tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post4343303191913657925..comments2024-03-28T23:01:33.038-07:00Comments on Christian Apologetics UK: One Long Bluff: A Review of Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth"failedatheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16176322877697068624noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-87293290053932020072014-11-03T02:03:15.570-08:002014-11-03T02:03:15.570-08:00my name is gil and i study about the creation-evol...my name is gil and i study about the creation-evolution debate for years.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> sorry for my english. the evolutionist always says that a watch need a designer because it cant self rplicat but organisem do self replicat and has dna so they can evolve. but according to this claim: if we will find a self replicat watch(with dna) we need to say that is made by itself .but we know that even a watch that self replicat itself is evidence for design.<br /><br />scientist even find a motor in bacteria called bacterial flagellum: <br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-j5kKSk_6U <br /><br /><br />and we know that a motor is evidence for design. even if its very small. <br /><br /><br /><br />the evolutionist claim that small steps for milions years become a big steps. but according to this a lots of small steps in self replicat car (with dna) will evolve into a airplan. <br /><br />but there is no step wise from car to airplan <br /><br />evolutionist claim that common similarity is evidence for common descent. but according to this 2 similar (self replicat) car are evolve from each other and not made by designer. and we even share 50% with banana! <br /><br />check this site <br /><br /><br />http://creation.com/ <br /><br />what do you think? have a nice day<br />scdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00260945727618051024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-53117472234993105462013-08-27T00:02:55.372-07:002013-08-27T00:02:55.372-07:00One possibility for the origins of life, from firs...One possibility for the origins of life, from first principles, is explained pretty clearly and simply in the 9 short pages of chapter 2 of The Selfish Gene. Another possibility, slightly more complex, is given in The Blind Watchmaker.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15180036766802279080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-47343325782783073302013-01-30T09:34:21.560-08:002013-01-30T09:34:21.560-08:00A helpful review.
I am quite aware of some natur...A helpful review. <br /><br />I am quite aware of some naturalists' denial of intelligent design by caricaturing creationism or creating a 'straw man' god. We should be able to see through the "It makes no logical sense, but it's better than believing your fairy story" kind of argument.<br /><br />Thank you for this.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08246392804395052067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-10193219848621459212012-03-03T12:47:05.470-08:002012-03-03T12:47:05.470-08:00Why doesn't the author consult evolutionists t...Why doesn't the author consult evolutionists to get his bugbears out of the way? He has no case as he doesn't fathom our naturalistic case but insted his caricature of it.<br /> Dawkns provides references so people can further fathom his statements.<br /> As creatonists ever distort matters, and that's no ad hominem nor more than what Dawkins notes about that other point: he shows where others err to find them doing the kind of thing those notorius ones do ,not comparing them morally with those fools.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com