evolution: The greatest conspiracy

And just in case Andrew hasn't noticed...... there are no half man half anything running around on the planet.

i.e. mankind's kinfolk are not chimps, apes, gorillas, Curious George, or King Kong.

Evolution denied. Again.




How many decades are they going to try to cling to this nonsense?

These links should keep an evolutionist busy - tons of links to real scientists who oppose evolution.

Link

Why Do They Do It?

"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator." (Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, Sydney University, quoted in Quadrant, October, 1982.)

Since the facts do not prove evolution, since the fossil record does not show any transition from one species to another, since "scientific" dating methods have been proven unreliable, let us remember that for those who desperately desire to reject God, evolution is a religion of last resort. If there is no Creator, there can be no sin, and no need of a Saviour.

Evolutionists Great Con Men

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.

Source

[edit on 5-10-2009 by nomorecruelty]

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
Andrew needs to review, or perhaps 'read', about the John Scopes trial in Dayton, Tn.

News Articles
That entire circus was staged by the "evolutionists" and the ACLU.
And yes, evolutionists have always believed that mankind evolved from animals - by way of sludge.

Humans are animals. We are a type of ape. If we cannot agree on that fundamental point, we have nothing further to discuss. There are no human skeletons 100 million years ago because we had not yet evolved. The fossil record is full of new species evolving and old species going extinct. The Flintstones was not a documentary! hahaha

Single-celled organisms growing ever more complex over the course of hundreds of millions of years is far more realistic than a wizard creating everything out of thin air. LOL!

If you don't think that life can exist as a "sludge" as you call it, why do you wash your hands after you use the bathroom? There's no such thing as fecal coliform bacteria right? When you catch a cold, does that mean you been infested by a demon? Also, if you got a flu shot 20 years ago, then you should be immune to the flu for life. It's not like the strains change every year - that would be an evolutionary response to the population being immune to the previous year's strain.

Your doctor would probably like to hear your theories - he could use a good laugh!

Originally posted by andrewh7

Men are not monkeys. Chimpanzees are not monkeys. Both species are apes. The fact that you lack even a rudimentary grasp of basic terminology like this indicates the level of your ignorance.

The fact that you need to snipe me and others with comments like the one above tells me you lack a rudimentary grasp of any basic argument to support your belief in evolution. If you had one you would use it, rather than spend your time attacking people and knit picking their every word.

Speak for yourself. My ancestors are humans, not apes, chimps, monkeys or any knuckle dragging primates.

Humans are a unique species despite any common design features. Common design is evidence for a common designer. If you cannot see this, I can't help you.

Comparing humans to animals and teaching evolution garbage has consequences. It replaces the belief in divine creation and divine purpose with naturalism and survival of the fittest. I already posted the evidence for the disastrous results of that process. Choose to ignore it if you want.


[edit on 5/10/09 by John Matrix]

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
These links should keep an evolutionist busy - tons of links to real scientists who oppose evolution.

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by nomorecruelty]

No they won't. A 1959 article from the "The Fresno Bee" is not a peer-reviewed academic journal. Notice that Dr. T.N. Tahmisian is from the Atomic Energy Commission! What are his credentials? How is he in a position to know if evolution is a good theory or not? Atomic energy has absolutely nothing to do with the field of biological evolution. You must be joking!

Doing your suggested Google search to produce various websites created by Christian activists and lobbyist groups does not produce links to peer-reviewed academic journals either.

Sorry to break it to you, but finding something on the internet does not make it true. I could type George Bush is a reptile alien into Google and get a lot of hits too. When you type a subject into Google, you get exactly what you asked for - you don't necessarily get the truth or even a single verifiable fact.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by andrewh7]

In support of the OP of this thread I present the following and encourage everyone to read the entire article:

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.

Source: www.chick.com...

reply to post by sisgood


Better to teach evolution than to teach some supernatural invisible guy in the sky is responsible for everything. At least theres evidence of evolution.

reply to post by andrewh7


It's hard to get a peer review if your paper goes against the evolutionists that do the peer reviews.

A scientists research paper either stands or falls on it's own merit, whether is receives peer review or not.

If a scientist comes up with a cure for cancer or AIDS, but doesn't get a peer review, does that mean all his work and his cure gets put in file 13?

You academic elitists make me laugh.

Originally posted by nomorecruelty

And just in case Andrew hasn't noticed...... there are no half man half anything running around on the planet.
i.e. mankind's kinfolk are not chimps, apes, gorillas, Curious George, or King Kong.

Why didn't you actually read the thread? I already responded to the same comment before. You list apes in a separate category between chimps and gorillas even though chimpanzees and gorillas are two different types of apes. Humans are also a type of ape. Chimpanzee share roughly 98% of our genetic code. So, that is slightly above the 50% you find absurd (half-man, half-ape). Curious George and King Kong are fictional characters - I wanted to point that out since you are asserting a wizard created everything out of thin air. Your grasp on reality seems tenuous at best.

Originally posted by brainwreck
reply to post by sisgood

 

Better to teach evolution than to teach some supernatural invisible guy in the sky is responsible for everything. At least theres evidence of evolution.

