Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research?
ACTS & FACTS ^ | Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.

Posted on 07/13/2009 9:55:26 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research?

by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.*

In 2003, the human genome was heralded as a near-complete DNA sequence, except for the repetitive regions that could not be resolved due to the limitations of the prevailing DNA sequencing technologies.[1] The chimpanzee genome was subsequently finished in 2005 with the hope that its completion would provide clear-cut DNA similarity evidence for an ape-human common ancestry.[2] This similarity is frequently cited as proof of man's evolutionary origins, but a more objective explanation tells a different story, one that is more complex than evolutionary scientists seem willing to admit...

(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; chimp; creation; cretinism; embarrassing; evolution; forrestisstoopid; gggisacultist; gggisstoopid; ggglies; intelligentdesign; monkeyseemonkeypost; notanewstopic; pseudoscience; ragingyechardon; richardcranium; science; slopingforeheads; stupidisasstupiddoes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-480 next last
To: GodGunsGuts
which me (sic) and my fellow YAFers almost completely took over. How about you, what are your advanced degrees?

Nuclear Engineering.

101 posted on 07/13/2009 7:46:39 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

BS Whenever I paraphrase Dawkins, I do so to people who already know the original quote, and exactly what he meant by it. If you don’t like it, you are free to follow me around and fill in the details that everyone already knows if that makes you feel better.


102 posted on 07/13/2009 7:49:21 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

B.S., M.S., Ph.D.?


103 posted on 07/13/2009 7:57:02 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
It does seem so. The Miller-Urey, completely discredited still remains in a preponderence of high school Biology textbooks. Of course we now know that the 'presumption' of a highly hydrogen-charged atomosphere which Urey used is now discredited. The experiment was reexamined with what is now considered the 'primitive' atmosphere of CO2,CH4, and H2O did create what these textbooks refer to as 'organic' precursors. Those 'precursors', which they often fail to identify, are cyanide and formaldehyde. So they deceive the students by not telling them that the original 'organic molecules' were one of the most poisonous agents known to man and embalming fluid, formalin.

They still clint to the drawings of Haeckel's of embryos even though the writers know those drawings were deceptive, intentionally so, now thoroughly discredited.

Embryologists now know that the folds of the developing embryo are not 'gills',....they are folds. Put your chin on your sternum and feel your neck....there are folds (that is meant to be an illustration). The ridges of skin are simply ridges of skin, in the developing embryo, with multipotential cellularity. Even the 'gills' in the developing fish embryos are not gills, at that stage of ontogeny. But they developed a catchy phrase...."Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" and they keep repeating what is a lie.

Now comes the chimp/man genome comparisons. They say 98-99% of their genes are shared, but we know that there is selective 'disposal' of any portion of the chromosome which is not seeminly in common is not part of the comparison. If you assume, as neo-darwinians do, that we are products of our genes, then you're saying that the dramatic differences in us and chimpanzees are due to 2% of our genetic makeup. It does seem clear from the literature that that 2% have very little to do with our or the chimps phenotype. So the neo-darwinist has a little problem there.

Archaeopteryx has been discredited as the precursor of modern birds. It is, according to Larry Martin, Ph.D., of University of Kansas. He stateed unequivocally in 1985 the Archaeopteryx is a member of an extinct group of birds. So, Archeopteryx turned out not to validate as a transitional fossil and, in accordance with Darwins own test, fails to verify Darwins theory. Even the ardent evolutionist, Pierre Lecomte du Nouy agree with Dr.Martin, saying We are not even authorized to consider the exceptinal case of the archaeopteryx as a true link. Byi link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptilia and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanism of transition remains unknown.

Yet, in most high school biology books, there is old archaeopteryx still deceiving children unaware.

Now, here we revisit the chimp/human canard....designed to deceive...to constantly resurrect a failed theory. There seems to be really no need for these repeated deceptions, other than to validate a worldview in which an army of neodarwinsts have staked their professional careers upon, and which has been measured in the balance for about 150 years and come up wanting. The narrative which has been constructed for their validation is made of shifting sand, and the sad part of it is, they know it. Their faith in what is willful self-deceit remains a vessel at sea becoming more and more etherial. And, as they grasp for Darwins apparition for comfort, as they see design, their high priests, such as Dawkins and Crick, have to remind them that they may see what 'appears' to be designed, as they measure what scientific materialism can never account for, they ask us to give our children over to abject failure build on sofistry. That is too much to ask.

