Comments on: Real Scientists Tour The Creation Museum

By: Phosphoros

Phosphoros — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:53:17 +0000

RESPONSE TO THE CREATIONIST LIES:
The Creationists have a very special combination of ignorance and pedantry that features distinct from other pseudo-scientific. First mix all, as if the same thing: Big-bang, Abiogénesis and Biological Evolution. Then, from one course to another course, pseudo-scientific pseudo-scientific, and finally scientific texts Transliterate, taking them out of context to say what they want to say. Of course, thinking that all these tactics are misrepresentation of real science.
The Big Bang as the Abiogénesis and biological evolution are completely different things. The First and Third are properly tested scientific theory, however, is the second phase of scientific hypothesis, with a set of assumptions Rivales compete with each other. The only common thread they have is the philosophy of that party: naturalist, materialist, mechanistic and transformed. But, of course, that creationists do not know, or deliberately ignored. I doubt very much that teach in the Church, in Sunday schools or universities Creationists.
The Big Bang Theory has the following evidence: large-scale homogeneity, Hubble diagram (Expansion of the Universe), cosmic background microwave radiation, fluctuations in the cosmic background microwave radiation, Light element abundance, Structure Long Scale of the Universe, Age of the Stars, Time dilation in the Brightness of Supernovae, Evolution and Distribution of Galaxies, etc …. Introducing the following problems: Horizon, Flatness, Age of globular clusters, Magnetic monopoles, dark matter and dark energy, etc …
Scenario Abiogenética tries to explain the origin of organisms from non living matter and has the following models (none of which requires a “supernatural being”): Miller-Urey, Fox, Eigen, Wachstershauser, World RNA world of Iron-Sulfur, Bubbles, Autocatálisis, Clay, Gold, World of lipids, polyphosphates, Ecopoiesis, Panspermia, etc … Very few scientists, like Nasif Nahle of Biology Cabinet Organization, Abiogénesis think that evolution and are same, because they consider that the first would involve the chemical evolution. While Creationists “Scientific” Creationists and Intelligent Design, insists not have anything to do with spontaneous generation of antiquity.
For more than pseudo-scientific Creationists say it, the slow pace of geological change could not have been sufficient to produce the present diversity of organisms in a period between 6,000 and 10,000 years, (no matter how many “created kinds” or baramines is up) the age of the earth and the universe as many Creationists “Scientists” (Morris & Witcomb, 1961, Morris, 1970-1974; Barnes, 1971; Humphreys, 1989, etc …), as are the alleged “apparent age” that God Judeo-Christian gave the universe, alleged flaws in radiometric dating, the growth rate of world population, if the Earth’s magnetic field decay, the alleged decline in the speed of light, the deposition of ocean sediments and geology “diluvial” the impossible in order hydrodynamic fossils, etc … The techniques of modern geology to estimate ages confirm that the age of the Earth is between 4.200-4.600 billion years old, more than enough time to cover the development of modern forms of life from primitive ancestors. According to Schopf (1968), the oldest fossils of organisms that have an apparent cellular structure has been dated at 3200 million years and were found in Onwerwacht Series of South Africa, consisting of bars (the type of bacteria) and spheroids (of type of Cyanophyta) coal, which are preserved in flint and other fine-grained sedimentary rocks. In the Gunflint formation Ferrífera of Ontario, Canada, which has a length of about 1900 million years (Precambrian and lower middle) found the type of structures Cyanophyta (some of which are stromatolites) and structures such as those bacteria. In the formation of Bitter Springs in Central Australia, with an age of 1000 million years have been some fossil eukaryote, which appears to be algae and fungi. Fauna oldest multicellular animals is known is that of EDIAC Hills, in South Australia, about 680-700 million years (Upper Precambrian), which consists of a fully soft bodied animals, some of which are very similar to present or celenterados (medusoides and Pennatulacea), annelids, echinoderms and bodies of unknown affinity.
On the Theory of Biological Evolution I will make a short list (though I doubt you understand):
I. Evolution is a unifying concept of biology: The Theory of Evolution (Lat. Evolve: unrolling or deployment), enables us to understand the immense variety of life forms that exist on the planet. Evolution is the cumulative change in the characteristics of populations or organisms, which appears in the course of successive generations related by descent. The Theory of Evolution is the origin of all forms of organisms that now exist and opposes the religious myth of Special Creation, which says that each “kind” (Baramin) agency was created supernaturally and as such is not, by therefore related by descent with any other. Establishing a difference between the old concepts of evolution and the scientific study, relatively modern, the mechanisms of evolution (gradual, Saltacionismo and neutral).
