The evolution hoax (solid arguments against the ape-theory)
-
Peace
As we all know, the school system often mass brainwash students into never questioning the theories that the teachers teach them. And the theory of evolution is a perfect example of mass brainwashing of students in schools. Like many theories, the theory of evolution consists of both truth and falsehood. The theory of evolution contains some truth and scientific facts. But it is an empirical truth that human beings do not descend from apes. Man being from apes is one of the biggest lies sold to the humanity, and the article below give us some solid arguments agains parts of the evolution theory which says that human beings had apes as ancestors. Both creationists and evolutionists are on the wrong path when it comes to the truth of human beings. Thats why i stick the middlepath when it comes to this issue. However, there are truths in both creationism and evolutionism. BUT the ape-theory is a completely false theory. Read this article below. It is one of the best articles i have found that talks about evolution
The Evolution hoax
http//www.irishoriginsofcivilization.com/appendices/evolutionhoax.html -
This website refutes all arguments in your website
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
-
This website refutes all arguments in your website
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Peace Andya
I read the website you linked to and their arguments. It's not Creationism vs Evolutionism in my opinion. It's about finding the truth. And in my opinion they both creationists and evolutionists are misguided to a certain degree. That's why i choose the middlepath. And yes, they have refuted some of the arguments but not all. Did you even read article i linked to? if not, read it again, because the evolutionist site you linked to did not and could not refute one of the most solid arguments of the professor in the article i linked to. Below is his argument, i have bolded the important parts of the article and i have underlined his argument
Darwinists Squirm Under Spotlight
(An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson)This article is reprinted from an interview
with Citizen Magazine, January 1992.Phillip Johnson has been a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley for more than 20 years. As an academic lawyer, one of Johnson's specialties is "analyzing the logic of arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie behind those arguments." A few years ago he began to suspect that Darwinism, far from being an objective fact, was little more than a philosophical position dressed up as science--and poor science at that. Wanting to see whether his initial impression was correct, Johnson decided to take a closer look at the arguments, evidence and assumptions underlying contemporary Darwinism. The result of his investigation is Darwin on Trial, a controversial new book that challenges not only Darwinism but the philosophical mindset that sustains it.
When did you first become aware that Darwinism was in trouble as a scientific theory?
I had been vaguely aware that there were problems, but I'd never had any intention of taking up the subject seriously or in detail until the 1987-88 academic year, when I was a visiting professor in London. Every day on the way to my office I happened to go by a large bookstore devoted to science. I picked up one book after another and became increasingly fascinated with the obvious difficulties in the Darwinist case--difficulties that were being evaded by tricky rhetoric and emphatic repetition. I then began delving into the professional literature, especially in scientific journals such as Nature and Science. At every step, what I found was a failure of the evidence to be in accord with the theory.
What was it that initially made you suspect that Darwinism was more philosophy than hard science?
It was the way my scientific colleagues responded when I asked the hard questions. Instead of taking the intellectual questions seriously and responding to them, they would answer with all sorts of evasions and vague language, making it impossible to discuss the real objections to Darwinism. This is the way people talk when they're trying very hard not to understand something.
Another tip-off was the sharp contrast I noticed between the extremely dogmatic tone that Darwinists use when addressing the general public and the occasional frank acknowledgments, in scientific circles, of serious problems with the theory. For example, I would read Stephen Jay Gould telling the scientific world that Darwinism was effectively dead as a theory. And then in the popular literature, I would read Gould and other scientific writers saying that Darwinism was fundamentally healthy, and that scientists had the remaining problems well under control. There was a contradiction here, and it looked as though there was an effort to keep the outside world from becoming aware of the serious intellectual difficulties.
What are some of the intellectual difficulties? Can you give an example?
The most important is the fossil problem, because this is a direct record of the history of life on earth. If Darwinism were true, you would expect the fossil evidence to contain many examples of Darwinian evolution. You would expect to see fossils that really couldn't be understood except as transitions between one kind of organism and another. You would also expect to see some of the common ancestors that gave birth to different groups like fish and reptiles. You wouldn't expect to find them in every case, of course. It's perfectly reasonable to say that a great deal of the fossil evidence has been lost. But you would continually be finding examples of things that fit well with the theory.
