What about Kenneth Miller?

Ken Miller - A good Christian and Evolutionist?

For a refutation of his book "Finding Darwin's God" visit: http://tinyurl.com/2l9lzs

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Ken
• Kenneth
• Miller
• Evolution
• Evolutionist
• Creation
• Creationist
• Intelligent
• Design
• God
• Catholic
• Christianity
• Biology

[quinn2469]

Darwin went to Cambridge to be an Anglican priest.

[gregrutz]

Who cares what faith he is. He is famous for discovering evolution.

[GoodScienceForYou]

Only God can save us as is promised. Those who are destroying the earth will be removed. Those who are destroying the earth are also destroying the human genome. This is in the scriptures.

[GoodScienceForYou]

I emailed Ken Miller three times and asked him for a debate in public anywhere on video. He refused and said that evolution is proven. Yet he doesn't want to stand up for his beliefs. He only does so when he is not up against a real scientist. With constant thousands of genetic diseases and mental retardation, people still think we are getting better. We are heading to extinction from bad mutations. We are beyond any possible redemption as a species, yet we believe in magical mutations?

[LoricaLady]

Cont. As with all "transitions" we are told to believe that based on faith and magical thinking. Tik was 100% fish. There is 0 evidence that it ever had any descendants significantly different from itself in anyway. As with all "transitions" we are asked to believe that its invisible descendants' invisible descendants produced progeny by connecting the invisible dots with magical thinking based on...evidence? No - "It has characterisitcs of...similary homology." All evo is pure B.S.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. They got great peer reviews & their claims were in children's text books. The truth? They created no life, only a few amino acids of the wrong kind, right & left handed, which actually maike life impossible. They did not show how life can come from even the right kind of amino acids since they are astronomically less complex than a living cell and are d-e-a-d. Then we are told by Miller & others that Tiktaalik is "as good as it gets" for a "transitional form". Cont.

[LoricaLady]

/Cont. With magical thinking many evolutionists (admittedly not all since creationists starting asking for any actual ev-i-dence that life can come from inorganic matter) have promoted it, telling us they know how life came to be "millions of years ago" when they haven't got a clue. Some add more deception to that by saying that C. Ventner made a "synthetic cell" when all he did was alter a pre-existing living cell. Miller & Urey claimed to show abiogenesis. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Evolution is a religion that pushes magical thinking. For ex. on a clip from the Colbert show, seen her on YT, Colbert talks about the primal pond as if it is scientific fact. Miller just lets the comment slide. As a scientist he should have told the audience that there isn't a shred of evidence for the primal pond & that little kids should not be reading about it in school library books on evo. He should have said it is ANTI science since life comes from life 100% of times. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

@sleanos "The evidence for the Bible...doesn't negate evo." Actually it does. The Bible says the world was created in 7 "yom", i.e. days. In the context it is clear that this means 7 literal days as is seen by the repetion of the phrase "And the evening and the morning were the..." 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. "day." Further the Bible says the sun was created after the plants, making evolution impossible. Evolution actually IS impossible! Cont.

[sleanos]

@Ematched I'll say it again. If you questions the translation of the text - LOOK at the dead sea scrolls. It's virtually identical to the protestant bible we have today. That is 3/4 of the book. That should put to rest any absurd arguments that you can't trust what's been translated for almost 2000 years let alone that the Catholic church is primarily responsible for it. You're arguments are old friend and have been laid to rest for quite some time.

[Ematched]

@sleanos Your response does nothing to strengthen your argument because it in no way accounts for repeated mistranslations and the utter mutability of the text. We're living in a Poststructuralist world. Read up on linguistics if you want to understand the absurdity of adhering to an almost 2000 year old text in translation. Even contemporizing Shakespeare's modern English renders the texts somewhat invalid. Catch up dude. You're way behind.

[sleanos]

@Ematched The Old Testament is the foundation for the new testament. Having said that, that is why protestants reject Catholicism and it's dogma as the only interpretors for the Bible. But the historical evidence still stands on it's own in favor for the accuracy of the Bible as we have it today. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls for example which word for word correlates with the protestant old Testament. And we have more historical evidence in favor of the NT than most writings of antiquity.