DNA Proves Evolutionary Theory is Wrong!

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You know what? I really don't care what all you naysayers think. Someone found what I posted to be informative. That's good enough for me. You see. I don't care if any of you think I'm correct. I'm trying to save souls. If I can save just one, then I could face my Creator without shame. You can mock me all you like. Actually I prefer that you do, since you wouldn't hate me if I wasn't living for Christ...whom you all hate.

Of course you don’t care, you’re closed minded and willfully ignorant.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A YouTube video by a fundamentalist loon?

Meyer graduated Cum Laude in 1981 with a B.S. degree double major in Physics and Earth Science and a minor in Philosophy from Whitworth College.[1] After graduating, he worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO)[7] for four years in digital signal processing and seismic survey interpretation[1] and received the ARCO Civic Action Program Leadership Award[1] in 1984.

In 1986 he received a Rotary International Scholarship Award to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom where he earned a PhD in History and Philosophy of Science in 1991.[2] Areas of focus included the history of molecular biology, the history of physics, and evolutionary theory.[1] Meyer's dissertation was entitled Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies.[2]

After completing his PhD program at Cambridge, Meyer taught on the philosophy of science at Whitworth University as an Associate Professor of Philosophy for twelve years (1990-2002) and was tenured in 1996.[1][8] He also taught as a university professor (2002-2005) at Palm Beach Atlantic University.[2] He left his tenured position as a professor at Whitworth in 2002 to direct the Center for Science and Culture full time, which he had helped found with John West in 1996.[3]

You're a bit confused regarding your YouTube video. Hit the start button and you'll see it was produced by Carl Gallups. Oops.


Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Carl gallups




PPSIMMONS is – or rather was, since it was closed in April 2012 due to repeated copyright infringements – an absolutely insane Youtube channel whose main contributor is legendary internet kook Pastor Carl Gallups. Gallups’s contributions (and website) are generally devoted to young earth creationism and Biblical literalism. To emphasize how out of touch with sanity they are they also have segments about the nefarious influence of Satan and witches, as well as birtherism (Obama is also the anti-Christ, which would presumably entail that he is not a citizen) and global warming denialism (AGW is a “profit-driven scam,” though it is always a little unclear who, exactly, profits from it).

One of Gallups’s main arguments for creationism is that all scientists recognize design, and since they recognize design in nature, young earth creationism is true and there really is no theory of evolution (duh!). As is typical of crackpots, all critical comments to any of their material are quickly erased and the author blocked from further comments. Gallups is also a supporter of the Question Evolution campaign.

Some of his arguments are presented in his book The Magic Man in the Sky, which was duly pimped by the WND. The basic idea is that there’s a world of difference between someone declaring a momentary truth, and the actual “true truth,” and he argues forcefully that scientists “throughout history have a less-than-stellar trackrecord of accuracy,” and therefore religion (i.e. Gallups) is correct. Among his convincing examples is his idea (false, as it happens) that people back in the days generally believed that the Earth was flat and “held up at the four corners by giant elephants.” Of course, he fails to notice that such and similar ideas were hardly adopted on the bases of scientific inquiry but rather issued by the dogma of various religions. But you know. Apparently WND was so convinced that they have later returned to Gallups as an expert on evolution, for instance to comment on the perceived fact that the theory of evolution is about to collapse.

He does have some novel arguments though there is a reason why they haven’t been used before.

Diagnosis: More exasperatingly idiotic mindfuckery, though Gallups is unsurprisingly a hero of WND and Conservapedia – in short, he seems to have some impact among those who are already completely lost to reason and accountability.

OK. Wrong video. I had several windows open. The educational background was for a scientist who disagrees with evolution. In any case, regardless of who produced this video, can you refute any of it? I'm no scientist, but how do you explain the information required to accomplish everything discussed in the video? Oh, that's right. You think it was all an accident. LOL!

Put down the videos and research the facts for a change.

 

[Lutroo]

You know what? I really don't care what all you naysayers think. Someone found what I posted to be informative. That's good enough for me. You see. I don't care if any of you think I'm correct. I'm trying to save souls. If I can save just one, then I could face my Creator without shame. You can mock me all you like. Actually I prefer that you do, since you wouldn't hate me if I wasn't living for Christ...whom you all hate.