I used to be one such person. I hold a BS in Biology and Chemistry, an MS in Bilogy, writing my thesis in "Vertebrate Pleistocene Fossils of McFaddin Beach, Texas", and a medical degree and board certification in General Surgery. With all of that education, the most important thing I was taught, was to think for myself. My breaking point came when I read George Gaylord Simpson, paleontologist and comparative vertebrate anatomist at Harvard say, "Place a chimpanzee in front of an IBM typewriter, and given enough time, he will reproduce the entire works of Shakespear, word for word." When I pondered that type of faith I could no longer believe Dr.Simpson, a man whom I had reverred. In the words of Dr.Norman Geisler, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist".

104 posted on 07/13/2009 8:05:12 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Religion is based on faith. Science is based on observations and tests.

Evolution is based on faith. There's simply no evidence that we share a common ancestror with apes. There are similarities, but it takes a gargantuan leap of faith to come to such conclusions.

Edward Peltzer, University of California, San Diego

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

105 posted on 07/13/2009 8:11:41 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
I believe in God, the scriptures and evolution and have no problem reconciling those beliefs.

Nor do a large number of other evolutionists.

Pretty simple if you ignore scripture I guess.

106 posted on 07/13/2009 8:15:16 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
Maybe in ‘chat/personal’, but why waste the ‘news/activism’ topic forum space on this drivel.

The only people wasting space on here are the closet liberals.

107 posted on 07/13/2009 8:16:23 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

No, I believe in the Scriptures but I don’t accept some Luddite interpretation of a passage verbatim without using the brain God gave me.


108 posted on 07/13/2009 8:16:48 PM PDT by ZULU (God guts and guns made America great. Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Who are you kidding? I am positive that I can count on one hand the number of people on this site who have read “The Blind Watchmaker”

The problem is that your paraphrasing is misleading, much like the people who you claim pick and choose what part of the Holy Scripture they chose believe.

Isn’t there an old saying about a pot and kettle?


109 posted on 07/13/2009 8:20:47 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
One of those rare cases where the “fearless leader” of FR is **wrong** to let these Luddite crevo threads be posted in “news”, even if at all for that matter.

Spoken like a true liberal. Can't hope to win the debate, so just shut it down.

110 posted on 07/13/2009 8:20:47 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Evolution is a fact of science.

When did this happen? I didn't see the theory of evolution become the law of evolution.

111 posted on 07/13/2009 8:30:46 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“I’m not going to waste time finding what you can easily find yourself. Go to Creation.Com, click on “answers”, scroll down to Galileo, and it you will find that it is all there in black and white.”

—I went through every link there, and they gave no examples... no names, no quotes, nothing. The links were just parroting the claim that Galileo’s opponents were primarily from the “scientific establishment”. Yet I can find statement after statement after statement coming from the Vatican and theologians saying that Galileo is guilty of heresy for believing in heliocentricity which is contrary to Holy Scripture.

“There are NO TRANSITIONALS from one kind to another...but there should be...”

—There should be what exactly? As I said, I can’t fathom - even hypothetically - better examples than what we already have. What would be an “unambiguous transitional” from apes to man? Every time I ask this question of someone making this claim, I can never get an answer. If NOTHING, even hypothetically, could suffice, then it should hardly be surprising that after 150 years of looking that we haven’t found anything that suffices.


112 posted on 07/13/2009 8:34:12 PM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

B.S., M.S.


113 posted on 07/13/2009 8:37:32 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

No, he was pretending gubmint schools and universities don’t indoctrinate.

Epic fail.


114 posted on 07/13/2009 8:37:43 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Spoken like a true liberal. Can't hope to win the debate, so just shut it down.

Well, you have to admit that they are not news ...

115 posted on 07/13/2009 8:39:58 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
I am positive that I can count on one hand the number of people on this site who have read “The Blind Watchmaker”

Perhaps...but you could be wrong. I read it 20+ years ago and still have a copy.

116 posted on 07/13/2009 8:40:16 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Spoken like a true liberal. Can't hope to win the debate, so just shut it down.

If I posted daily multiple posts from my website, it would be called spamming.

117 posted on 07/13/2009 8:40:55 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

The evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life, it only shows how life has changed since it inception. The is an often repeated misconception.