Then give us your evidence so we can debunk it. What evidence do you base your opinion on? Discovery Channel? National Geographic Channel? Nova? Some media report? Give us the evidence for your confident opinion.

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by andrewh7

 

It's hard to get a peer review if your paper goes against the evolutionists that do the peer reviews.
A scientists research paper either stands or falls on it's own merit, whether is receives peer review or not.
If a scientist comes up with a cure for cancer or AIDS, but doesn't get a peer review, does that mean all his work and his cure gets put in file 13?

You academic elitists make me laugh.

If you don't like academic elitists, why do you seek medical care from an educated and licensed physician? Why don't you perform your own surgeries using information from the Bible?

If you are sued or prosecuted for a crime, you will most likely turn to an attorney who has a far better understanding of the law than you do. That attorney has a four-year bachelors degree and three year J.D. and a license from the state for passing their bar exam. The Judge presiding over your case will also have that same educational background

If a drug company creates a treatment for AIDS, the FDA requires that it be shown to be safe and effective for its stated purpose. How? Scientific studies that are published in academic journals. The write-ups of those studies are used to make the case to the FDA that the drug should be made available to the general public.

A scientist's paper does not stand or fall on its own merit. It stands if its conclusions are independently confirmed by other practitioners in the field. That is the foundation of the scientific method. Why do you think it typically takes a drug almost 10 years to go from the experimental phase to becoming a commercial product? Research!

The FDA doesn't make a habit of releasing a drug to the market without adequate research. Whenever drugs are fast-tracked to the market without proper testing, people die as a result.

Everything you have stated above is wrong. Even a middle-school student knows what the FDA is. Honestly, did you even finish middle school?


[edit on 5-10-2009 by andrewh7]

Originally posted by John Matrix

Then give us your evidence so we can debunk it. What evidence do you base your opinion on? Discovery Channel? National Geographic Channel? Nova? Some media report? Give us the evidence for your confident opinion.

The evidence is found in all the peer-reviewed scientific journals that you CANNOT cite to support your opinion. I wonder - why do you ask for sources and information that you intend to disregard? Why don't you consider actually reading the prior pages of this thread to get a lot of the information you are now asking someone to provide to you a second time?
Unless you're willing to actually read what everyone has already stated in this very thread, why should anyone bother responding to you? [SNIP]

Mod Edit: Removed personal insult. Please focus on the post, not the poster.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Gemwolf]

Originally posted by andrewh7
Chimpanzee share roughly 98% of our genetic code. So, that is slightly above the 50% you find absurd (half-man, half-ape). Curious George and King Kong are fictional characters - I wanted to point that out since you are asserting a wizard created everything out of thin air. Your grasp on reality seems tenuous at best.

Actually, they don't:

Many uncertainties surround the recently sequenced chimpanzee genome.

In 2005, scientists announced that the entire chimpanzee genome had been successfully sequenced and it had confirmed evolutionary predictions (of course!). However, there are critical flaws to this declaration.8

First, the chimpanzee genome was not built from scratch. In a likely bid to save money and time, it was assembled using the human genome as a scaffold. This also reveals the evolutionary presuppositions of the scientists who started the genome project with the critical assumption that humans and chimps are close evolutionary cousins and would tend to bias the results towards greater similarity.

Second, the chimp genome is about 12% larger than the human genome. At the risk of sounding overly simplistic, this would seem to indicate at most an 88% DNA similarity from the outset. How was this 12% difference taken into account in the overall percentage similarity, or was it ignored?

Third, chimpanzees possess many genes not present in the human genome. They also lack many genes that are present in the human genome. How were these differences included, or were they?

Fourth, by evolutionary reckoning there were millions of ‘rearrangements’ in the chimp genome. How did scientists calculate this dissimilarity?

Finally, there are many unknown regions in the chimpanzee genome. Much of the neglected non-protein-coding regions still need to be carefully studied, since geneticists continue to discover more and more critical functions in so-called ‘junk DNA’. Roles for this DNA are rapidly being discovered. Much of this is now known not to be junk at all, but is involved in such things as orchestrating embryo development.9

These are exciting questions for creationist geneticists to investigate without the constraints of the stifling evolutionary paradigm. It is quite possible that improved technology and further research into these critical areas of the chimpanzee genome will reveal even more substantial differences.


DNA similarity may be grossly overrated

Last year, scientists discovered that bats and horses shared a higher degree of DNA similarity than cows and horses—see Saddle up the horse, it’s off to the bat cave. You could hardly find two more distinct placental mammals than bats and horses, yet in contrast to evolutionary predictions based on comparing anatomy, they shared a greater genetic similarity than did horses and cows. This may have major implications for the chimpanzee-human DNA similarity as well. Despite possessing some common anatomy and a high percentage of DNA, chimpanzees are radically different from human beings in a significant number of ways. They are also rivaled and even surpassed by numerous other animals in human-like attributes such as intelligence, linguistics, emotional and social capacity, and behavioral compatibility with mankind—

Source:
creation.com...