Of course you don’t care, you’re closed minded and willfully ignorant.

That's your opinion. Everyone has one. And just like something else everyone has, it stinks.

 

[IsaacNewton]

One of the mainstays of conservative thought is "this one authority agrees with me so he overrides the 10,000 authorities you have".

People that are not educated generally have a small circle of friends and this small circle comes to some conclusion that they all agree on and in their minds that makes it factually true. It doesn't matter if a list of facts refutes it, they will defend their group-think to the end.

 

[Capstone]

...Someone found what I posted to be informative. That's good enough for me. ...

Uh, regarding some of the "informative" ratings of the original post, ... I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

Why don't we asked the ones who gave me that rating?

Okay, ask me.

 

[Lutroo]

One of the mainstays of conservative thought is "this one authority agrees with me so he overrides the 10,000 authorities you have".

People that are not educated generally have a small circle of friends and this small circle comes to some conclusion that they all agree on and in their minds that makes it factually true. It doesn't matter if a list of facts refutes it, they will defend their group-think to the end.

...Someone found what I posted to be informative. That's good enough for me. ...

Uh, regarding some of the "informative" ratings of the original post, ... I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

Why don't we asked the ones who gave me that rating?

Okay, ask me.

For one thing, you did not rate my post informative.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why is it so important for the righteous to push against evolution and for mythology? What makes creationism and its twisted cousin 'Intellegent Design' a priority?

Is it arrogance? Are the righteous too proud to be called mammals? Are they so attached to one creation myth to be frightened of scientific endeavor? What of other creation myths? Is the magic of the righteous more powerful than all other's magic?

Is it hubris? Are the righteous so covetous of their status as homo sapiens that the very thought of connectivity to other species is anathema?

Why should the myth of Genesis be taught in science classes? Why should the myth of 'Intelligent Design', a myth that basically says some questions are just too hard to pursue, let alone answer, be taught as science?

Is the level of intellectual curiosity among the righteous so low that the pursuit of truth through scientific method is frightening? With that level of curiosity, it's a wonder mankind ever left the cave to see what is on the other side of the hill, let a.one leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.

I'm a Christian but my faith does not impose ecclesiastical blinders to science.

why should a lack of faith in the almighty creator god be prerequisite for the discussion of science? is science the state where there has to be a separation from the church, or does the first amendment cease to exist in a science book? how does that happen, anyways? you walk through the doorway of a laboratory and suddenly everything you believe vanishes away? perhaps a bell rings and you leave the lab and go through another doorway where in that room is a priest, would you remember anything about what happened in the lab just moments before when discussing your beliefs with the priest? hypothetically, that is?

Science is the pursuit of truth through hypothesis, experimentation, observation and repeatability. Faith in God requires, well, faith. Faith in things unseen. Faith in actions of grace.

Scientists do not exclude God from their personal lives, but they find no use for Him in the pursuit of scientific truth.

In my faith, I have faith in God, but that faith does not forbid me from finding truth in science.

Is it a responsible approach to believe in the musings of a Bronze Age philosopher to explain the natural world, or should we use the massive brain pan we were endowed with to find a true explanation?

 

[Ravi]

Wow

Did I go overboard? I don't think so. I always ask myself. Why is it that every time someone posts a thread about the Christian faith, or anything that opposes the theory of evolution, countless atheists jump in and ridicule the one who posted it. It stands to reason that if you do not believe in God, then you wouldn't spend so much time and effort trying to convince others. Why do you care if someone believes in God or not?

It isn't Christian faith that makes people believe batshit crazy things. Plenty of people of other faiths and of no faith at all believe batshit crazy things. There is some other reason.

One has to wonder why Atheists don't try to prove the Easter Bunny, or Santa Clause don't exist. Only God. Why is that?

Maybe because the Bunny and Santa don't try to legislate. Not that God does, God could give a fuck. It's his followers that try.

But you totally didn't respond to my point.

 

[Capstone]

For one thing, you did not rate my post informative.

Um...yes, I did. Read the list, Nutroll.

So did Ravi, BTW, and I suspeect for reasons similar to mine.

