they won’t, because there aren’t any!

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/04/14/is-evolution-the-foundation-of-biology/

Archaeopteryx · Aug 31, 2015

Poster0 said:
This man disagrees with you.

Who cares what Ken Ham says? His ideas have long been discredited.

Natural selection v Intelligent design

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Follow Thy Heart

inquisitive

Wanderer

inquisitive

Active Member

inquisitive

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

inquisitive

inquisitive

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Similar threads