Originally posted by John Matrix

Humans are a unique species despite any common design features. Common design is evidence for a common designer. If you cannot see this, I can't help you.[edit on 5/10/09 by John Matrix]

Common physical characteristics and genetic similarity are signs of a common ancestor. In case you didn't notice, you look similar to your biological parents. If your mom and dad went on the Maury Povich show to prove that you weren't actually your dad's child, the paternity test performed would use common genetic markers to prove with 99.99% certainty that he is not your father. Then, the actual father, your neighbor next door, could be shown to be the real father using the same method.

You have genes in common with both your immediate family as well as your more distant ancestors, even the descendants of your ancestors, such as your cousins, as you both had the same grandparents.

The same conclusion reigns true with a comparison between chimpanzee DNA and human DNA.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by andrewh7]

reply to post by andrewh7



A "peer-reviewed academic journal" is not the end all for legitimate information.

Mankind did not, and couldn't have come from a piece of sludge.

Bacteria is live, yes but not with the same atoms/dna/molecules that a human being possesses.

What part of that do you not understand.

And why are there no human beings evolving into something else - everything just stops with the human body, huh.



Fact is, Einstein, mankind couldn't have evolved from slime - it is physically, and scientifically, impossible.

Evolution has been debunked soooooo many times - you are going to have to find a fresh new "defense"

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by brainwreck
reply to post by sisgood

 

Better to teach evolution than to teach some supernatural invisible guy in the sky is responsible for everything. At least theres evidence of evolution.

Then give us your evidence so we can debunk it. What evidence do you base your opinion on? Discovery Channel? National Geographic Channel? Nova? Some media report? Give us the evidence for your confident opinion.

I think "Andrew" is his own peer.



Just say no to one liners.



Mod Note: One Line Post - Please Review This Link!

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Gemwolf]

The real issue with evolution is not merely its narrow focus. That's expected in any scientific field. The real fault is that evolution takes what is a very narrow study of science and attempts to use it as a broad brush to explain the origins of man.

Of course Darwin's title for the book is the Origin of Species but I believe we all know the real goal of the study was to create a history of why man is. If you actually put them in a corner, most evolutionist will eventually surrender the point that they can't explain the Origin of Life. They just attempt to explain what happened after life began. It's as if they looked at a photo of a man on his 39th and 40th birthday and claimed to understand where the man came from, why he likes lemon cake over chocolate, and what the pin and balance is in his 401k account. They actually know very little about anything.

Science and math are the Achilles heel of evolution. The Big Bang, the probability of exploding stars generating human life, or any life at all is so infinitesimal that it's laughable to even contemplate this scenario.

Yes, you've no doubt heard that "If you have enough monkeys banging randomly on typewriters, they will eventually type the works of William Shakespeare." We're supposed to nod in agreement and think "O yes, life could eventually evolved I suppose." There are several critical flaws with this logic.

Where do the monkeys and typewriters come from? A Creator?

Who cleans up all the monkey poo?

There is only one way to correctly type Shakespeare's sonnets. There are an infinite number of ways you could type it incorrectly. An infinite number of monkeys could type for an infinite amount of time and never be any closer than they were at the start go getting it right.

Life is so much more complicated than Shakespeare's sonnets. The amount of information in a single flower is exponentially greater than Shakespeare's works.

Any time an evolutionist tells you they have they have the answers, direct them to the cosmology department. We are after all, made of stars. You are nothing more than cooled gases in space. Cooled gases that just happens to be self-aware orbiting a burning ball of gas. What a grand freaking accident.

I think Andy plays too many video games online.

Wow

You seem to spend an awful lot of time online, my friend.


Perhaps you should take a break? You aren't going to
change any of our minds on this topic.

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
reply to post by andrewh7

 

A "peer-reviewed academic journal" is not the end all for legitimate information.

Mankind did not, and couldn't have come from a piece of sludge.

Bacteria is live, yes but not with the same atoms/dna/molecules that a human being possesses.

Wrong Again - not you day today huh?

All life on Earth is composed of the same basic building blocks.

Atoms/Molecules
Carbon forms the backbone of biology for all life on Earth. Complex molecules are made up of carbon bonded with other elements, especially oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, and carbon is able to bond with all of these because of its four valence electrons.

The most notable groups of chemicals used in the processes of all living organisms include:
1. Proteins, which are the building blocks from which the structures of living organisms are constructed (this includes almost all enzymes, which catalyse organic chemical reactions
2. Nucleic acids, which carry genetic information
3. Carbohydrates, which store energy in a form that can be used by living cells
4. Fats, which also store energy, but in a more concentrated form, and which may be stored for extended periods in the bodies of animals.

DNA
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and some viruses. (Human and Bacteria alike)

Molecular DNA Switch Found to be the Same for All Life next article
19.07.2006
The molecular machinery that starts the process by which a biological cell divides into two identical daughter cells apparently worked so well early on that evolution has conserved it across the eons in all forms of life on Earth. Researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California at Berkeley have shown that the core machinery for initiating DNA replication is the same for all three domains of life - Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya.

Source A
Source B
Source C

Mod Edit: Posting work written by others - Please review link!

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Gemwolf]

REMINDER:

Civility and decorum are required.

And please focus on the topic, not on each other!

Play the ball, not the player.