[_ Old Earth _] Evolutionists Admit It.

[John]

Evolutionists Admit Living organisms appear to be designed.

An oxford university zoologist, Dr. Richard dawkins *edited by staff* is one of many evolutionary scientist who have reluctantly admitted that they have a major problem in that every ware they look they see abundant biological evidence that appears to be the result of intelligent design. Dawkins admitted this in his recent book "the blind watchmaker" Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. Professor dawkins is so troubled by this evidence of deliberate design that he calls is a "powerful illusion" dawkins wrote.

" The feature of living matter that most demands explanation is that it is almost unimaginably complicated in directions that convey a powerful illusion of deliberate design"

Despite the awesome complexity of the information encoded within the DNA genetic code, Prof Francis Crick is determined to escape the obvious spiritual implications arising from this overwhelming new evidence or purposeful design. He advises biologists to remind themselves to ignore the evidence before their own eys that complex biological forms are obviously the result of purposeful and intelligent design. "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved".

This in an intriguing and very reveling statement by Prof Crick. In effect, Crick is telling scientists to ignore the evidence and the obvious logical implications regarding ID that arise from scientific observation. This is "blind faith" in the religious theory of evolution in the opposition to the biblical doctrine of Gods creation of the universe and life itself.

 

[Ignatz]

It figures that an ingnorant individual would feel it necessary to invoke Dawkins' Possible sexual orientation in order to further their argument.

You do realize that Dawkins was referring to the "Illusion" of design. For the record, this is also exactly the way things would look if they evolved gradually over time, changing incrementally with each generation in accordance with the selective pressures in the environment, which is what 150 years of evidence and study suggest. If there were a better theory, ToE wouldn't have the success it does. ANY scientist would be forever immortalized along with people like Newton and Einstein if they could find true evidence that the earth was made in 6 days, and that all things had been "poofed" into existence in their current forms.
Every biologist realizes this. This is one of the things that makes science interesting.

 

[John]

It figures that an ingnorant individual would feel it necessary to invoke Dawkins' Possible sexual orientation in order to further their argument.
.

i just added that to show my dis taste of crappy scientists.

Powerful illusion, in other words, the evidence is in our face but lets ignore it. lmao

 

[freeway]

[

quote="Ignatz"] ANY scientist would be forever immortalized along with people like Newton and Einstein if they could find true evidence that the earth was made in 6 days, and that all things had been "poofed" into existence in their current forms.

[/quote]


Can't wait to see my name in lights...............here's the proof!!!

 

[Ignatz]

Can't wait to see my name in lights...............here's the proof!!!

A bronze-age collection of manuscripts is not scientific PROOF of anything, simply because it claims to be infallible.. surely you must realize this. Your belief in it is purely an act of FAITH, which is fine. After all, that is how Christians are asked to view their Holy Book. However, to treat the Bible's claims of truth as "proof" that the Bible is true is sloppy and disingenuous, not to mention logically unsound. However, you (and other biblical literalists) seem to find this argument convincing for some reason. You're welcome to it.

Scientists score "points" in scientific circles in the form of respect and credibility whenever they can tear another scientists theory to shreds and show that it is faulty. If there was actual evidence that the bible's claims of a 6,000 year-old earth were correct, it would not be viewed with such incredulity. There is tons of evidence that the Earth is much, much older. There is no conspiracy in the scientific world to keep biblical claims out of the sciences, It's that the proponents of such have thus far not provided any evidence for their claims.

 

[Heidi]

Evolutionists Admit Living organisms appear to be designed.

An oxford university zoologist, Dr. Richard dawkins (he is a fag, who loves the sound of his own voice and walks around like his crap don't stink) is one of many evolutionary scientist who have reluctantly admitted that they have a major problem in that every ware they look they see abundant biological evidence that appears to be the result of intelligent design. Dawkins admitted this in his recent book "the blind watchmaker" Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. Professor dawkins is so troubled by this evidence of deliberate design that he calls is a "powerful illusion" dawkins wrote.