The original post is informative, after all; just not in the way you'd like it to be.

 

[Lutroo]

Why is it so important for the righteous to push against evolution and for mythology? What makes creationism and its twisted cousin 'Intellegent Design' a priority?

Is it arrogance? Are the righteous too proud to be called mammals? Are they so attached to one creation myth to be frightened of scientific endeavor? What of other creation myths? Is the magic of the righteous more powerful than all other's magic?

Is it hubris? Are the righteous so covetous of their status as homo sapiens that the very thought of connectivity to other species is anathema?

Why should the myth of Genesis be taught in science classes? Why should the myth of 'Intelligent Design', a myth that basically says some questions are just too hard to pursue, let alone answer, be taught as science?

Is the level of intellectual curiosity among the righteous so low that the pursuit of truth through scientific method is frightening? With that level of curiosity, it's a wonder mankind ever left the cave to see what is on the other side of the hill, let a.one leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.

I'm a Christian but my faith does not impose ecclesiastical blinders to science.

why should a lack of faith in the almighty creator god be prerequisite for the discussion of science? is science the state where there has to be a separation from the church, or does the first amendment cease to exist in a science book? how does that happen, anyways? you walk through the doorway of a laboratory and suddenly everything you believe vanishes away? perhaps a bell rings and you leave the lab and go through another doorway where in that room is a priest, would you remember anything about what happened in the lab just moments before when discussing your beliefs with the priest? hypothetically, that is?

Science is the pursuit of truth through hypothesis, experimentation, observation and repeatability. Faith in God requires, well, faith. Faith in things unseen. Faith in actions of grace.

Scientists do not exclude God from their personal lives, but they find no use for Him in the pursuit of scientific truth.

In my faith, I have faith in God, but that faith does not forbid me from finding truth in science.

Is it a responsible approach to believe in the musings of a Bronze Age philosopher to explain the natural world, or should we use the massive brain pan we were endowed with to find a true explanation?

How about using that massive brain pan to study Scripture, in order to appreciate it's truth and accuracy? Prophecy alone should convince anyone who's honest with themselves that the Bible has a supernatural origin.

 

[Lutroo]

For one thing, you did not rate my post informative.

Um...yes, I did. Read the list, Nutroll.

So did Ravi, BTW, and I suspeect for reasons similar to mine.

The original post is informative, after all; just not in the way you'd like it to be.

That;s funny. I reviewed my alerts, and your name isn't on there.

 

[IsaacNewton]

One of the mainstays of conservative thought is "this one authority agrees with me so he overrides the 10,000 authorities you have".

People that are not educated generally have a small circle of friends and this small circle comes to some conclusion that they all agree on and in their minds that makes it factually true. It doesn't matter if a list of facts refutes it, they will defend their group-think to the end.

...Someone found what I posted to be informative. That's good enough for me. ...

Uh, regarding some of the "informative" ratings of the original post, ... I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

Why don't we asked the ones who gave me that rating?

Okay, ask me.

For one thing, you did not rate my post informative.

Check back hourly, I'm working on it. And when it arrives you will be thrilled!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why is it so important for the righteous to push against evolution and for mythology? What makes creationism and its twisted cousin 'Intellegent Design' a priority?

Is it arrogance? Are the righteous too proud to be called mammals? Are they so attached to one creation myth to be frightened of scientific endeavor? What of other creation myths? Is the magic of the righteous more powerful than all other's magic?

Is it hubris? Are the righteous so covetous of their status as homo sapiens that the very thought of connectivity to other species is anathema?

Why should the myth of Genesis be taught in science classes? Why should the myth of 'Intelligent Design', a myth that basically says some questions are just too hard to pursue, let alone answer, be taught as science?

Is the level of intellectual curiosity among the righteous so low that the pursuit of truth through scientific method is frightening? With that level of curiosity, it's a wonder mankind ever left the cave to see what is on the other side of the hill, let a.one leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.