In reality, the fossil record is something that Darwinists have had to explain away, because what it shows is the sudden appearance of organisms that exhibit no trace of step-by-step development from earlier forms. And it shows that once these organisms exist, they remain fundamentally unchanged, despite the passage of millions of years-and despite climatic and environmental changes that should have produced enormous Darwinian evolution if the theory were true. In short, if evolution is the gradual, step-by-step transformation of one kind of thing into another, the outstanding feature of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution.
-
Peace "David_K",
Oh boy here we go again. We dont even need the fossil record anymore. Genetic evidence is now sufficient to prove evolution is true and that includes us sharing a common ancestor with apes. Plz watch this vid
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk (Note Ken Miller is a devout THEIST)
Theres much more evidence on the following channels
http//www.youtube.com/profile?user=ExtantDodo&view=videos
http//www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2 (This guy is a THEIST)
http//www.youtube.com/profile?user=Kabane52&view=videos (This young fellow is a THEIST TOO)
http//www.youtube.com/profile?user=cdk007&view=videos (Very good vids explaining evo)
http//www.youtube.com/profile?user=Thunderf00t&view=videos (Especially watch his "why do people laugh at creationists" videos)
Tht shld do for now. When your done plz tell me n ill send u more. GOD Bless! -
Peace be unto you, brothers and sisters,
May God guide you to the Truth, and unveil your heart.
Created by God or created by evolution; both require faith.
My father is an agnostic, though by his actions and words, I would think him an athiest. When I spoke to him about my conversion to Al-Islam, becoming a believer; a muslim with faith in his heart, he went ballistic.
His argument to refute God and His existence is the fossil record and the evolutionary theory (not fact, it's an unproven theory). He admonished me, yet as a good son I listened and told my dad that I would look into this theory as well as look into the scientific facts of the universe.
In my research, I found there were 'missing links' in this evolutionary theory. There are gaps in the 'evolution of man' that do not show the steps from cromag to neanderthal to sapien. Nor is there a step from ape to man. Huge gaps, yet the promise of 'we are still searching' keeps the athiests warm at night while they mock all Faiths for their belief.
I also found out the evolutionary theory holds true to the creation of the Universe and life on Earth! After the Big Bang, by a miraculous chance this planet formed atmosphere at just the right concentrations to ward off the suns rays and create life on Earth in the form of a microbe. And by a miraculous chance, this microbe was able to split into a multicelled creature. And by a miraculous chance, this multicelled creature was able to grow fibrilla to move better in this mass of sea water on Earth. And by miraculous chance this multicelled creature was able to evolve eyes to see its prey better. And by a miraculous chance this multicelled creature was able to grow fins to move better in the sea. And by a miraculous chance this multicelled creature was able to evolve lungs that could breathe water and air, becoming amphibous. And by a miraculous chance this creature was able to move onto land and start living completely out of water. And by a miraculous chance other single celled ameoba were able to evolve into totally different multicelled creatures that decided to vacate the sea and join the land masses. And by miraculous chance these creatures evolved into dinosaurs. And by miraculous chance these creatures evolved into mammals and birds.
See a pattern?
Whether you believe in the theory of evolution or believe there is a God who created the Universe and all it contains, you are taking a leap of faith. Though I have to question the rationale of any man who claims to come from a scientific background that firmly holds faith that we evolved from simians, which in turn would make monkeys and gorillas our retarded cousins.
As well, in my search, I discovered that this Universe is so well made, that if there was a 1% difference in any one thing, the whole would collapse.
And do not think I only read the science articles. No, I searched the Quran as well.
I like to think of our world, this little ball of dirt and gas we call home, is a special machine created by our All Mighty, All Knowing God. In His Divine Wisdom, He felt it would be most appropriate to give us, mankind, a series of Instruction Manuals, with the Final Testament as our Very Best The Holy Quran.
I say this because 1400 years ago, an illiterate and uneducated goat herder was given an Instruction Manual of the finest sort, for it contained scientific facts that were undiscovered by scientific man until quite recently.
In Science, what are we taught created the universe, and when did we discover this? That's right Mr. Evolution The Big Bang! 30-40 years back Scientists discovered this, yet it is mentioned in the Quran Surah 2130
Who could have mentioned that?
