Evolution vs. Creation

Atheistic Scientists were Humiliated As Their Junk DNA Evolution Paradigm recently Collapsed

Anti-theistic scientists, Ken Miller, Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents made failed observations about DNA, such that their Darwinian evolution paradigm has collapsed. Not that long ago, junk DNA was being defended as an important element of the Darwinian evolution paradigm ... The question now seems to be whether Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents will continue to defend junk DNA, whatever they call it?- Rob Crowther,PhD

Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg discusses modern genomics and the collapse of evolutionists junk DNA theory.

http://www.cross.tv/66770

Doubt Atheism & Question Darwinism
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com

.

PROFESSOR X wrote:

Atheistic Scientists were Humiliated As Their Junk DNA Evolution Paradigm recently Collapsed
Anti-theistic scientists, Ken Miller, Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents made failed observations about DNA, such that their Darwinian evolution paradigm has collapsed. Not that long ago, junk DNA was being defended as an important element of the Darwinian evolution paradigm ... The question now seems to be whether Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents will continue to defend junk DNA, whatever they call it?- Rob Crowther,PhD
Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg discusses modern genomics and the collapse of evolutionists junk DNA theory.
http://www.cross.tv/66770
Doubt Atheism & Question Darwinism
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
.

LOL. Charles Darwin was a racist. There's no prove that all life arose from one common ancestor. I am not surprised that the evolutionist theories are collapsing. Atheist science defend Darwinism like a religion. What a big fraud! One Hoax after another. They are so quick to announce their fake evolution discoveries, but they are not so quick to expose their mistakes and disproven conjectures.

PROFESSOR X wrote:

Atheistic Scientists were Humiliated As Their Junk DNA Evolution Paradigm recently Collapsed
Anti-theistic scientists, Ken Miller, Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents made failed observations about DNA, such that their Darwinian evolution paradigm has collapsed. Not that long ago, junk DNA was being defended as an important element of the Darwinian evolution paradigm ... The question now seems to be whether Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents will continue to defend junk DNA, whatever they call it?- Rob Crowther,PhD
Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg discusses modern genomics and the collapse of evolutionists junk DNA theory.
http://www.cross.tv/66770
Doubt Atheism & Question Darwinism
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
.

You make Stan Lee cry.

Discord wrote:

<quoted text>
You make Stan Lee cry.

I know ... but someones got to help him get back to reality. It's not an accident that Darwin's theory is defended more by books and movies of science-FICTION than the scientific evidence. Too bad many of these scientist hide behind their degrees and unproven press releases in order to create the illusion of being authoritative, meanwhile they are busy behind the scenes censoring any and all scientific evidence that challenges Darwin's theory from reaching the public. They are also censoring professors in universities from exposing any information to the public that threatens their little monkey fairy-tale.

The roles have been reversed. The atheist and evolutionist is today - what the Catholic Church was in the past. They hate scientific advance and would rather shut down public discussion before confronting evidence that proves that all life did not arise from one common ancestor.

That doesn't mean that the earth has to be 6000 year old. But isn't it amazing how humans were suppose to have evolved from Apes 3 million years ago, but there are organisms that are in rock strata dated over 300 million years old that are still ALIVE TODAY and they are unchanged? What's so special about us that it's necessary for evolutionists invent pseudo-science stories only fit for the Sci-Fi Channel?

Darwinism Destroyed by Geological Evidence & Anomalies
http://cross.tv/64437

PROFESSOR X wrote:

<quoted text>
I know ... but someones got to help him get back to reality. It's not an accident that Darwin's theory is defended more by books and movies of science-FICTION than the scientific evidence. Too bad many of these scientist hide behind their degrees and unproven press releases in order to create the illusion of being authoritative, meanwhile they are busy behind the scenes censoring any and all scientific evidence that challenges Darwin's theory from reaching the public. They are also censoring professors in universities from exposing any information to the public that threatens their little monkey fairy-tale.
The roles have been reversed. The atheist and evolutionist is today - what the Catholic Church was in the past. They hate scientific advance and would rather shut down public discussion before confronting evidence that proves that all life did not arise from one common ancestor.
That doesn't mean that the earth has to be 6000 year old. But isn't it amazing how humans were suppose to have evolved from Apes 3 million years ago, but there are organisms that are in rock strata dated over 300 million years old that are still ALIVE TODAY and they are unchanged? What's so special about us that it's necessary for evolutionists invent pseudo-science stories only fit for the Sci-Fi Channel?
Darwinism Destroyed by Geological Evidence & Anomalies
http://cross.tv/64437

Atheism has nothing to do with Evolution. Why would scientists support Evolution with no evidence?

Oh hey, "prof". What's the "scientific theory" of ID/Creationism again?

Thought so.

You can run away again now.

Benny wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL. Charles Darwin was a racist.

Irrelevant even if he was. Evolution makes no racist claims, and doesn't view any race to be "more evolved" than another. Though that's not to say that some in the past have not misconstrued evolution (be it deliberately or non-deliberately) for a racist agenda.