I'm a Christian but my faith does not impose ecclesiastical blinders to science.

why should a lack of faith in the almighty creator god be prerequisite for the discussion of science? is science the state where there has to be a separation from the church, or does the first amendment cease to exist in a science book? how does that happen, anyways? you walk through the doorway of a laboratory and suddenly everything you believe vanishes away? perhaps a bell rings and you leave the lab and go through another doorway where in that room is a priest, would you remember anything about what happened in the lab just moments before when discussing your beliefs with the priest? hypothetically, that is?

Science is the pursuit of truth through hypothesis, experimentation, observation and repeatability. Faith in God requires, well, faith. Faith in things unseen. Faith in actions of grace.

Scientists do not exclude God from their personal lives, but they find no use for Him in the pursuit of scientific truth.

In my faith, I have faith in God, but that faith does not forbid me from finding truth in science.

Is it a responsible approach to believe in the musings of a Bronze Age philosopher to explain the natural world, or should we use the massive brain pan we were endowed with to find a true explanation?

How about using that massive brain pan to study Scripture, in order to appreciate it's truth and accuracy? Prophecy alone should convince anyone who's honest with themselves that the Bible has a supernatural origin.

lol

Too funny.

 

[Capstone]

That;s funny. I reviewed my alerts, and your name isn't on there.

Just a glitch. Click on "List", which is just to the right of the ratings at the bottom of the original post. It's hard to see, but rest assured, it's there.

 

[Ozone]

Why is it so important for the righteous to push against evolution and for mythology? What makes creationism and its twisted cousin 'Intellegent Design' a priority?

Is it arrogance? Are the righteous too proud to be called mammals? Are they so attached to one creation myth to be frightened of scientific endeavor? What of other creation myths? Is the magic of the righteous more powerful than all other's magic?

Is it hubris? Are the righteous so covetous of their status as homo sapiens that the very thought of connectivity to other species is anathema?

Why should the myth of Genesis be taught in science classes? Why should the myth of 'Intelligent Design', a myth that basically says some questions are just too hard to pursue, let alone answer, be taught as science?

Is the level of intellectual curiosity among the righteous so low that the pursuit of truth through scientific method is frightening? With that level of curiosity, it's a wonder mankind ever left the cave to see what is on the other side of the hill, let a.one leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.

I'm a Christian but my faith does not impose ecclesiastical blinders to science.

why should a lack of faith in the almighty creator god be prerequisite for the discussion of science? is science the state where there has to be a separation from the church, or does the first amendment cease to exist in a science book? how does that happen, anyways? you walk through the doorway of a laboratory and suddenly everything you believe vanishes away? perhaps a bell rings and you leave the lab and go through another doorway where in that room is a priest, would you remember anything about what happened in the lab just moments before when discussing your beliefs with the priest? hypothetically, that is?

Science is the pursuit of truth through hypothesis, experimentation, observation and repeatability. Faith in God requires, well, faith. Faith in things unseen. Faith in actions of grace.

Scientists do not exclude God from their personal lives, but they find no use for Him in the pursuit of scientific truth.

In my faith, I have faith in God, but that faith does not forbid me from finding truth in science.

Is it a responsible approach to believe in the musings of a Bronze Age philosopher to explain the natural world, or should we use the massive brain pan we were endowed with to find a true explanation?

How about using that massive brain pan to study Scripture, in order to appreciate it's truth and accuracy? Prophecy alone should convince anyone who's honest with themselves that the Bible has a supernatural origin.

lol

Too funny.

what did jesus say about where the laws of god should be written? just seems interesting, doesn't it? inside a person's body is a kind of writing that makes life, and it's wonderful, so why spoil it?

 

[Nosmo King]

Why is it so important for the righteous to push against evolution and for mythology? What makes creationism and its twisted cousin 'Intellegent Design' a priority?

Is it arrogance? Are the righteous too proud to be called mammals? Are they so attached to one creation myth to be frightened of scientific endeavor? What of other creation myths? Is the magic of the righteous more powerful than all other's magic?

Is it hubris? Are the righteous so covetous of their status as homo sapiens that the very thought of connectivity to other species is anathema?

Why should the myth of Genesis be taught in science classes? Why should the myth of 'Intelligent Design', a myth that basically says some questions are just too hard to pursue, let alone answer, be taught as science?

