Posted on 05/21/2007 9:33:13 PM PDT by LoserPays3000
I don't know how many other folks have read this yet, but I highly recommend it. Sutcliff's style is like Ann Coulter's and the book backs up the brazen title with over 40 sources and rock-solid research. See http://www.evofraud.com for sources, chapter excerpts, purchase.
It's also non-technical and easy-to-read, regardless of your background in science. After reading it I wonder why anyone believes in that pseudoscience. Why Evolution is a Fraud demonstrates why Darwinism is mathematically impossible, why genetics is evolution's worst enemy and how this racist pseudoscience has survived in spite of the facts to the contrary.
HOOAH!!!!!
Bump for later reading.
Bump for later reading.
Yawn. The Miracle of Evolution is just that, a Miracle. One set into motion by God..
THANKS TONS.
REF PING
His style is like Coulter's? You mean loaded with anti-science propaganda and poorly researched tertiary references dealing with a subject on which the author has no clue? Sorry to hear that.
...and the book backs up the brazen title with over 40 sources and rock-solid research.
Forty sources means nothing when you are using biased anti-science sources, as I suspect is the case if the website is any guide.
Rock-solid research? Ignore this silly book and try some real sources, such as those listed below:
American Journal of Human Biology
American Journal of Human Genetics
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
The Anatomical Record Part A
Annals of Human Biology
Annals of Human Genetics
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Anthropological Science
Anthropologie
L' Anthropologie
Archaeometry
Behavior Genetics
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Biological Psychology
Biology and Philosophy
BMC Evolutionary Biology
Current Anthropology
Current Biology
Economics and Human Biology
Ethnic and Racial Studies
European Journal of Human Genetics
Evolution and Human Behavior
Evolutionary Anthropology
Forensic Science International
Gene
Genetical Research
Genetics
Genome Research
Heredity
Homo
Human Biology
Human Heredity
Human Genetics
Human Genomics
Human Molecular Genetics
Human Mutation
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Journal of Archaeological Science
Journal of Biosocial Science
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Journal of Human Evolution
Journal of Human Genetics
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Nature
Nature Genetics
Nature Reviews Genetics
PLoS Biology
PLoS Genetics
Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Russian Journal of Genetics
Science
Trends in Genetics
Where does the website ever mention anything to do with creation? It does not and neither does the book. Aside from a belief in God, the author does not get into the issue of faith. However, he does expose the fraud and the bias of so-called scientists who are desperate to replace God with man.
It takes far more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in any theistic faith. The idea that reptile scales magically morphed into flight-worthy feathers is considered to be science by the flat-earth, evolutionary crowd.
The evidence against evolution is overwhelming but there is a massive bias toward evolution. Richard Goldschmidt and Michael Behe had the courage to stand against their peers and they were attacked with absurd criticisms.
What nonsense. You actually believe that random chance causes directional and progressive changes? How is that mathematically sound?
Of course I don’t. Thankfully, evolution is not random. Mutations are random, natural selection and thus evolution is not.
Where do you find "creation" mentioned in Coyote's post?
It really amazes me how smart a couple of single cells can be!
Do you suppose that a bunch of early prehistoric cells where having a kegger one night and decided (just for the hell of it) to form a complex eye?
Sorry for the sarcasm, but I find a little too implausible to believe that all of the engineering that we see in organisms was all by chance mutation and luck.
What ‘creationist canards?’
Natural selection is not random? Please! Natural selection is just a fancy way of saying random chance. It it absurd to believe that complex organism just happened and then claim that it is science.
Believing in evolution is like believing that 747s and skyscrapers just magically appeared. How absurd! but that’s what evolution tells people to believe when it comes to living organisms that reproduce nearly identical versions of themselves.
The sources page has a bunch of excellent references on the scientific absurdity of evolution.
My comment was:
His style is like Coulter's? You mean loaded with anti-science propaganda and poorly researched tertiary references dealing with a subject on which the author has no clue? Sorry to hear that.For a good discussion of Coulter's "anti-science propaganda and poorly researched tertiary references" try the following:
I think after reading that, most folks will agree that when it comes to evolutionary sciences, Coulter has no clue.
Wrong. Coulter slams evolution by exposing applying common sense to this religion of liberalism. You can spout all the paleobabble that you want, but it doesn’t nullify the fact that evolution is only supported by pseudoscientists who have a vested interest in keeping it going. Evolution does not stand up in light of the complex engineering behind DNA.
Your tag is right to suggest that theistic faith is not science; just as science is not faith. The problem with evolution is that it requires immense faith, instead of science, to believe in. What is observable, repeatable and testable about evolution? Where are the valid transitional forms?
Instead of the knee-jerk reations to what you seem to think is some creationist bogeyman, how about showing solid evidence that backs up evolution?
Instead of the knee-jerk reations to what you seem to think is some creationist bogeyman, how about showing solid evidence that backs up evolution?
Evidence for evolution? Start here.
More in these sources (warning--science content):
American Journal of Human Biology
American Journal of Human Genetics
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
The Anatomical Record Part A
Annals of Human Biology
Annals of Human Genetics
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Anthropological Science
Anthropologie
L' Anthropologie
Archaeometry
Behavior Genetics
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Biological Psychology
Biology and Philosophy
BMC Evolutionary Biology
Current Anthropology
Current Biology
Economics and Human Biology
Ethnic and Racial Studies
European Journal of Human Genetics
Evolution and Human Behavior
Evolutionary Anthropology
Forensic Science International
Gene
Genetical Research
Genetics
Genome Research
Heredity
Homo
Human Biology
Human Heredity
Human Genetics
Human Genomics
Human Molecular Genetics
Human Mutation
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Journal of Archaeological Science
Journal of Biosocial Science
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Journal of Human Evolution
Journal of Human Genetics
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Nature
Nature Genetics
Nature Reviews Genetics
PLoS Biology
PLoS Genetics
Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Russian Journal of Genetics
Science
Trends in Genetics
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.