Darwin however, while not perfect was a product of his time:

Darwin on race

"By the way, a negro lived in Edinburgh, who had travelled with Waterton and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did excellently; he gave me lessons for payment, and I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man."

"Great God how I should like to see the greatest curse on Earth Slavery abolished."

"For instance, early in the voyage at Bahia in Brazil he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he had just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered “No.” I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answers of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything. This made him excessively angry, and he said that as I doubted his word, we could not live any longer together."

"The Indians are now so terrified that they offer no resistance in a body, but each flies, neglecting even his wife and children; but when overtaken, like wild animals, they fight against any number to the last moment….Every one here is fully convinced that this is the most just war, because it is against barbarians. Who would believe in this age that such atrocities could be committed in a Christian civilized country?"

"This posta was commanded by a negro lieutenant, born in Africa: to his credit be it said, there was not a ranche between the Colorado and Buenos Ayres in nearly such neat order as his….I did not anywhere meet a more civil and obliging man than this negro; it was therefore the more painful to see that he would not sit down and eat with us."

"I was pleased with nothing so much as with the inhabitants. There is a mildness in the expression of their countenances which at once banishes the idea of a savage; and intelligence which shows that they are advancing in civilization….It has been remarked, that it requires little habit to make a dark skin more pleasing and natural to the eye of an European than his own colour. A white man bathing by the side of a Tahitian, was like a plant bleached by the gardener’s art compared with a fine dark green one growing vigorously in the open fields."

(credit to PT)

Of course none of this is relevant to the scientific validity of evolution.

PROFESSOR X wrote:

Atheistic Scientists were Humiliated As Their Junk DNA Evolution

And as already been pointed out, evolution makes no theological claims. Since we have pointed this out to you almost every time you've popped up here, the only possible conclusion can be that you're just another liar for Jesus.

PROFESSOR X wrote:

... Paradigm recently Collapsed
Anti-theistic scientists, Ken Miller, Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents made failed observations about DNA, such that their Darwinian evolution paradigm has collapsed. Not that long ago, junk DNA was being defended as an important element of the Darwinian evolution paradigm ... The question now seems to be whether Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents will continue to defend junk DNA, whatever they call it?- Rob Crowther,PhD
Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg discusses modern genomics and the collapse of evolutionists junk DNA theory.

And yet amazingly, the ONLY people who are aware of this are "good Christians", since the scientific community is blissfully unaware of it.

So what "scientific alternative" do you propose? That's it - Goddidit with magic!

This is why no-one takes you seriously.

PROFESSOR X wrote:

I know ... but someones got to help him get back to reality.

But "prof", you made a mistake before you even finished your first sentence. So you've got no chance of getting there.

PROFESSOR X wrote:

That doesn't mean that the earth has to be 6000 year old.

Which only demonstrates that creationism is as inconsistent as we've always thought. Meaning you don't have a scientific argument.

PROFESSOR X wrote:

But isn't it amazing how humans were suppose to have evolved from Apes 3 million years ago

You're a little short,'prof'.

PROFESSOR X wrote:

but there are organisms that are in rock strata dated over 300 million years old that are still ALIVE TODAY and they are unchanged?

Wrong. You talking about shrimp? Coelecanth? They are NOT the same as today, however since evolution doesn't insist on uniform mutation rates all across the board your point is moot anyway.

So why not cut the BS about you having a better scientific explanation and just say that you don't believe in evolution cuz the Bible sez Goddidit with magic? It would save a lot of time.

Bye bye then.

Science is as bias as Religion on a political level.
If not more so. Science refuses to look at itself with the same criteria that it places upon natural world.

Illustrated Man wrote:

Science is as bias as Religion on a political level.
If not more so. Science refuses to look at itself with the same criteria that it places upon natural world.

That is true. Look how they cooked the books on global warming to be politically correct.In 1973 they said were were on the edge of a new ice age. Man has very little to do with climate change

The Dude wrote:

Oh hey, "prof". What's the "scientific theory" of ID/Creationism again?
Thought so.
You can run away again now.

What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Technical Paper: The Positive Case for Intelligent Design
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/files...

Get the Facts
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com

In high school science there should be no talk of creationism. It is not science. Evolution, believe it or not is science. Creationism is a Christian MYTH. Creationism should be taught is high school. In history class, along with all the other mythology attached to other religions.
The story of Adam and Eve is no different than the stories of Greek mythology.
The Holy Bible, especially the Old Testament is a collection of Myths.
Moses parting the Red Sea...Myth
Noah and the Ark...Myth
Sodom and Gamora...Myth
Adam and Eve...Myth
Etc, Etc...
That is not to say the Bible is all myths, there are of course the gospels of the disiples, eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus, andthe same can be said for most other religions practiced today, mostly myth, and some historical accuracy.

Christian Mythology does not belong in a science class.

The refusal to acknowledge intelligent design in the universe laughable.