Light of the moon Own light or reflected light? 200-300 years back we discovered it was reflected light. Surah 2561
What is shape of earth? Discovered in 1597, Sir Francis Drake proved this by sailing around the world Surah 7930. al-udhu'wa = ostrich egg. Spherical.
We know from school that the earth orbits around the sun, but when did we learn the sun rotates on its own axis? Surah 2133
Today we know the universe is constantly expanding. When did we learn this? Surah 5147
Cycle of water evaporation, condensing into clouds, moving into land and raining Surah 3921, 2318, 2548-49, 630,1522, 2443, 717, 3634 (plenty more)
Plants are both sexes Surah 2053
Water Sweet and salty and a barrier between them Surah 2553, 5517-18
Biology created from water Surah 2130
Embryology Surah 961-2, 2312-14Who could have mentioned this in the Quran, back in the year 600 AD?
Only the Creator of this grand machine God. )
And let's not get into 19.
Share knowledge of the Quran, do not hide it. Surah 2283-284
I congratulate the Athiest in not following in the footsteps of their fathers and mothers, and earnestly seeking the Truth on their own. Yet I must admonish that same Scientific man for not looking into the Faiths, most especially Al-Islam and the Holy Quran, when God has ensured even your spiritual needs are met.
There are no missing links with God. And with the Quran, I have scientific proofs God exists.
To say my next conversation went well with my father would be a lie.
Peace and blessings.
-
The most important is the fossil problem, because this is a direct record of the history of life on earth. If Darwinism were true, you would expect the fossil evidence to contain many examples of Darwinian evolution. You would expect to see fossils that really couldn't be understood except as transitions between one kind of organism and another. You would also expect to see some of the common ancestors that gave birth to different groups like fish and reptiles. You wouldn't expect to find them in every case, of course. It's perfectly reasonable to say that a great deal of the fossil evidence has been lost. But you would continually be finding examples of things that fit well with the theory.
In reality, the fossil record is something that Darwinists have had to explain away, because what it shows is the sudden appearance of organisms that exhibit no trace of step-by-step development from earlier forms. And it shows that once these organisms exist, they remain fundamentally unchanged, despite the passage of millions of years-and despite climatic and environmental changes that should have produced enormous Darwinian evolution if the theory were true. In short, if evolution is the gradual, step-by-step transformation of one kind of thing into another, the outstanding feature of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution.
In my research, I found there were 'missing links' in this evolutionary theory. There are gaps in the 'evolution of man' that do not show the steps from cromag to neanderthal to sapien. Nor is there a step from ape to man. Huge gaps, yet the promise of 'we are still searching' keeps the athiests warm at night while they mock all Faiths for their belief.
I invite both of you to take a look at these fossils...
http//www.toarchive.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg
http//www.toarchive.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4 -
Peace be unto you, brother,
May God guide you to the Truth.
What about them? Take a look at the cranium of all. See the elongation that is severe, then suddenly pushes forward as you get toward Homo Sapien? K to L specifically. Even from the front it goes from a smaller brain pan in K then blossoms out in L. Was man like "DUR DUR DUR DUR DOH!"? rotfl
It reminds me of the Far Side cartoon where the mathmetician is on writing a long equation out, but in the middle it says "A Miracle Happens Here".
If you want to believe you are descended from Koko, be my guest. I'm not a guardian.
Don't think you'll find affirmation from me after I've discovered the hoax that the theory of evolution truly is.
Peace and blessings.
-
Peace be unto you, brother,
May God guide you to the Truth.
What about them? Take a look at the cranium of all. See the elongation that is severe, then suddenly pushes forward as you get toward Homo Sapien? K to L specifically. Even from the front it goes from a smaller brain pan in K then blossoms out in L. Was man like "DUR DUR DUR DUR DOH!"? rotfl
It reminds me of the Far Side cartoon where the mathmetician is on writing a long equation out, but in the middle it says "A Miracle Happens Here".
If you want to believe you are descended from Koko, be my guest. I'm not a guardian.
Don't think you'll find affirmation from me after I've discovered the hoax that the theory of evolution truly is.
Peace and blessings.
