#1 >Here is a link to a technical article that is well beyond my ability and time to comment on.
https://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.php

You can skim it though because it addresses your comments about so called junk DNA.

You ought to note the caliber of the people who are quoted in the article. You seen to assume that only fools are creationists and that it is intelligent people who believe in Evolution.

But for a start you ought to read about Professor Behe.https://youtu.be/hIy7BhVgPCs

Check out Dr Meyer too. https://youtu.be/vl802lHAk5Y

You ought to also check out Jonathan Safati. https://youtu.be/dswWl1S0HDo. I thought that Dawkins wouldn’t debate Safati but I am not so sure now...

Sent from my iPad

Me: Junk DNA exists. Some is functional, but not all. Explain that.

I cannot read read YouTube videos.

As to Dr Meyer, go to reddit.com/u/graphitii

Scroll down until you find my comments as a creationist. Counter responses were from everyone.

So you say the eye was intelligently designed. Why? What prevents God from creating the eye to look like it was badly designed? What is your model? Evolution can justify its statements with its model. ID cannot.

#2 >Dr Jonathan Safarti

https://youtu.be/CmB4uLANCBo

Me: Dear Bruce,

The chicken and egg problem was solved by the RNA World. Do your research.

#3 >https://youtu.be/xZn7tTdCm6U

Me: As Jonathan Welles is also an HIV Denialist, I wouldn’t trust him.

Also, the book was refuted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

#4(In response to morality and Dawkins supposedly being unable to create information)

Response #1: Until you provide the Dawkins quotes, I have no reason to take your information argument seriously.

Response #2: It is a fact that ID is rebranded creationism. “Cdesign propentists.” You have proved nothing with your dice example.

Response #3: Another interpretation of the quote, is “Looks can be deceptive. Be careful, and don’t rely on gut feelings.” Furthermore, I could get you a list of hundreds of scientists in a relevant field who believe evolution.

(Regarding Vestigiality)


I checked the original quote and find no mentions of “many instances where organs of the human body etc. . . “

>“The vermiform appendage—in which some recent medical writers have vainly endeavoured to find a utility—is the shrunken remainder of a large and normal intestine of a remote ancestor. This interpretation of it would stand even if it were found to have a certain use in the human body. Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost."

However, I still have examples.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#morphological_vestiges

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

Please note the counter responses to possible counter arguments.

ID does not provide a model to justify its so called predictions. Also, that quote is irrelevant because Dawkins wrote entire books on the topic of information.

Speaking of which, define information in a concrete and falsifiable manner.