A basic look at the problems with evolution and how it actually goes "against" science.
"When so many facts go against a theory, it should be rejected..."
- Narrator
"If you make up a story that isn't true, handing it down over a number of centuries doesn't make it any truer!"
- Richard Dawkins (Bulldog for Evolution, hater of Religion) (emphasis mine)
"And next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: What kind of evidence is there for that? And if they can't give you a good answer, I hope you'll think very carefully before you believe a word they say"
- Richard Dawkins (The Michael Jordan of Evolutionist) (emphasis mine also)
2 comments:
Sorry, J - I don't agree with your video.
Let's see...
Evolution only proceeds by random chance? Not so - it is chance plus selection. The selection causes the results to be not random.(Plus probably other factors, e.g. the biological conditions at any one time or in any one organism).
Evolution conflicts with the 2nd law? Not true. Come on...
Transitional fossils? If you haven't read about Tiktaalit, you should. Heck, I'll send you Shubin's book when it comes out in paperback if you want. But you could get it from the library.
Scientists haven't made life in the lab? That's a useless argument, for several reasons. For one thing, they don't yet have a clear idea of how abiogenesis occurred. But the new understanding about RNA, and the RNA world is making it more likely. They are now designing and making RNA sequences that can self-replicate. Others can act as enzymes. So maybe it will happen.
Radiated fruit flies didn't produce new species? No surprise.
Small changes wouldn't have necessarily been noticed or propagated in the lab, nor would there have been a selection process
etc.
and so on.
I forgot to include with my first comment about the video: the question of the origin of the universe and the Big Bang theory have nothing to do with evolution or abiogenesis or biology.
Post a Comment