So Atheists: Is there anyone among you who has greater scientific qualifications...

...to rebut these famed experts? “As a scientist, I look at the world around me, and observe engineering mechanisms of such remarkable complexity that I am drawn to the conclusion of intelligent design being behind such complex order.”—ANDREW MCINTOSH, MATHEMATICIAN, WALES, UNITED KINGDOM

“The complexity of nature clearly points to a Creator. Every biological and physical system, once understood, shows incredible complexity.”—JOHN K. G. KRAMER, BIOCHEMIST, CANADA

“The order of the living world is plainly evident. It was set up by a superior Power that I personally call God. It is here that faith agrees with scientific truth. Far from contradicting it, it completes it, providing a simpler understanding of our universe.”—JEAN DORST, BIOLOGIST, FRANCE
CAN YOU DEBATE THE ISSUE OF COMPLEXITY THAT IS AT THE HEART OF THEIR ARGUMENTS??????
hEY dONNA!!!!! how many accounts do you have?
 
You could also list the hundreds of thousands of scientists who think intelligent design is nonsense. But I would imagine that YA would shut it down for being too long.
 
Argument from authority.

However, to answer your question, yes. I am far more qualified to comment on evolutionary biology than Mcintosh a bit more qualified than Kramer, but Dorst has me beat by miles.

I have to mention that I'm less qualified to comment on astronomy than Dr. Gerardus Bouw, but I know the Earth revolves around the sun.
 
Not me, because my training is in geology so I can't refute the complex mathematics, biochemestry, and biology quotes you presented there. I can see some errors though. Try again with a fundie geologist quote and I'll help you out more.

I can cancel one of them out with this though...

"As a scientist, I look at the world around me, and observe no evidence of a god or gods"—ME, GEOLOGIST, UNITED STATES
 
"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." – Einstein

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. – Einstein

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. – Einstein
 
Science is based on observation. Math is not. In fact, in the 1500s when science was first being developed in Europe, some of the top thinkers argued that math had no place in science, for just these reasons. (See "Science and Change 1500-1700" by Hugh Kearney)

Kramer and Dorst's claims have been debunked repeatedly. Look at the Dover trial, and even Michael Behe admitted this.
 
Science is based on observation. Math is not. In fact, in the 1500s when science was first being developed in Europe, some of the top thinkers argued that math had no place in science, for just these reasons. (See "Science and Change 1500-1700" by Hugh Kearney)

Kramer and Dorst's claims have been debunked repeatedly. Look at the Dover trial, and even Michael Behe admitted this.
 
Back
Top