Is the level of intellectual curiosity among the righteous so low that the pursuit of truth through scientific method is frightening? With that level of curiosity, it's a wonder mankind ever left the cave to see what is on the other side of the hill, let a.one leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.

I'm a Christian but my faith does not impose ecclesiastical blinders to science.

why should a lack of faith in the almighty creator god be prerequisite for the discussion of science? is science the state where there has to be a separation from the church, or does the first amendment cease to exist in a science book? how does that happen, anyways? you walk through the doorway of a laboratory and suddenly everything you believe vanishes away? perhaps a bell rings and you leave the lab and go through another doorway where in that room is a priest, would you remember anything about what happened in the lab just moments before when discussing your beliefs with the priest? hypothetically, that is?

Science is the pursuit of truth through hypothesis, experimentation, observation and repeatability. Faith in God requires, well, faith. Faith in things unseen. Faith in actions of grace.

Scientists do not exclude God from their personal lives, but they find no use for Him in the pursuit of scientific truth.

In my faith, I have faith in God, but that faith does not forbid me from finding truth in science.

Is it a responsible approach to believe in the musings of a Bronze Age philosopher to explain the natural world, or should we use the massive brain pan we were endowed with to find a true explanation?

How about using that massive brain pan to study Scripture, in order to appreciate it's truth and accuracy? Prophecy alone should convince anyone who's honest with themselves that the Bible has a supernatural origin.

The Bible is a magnificent book of scripture. It has beautiful poetry, rousing stories of war and conquest, sex, violence, parable and guidance.

But it is not a science textbook.

 

[Lutroo]

That;s funny. I reviewed my alerts, and your name isn't on there.

Just a glitch. Click on "List", which is just to the right of the ratings at the bottom of the original post. It's hard to see, but rest assured, it's there.

Well. That was...informative.

 

[Ravi]

Why is it so important for the righteous to push against evolution and for mythology? What makes creationism and its twisted cousin 'Intellegent Design' a priority?

Is it arrogance? Are the righteous too proud to be called mammals? Are they so attached to one creation myth to be frightened of scientific endeavor? What of other creation myths? Is the magic of the righteous more powerful than all other's magic?

Is it hubris? Are the righteous so covetous of their status as homo sapiens that the very thought of connectivity to other species is anathema?

Why should the myth of Genesis be taught in science classes? Why should the myth of 'Intelligent Design', a myth that basically says some questions are just too hard to pursue, let alone answer, be taught as science?

Is the level of intellectual curiosity among the righteous so low that the pursuit of truth through scientific method is frightening? With that level of curiosity, it's a wonder mankind ever left the cave to see what is on the other side of the hill, let a.one leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.

I'm a Christian but my faith does not impose ecclesiastical blinders to science.

why should a lack of faith in the almighty creator god be prerequisite for the discussion of science? is science the state where there has to be a separation from the church, or does the first amendment cease to exist in a science book? how does that happen, anyways? you walk through the doorway of a laboratory and suddenly everything you believe vanishes away? perhaps a bell rings and you leave the lab and go through another doorway where in that room is a priest, would you remember anything about what happened in the lab just moments before when discussing your beliefs with the priest? hypothetically, that is?

Science is the pursuit of truth through hypothesis, experimentation, observation and repeatability. Faith in God requires, well, faith. Faith in things unseen. Faith in actions of grace.

Scientists do not exclude God from their personal lives, but they find no use for Him in the pursuit of scientific truth.

In my faith, I have faith in God, but that faith does not forbid me from finding truth in science.

Is it a responsible approach to believe in the musings of a Bronze Age philosopher to explain the natural world, or should we use the massive brain pan we were endowed with to find a true explanation?

How about using that massive brain pan to study Scripture, in order to appreciate it's truth and accuracy? Prophecy alone should convince anyone who's honest with themselves that the Bible has a supernatural origin.

A synonym for supernatural is magic.

 

[Lutroo]

Why is it so important for the righteous to push against evolution and for mythology? What makes creationism and its twisted cousin 'Intellegent Design' a priority?

Is it arrogance? Are the righteous too proud to be called mammals? Are they so attached to one creation myth to be frightened of scientific endeavor? What of other creation myths? Is the magic of the righteous more powerful than all other's magic?

