Richard Dawkins new TV programme was recently aired on channel 4 discussing the 'genius of Charles Darwin'
Having watched the programme here are a few questions I'd like to raise among thinking people...
Dawkins in typical manner was pretty scathing of so called 'indoctrinated' students who had religious belief but shouldn't he be respecting other people's beliefs even though they do not fit with his own?
He describes fossils as evidence of evolution so isn't it peculiar that fossils today can be produced through the sudden application of great pressure hence the imprint which is a fossil - described in simple terms of course. A worldwide flood could produce fossils and would fit the data well considering the great number of animal fossils often thrown together...
The reason the huge geological timescale is believed which he describes is to allow for evolution to take place one miniscule change at a time, darwin never imagined such a vast timescale as is now believed and can this supposed age of the earth be conclusively proved beyond doubt?
Dawkins never went into any detail regarding evolutionary changes which is typical of evolution theory; at a molecular level evolution has never been explained in detail and Dawkins himself admits in the programme that evolution has never been observed - how convenient.
Check out Dr Michael Behe's book titled 'Darwins Black Box - the biochemical challenge to evolution' - this in itself is a pretty conclusive rebuttal to (macro) evolution but I will let you (the reader) do your own research on this.
Now I do believe in Natural Selection which has been proven to some extent I believe but no-one has ever witnessed one species become another species e.g an ape become a primitive man
nor does the fossil record support this ..how can dawkins explain a fossil record that documents distinct species - most unchanged for millions of years (except that creatures were generally larger at that time) but the fossils do not show intermediate species/ species that were changing at the time...
Finally the programme ends with the human genome project - apparently the fact that DNA between certain species is similar is conclusive proof of a common ancestor but whereas I understand the point being made - to suggest this as the end of the arguement without further discussion or examination in detail seems ludicrous...
So each creature has its own code an incredibly complex system made to appear simple on the programme just because it is made up of 4 base letters, well look at what we have created with the binary system and that is just 2 letters/digits......now if it takes a human intelligence to create a computer and computer programmes based on a code then how much greater the intelligence that creates the code for every living creature and plant on this planet - designed in such a way that we can reproduce and not just reproduce clones but always the newborn baby or animal is different in some way to its parents these variations do enable natural selection but macro evolution please be serious.......
Having watched the programme here are a few questions I'd like to raise among thinking people...
Dawkins in typical manner was pretty scathing of so called 'indoctrinated' students who had religious belief but shouldn't he be respecting other people's beliefs even though they do not fit with his own?
He describes fossils as evidence of evolution so isn't it peculiar that fossils today can be produced through the sudden application of great pressure hence the imprint which is a fossil - described in simple terms of course. A worldwide flood could produce fossils and would fit the data well considering the great number of animal fossils often thrown together...
The reason the huge geological timescale is believed which he describes is to allow for evolution to take place one miniscule change at a time, darwin never imagined such a vast timescale as is now believed and can this supposed age of the earth be conclusively proved beyond doubt?
Dawkins never went into any detail regarding evolutionary changes which is typical of evolution theory; at a molecular level evolution has never been explained in detail and Dawkins himself admits in the programme that evolution has never been observed - how convenient.
Check out Dr Michael Behe's book titled 'Darwins Black Box - the biochemical challenge to evolution' - this in itself is a pretty conclusive rebuttal to (macro) evolution but I will let you (the reader) do your own research on this.
Now I do believe in Natural Selection which has been proven to some extent I believe but no-one has ever witnessed one species become another species e.g an ape become a primitive man
nor does the fossil record support this ..how can dawkins explain a fossil record that documents distinct species - most unchanged for millions of years (except that creatures were generally larger at that time) but the fossils do not show intermediate species/ species that were changing at the time...
Finally the programme ends with the human genome project - apparently the fact that DNA between certain species is similar is conclusive proof of a common ancestor but whereas I understand the point being made - to suggest this as the end of the arguement without further discussion or examination in detail seems ludicrous...
So each creature has its own code an incredibly complex system made to appear simple on the programme just because it is made up of 4 base letters, well look at what we have created with the binary system and that is just 2 letters/digits......now if it takes a human intelligence to create a computer and computer programmes based on a code then how much greater the intelligence that creates the code for every living creature and plant on this planet - designed in such a way that we can reproduce and not just reproduce clones but always the newborn baby or animal is different in some way to its parents these variations do enable natural selection but macro evolution please be serious.......
No comments:
Post a Comment