Here a quote from Darwin on that very subject.

“It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421).


118 posted on 07/13/2009 8:42:17 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all,

Sounds like you almost believe in evolution. At least, what you are saying is identical to the ID theory which upholds the belief in evolution.

119 posted on 07/13/2009 8:46:18 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
If memory serves, Obama believes we descended from apes, just like Allmendream.

Obama...Chrissy-Fit Matthews, algore...the real question is is there a liberal that believes in creationism?

I see allmendream failed to point out most conservatives don't buy into his cult. Color me shocked.

120 posted on 07/13/2009 8:55:39 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
This flies in the face of simple logic. Evolution is a fact of science.Will you please explain to me how "LOGIC" evolved in a darwinian, scientific, materialism world. Where is the gene for logic? Where is the gene for a theory which is derived from a biological system? You have examined the genome. It must be there. Remember, according to you, materialism is all that there is. How does brute matter evolve to consciousness? According to darwinists, the physical world is all that there is. Why can't the liver, spleen or pancreas provide for consciousness? Given your non-negotiable starting point, I will be interested in your answer. Will you explain why brute matter provides for sentience. How did that happen? In other words, how do you get something from nothing? HOw do you get consciouns, living, thinking, feeling, believing creatures from material which does not have that? That would be getting something from nothing. How do you get mind to squirt forth from mindless, dead , brute matter? If darwinism cannot account for rationality, then how is it they claim they are the arbitors of rationality? How does 'rational thought' come forth from covalent bonds of atoms? Remember, scientific materialism says all there is is matter/energy/time/space continuum. How can someone who believes that, who cannot possibly account "scientifically" for rational thought, lay claim to be the arbiter of rational thought and "simple logic" as you say? If you can not account for these things bay materialism you are faced with denying they exist. This leads me to another question....Why do you believe anything at all? If you cannot accout for logic or reason in a darwinian-only world why believe anything. Atoms and molecules don't reason...they react. Please enlighten us with your explainations.
121 posted on 07/13/2009 8:56:16 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Well, you have to admit that they are not news ...

When you watch Hissy-fit matthews spew "settled science", (or algore exclaim there's "no debate") why bother with any other news...you've got all you'll ever need and then some right there on PMSNBC.

In fact, anything else, isn't news. Just like anything else that's not soaked up by the indoctrination centers isn't science.

122 posted on 07/13/2009 9:09:31 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter

Your argument is a straw man.

The evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life, it only shows how life has changed since it inception. This is an often-repeated misconception.

Science does not address things outside of the physical world because they are not testable, or repeatable so they cannot be falsified. If it cannot be falsified then it is not Science.

It is surprising with the degrees you have that you did not know this.


123 posted on 07/13/2009 9:17:04 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

His point is, unless you inject intelligence and/or design into all these evo-experiments, it’s all a transparent failure.

I believe in adaptation. I believe in change over time, but not to the point species make such leaps as Darwin proposes.


124 posted on 07/13/2009 9:34:11 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin; YHAOS
The evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life, it only shows how life has changed since it inception. The is an often repeated misconception.

Another one that didn't get the memo. Bezerkley makes it a point that evolution addresses origins. Evolution 101.

The Darwinian paradigm builds upon the godless liberal interpretaion that life just up and came from nothing...no design, no purpose, randomly, no intelligence allowed: first a single celled life, then salamanders, newts...and so on, right on up to apes and then man.

125 posted on 07/13/2009 9:37:33 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
His point is, unless you inject intelligence and/or design into all these evo-experiments, it’s all a transparent failure.

I don't understand. Did they create life in a test tube?

126 posted on 07/13/2009 9:44:21 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


127 posted on 07/13/2009 9:52:01 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

“No, I believe in the Scriptures but I don’t accept some Luddite interpretation of a passage verbatim without using the brain God gave me.”

And what other Luddite interpretations of Scripture don’t you believe? Yep, pick and choose your interpretations and make that your religion.