Well, I'm not expecting that picture would convince you straight away. But at least it will kill your argument that said the fossil record is incomplete and there are missing links. After that, you'll just look like someone who doesn't want to admit that there is fossil evidence for the ancient ape to human transition.
Btw, 'cromag' and 'neanderthal' are all variations of the modern human species, Homo sapiens. Do study some human and basic biology before arguing... ignorance doesn't look cool.
-
Peace "tanty",
Here is a youtube video where R. Dawkins HIMSELF DEBUNKS THAT SHARLATAN HARUN YAHYA
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L5TD3nwXXA&feature=channel_page
And here are more vids debunking tht lying mouth HY whom i once believed in
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HXTKw2-mEs
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgOwejDLJjQ
I hope youll get out of this propaganda soon. GOD Bless! -
Peace Andya
I read the website you linked to and their arguments. It's not Creationism vs Evolutionism in my opinion. It's about finding the truth. And in my opinion they both creationists and evolutionists are misguided to a certain degree. That's why i choose the middlepath. And yes, they have refuted some of the arguments but not all. Did you even read article i linked to? if not, read it again, because the evolutionist site you linked to did not and could not refute one of the most solid arguments of the professor in the article i linked to. Below is his argument, i have bolded the important parts of the article and i have underlined his argument
Darwinists Squirm Under Spotlight
(An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson)This article is reprinted from an interview
with Citizen Magazine, January 1992.Phillip Johnson has been a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley for more than 20 years. As an academic lawyer, one of Johnson's specialties is "analyzing the logic of arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie behind those arguments." A few years ago he began to suspect that Darwinism, far from being an objective fact, was little more than a philosophical position dressed up as science--and poor science at that. Wanting to see whether his initial impression was correct, Johnson decided to take a closer look at the arguments, evidence and assumptions underlying contemporary Darwinism. The result of his investigation is Darwin on Trial, a controversial new book that challenges not only Darwinism but the philosophical mindset that sustains it.
When did you first become aware that Darwinism was in trouble as a scientific theory?
I had been vaguely aware that there were problems, but I'd never had any intention of taking up the subject seriously or in detail until the 1987-88 academic year, when I was a visiting professor in London. Every day on the way to my office I happened to go by a large bookstore devoted to science. I picked up one book after another and became increasingly fascinated with the obvious difficulties in the Darwinist case--difficulties that were being evaded by tricky rhetoric and emphatic repetition. I then began delving into the professional literature, especially in scientific journals such as Nature and Science. At every step, what I found was a failure of the evidence to be in accord with the theory.
What was it that initially made you suspect that Darwinism was more philosophy than hard science?
It was the way my scientific colleagues responded when I asked the hard questions. Instead of taking the intellectual questions seriously and responding to them, they would answer with all sorts of evasions and vague language, making it impossible to discuss the real objections to Darwinism. This is the way people talk when they're trying very hard not to understand something.
Another tip-off was the sharp contrast I noticed between the extremely dogmatic tone that Darwinists use when addressing the general public and the occasional frank acknowledgments, in scientific circles, of serious problems with the theory. For example, I would read Stephen Jay Gould telling the scientific world that Darwinism was effectively dead as a theory. And then in the popular literature, I would read Gould and other scientific writers saying that Darwinism was fundamentally healthy, and that scientists had the remaining problems well under control. There was a contradiction here, and it looked as though there was an effort to keep the outside world from becoming aware of the serious intellectual difficulties.
What are some of the intellectual difficulties? Can you give an example?
The most important is the fossil problem, because this is a direct record of the history of life on earth. If Darwinism were true, you would expect the fossil evidence to contain many examples of Darwinian evolution. You would expect to see fossils that really couldn't be understood except as transitions between one kind of organism and another. You would also expect to see some of the common ancestors that gave birth to different groups like fish and reptiles. You wouldn't expect to find them in every case, of course. It's perfectly reasonable to say that a great deal of the fossil evidence has been lost. But you would continually be finding examples of things that fit well with the theory.
