Dear alwight,
Hope you're feeling invigorated and ready to take on anything. No, I'm just being joyful again. Hey, it turns out that my PSA is only 0.8 and I could wait until 4.0 before radiation wouldn't work on it. So that's a while. I'll be catching it early enough if I start radiation by December. Things are in motion.
Sorry to go off-topic there for a bit. Just thought I'd share what I've learned recently. I guess you see that I've been on-topic here lately. Well, just read what I've already wrote to everyone if you like. I still think that DavisBJ is dodging me again with his cuisine/puppy story. He just does not want to address my post to him about that article. He is evading it like the plague, trying to make up soliloquies about it instead. Why doesn't he just say that he can't address it because it's too truthful? No evolutionist here has addressed it. It is because it is most likely infallible. Well, Buddy, I've got to have some crackers and cheese, and then hit the sack. It is almost 4:30 a.m. here. Eeek! Will PM you 2morrow.
Warmest Regards & Cheerio, Matey!!
Michael
Hi Michael, I'm glad you are feeling chipper.
Just for you I'll make an effort here.
Your copied article appears to have been written by a Hendrik "Hank" Hanegraaff, who seems to be a radio talk show host, evangelical Christian and who is also known as the "Bible Answer Man". IOW he is an evangelical apologist who looks for ways to support the Bible whatever science may say.
He makes unsupported statements and claims which have almost nothing to do with scientific conclusions or evidence. If there were anything of substance in his words then I can presume to assure you that probably both Davis and myself would be more than delighted to to tackle anything interesting, that wasn't simply the usual bald evidence free assertions.
Firstly he asserts that because the universe seems to have had a beginning that "Of course, this implies that someone or something brought the universe into existence". So what? Maybe that was true or maybe it wasn't, but he doesn't know.
Secondly [he says], "the universe bears all the marks of having been “finely tuned” to make life possible".
Just another baseless assertion that other apologists like to trot out periodically as if based in scientific fact. The truth is we have no idea if any other kind of universe is even possible or if countless universes have already come and gone without life. We are here in this minute speck of this overwhelmingly hostile universe because we can be, not because this universe is somehow amenable to life, it isn't.
Thirdly, [he goes on] "the evidence is mounting that life on earth simply could not and did not come into existence through natural processes in a primordial “soup.” For example, the experiments to prove that it could have happened are suspect because little progress has been made possible due to the ingenious designs on the part of experimenters."
Hogwash, the building blocks of life and organic molecules are known to exist or at least have recently been confirmed to exist by the Rosetta mission to Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, and therefore must have been present on an early Earth. It just isn't reasonable to conclude that life could not have started naturally on Earth. Of course an evangelical apologist wants to jump to the conclusion that it required something supernatural, when in all probability no it didn't.
Fourthly [according to Hank], "the genetic code of all biological life on earth contains evidence of intelligent design. This is because the genetic code contains information comparable to the information in complex computer programs as well as information in books."
Just a baseless assertion and argument from personal incredulity.
In any case infinite complexity can be derived from something fairly simple, see Mandelbrot set.
Fifthly, [and finally] "the fossil record continues to be an embarrassment to the Darwinian theory of evolution. The many transitional forms which Darwin predicted would be found simply have not surfaced."
The old "no transitional fossils" canard again. Every time a new transitional fossil emerges that means that creationists now claim two missing transitional fossils either side where before there was only one. :yawn:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
You can't say I dodged anything here Michael, but trust me that your copied post has nothing but the usual creationist nonsense that has been gone over many times before.