128 posted on 07/13/2009 10:02:56 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Quick justice for the senseless killing of Marine Lance Cpl. Robert Crutchfield.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter; ZULU
Remember, according to you, materialism is all that there is. How does brute matter evolve to consciousness? According to darwinists, the physical world is all that there is. Why can't the liver, spleen or pancreas provide for consciousness? Given your non-negotiable starting point, I will be interested in your answer. Will you explain why brute matter provides for sentience. How did that happen? In other words, how do you get something from nothing? HOw do you get consciouns, living, thinking, feeling, believing creatures from material which does not have that? That would be getting something from nothing. How do you get mind to squirt forth from mindless, dead , brute matter? If darwinism cannot account for rationality, then how is it they claim they are the arbitors of rationality? How does 'rational thought' come forth from covalent bonds of atoms? Remember, scientific materialism says all there is is matter/energy...

This must account for the scientists studying prayer and then with a complete straight face, the cultists parrot the demand that God be kept out of the science classrooms or demanding religion not be dragged into the science classroom or science debate while simultaneously dragging the Pope into the equation. :)

Seriously, liberals are all over the map. I think they simply gave up on getting out the myriad memos and are so utterly confused they just don't even try to keep up anymore. Such as "origins is somehow sterlie from or unrelated to evolution", for instance.

This has too many red flags screaming ***CULT***!!!!!

129 posted on 07/13/2009 10:25:32 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
If I posted daily multiple posts from my website, it would be called spamming.

Oh, I don't know, DU and/or DC would probably accept evo propoganda with open arms...right up there with algore's hot air cult. Which of those two are "your" website?

130 posted on 07/13/2009 10:39:19 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
I don't understand. Did they create life in a test tube?

Who?

131 posted on 07/13/2009 10:43:43 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
Your argument is a straw man.

That is the explaination I expect from you.

The evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life, it only shows how life has changed since it inception. This is an often-repeated misconception.

Please show me where I asked you to explain origin. Although it seems reasonable to begin at the beginning,....i.e.how did the first cell evolve.I did not ask you or Zulu that question. I asked how conciousness, sentience, logic, reason sprung forth from covalent bonds in an evolved biological system?

Science does not address things outside of the physical world because they are not testable, or repeatable so they cannot be falsified. If it cannot be falsified then it is not Science.

This is the only honest statement you have made to be. I agree. Youradmission that science stops at that word you detest...the moment of creation, requires a transcendent being. That is moment of creation which the scientific materialist cannot possibly hope to examine. Perhaps you are one who denies the Law of Causality.

It is surprising with the degrees you have that you did not know this.

Your derision humors me. I will leave your opprobruium with you to consider. It means nothing to me.

132 posted on 07/13/2009 10:49:33 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin; YHAOS; Texas Songwriter
Your argument is a straw man.

The evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life, it only shows how life has changed since it inception. This is an often-repeated misconception.

Science does not address things outside of the physical world because they are not testable, or repeatable so they cannot be falsified. If it cannot be falsified then it is not Science.

It is surprising with the degrees you have that you did not know this.

Wow, where do I begin?

It seems the liberal indoctrination centers can't even get their subjects on the same page. Perhaps a view of Evolution 101 at the liberal Bezerkley University out in Cesspoolifornication will enlighten you...origins is plainly addressed.

Then we move onto what is or isn't science, as if someone, somehow, sometime gave liberals the keys to science in the first place.

We have string theory, multiverse theory and scientists studying the effects of prayer of all things, on the tax-payer dime no less...and you parrot that science isn't science unless it's testable and falisfiable and observable?

Liberals always make rules they never intend to abide by themselves.

Now that I think about it, this makes me wonder, speaking of all the degrees he has, it seems to me the Gallup poll allmendream linked sure seems a bit peculiar with all the scientists on dissentfromdarwin.org, FR, etc. etc. etc.

133 posted on 07/13/2009 10:58:24 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