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Irrelevant even if he was. Evolution makes no racist claims, and doesn't view any race to be "more evolved" than another. Though that's not to say that some in the past have not misconstrued evolution (be it deliberately or non-deliberately) for a racist agenda.
Darwin however, while not perfect was a product of his time:
Darwin on race
"By the way, a negro lived in Edinburgh, to the scientific validity of evolution.

OK. Tell the truth. You can stop lying now.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Darwin 1887:156).

Charles Darwin (along with Thomas Huxley) was openly racist (Milton 1997:186,277). Human evolution had no evidence in support except observed "similarity" to living apes (Wells 2000:216). After rejecting God AS the Creator, Darwin and company THEN "saw" the "similarity" between Africans and apes, hence the idea of human evolution was conceived.

The origin of the idea that humans evolved came about when the God of the Bible was rejected, THEN from this departure, Darwin and his cohorts "saw" the "similarity" and the theory was born - out of their racist minds. Notice AFTER God is rejected then racist human evolution theory developed.

Benjamin Wiker said that according to Darwin, "the European race, following the inevitable laws of natural selection, will emerge as the distinct species, human being, and all the transitional forms—such as the gorilla, chimpanzee, Negro, Australian aborigine and so on—will be extinct." (Wiker 2002:250).

John C. Burhan:
Before 1859 (before Darwin's Origin), "many scientists had questioned whether blacks were of the same species as whites, but they had no scientific basis for that notion. Things changed once Darwin presented his racist evolutionary schema. Darwin stated that African-Americans could not survive competition with their white near-relations, let alone being able to compete with the white race. According to Darwin, the African was inferior because he represented the missing-link" between ape and Teuton.(Burham 1972:506)."

THE INFAMOUS RACIST EVOLUTION BIOLOGIST, ILYA IVANOV
Learn how the racist history of Darwinism is marked by deception and genetic failure. HIV is an STD of apes, chimps and monkeys. Evolutionists assumed that blacks were closer genetically to apes and attempted to secretly create conception between humans and primates.

Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov, a Russian atheist biologist during the days of Stalin, tried to prove the evolution of man from apes by conducting bizarre fiendish experiments on African women and men in an attempt to create human-ape hybrids. As a result, this atheist psuedo-science called Darwinism may have led to the global epidemic of HIV and AIDS throughout Africa and around the world.
http://www.cross.tv/29310

Darwin-Loving Holocaust Museum Shooter Hated Jews, Blacks, and Christians
http://www.wnd.com/index.php...

Hitler's Ethic and the Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress in Nazi Policy
http://www.cross.tv/33031

Racism Among Evolutionists Bred the Failure of Darwinism
http://www.cross.tv/29310

From Darwin to Hitler
http://cross.tv/33100

Atheist and DNA discoverer, Dr. James Watson makes RACIST comments inspired by his belief in Darwinism
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/articl...

.

Sick of Stupid wrote:

In high school science there should be no talk of creationism. It is not science. Evolution, believe it or not is science. Creationism is a Christian MYTH. Creationism should be taught is high school. In history class, along with all the other mythology attached to other religions.

The story of Adam and Eve is no different than the stories of Greek mythology.
The Holy Bible, especially the Old Testament is a collection of Myths.
Moses parting the Red Sea...Myth
Noah and the Ark...Myth
Sodom and Gamora...Myth
Adam and Eve...Myth
Etc, Etc...
That is not to say the Bible is all myths, there are of course the gospels of the disiples, eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus, andthe same can be said for most other religions practiced today, mostly myth, and some historical accuracy.
Christian Mythology does not belong in a science class.

LOL! Your professor lied to you!

The story of Adam and Eve is scientific
DNA Proves Adam & Eve Existed
http://www.cross.tv/29711

Sodom and Gommorah were real cities that you can visit today
http://www.cross.tv/41280

The Rea sea Evidence: Archeology Proves the Exodus
http://www.cross.tv/30044

Rea Sea parting
http://www.cross.tv/41289

Shattering the Jesus Myth
http://www.cross.tv/24457

The James Ossuary Silences Atheists & Bible Skeptics
http://www.cross.tv/67298

etc etc etc.

The point is the evidence is out their is you are looking for the truth.

The Dude wrote:

Oh hey, "prof". What's the "scientific theory" of ID/Creationism again?
Thought so.
You can run away again now.

4give Pro X from French X-land!! after see X-man from Pro-Charlie Oxford. UK mutantee and Steven Hawkin from Cambrigge, UK mute taking. don't tak it so serious U from UK ;)

PROFESSOR X wrote:

<quoted text>
What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
Technical Paper: The Positive Case for Intelligent Design
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/files...
Get the Facts
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com

hey Braffesor X- google for Frank Tipler. he can help U or read physickee book! ;-0000h, week up from yo wettttt dream

Pro X! this essay or thesis for u to working on!

(U vs, You):-00000h, good luck ;)

Even if evolution is true (and there is plenty of evidence to support it), scientists cannot explain how the very first cell came into existence.

After the Big Bang, the universe was sterile. SOMETHING happened to cause life to appear out of nothing.