In reality, the fossil record is something that Darwinists have had to explain away, because what it shows is the sudden appearance of organisms that exhibit no trace of step-by-step development from earlier forms. And it shows that once these organisms exist, they remain fundamentally unchanged, despite the passage of millions of years-and despite climatic and environmental changes that should have produced enormous Darwinian evolution if the theory were true. In short, if evolution is the gradual, step-by-step transformation of one kind of thing into another, the outstanding feature of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution.
Drop dead brilliant, thats what Stephen Meyers called Philip Johnson. I watched many of his lectures, he is drop dead brilliant. I think the problem is based on trust. Many people simply trust scientist more than philosophers while some like me tend to trust philosophy more so i lean towards rejecting Darwinian thought. But its also important to understand that simpler organisms do emerge before more complex ones even within species. But I think that this was part of the plan. Simpler organisms feed on more simpler organisms and more complex organisms feed on less complex organiosms, its called the food chain. But because of the emergence of this trend there is some merit to try to link these by ASSUMING that simpler organisms evolved to more complex organisms with humans coming last. But this link remains just an assumption and here is where Darwinist go wrong. Darwinist try to fill these assumptions by creating a linkage between these organisms based on evolution. There is NO evidence of that. Just because the genes seem to also follow this trend is meaningless. Genes are supposed to be similar to each other based on physical charectristics and if these organisms emerged that way with simpler organisms existed before more complex organisms than of course the genes will show that trend.
What you need to show is
-
How do organisms add information into their genes that enables them to add features in their physical make up not contained in their initial gene make up? No answer
-
What natural cause can enable a species to identify beneficial physical attributes among the various possibilities and what forces can maintain these advantages and benefits for a long duration of time? No answer
-
What observations and scientific hypothesis do we have to indicate these processes are even possible or scientifically explainable? No answer
-
What are the realistic odds for these processes to have occurred with only natural causes? Infinity
-
Does Darwinism have the same kind of scientific foundations you find in other science disciplines and is the theory treated with the same scientific vigor as other theories of science? No
-
Is the scientifc support of Darwinism based on science or scientist? Scientist
Sorry for the amateurish way I laid it out but its just me talking about how I understand the debate and why I reject Darwinian theory of evolution.
Some Koranist look at the Koranic verses as evidence of Darwinian theory, maybe. Maybe it is true, but it is not scientifically explainable. In fact science seems to go AGAINST the theory. Those who wih to defend Darwinian theory based on their Koranic interpretation need to seperate science from that. Science is not based on what did ocurred or not but what is the scientific evidence. We know the sun shines and gives out heat, thats not science. Why does it does so and how, thats something that sciece tries to explain. We know clouds bring forth rain, thats not science, how it does that and why is science.
At least thats how I see this debate. Philip Johnson is correct in my opinion of how Darwinist use deception. Sunnis do these things all the time and we all here know that. The need to defend something because of your religious beliefs and personal needs is very strong. How many people here will trust a Sunni discourse about the Koranist? Is that information honest and complete and truly reflective of the facts?
-
-
Peace "Bigmo",
Your article shows youve not yet gone through my reply. First of all i made clear that Michael Behe beleives in ape-men evolution and common descent as a whole. He just claims that the very first cells werre IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Promotion_of_irreducible_complexity_and_intelligent_design
Secondly regarding Dawkins being stumped THTS A MISREPRESENTATION AT BEST AND A LIE AT WORST by the creationists. Here go check this out on information increase
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsP0qSkCHbk
HERES the entire article where Dawkins clearly explains all of his views in detail
http//www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
I quote the first para here from Dawkins himself
"In September 1997, I(R. Dawkins) allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists - a thing I normally don't do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented."
Also watch this video on how evo can increase in information
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg
I urge u once again Bigmo u need to do a lot of reserach as uve been lied to just as ive been. The creationists propaganda is all over the place but theyr getting exposed every day. GOD Bless! -
Peasce again "Bigmo",
Most of the stuff put forward in your six questions has already been answered in the "index of creationists claims" at
http//talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
However id like to address them directly as well- How do organisms add information into their genes that enables them to add features in their physical make up not contained in their initial gene make up? No answer
JK- Mutations and genetic drift can change the traits significantly. On a side note all mutations occur within THE BOUNDS OF CHEMICAL LAWS setup by GOD in nature. So even those are not entirely random. Then theres natural selction in which should a certain trait popup via mutation or genetic drift enable the organism to survive better in the envirmnment it will be passed on and hence maintained. Again the environment MUST BE suitable to allow the DNA to further replicate. If you palce DNA on another planet it will not work. Hence the information IS IN NATURE, NOT JUST THE DNA. Thts the grandeur.
