I listened to 3 talks by Meyer, thats all anyone needs to hear as he steam rolled on & on as if talking more, made it truer (like his long winded books) came of nothing but extremely arrogant-loves the sound of his own voice.
Since his last book Siggy in the Cell that was going to be the greatest revelation since Copernicus, there were three 'information' arguments against evolution - all utterly discredited
(1) The 'laws of thermodynamics' argument - blatantly false because those apply to closed systems, and life forms & earth aren't closed systems
(2) The 'not enough time' argument - blatantly false because it is pushed by people who believe in incredibly fast evolution after the flood, and because its adherents invariably do stupid, long discredited, probability calculations
(3) The 'this specified complexity/structure can't have evolved' by itself argument - except that they can't point to any instances of structures that can't have evolved which is an epic fail.
What they have still failed to do, because they can't, is produce any valid arguments that show evolution can't work & this includes his latest rehash of the creationist ode to the Cambrian. There's lots more, am sure it will all be thoroughly brought to light later, but Siggy in the Cell did not revolutionize or prove anything why should this? |