The theory which they laud and which validates their existence is crumbling all around them. Their willingness to confabulate, even conspire in weaving a series of lies is astonishing. Clearly their a priori commitment to materialism is their faith and their sofistry knows no limits. It becomes disgusting after a while. I am humored by such claims as, “the theory of evolution does not deal with origin (first cell, or origin of the universe)”. They cry “Kings X...time out....lets get the rules worked out before we begin discussing these matters.....or another way to deal with a theistic universe is for them to say....”O.K. give us an 11 billion year headstart, give us the progenitor cell,...and give us the atmosphere we want , and we will engage in your discussion.” They have painted themselves into a corner with the declaration that all there is is materialism and this will be discovered by scientific methodological examination. Well, O.K., lets talk about that. But they do not want to talk about that. They infer it is not fair to speak of origin. Where did they get the notion that ‘fairness’ evolved from dead matter? Fairness is a moral assertion and there is no natural law in darwinistic materialism which they will affirm which could have evolved. They claim to be arbitors of reason, yet reason itself cannot be accounted for by materialism. Yet they clammor to ring the bells of derision to intimidate. Denying anything other than materialism they cannot justify or explain the concious mind, logic, love, hate, justice, sentience, or selfless acts. In denying these qualities the neodarwinist have only materialism with which to explain them. They cannot, but cry foul when such is pointed out to them. Without the slightest justification to account for logic and reason, they thump their chests and claim reason their exclusive domain. When asked about this, they begin ad hominem attacks or evasive maneuvers almost unmatched by Pattons third army. They lay claim to science as the only residence of truth, yet darwinism cannot account for truth. It cannot examine truth. It cannot, through scientific methodology, examine truth, and therefore, in their worldview, must be forced to admit its denial of existence. How much does truth weigh? What is the molecular formula for logic or reason? The echo of these questions remain unanswered by the materialist, nothwithstanding their vitriol. When asked if truth can be known to a materialist, they say yes, but they cannot say how. This is what vexes them. Ask the materialist darwinsit to tell us how truth could be asserted by molecules the answer....silence (other than their squeals of Unfair! Unfair!)


134 posted on 07/13/2009 11:17:07 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter

Indeed, and liberals project-alot. They sure bend into mind-boggling contortions when confronted. And keep repeating debunked nonsense over and over.

And somehow they pretend as though only they understand science, and that someone, somehow, sometime, somewhere gave them the keys to science classrooms. And obviously they know as much about science as they do about Christianity.

But the thing that makes me chuckle most is that they actually think normal people aren’t onto them! I mean, FR of all places! Sometimes they stray off course and go into government or whatever and really shoot themselves in the foot. It’s quite comical!


135 posted on 07/13/2009 11:59:08 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

What debate would that be? Luddite ignorance on your behalf?


136 posted on 07/14/2009 3:33:28 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

Sad that you quoute Burke in your tagline - if he were alive today, he would slap you in the head.


137 posted on 07/14/2009 3:36:23 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

If you can’t take the heat, don’t post.


138 posted on 07/14/2009 4:07:11 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Thanks for once again bringing up that I have a graduate degree in Biology while you do not Gutless.

Your hubris in thinking that you have refuted an entire field of study that it is obvious that you do not even understand is laughable.

Education is no barrier to having a childlike faith in God; but glad to know you take pride in you and your compatriots ignorance.

The more one learns, especially about science, the less likely they are to be a Creationist.

I guess you are content with the High School drop out set, they are probably less likely to ask you to back up your delusional grandiose claims with actual knowledge that you do not possess.

139 posted on 07/14/2009 4:58:28 AM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“BS Whenever I paraphrase Dawkins, I do so to people who already know the original quote, and exactly what he meant by it.”

Then why do you bother if you only seek the approval of your echo chamber? You really should form a closed, members-only forum where you can bask in the mutual dishonesty of the entire cult. Does “New Scientist” ring a bell? How many times have you posted that cover without context? You’re a cultist fraud.


140 posted on 07/14/2009 5:54:16 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Even a creationist should be able to understand that.


141 posted on 07/14/2009 6:11:40 AM PDT by ZULU (God guts and guns made America great. Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Like everything else, thought evolves. A monkey is a more sentient being than an amoeba, so is a snake.

If you are asking about the origins of life, that is another matter. Nobody knows how life was generated. Personally,, I think life is only capable of being produced by the hands of God. BUT if somebody tomorrow was able to “create” life in a test tube, my interpretation of God's handiwork in the matter by having created the laws that allowed that life to be “created” would sustain my faith.

People like you would be standing there with no response because you have painted yourselves into a box by a myopic reliance on a restricted, very personal and very literal interpretation of one small section of scriptures.