1. Lamarque (1809): according to Count Jean Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829), the characters acquired during the development of an organism are inherited. It was thought then that in plants these changes were the result of the direct effects of the environment. In animals, a change in the environment cause a change in the needs of the animal, causing the production of new structures to meet those needs. Further development of these structures or their disappearance after many generations was explained by the theory of use and disuse. Unfortunately for this hypothesis, the effects of the use and disuse are restricted to the somatic tissues, so it was discarded.
2. Darwinism(1858-1859): Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882) & Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913), independently proposed the same theory on the origin of species by natural selection produced by the action of slight variations of different kinds selection, therefore, those species best adapted to survive.
2.1. Artificial selection: original part of a few species of useful plants and animals, human beings have produced great number and variety of races selected by the breeding and reproduction of those individuals who possessed the most valuable.
2.2. Natural Selection: It is the essential part of the Darwinian explanation of the causes of evolution, and is based on the following propositions:
A. Overproduction of offspring: Each species produces more offspring that can survive to maturity. Because of its exponential increase in the number of individuals of a species tends to be extremely large but the population remains roughly constant, remaining the number of individuals of each species nearly stationary under normal conditions, because the disease, competition, climate, etc …, eliminate a lot of individuals, which shows that much of the offspring in each generation should perish.
B. Variability and Change: Among all individuals and species variations exist, all ranks, among the offspring. Given this variation, some individuals are better equipped for the struggle for existence than others.
C. Competition or “Struggle for Existence”: As more individuals are produced that can survive, among them competition for food and space. The struggle for existence is the result of the high rate of reproduction of most organisms, with little variation in individuals adapted to natural conditions are eliminated, while those who have played and continue to exist favorable. There is competition among offspring for resources essential for life, eg food, space, habitat. The success of this struggle for existence must decide which survive and which disappear.
E. Survival to reproduce or transmit hereditary characteristics: The offspring with the combination of the most favorable conditions are to survive and reproduce, passing on those characteristics of the next generation. Natural selection, or the action of the environment on inherited variations that will result in the preservation of individuals with favorable variations and the elimination of those with unfavorable variations. The less gifted, as most will die young, unable to reproduce.
2.3. Sexual selection: that the competition in the choice of partner, eg fights between males, females exercised by choice, etc … will determine who favored the union.
3. Neolamarquism: modification of the evolutionary hypothesis of Lamarck, which asserts that the characters are inherited the principle of specific differences. Was held, inter alia, by Trofim D. Lysenko (1898-1976) in the former Soviet Union against the “Bourgeoisie Darwin”, supported first by Stalin and then by Khrushchev, but when the latter was deposed, the Soviet leaders re classical genetics and Neodarwinismo.
4. Neodarwinism or Synthetic Theory of Evolution (Julian Huxley, 1942) are well known to modern interpretations of Darwinism, based on that knowledge to combine the theory of natural selection with Mendel’s laws, the Chromosome Theory of Inheritance The Population Dynamics and Molecular Biology.
A. Laws of Mendel (1866): announced by Gregor Johann Mendel (1822-1884) are the governing characteristics of living things.
a. Mendel’s first law (Law of Segregation): asserts that Alelomorfos are segregated. Are segregated in meiosis members of the pairs of homologous chromosomes and halves the number of chromosomes passing to each gamete.
b. Mendel’s Second Law (Law of Settlement Independent): The random distribution of the alleles of the gametes. In fertilization, the random union of 2 gametes of different sex, meet the crew of chromosomes (and therefore genes) from the 2 parents, leading to production of individuals with different gene combinations.
B. Chromosome Theory of Heredity (Walter Theodor Boveri & Sutton, 1902): The chromosomes, which are filamentous bodies that consist of DNA and protein in cell nuclei containing all genes ultramicroscópicos arranged linearly, from which depends the development of character of an individual.
C. Mechanisms that introduce variability in the DNA which can be:
C.1. Mutations: gene mutations show that the changes of a gene from one allelic form to another, or heritable changes in the sequence of chromosomal DNA (chromosomal rearrangements also occur), both processes have resulted in alterations of the envelope gene (and therefore of characters) that are transmitted to succeeding generations. The gene is altered from the previous alelomórfico. Mutations can be:
d. Point mutation or gene: 1 affecting single nitrogenous base (only 1 nucleotide) which are produced by substitution (or Transitional Transversión), insertion or deletion.
e. Multi-site mutations or chromosomal they affect the structure of the chromosome in regions more or less extensive, are produced by duplication, Investment Deletion or Translocation.
f. Genomic Mutations or karyotypic they affect the number of chromosomes due to errors during the formation of gametes.
C.2. Mobile genetic elements: DNA sequences are capable of moving from one cell to another, even between different species, or within a cell, and multiply them by:
d. Viruses: Viruses are able to insert its genetic material into the genome of the host cell by altering its structure, eg, provirus, Oncovirus, etc …
e. Bacterial plasmid: small circular DNA segments capable of autorreplicarse the same way as the bacterial chromosome.
f. Genetic Elements Transpose, transposons or jumping genes: discrete DNA sequences that can move to other areas of the genome of the cell, randomly inserted sequences, or intergenerational regulatory genes. May be bacterial or eukaryotic transposons.
C.3. Emergence of new functional genes: sometimes happens that a single gene causes early during evolution of a multigene family located on different chromosomes.
D. Population genetics: evolution occurs whenever there is a change in gene frequency (allele) of the population, even if the change has no visible effect.
E. Natural Selection: The Evolution by Natural Selection has been produced by mutation, not by direct mutation, natural selection eliminates many mutations are harmful, but preserves that are useful .. Most mutations are deleterious, disrupting the mechanism of embryonic development of the organism, but a small group of them are really the raw material of evolutionary change.
F. Gradualism: The great changes that occur during speciation (macroevolution) are the result of minor changes that accumulate over long periods (microevolution).
5. Neutralist theory of molecular evolution (Motoo Kimura, 1967): The mutations are harmless pieces that the genome acquired over time. These are harmless genes spread across the population through random genetic drift. Since they do not alter the functioning of proteins, beyond the effects of natural selection.
6. Theory of punctuated equilibrium (Niles Eldredge & Stephen Jay Gould, 1972): The lines change little during most of its history, but this calm is occasionally punctuated by rapid speciation.
II. Evidence of Evolution: the concept of evolution is a cornerstone of biology and well-grounded.
A. Paleontology: Fossils are remains or traces of animals and plants disappeared. Groups, with transitional forms, such as plants, Progimnospermas and Pteridospermas (transitional forms between pteridophytes and gymnosperms), Las Benettitales, Pentoxylales and Caytoniales (shapes which relate to the Gymnosperms and Angiosperms) in animals The Crosopterigios and Ichthyostégidos (with transitional forms between fish and amphibians), the Antracosaurios and Seymouriamorfos (intermediate forms between reptiles and amphibians), the Therapsidos (which are called “reptiles mamiferoides” for obvious reasons), the Maniraptores and Arqueornitas (with a clear transition Reptilian-Ave), etc …
As far as the persistent or pancrónicas (the “living fossils”), as B. Melendez (1977), firstly, they have changed, but little, and in them the speed of evolution has been lower than in other organisms. Second, evolved very rapidly, before reaching the state where they are. The reality is that evolution is not constant for different systematic groups, either for yourself over time.
B. Comparative anatomy and morphology: if the agencies are in fact linked, it is logical to assume that the more closely the relationship between any two species, the greater the number of common characteristics that they possess.
1. Counterpart bodies (Gr. Homos: same + layman speak): When we found in various body structures that have the same origin and identical structural roots in the development, and are built using the same basic plan, saying that such bodies are homologous OQUE possess homologous similarity, without considering whether they are similar in appearance, or performing similar functions. Homology is a fundamental similarity, structural equality of an organ or part in a class of organisms compared to other unit, which is a community of ancestors.
2. Similar bodies (Gr. Analogy: Relation): When different agencies are structures that look the same and have similar functions but differ in structural plan and its origin, we say that showers are analogous structures, or who have similar similarities. The analogy is the similarity of traits or external functions, but no plan or structural origin.
3. Bodies vestigiales (Lat. Vestigium: fingerprint or other): These are small bodies degenerate, but that correspond to organs, once useful, they were fully developed, which have ceased to be, which is proven by the fact that homologous organs those are still depending on other related agencies.
C. The Comparative Embryology: The embryology, the study of the stages of development of individual organisms, but is a special branch of biology, is closely related to comparative anatomy. The issues covered and the evidence provided by the embryology are divided into 2 categories:
C. The Comparative Embryology: The embryology, the study of the stages of development of individual organisms, but is a special branch of biology, is closely related to comparative anatomy. The issues covered and the evidence provided by the embryology are divided into 2 categories:
1). The similarities between embryos of different groups and the similarities between groups of embryos “superior” and adult groups “inferior.” The similarity between embryos of different animals is the closest resemblance between the adult animals.
2). Some characters are preserved in the ancestral ontogeny of descendants, this persistence can be an aid in the interpretation of evolutionary relationships.
The accumulation of genetic changes in organisms from diverse evolution modifies the pattern of development in embryos of higher vertebrates.
D. Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Comparative Physiology: The fundamental similarities between the physiological properties and functions of organisms, provide evidence for evolution.
l). Serum is more similar to vertebrates coming in distant vertebrates.
2). The sequence of amino acids in proteins such as hemoglobin and cytochromes show greater similarity in species nearby.
3). The largest proportion of the nucleotide sequences of DNA is identical in closely related organisms.
4). The universality of the genetic code is a decisive evidence to assert that all living things are related. The few exceptions confirm important events, such as the generation of the eukaryotic cell by endosimbiosis (Theory Endosimbiótica of Lynn Margulis, 1970).
E. Taxonomy: the assignment of organisms to the taxonomic categories, it is not arbitrary, is based on the fact that different species have characteristics in common, more or less numerous, and can be assembled in small groups or large, according to degree of relationship homologies determined by other means.
F. Ecology: the adaptation of organisms to particular patterns of life, have 2 points, on the one hand, there is perfection in a great many functions and adaptive structures, and the other species are observed imperfectly adapted to their environment or without adaptive features would be desirable.
G. Biogeography: The animal and plant species are not universally shared, and hardly any one species is in all parts of the world where conditions are appropriate for their existence. The geographical distribution of organisms, is not arbitrary, but reflects a pattern, and it supports evolution.
1). Areas that have been separated from the rest of the world for a long time, have a flora and fauna of these specific areas (endemic).
2). Each species is created only once (as their home).
3). From this center of origin, the species expands until a stop barrier.
III. Conclusion: The vast majority of biologists, serious, accept the theory of Darwin-Wallace as the best general explanation of evolution. Disagree mainly due to better understanding of some key biological processes, unknown at the time, but discovered by recent research, such as neutrality and punctuated equilibrium, but the fact of evolution in itself.
For more than Creationists strive to the contrary, the terms evolution and Darwinism are not necessarily synonymous, although they are often used as such, many biologists reserved for the second explanation given by Darwin of the causes of evolution.
Intelligent Design is a recycling of the English theologian William Paley, creator of the famous analogy of the maker of watches, “If we find a pocket watch in a field, Paley wrote in 1802 – we can immediately infer that it was not produced by natural processes acting blindly but by a designer human intellect. By the same token, he reasoned, the natural world contains abundant evidence of a supernatural creator. “To be finalized, I should say that both the logical fallacies of the universe well tuned, the irreducible complexity of biochemistry Michael J. Behe (1993) Specific and complex information of William A. Dembski, have been widely challenged by scientists like Ken Miller and Francis J. Ayala, among many others. The “intelligent design” is just an imaginary creature that lives in the minds of the followers of “Delirio Ininteligente.
The creations are deeply dishonest and liars, first wanted to prohibit the Theory of Evolution, then said that creationism is a science, then admitted it is a religion, but arguing that evolution is a religion of “Atheist Dogma-materialist,” and finally invented the monstrosity of Intelligent Design. Moving from a “hand, robbed of drowning” to another. They go to the four winds advocating the “fall of the evolution,” counting one by one the “scientific” dissidents to “Darwinian Orthodoxy”, and Mint shamelessly to the faithful of their churches, saying that there is a greater consensus among scientists “supporting Intelligent Design, Creation and the Flood Special Universal. Or talk of failure in convincing the courts of the United States.
Creationists are liars, and the only thing that interests them is faithful gather to sell books, collect their tithing, and visit their “Museum of Creation.”
But in the end (as I have written many blogs), the Creationists have reason, as the principal scientific”evidence”against the evolution in general and humans in particular, can be found at: Genesis 2 , 7”Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the earth, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man was living”, because in the minds of creationists instead found much Brain, but much powder …