- What natural cause can enable a species to identify beneficial physical attributes among the various possibilities and what forces can maintain these advantages and benefits for a long duration of time? No answer
JK- The constants of the natural envirnment enable tht to a species. Remember that the muations too are limited by chamical laws and from those it is selcted by various environmental factors i.e. air pressure, gravity, humidity, EVEN OTHER EXISTING SPECIES etc. The whole unvierse is one big program. You gotta rid yourself of the idea that even a sand or rock is random and only DNA stuff is Divinely inspired. There are His laws operating on every level.
- What observations and scientific hypothesis do we have to indicate these processes are even possible or scientifically explainable? No answer
JK- Please watch the videos i posted in my other message to you.
- What are the realistic odds for these processes to have occurred with only natural causes? Infinity
JK- As i mentioned earlier with the constants of the environment fixed this is bound to happen. Think of it like an engineer who instead of assembling a vehicle piece by peice, throws out particles in such a calculated manner that they self assemble themslves over time into a marvellously complex vehicle as planned.
- Does Darwinism have the same kind of scientific foundations you find in other science disciplines and is the theory treated with the same scientific vigor as other theories of science? No
JK- YES it is and 99.9% of all biologists in the world accept evolution because of the evidence. Infact no other theory, not even the big bang, has that much evidence to back itself up as evolution. Please read through
http//talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/- Is the scientifc support of Darwinism based on science or scientist? Scientist
JK- SCIENCE absolutely. Plz see above evidence. GOD Bless!
-
The collapse of the evolution
http//www.harunyahya.tv/videoDetail/Lang/4/Product/1245/THE_COLLAPSE_OF_EVOLUTIONFossils Have Discredited Evolution
http//www.harunyahya.tv/videoDetail/Lang/4/Product/4093/FOSSILS_HAVE_DISCREDITED_EVOLUTIONThanks for the links above. The video by the name "collapse of evolution", really collapses the fake theory of evolution. The video has solid arguments that no one has been able or been dared to challenge yet. And that is because the truth can't be beaten. The truth is like an undisputed warrior.
-
http//www.submission.org/quran/app31.html
-
Peace all peace
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with jonny_k on all his points. Evolution by natural selection is supported by a lot of evidence.
Please check this short video to have some misconceptions addressed http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8
Peace.
-
Peace,
Here is what I think
Man is also an ape looking kinda species that evoluted over the ages, eons as per the changes that occured to the earth. So evolution is correct! Darwin is correct. The problem here lies in our undersatnding only. we do not quite understand waht he has said. Even today, you will observe that even the pysical appearance of humans are changing, evoluting. One significant aspect is the bodily hair. Most human now are going bald quite soon., that means as time passes by there will be less hair on human body. Maybe, that's cos of the earth's warming up!
Godbless!
-
Humans have some sort of superiority complex that stops them from believing that they could have ever been "lowly apes."
Sad that we have to impede science so that some people can feel good about themselves.
By the way, Philip Johnson is not a scientist, and has no idea what science is (like Behe). All have their arguements have been adressed YEARS ago but they keep posting them everywhere.Johnson even made a "think tank" (as if any thinking goes on in there) called the Discovery Institute that attempts to knock down evolution. The problem is that you cant fight something like evolution using half baked ideas. Sorry if I sound harsh, but Johnson really ticks me off.
-
Humans have some sort of superiority complex that stops them from believing that they could have ever been "lowly apes."
Sad that we have to impede science so that some people can feel good about themselves.
By the way, Philip Johnson is not a scientist, and has no idea what science is (like Behe). All have their arguements have been adressed YEARS ago but they keep posting them everywhere.Johnson even made a "think tank" (as if any thinking goes on in there) called the Discovery Institute that attempts to knock down evolution. The problem is that you cant fight something like evolution using half baked ideas. Sorry if I sound harsh, but Johnson really ticks me off.
I think we got the message that you don't like him rotfl rotfl