Did you actually read the article you were referencing?
Perhaps you meant this one: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6561
The key idea here is that micro-changes are a world away from the increasing complexity of added genetic material. I'm not arguing changes or gene mutations here - (e.g. dog breeding) it's the order of magnitude differences of increased genetic material required for higher order life forms evolving from lower order forms.
I have been reading these posts for about an hour now and am largely disppointed by the widespread misunderstanding that abound "in both camps".
I am a creationist, and, I hope, a thinking man as well. Personally, I see too much left unexplained by evolution for this to be the complete answer. Does this just mean that science just hasn't had enough time to develop answers for everything? Perhaps.
This topic seems to strike a nerve among many people, a topic that is as polarizing as any I've seen. Aside from the ever-useful and edifying ad hominem attacks towards Christians, evolutionists might be wise to investigate some of these scientifically sound claims that are being made by bona fide *smart people* of science. Personally, I'm not afraid to look evolution square in the eye, kick the tires, take it around the block once or twice, and still not buy into it because of evidence that I see that brings doubt to evolution.
Things like:
Evolution from lower life forms indicates an increase of genetic material from the lower form to a higher. Sure, dogs are bred to weed out undesirable traits and to accentuate desirable ones, yet this is still a dog. In 100,000 years of breeding, I'm not going to get a dog that has the slightest bit more genetic material than the one I started with 10,000 years ago.
Initial assumptions used in radiometric dating. Radiometric dating methods compare a radioactive element to it's 'daugher' decay product. The basis for radiometric dating methods assumes three things: a constant rate of decay, an isolated system where neither the radioactive element nor the decay product is added nor removed, and third that the initial ratio of parent to decay product is known.
For myself, I have many other pieces of evidence that provide me with a 'preponderance of the evidence' indicating the fallability of evolution. I am not writing to try to support ID, but I am writing, rather, to support the notion that thoughtful criticism of evolution is a good thing and should be supported. The same critical thought, I would hope, that creationism, pastafarianism, and others should welcome and stand on their own merit.
Unless you're afraid of what you might find, that there actually is a God of universe.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you actually read the article you were referencing?
Perhaps you meant this one: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6561 The key idea here is that micro-changes are a world away from the increasing complexity of added genetic material. I'm not arguing changes or gene mutations here - (e.g. dog breeding) it's the order of magnitude differences of increased genetic material required for higher order life forms evolving from lower order forms.
I have been reading these posts for about an hour now and am largely disppointed by the widespread misunderstanding that abound "in both camps".
I am a creationist, and, I hope, a thinking man as well. Personally, I see too much left unexplained by evolution for this to be the complete answer. Does this just mean that science just hasn't had enough time to develop answers for everything? Perhaps.
This topic seems to strike a nerve among many people, a topic that is as polarizing as any I've seen. Aside from the ever-useful and edifying ad hominem attacks towards Christians, evolutionists might be wise to investigate some of these scientifically sound claims that are being made by bona fide *smart people* of science. Personally, I'm not afraid to look evolution square in the eye, kick the tires, take it around the block once or twice, and still not buy into it because of evidence that I see that brings doubt to evolution.
Things like:
Evolution from lower life forms indicates an increase of genetic material from the lower form to a higher. Sure, dogs are bred to weed out undesirable traits and to accentuate desirable ones, yet this is still a dog. In 100,000 years of breeding, I'm not going to get a dog that has the slightest bit more genetic material than the one I started with 10,000 years ago.
Initial assumptions used in radiometric dating. Radiometric dating methods compare a radioactive element to it's 'daugher' decay product. The basis for radiometric dating methods assumes three things: a constant rate of decay, an isolated system where neither the radioactive element nor the decay product is added nor removed, and third that the initial ratio of parent to decay product is known.
For myself, I have many other pieces of evidence that provide me with a 'preponderance of the evidence' indicating the fallability of evolution. I am not writing to try to support ID, but I am writing, rather, to support the notion that thoughtful criticism of evolution is a good thing and should be supported. The same critical thought, I would hope, that creationism, pastafarianism, and others should welcome and stand on their own merit.
Unless you're afraid of what you might find, that there actually is a God of universe.
Yep, I see a whole lotta fear out there.
Seems more like the next thing will be to burn Christians instead. It's so nice to be misunderstood.