-1
A lot of “science” today isn’t really science.
I put Evolution and Global Warming in the same basket — a lot of the “evidence” of the ideas is just made up stuff because people want to believe.
Bookmarked
Yeah, that is strange, no fossil evidence either.
Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. is no more of a scientist than the so-called scientists who walk lock-step with the climate change religion. They all have an agenda that is result oriented. None of them are credible.
To look at the intricacy of the human body and have a so-called scientist say that it just happened through evolution is unscientific. It’s like saying you have a box of auto parts and you run it through a building that shakes like crazy for a hundred million years or so and then out pops a Buick.
What makes a human male’s genitals unique in the animal kingdom?
https://www.sharecare.com/health/mens-health/male-human-genitalia-unique
Why don’t humans have a penis bone? Scientists may now know
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/dec/14/why-dont-humans-have-a-penis-bone-scientists-may-now-know-baculum
I’ve always asked;
Why has evolution Stop !?!
A frog, a Lizard not a Frizard.
Interesting.
Evolution is indeed a man-made religion, like global warming.
DNA is a blueprint for manufacturing proteins—equivalent to manufacturing bricks, steel and glass.
But a stack of bricks is not the building.
Where is the overall design of man, or any other living thing in the modern genetic/evolutionary theory? Where is the diagram for making an eye, a hand, a brain?
Where are the circuits for love, truth and justice? (just asking facetiously . . . I know that Wisdom does not come from a test tube but from God.)
I have ZERO problem with evolution and the Bible. Saying that we could not be the result of evolution kind of puts a limitation on God.
I have ZERO problem with evolution and the Bible. Saying that we could not be the result of evolution kind of puts a limitation on God.
It takes testicular circumference to post this article. Well done. Bookmarked.
As far as the title, the keen thing about evolution is it can’t be disproven.
Evolution is a theory and doesn’t claim without uncertainty to explain all genetic changes over time. The IC”R” again posits no alternative view to explain, other than to say “God did it”. This is a fine theological position but it lacks any scientific proof.
The faithles IC”R” seeks to prove God through science. It seeks to completely invslidate a theory through the inherent imperfection of any scientific theory.
These Godless and incompetent fools never fail to amuse.
I wonder what Tomkin’s PhD is in? It certainly isn’t in science, that much is obvious.
This notion that DNA science *disproves* evolution is a surprise to all life scientists who use the theory of evolution to guide their work and make new discoveries. In fact, I think that the tens of thousands of scientists who have published on evolutionary biology would be stunned to find out that all of their hard work elucidating the processes of evolution did not actually show anything at all.
bbb
What also does not help the evolutionists is the fact that there “evidence” keeps getting disproved like Plitdown Man & the faux fossil hybrid they erroneously asserted was a “proof” of a species in “transition”. There is in fact no evidence documenting one species transitioning into another species & this fact has even mystified some evolutionists but not to the extent of disabusing themselves of their false notions concerning the origin of man.
There is a one day sale of a book by Bruce Fenton on Amazon called “Into Africa” The Kindle version is selling for $1.99 today (June 1st) He took all the available data produced by DNA and Genome studies and concluded that humanity migrated Into Africa not once, but twice. There are also other interesting tid bits regarding the different branches of man. Well worth the price today.
Estimates of similarities in various species DNA were always dependent on the methodologies & logic used.
So, if we use one method to say that human DNA is 99.9% the same (understanding that means about 3 million differences!) and then a different method to say Neanderthals were 99% the same (30 million differences) and chimpanzees 98% (64 million differences), then such comparisons lose some meaning.
But obviously our author here, Mr. Thomkins, is using yet another methodology to arrive at a number which satisfies him, but seems to cast doubt on others.
I would question if Thomkins' methodology used on humans would still show us 99.9% the same genetically?
If not, then we might ask why Thomkins wants to show a larger number of human genetic differences than other methodologies produce?