" The feature of living matter that most demands explanation is that it is almost unimaginably complicated in directions that convey a powerful illusion of deliberate design"

Despite the awesome complexity of the information encoded within the DNA genetic code, Prof Francis Crick is determined to escape the obvious spiritual implications arising from this overwhelming new evidence or purposeful design. He advises biologists to remind themselves to ignore the evidence before their own eys that complex biological forms are obviously the result of purposeful and intelligent design. "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved".

This in an intriguing and very reveling statement by Prof Crick. In effect, Crick is telling scientists to ignore the evidence and the obvious logical implications regarding ID that arise from scientific observation. This is "blind faith" in the religious theory of evolution in the opposition to the biblical doctrine of Gods creation of the universe and life itself.

Einstein also admitted there had to be a God because he realized that scientists themselves rely on the very design for their theories and experiments that most of them claim doesn't exist. : It usually takes scientists the longest time to admit it though. So they're the last people to listen to for the truth. ;-)

 

[Dunzo]

Pretty obvious you just pulled that one out of your arse there, Heidi. Einstein's god is nothing like yours. He was more of a pantheist, he believed that "god" was the embodiment of nature itself, effectively the very opposite of a designer god. Stephen Hawking is the same.

 

[John]

While Einstein may not have believed in the God i do, at least he was open minded enough to realize that everything around us can't have came from nothing and evolution.

 

[Heidi]

While Einstein may not have believed in the God i do, at least he was open minded enough to realize that everything around us can't have came from nothing and evolution.

Yup. He knew God existed but just didn't know who He was.

 

[Jayls5]

While Einstein may not have believed in the God i do, at least he was open minded enough to realize that everything around us can't have came from nothing and evolution.

Yup. He knew God existed but just didn't know who He was.

Wrong, like every other post you make.

Einstein:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

 

[Jayls5]

Evolutionists Admit Living organisms appear to be designed.

An oxford university zoologist, Dr. Richard dawkins (he is a fag, who loves the sound of his own voice and walks around like his crap don't stink) is one of many evolutionary scientist who have reluctantly admitted that they have a major problem in that every ware they look they see abundant biological evidence that appears to be the result of intelligent design. Dawkins admitted this in his recent book "the blind watchmaker" Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. Professor dawkins is so troubled by this evidence of deliberate design that he calls is a "powerful illusion" dawkins wrote.

" The feature of living matter that most demands explanation is that it is almost unimaginably complicated in directions that convey a powerful illusion of deliberate design"

Despite the awesome complexity of the information encoded within the DNA genetic code, Prof Francis Crick is determined to escape the obvious spiritual implications arising from this overwhelming new evidence or purposeful design. He advises biologists to remind themselves to ignore the evidence before their own eys that complex biological forms are obviously the result of purposeful and intelligent design. "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved".

This in an intriguing and very reveling statement by Prof Crick. In effect, Crick is telling scientists to ignore the evidence and the obvious logical implications regarding ID that arise from scientific observation. This is "blind faith" in the religious theory of evolution in the opposition to the biblical doctrine of Gods creation of the universe and life itself.

Simple question. How do you test ID theory?

 

[Patashu]

Einstein also admitted there had to be a God because he realized that scientists themselves rely on the very design for their theories and experiments that most of them claim doesn't exist. :

[citation needed]

 

[Heidi]

Einstein also admitted there had to be a God because he realized that scientists themselves rely on the very design for their theories and experiments that most of them claim doesn't exist. :

[citation needed]

I heard it on a television biography of Einstein. But it's a well known fact that if you knew anything at all about Einstein, you would know that. ;-)

 

[Vic C.]

Einstein also admitted there had to be a God because he realized that scientists themselves rely on the very design for their theories and experiments that most of them claim doesn't exist. :

[citation needed]

He believed in God. What he didn't believe in was a "personal" God.

http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/r ... rrance.htm

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-ei ... eology.htm

Video of Einstein quotes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQLOuL0qa5I

While I don't share Einstein's views on God, me being of an analytical mind at times, do understand how he came to his conclusions.