PS: This reply, I’m already standardized, more or less modifications to Blogs and personal emails, replying to lies and half truths of the Creationists in general, and I must say that so far none has responded satisfactorily, except with a lot of religious and pseudo-scientific jargon.

Phosphoros

By: orangetiki

orangetiki — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:00:32 +0000

“It’s sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn’t it?” Jerry Lipps

That line is an instant classic. +2 kudos to that guy

By: algore

algore — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:56:29 +0000

It’s still a free country so if you don’t like it or disagree then stay the fuck out. Go visit the dildo and museum in San Francisco instead.

By: soundwash

soundwash — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:26:49 +0000

actually, it has more to do with
intermingling (somewhat rolling) magnetic fields and resonance.
-as in the concentrated magnetic ribbon around the edge (center) of the milky way.

-s

By: bobbo, always the peacemaker

bobbo, always the peacemaker — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:59:50 +0000

Heres an interesting view by Steven Hawkings that early earthers and scientists can discuss to mutual benefit: We must include transmission of information outside of DNA as part of the evolutionary process.

http://dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/07/stephen-hawking-the-planet-has-entered-a-new-phase-of-evolution.html

By: Cap'nKangaroo

Cap'nKangaroo — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:31:32 +0000

#45 Whew! We’re going to whiz by the galactic center later this year? Wonder what it will look like? When will we see all those pretty stars? Why can’t we see any new ones with our naked eyes already? If we’re moving into a whole new neighborhood (galactic wise) why hasn’t there been a great change in the stars we now see? Some of these must already be undergoing this shift you seem to refer to, so shouldn’t some of the stars be changing? If their gravity changes, then their density will change, meaning they will burn brighter or darker or possibly even go nova? Shouldn’t we see evidence of these changes already?

If, on the other hand, you weren’t serious about your post, then let me say “Ya got me!”.

By: rick

rick — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:23:32 +0000

so, what is their complaint? I think the museum is silly but why go? Just so they can have an excuse to bitch and complain?

By: ddacey

ddacey — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:15:25 +0000

If Sarah Palen is ever elected President of the United States by those who believe this museum actually makes any sense, then the rest of you who live in the US will have to forgive the world for being put in a position of labelling the US a rogue nuclear state and demanding the complete nuclear disarmament of the US and a significant scaling back of its conventional military forces.

Having these kinds of people in power would be a bigger threat to world peace then the Soviet Union ever was. Religious extremists with no grip on reality and one of the worlds largest nuclear and conventional stockpiles is a frightening prospect for those of us who don’t believe in dinosaurs with saddles on them and don’t live in the bible belt of the US.

Dan

By: Gary, the dangerous infidel

Gary, the dangerous infidel — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:48:04 +0000

qb, on your list of evil bastards, don’t forget to include the iconic Father of the Reformation himself, Martin Luther. He gave inspiration to people like Hitler, who even gave him credit in Mein Kampf as one of the great reformers.

Of course, some of what Luther advocated concerning what should be done with the Jews is rather bone-chilling. You can read about it in Luther’s famous book on the subject…

Naturally, Luther justified all of his proposals, even including violence against the Jews to “drive them out like mad dogs” with his love for Jesus Christ and the need to defend his Savior from the many blasphemies and vices of the Jews.

It would seem that a fair amount of the credit for the worst offenses of the Third Reich has to go to Creationists, not Evolutionists after all. Beware the Creationist who feels his Creator needs defending.

By: qb

qb — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 06:53:48 +0000

Wow, Glenn E, you really made me take another look at Mein Kampf.

“The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator.”

“It was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God’s Creation and God’s Will.”

“Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They’ve occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey — assuming that this transformation really took place. They’ve occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey — assuming that this transformation really took place.”

Hitler doubted evolution? Hitler a creationist?

Sorry to say, I don’t think he really was a Christian, do you? He does use the word “evolution” once – I’ll leave that an exercise for you. Maybe you should actually read Hitler’s writings yourself and think for yourself.

By: qb

qb — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 06:23:06 +0000

#42 Glenn E

In nearly all the matters in which the Pan-German movement was wanting, the attitude of the Christian Social Party was correct and well-planned.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf))

Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

I swear before God this holy oath, that I shall give absolute confidence to the Fuehrer of the German Reich and people.
-Heinrich Himmler

God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by God to save Germany.
-Hermann Goering

No matter what human beings do I shall some day stand before the judgement seat of the Eternal. I shall answer to Him, and I know he will judge me innocent.
-Rudolf Hess

Maybe we should just agree that these guys were a bunch of homicidal, paranoiac bastards. Hmmmmmm?

By: soundwash

soundwash — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 05:17:24 +0000

Unfortunately, the religious types might have the opportunity of a very brief last laugh on the science community if later this year, the geo/electromagnetic effects that have begun to effect our planet’s weather and plate tectonics, due our solar systems approach to the galactic center, gives rise to the realization that the gravity based theory of universe is *completely wrong* and the universe is in fact, completely Electrical and Plasma based in nature.

This will also give rise to the fact that gravity is NOT a constant and that Spin (as in a spinning body) actually “does” create the effect of gravity and that mass, is not the only factor in determining “gravity”

Ultimately, this may expose the fact the huge dinosaurs could not possibly support themselves using the current physics models used to determine their weight.

-now, if one allows that gravity is not a constant, and that there was a bit less gravity pulling on these massive animals back then, (possibly because of a slightly slower spinning earth) these animals would have no problem supporting themselves, given their mass and size.

The current physics just don’t pencil out in relation to large dinosaurs and the their current assumed weight.

Religion will have a brief “Ha Ha” moment, but only because it has been the purposeful corruption of the modern sciences that has continued to lead us led astray.

However, in matters of corruption, religion, esp modern religion, is the supreme leader in the wholesale corruption humanity.

-for this, modern religions will *never* be forgiven.

Time will tell, hopefully sooner than later. -I wait patiently for that day.