Is it hubris? Are the righteous so covetous of their status as homo sapiens that the very thought of connectivity to other species is anathema?

Why should the myth of Genesis be taught in science classes? Why should the myth of 'Intelligent Design', a myth that basically says some questions are just too hard to pursue, let alone answer, be taught as science?

Is the level of intellectual curiosity among the righteous so low that the pursuit of truth through scientific method is frightening? With that level of curiosity, it's a wonder mankind ever left the cave to see what is on the other side of the hill, let a.one leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.

I'm a Christian but my faith does not impose ecclesiastical blinders to science.

why should a lack of faith in the almighty creator god be prerequisite for the discussion of science? is science the state where there has to be a separation from the church, or does the first amendment cease to exist in a science book? how does that happen, anyways? you walk through the doorway of a laboratory and suddenly everything you believe vanishes away? perhaps a bell rings and you leave the lab and go through another doorway where in that room is a priest, would you remember anything about what happened in the lab just moments before when discussing your beliefs with the priest? hypothetically, that is?

Science is the pursuit of truth through hypothesis, experimentation, observation and repeatability. Faith in God requires, well, faith. Faith in things unseen. Faith in actions of grace.

Scientists do not exclude God from their personal lives, but they find no use for Him in the pursuit of scientific truth.

In my faith, I have faith in God, but that faith does not forbid me from finding truth in science.

Is it a responsible approach to believe in the musings of a Bronze Age philosopher to explain the natural world, or should we use the massive brain pan we were endowed with to find a true explanation?

How about using that massive brain pan to study Scripture, in order to appreciate it's truth and accuracy? Prophecy alone should convince anyone who's honest with themselves that the Bible has a supernatural origin.

A synonym for supernatural is magic.

A sufficiently advanced technology can also be considered magic. What's your point? The simple fact is that every prophecy in the Bible was fulfilled to the letter.

 

[Moonglow]

Why is it so important for the righteous to push against evolution and for mythology? What makes creationism and its twisted cousin 'Intellegent Design' a priority?

Is it arrogance? Are the righteous too proud to be called mammals? Are they so attached to one creation myth to be frightened of scientific endeavor? What of other creation myths? Is the magic of the righteous more powerful than all other's magic?

Is it hubris? Are the righteous so covetous of their status as homo sapiens that the very thought of connectivity to other species is anathema?

Why should the myth of Genesis be taught in science classes? Why should the myth of 'Intelligent Design', a myth that basically says some questions are just too hard to pursue, let alone answer, be taught as science?

Is the level of intellectual curiosity among the righteous so low that the pursuit of truth through scientific method is frightening? With that level of curiosity, it's a wonder mankind ever left the cave to see what is on the other side of the hill, let a.one leave tire tracks on the surface of the moon.

I'm a Christian but my faith does not impose ecclesiastical blinders to science.

why should a lack of faith in the almighty creator god be prerequisite for the discussion of science? is science the state where there has to be a separation from the church, or does the first amendment cease to exist in a science book? how does that happen, anyways? you walk through the doorway of a laboratory and suddenly everything you believe vanishes away? perhaps a bell rings and you leave the lab and go through another doorway where in that room is a priest, would you remember anything about what happened in the lab just moments before when discussing your beliefs with the priest? hypothetically, that is?

Science is the pursuit of truth through hypothesis, experimentation, observation and repeatability. Faith in God requires, well, faith. Faith in things unseen. Faith in actions of grace.

Scientists do not exclude God from their personal lives, but they find no use for Him in the pursuit of scientific truth.

In my faith, I have faith in God, but that faith does not forbid me from finding truth in science.

Is it a responsible approach to believe in the musings of a Bronze Age philosopher to explain the natural world, or should we use the massive brain pan we were endowed with to find a true explanation?

How about using that massive brain pan to study Scripture, in order to appreciate it's truth and accuracy? Prophecy alone should convince anyone who's honest with themselves that the Bible has a supernatural origin.

A synonym for supernatural is magic.

A sufficiently advanced technology can also be considered magic. What's your point? The simple fact is that every prophecy in the Bible was fulfilled to the letter.

No it has not, there has been no Armageddon..