[SmartCitizen]

If there is a God, then he could have made the monkey and the human with similar genetic material.

Similarity in no way proves a common ancestor. It's illogical. The argument goes like this: If X is similar to Y in Z, then X and Y must come from Q. The conclusion does not follow the premise. Anything that is illogical is also unscientific, but evolutionists can't be accused of being scientific, since science invites honest inquiry, and the high priest gatekeepers of neodarwinism work overtime to silence all dissent in their attempts to protect their relgion. They are paralyzed with fear at the thought that their raison d'etre will be discredited and rejected.

But, they need not fear, for the power of government is behind them. Indeed, the government has established a de facto state religion in its rulings favoring the teaching neodarwinism in schools, and that religion is atheism. It reminds me of the Soviet Union.

[AntiGuv]

You seem to be confused. The theory of evolution is not deductive logic; it is inductive logic. Here's a general rule of thumb if you wish to sound more vaguely knowledgeable in the future. When you go from general principles to specific outcomes, you are employing deductive reasoning (albeit not very well in your case, it seems). When you go from specific facts to general principles, you are deploying inductive reasoning.

[Antonello]

The argument goes like this: If X is similar to Y in Z, then X and Y must come from Q. The conclusion does not follow the premise.

Assuming 'X' is humans, 'Y' is chimpanzees, 'Z' is gene sequences, and 'Q' is a common ancestor, then I am curious as to your evidence that the conclusion of 'X' and 'Y' must come from 'Z' does not follow the predicted premise.

[dr_lew]

What "evolutionists", i.e. secularly minded scientists, are afraid of is you - An irrational firebrand hell bent on who knows what ultimate path. You are the one who puts us in mind of Lysenko, the Stalinist toady who supressed modern genetics in favor of his own ideologically motivated doctrines. I don't think there could be a clearer case of projection than the charges you make in your fulminations. "I know you are but what am I?"