142 posted on 07/14/2009 6:16:58 AM PDT by ZULU (God guts and guns made America great. Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
God gave you a brain - use it. You don't have to surrender reason to interpret the Bible in the light of current science. Salvation doesn't rest on the interpretation of a small passage in Gensis.
143 posted on 07/14/2009 6:21:11 AM PDT by ZULU (God guts and guns made America great. Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

“This must account for the scientists studying prayer and then with a complete straight face, the cultists parrot the demand that God be kept out of the science classrooms or demanding religion not be dragged into the science classroom or science debate while simultaneously dragging the Pope into the equation. :)”

???????????????? Faith deals with morality, religion and salvation. It has nothing to do with science. Science deals with facts, theories and experiments. It has nothing to do with faith, morality and salvation. You perspective is seriously defective.

“Seriously, liberals are all over the map. I think they simply gave up on getting out the myriad memos and are so utterly confused they just don’t even try to keep up anymore.”

I’m not a liberal.

“Such as “origins is somehow sterlie from or unrelated to evolution”, for instance.

Evoution explains the “how,” not the “why.” The “why” should be left up to theologians and philosphers, where it belongs

The total inability of certain fundamentalists to distinguish between religion and science, faith and facts, amazes me.


144 posted on 07/14/2009 6:25:40 AM PDT by ZULU (God guts and guns made America great. Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter

>>My breaking point came when I read George Gaylord Simpson, paleontologist and comparative vertebrate anatomist at Harvard say, “Place a chimpanzee in front of an IBM typewriter, and given enough time, he will reproduce the entire works of Shakespear, word for word.” <<

It will happen a lot faster if each generation of monkeys get positive and negative reinforcement. Even then, 8,000,000 (approx) characters in the correct order and you are gonna need a lot of monkeys. If you want to get it done in less than a billion years.


145 posted on 07/14/2009 6:50:23 AM PDT by gondramB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The longer you get indocrinated at Temple of Darwin indocrination centers, the more likely you are to parrot braindead evo-religion. It takes a truly stout heart and a keen mind to resist being brainwashed by your evo co-religionists at the graduate level.
_______

Nice backhanded compliment to yourself GGG. We ‘evolutionists’ are unworthy. We could not withstand the pressure.

Only you have ever been strong enough to withstand the forces of evolutionism while attending a Temple of Darwin Indoctrination Center.


146 posted on 07/14/2009 8:07:02 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

Yep, pick and choose your interpretations and make that your religion.
________

A pretty good explanation there for all of the different versions of Christianity out there, yours among them. For some it is a young earth and a literal reading of the Bible. Others, not so much.


147 posted on 07/14/2009 8:20:24 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
“God gave you a brain - use it. You don't have to surrender reason to interpret the Bible in the light of current science. Salvation doesn't rest on the interpretation of a small passage in Gensis.”

I have nothing to back this up so take it for what it is worth.

If you read the bible from cover to cover, you read of creation and destruction, over and over. Usually God leaves a remnant to move his plan forward. Even the creation we live in now is destined for destruction.

When you look at the geologic history of this planet, we see creation and destruction. Entire kingdoms of species disappear and are replaced with new. The actions we read about in the Bible are very similar to the actions we see recorded in the Earth.

I have complete faith that the truth put forward in the Bible is literally true but we infer so much that we cannot understand how the truth in the Bible reconciles with the truth seen in fossils and geology.

When we have the opportunity to see the universe from the perspective of God, we will see that he has given us the truth in the Bible.

I have faith that we are descended from Adam. I am not threatened by the fact that there appears to be creatures that looked similar to me before Adam and there are similarities in the structures of animals and my structure, we are all God's creation.

I am a strange breed that believes in the literal truth of Genesis and in the study of evolution without seeing a contradiction.

I usually don't discuss this as it totally freaked out my preacher and nonbelievers dismiss it out of hand.

148 posted on 07/14/2009 8:22:12 AM PDT by dangerdoc (dangerdoc (not actually dangerous any more))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Projection is your middle name. You are the one who is constantly being defeated by non-scientists, Dropout. It is you who are always found clinging to yesterday’s, long-since refuted evo “arguments.” And just as I thought, you would rather accuse me in engaging in hubris than lay out your lame, outdated ERV argument, because deep down you know that to do so would mean falling flat on your face again.


149 posted on 07/14/2009 8:30:56 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
The paraphrase was directed toward my opponent, and he knows exactly where it came from. This thread is obviously way to high level for your limited understanding. May I suggest you go back to the shallow water before you reach the point where there is no swimming back.
150 posted on 07/14/2009 8:35:32 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-480 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson