Distinguished Glasgow Surgeon David Galloway Dissects Darwinism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 авг 2024
- Today’s ID the Future from the archive brings onto the show Scottish physician David Galloway, author of the 2021 book Design Detected and former president of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow. In his conversation with guest host and fellow physician/author Geoffrey Simmons, Galloway describes how he found himself in the evolution/design controversy and eventually presented his doubts about Darwin to the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow.
This is Part 1 of a two-part conversation. Look for Part 2 next week!
The best explanation for the appearance of design is design
It is intuitive to look at nature and say "this was designed" whereas to say "this was an accident", ironically, requires a leap of faith. That is because it goes against what the intellect innately tells us.
It's not just that it's against their ideas; it's their very jobs on the line.
The deny factor is very prevalent within dangers of the covid vaccine camp also.
If the universe only have an appearance of design, does that mean I only have an appearance of intelligence?
That is such a great point
Intelligence provides us with plausible explanations. Evolution provides implausible assumptions.
Michael Faraday was a devoted Christian pastor.
Louis Pasteur was a badass genuine grassroots Catholic Christian scientist.
Blind watch makers are ID creators.
🏴
The proper person to ask about biology, strangely enough, is a biologist. If you're asking about evolutionary biology, the proper person is a biologist who specializes in evolutionary biology. Speaking of design in nature, I know something about both the presenter of this talk, and the good Doctor Galloway. They both have mammary glands, and nipples. What was the design reason for that?
Let's do an experiment. Assume we do not know yet.
What is the answer from evolution standpoint? Men evolved from women? Or better yet, they have an unknown common ancestor that was hermaphrodite?
'why do men have nipples' seems to be a question that burns deep inside darwin loving, atheist materialist skeptical folks. Why indeed. From our side, here's a question that you can 'properly' ask not just yourselves but, really, anyone: if we see biological mechanisms inside a single cell, enzymes, that have parts ordered in this way - a chain of pieces that is 20 parts per link and 200 links long, each serving a specific purpose, and about 2,000 of them need to exist for a single amoeba to live, why, if we see such detail, should we shrug our shoulders and say 'that all happened AT RANDOM and from absolutely nothing?' Would it be proper to think that? Because such detail, again a mechanism, one of 2,000, made of a chain of links, where it has 20 possibilities for each link and its 200 links long possesses such specific detail that it's obvious that the number of wrong possibilities, which you claim have sprung from random, is a number greater than all of the atomic particles estimated to exist. Ergo of the entire cosmos were made of this nonliving goop, a ridiculous impossibility, it wouldn't be enough to poop out the smallest, simplest living thing. If all matter known to exist was squishing together to randomly produce a result we still need about 2,000 cosmoses (yea that's the term) to even begin with
So go give yourself a proper look in the mirror. And with a straight face check yourself for intellectual honesty
That is lol funny. Your best argument for evolution is the fact that men have nipples? Do tell, how did nipples in men "evolve", what evolution story are you going to invent?
Rather than asking obtuse questions as to why men have nipples, I’d be asking why does Darwinian evolution fabricate so many hoaxes to prove it’s true?
Piltdown man, fraud
Nebraska man, fraud
Neanderthal man (no considered a contemporary)
Lucy, now considered an ape
Ardi, no definitive answer yet
Haeckels embryos, fraud
Archaeopteryx now not a missing link
Archaeoraptor, fraud
Suffice I could go on but you get the point, darwinoatheists have to create frauds and hoaxes in an attempt to convince evolution is true, yet, rather than question why does their religion has so many lies, they ask………why do men have nipples?
I guess the brain of a darwinoatheist is……..vestigial?🤔
Actually, I gave your question some thought, well, about a microsecond and I’d like to ask, based on your initial question and using correct politically correct language……
Has the homo-erectus that “birthed” you, that is to say the “birthing” homo-erectus transitioned?🤔
Is this why you’re asking “why do men have nipples”?