-s

By: jccalhoun

jccalhoun — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:40:56 +0000

The Nazi had their own ideas, based heavily on Darwinism. And so they justified exterminating the Jews, as an exercise in Eugenics. So because the Nazis justified their murders on evolution that makes evolution bad? The Nazis also used mass transit to move the people they killed so does that make mass transit bad? Let's say that evolution has caused wars. Ok, then how does evolution cause famine and natural disasters? I’ve always had a problem with how evolution defies the Second Law of Thermo Dynamics. take two minutes to look it up and you might figure it out. Check our the DVD of the movie “Expelled”. Your public library system should have it. It’s far more educational than “Ice Age 3″. and then go to Expelled Exposed and see why Expelled is just as fictional and unscientific as a movie that has talking mammals interacting with dinosaurs.

By: Glenn E.

Glenn E. — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:44:08 +0000

I went thru grade school back in the 60s. And I can still remember being confused by having both the concept of the primitive cavemen, in my head. And the Biblical story of Adam and Eve. They seemed to be at odds with each other. They couldn’t both be true. So why was the public school system out to defy religious teachings? Why did they think it was their duty, to come up with an opposing story of the origin of man? Who the hell asked them to?!

Seems like a faction of avowed atheists took it upon themselves. Probably because of all the religious based morals laws, that inconvenienced the atheists’ bohemian lifestyle. Usually the most prominent atheists are men of wealth and power. Big surprise. Their idea of Darwinism is that since they achieve great wealth, it’s because they evoluted to the top of society. Sheer luck at backing the right horse, never had anything to do with it. Nor stabbing their competitors in the back, or bribing the right politicians. Yeah, that all sounds about right for evoluted superior ethics and behavior. Is it a good thing that America’s founding fathers weren’t atheist evolutionists (or whatever cabal of atheists they had back then).

By: Glenn E.

Glenn E. — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:18:20 +0000

“University of Akron paleontology professor Lisa Park was moved to tears as she walked down a hallway displaying flashing images of war, famine and natural disasters that the museum blames on belief in evolution.”

Well, it’s true! The Nazi had their own ideas, based heavily on Darwinism. And so they justified exterminating the Jews, as an exercise in Eugenics. But cleansing themselves of the defective race, that was dragging them down. Except, of course, for the ones they counted on to design their V2 rockets. Sorry if this upsets the sensibilities of evolutionists, out for a lark at the museum. They’re mighty thin-skinned. What were they expecting? A bunch of displays on a sixth grader level?

Apparently, while visiting this museum, in order to ridicule its exhibits, these scientists were shocked at how good they were, at presenting their side. Possibly better than many museums of Nature History, which favor Darwinism. But they didn’t want to admit that, so they rework their displeasure into the rank we see at the article’s beginning. As if they are saying, “How dare these creationists have the nerve to present their interpretation in a public museum”. And let’s face it. Presenting it in a far more entertaining way than the evolutionary model does. Let’s see. All this stuff happens after millions of years pass by, with little results. BORING! Got speaks and there’s new life. Schwing! See how that’s more interesting?

I’ve always had a problem with how evolution defies the Second Law of Thermo Dynamics. Stretching change out to millions of years, to get around the law, is just plain stupid reasoning. If anything, more time makes higher organizations, less likely. Darwin didn’t know about DNA. If he did, he would have thrown in the towel. Because it’s never been demonstrated how something so complex could possibly happen by chance. Or make itself even more complex over time. But this is the thread that the evolutionists have been clinging to. Never abandoning this obsolete, pre-DNA, concept of life. Only patching it up to keep it afloat.

Millions of people may very well suffer because of Darwinism. Failure to acknowledge an intelligent design of DNA, may severely delay the development of medical cures for diseases. Oh, but preserving Evolution is more important than saving lives. So screw all the sick people of the world. If DNA studies threaten the little dictatorship of Darwinists.

Check our the DVD of the movie “Expelled”. Your public library system should have it. It’s far more educational than “Ice Age 3″.