Why would anyone who likes science, still believe in the 'theory of evolution' ....?

After reading scientific evidence for an Intelligent Designer?

http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode.htm

"It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica—an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!"

"Yet in their actual size—which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick—a teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1996, p. 334)."

2007-04-03T22:39:23Z

bikernoj -- A DNA test would prove that you did NOT attack the hooker. However, that same test would have the DNA OF THE PERSON who DID attack her!
__________________________
Everyone else

I just love the way, that many of you, will say or believe anything; in order to keep GOD out of the picture of science.

Since, DNA has been throughly examined by MANY scientists and they have that found it contains 'information written on it'.

This written information, is in sequences ONLY four letters long.

Look up any Medical source, you want and discover the truth about DNA sequencing.

Medical science says, that the WHOLE DNA sequence of any part of the human body; MUST be properly 'written and decoded' by all the cells in our body.

IF there is even one slight variation, that can cause a MALFUNTION (can also be known as CANCER) or DEATH!

Martin S2007-04-03T17:52:33Z

Favorite Answer

Because as some prominent evolutionists have admitted, the only alternative is that there is a divine Creator and even though they know that the theory of evolution is a huge house of cards full of holes that only seems to make sense when unsupported presuppositions are imposed upon the data, they don't want to admit that there is a God.

That whole list of things you would have to not believe in that someone else posted is a classic example of how unproved presuppositions have been imposed upon the data because people come to the evidence with a predisposition to come up with a way that the evidence will support their theory. One of the major flaws in their data analysis is the presupposition that the fossil record occurred with no catastrophic event like a world wide flood. Check out the Evolution Cruncher for more info http://www.godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/CruncherTOC.htm

Anonymous2007-04-04T00:47:32Z

Evidence? Somewhere in new Jersey there is a dead blonde hooker with a handful of brown hair ripped from her killer. If I have brown hair and live in Colorado, does that mean it is conclusive evidence that I killed her? Your conclusion is an illogical stretch, to say the least.

"But evolution couldn't POSSIBLY have happened!" you whine. Since the planet was created there have been roughly 10^34 chances for evolution to get it right. That's 10 to the 34th power, or a 1 with 35 zeroes after it, just in case you can't think past one million.

That's about like you telling me I have a 1 in 10 chance to make a basketball shot from the free-throw line, and then giving me a billion chances to do it. You think it'll happen?

All your article states is that DNA holds an incredible amount of information, and then does the usual creationist turnaround by stating God's existence as fact.

Besides, since when does a Christian magazine really do a good job with science?

Medusa2007-04-04T00:41:50Z

Your source is very biased and simply not presenting the facts in an honest manner.

Why would anyone who likes science, read only skewed religious perceptions who have something to prove? You cannot start with a statement and then try to force the facts to fit your ideology. I'm so thankful there are scientists that are not biased and are willing to look beyond their own beliefs to the proof that is quite literally in the pudding.

Rico E Suave2007-04-04T00:40:26Z

You are using a 10 year old article not from a scientific journal to support your argument. I have a little news for you. You have no clue and the information you have is largely obsolete. Nice try.

ReeRee2007-04-04T00:46:47Z

Good News Magazine?

Are you kidding? Could you have possibly found a more biased publication from which you could copy something?

Show more answers (9)