Quote:
Originally posted by David McLaughlin
Actually, it's the otherway around. The more we try to prove evolutionism, the more ID makes sence. It takes more faith to believe we developed from a few gases and slime than to believe someone or something made all we see. That doesn't disprove that some things evolve, it just meants that something from nothing makes less sence.
|
David, do you have a degree in Bio/Biochem? if you do, let's get together here in Boston over a beer and talk. if not, let's get together here in Boston over a beer and talk.
For my part, I am a-religious, but I've read the Bible twice, 3x in specific areas. Just picked up the New Testament the other day for a good read of the text. I find it odd that ID doesn't play up the innate math in everything, which to me, is the strongest evidence for evolution, but it would also make a compelling argument for ID as well.
Guys, it's all about multiple, random, non-specific chemical bonds, in other words, we evolved and are alive due to surface area.