Posted on 07/13/2009 9:55:26 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research?
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.*
In 2003, the human genome was heralded as a near-complete DNA sequence, except for the repetitive regions that could not be resolved due to the limitations of the prevailing DNA sequencing technologies.[1] The chimpanzee genome was subsequently finished in 2005 with the hope that its completion would provide clear-cut DNA similarity evidence for an ape-human common ancestry.[2] This similarity is frequently cited as proof of man's evolutionary origins, but a more objective explanation tells a different story, one that is more complex than evolutionary scientists seem willing to admit...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
When you watch Hissy-fit matthews spew "settled science", (or algore exclaim there's "no debate") why bother with any other news...you've got all you'll ever need and then some right there on PMSNBC.
In fact, anything else, isn't news. Just like anything else that's not soaked up by the indoctrination centers isn't science.
Your argument is a straw man.
The evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life, it only shows how life has changed since it inception. This is an often-repeated misconception.
Science does not address things outside of the physical world because they are not testable, or repeatable so they cannot be falsified. If it cannot be falsified then it is not Science.
It is surprising with the degrees you have that you did not know this.
His point is, unless you inject intelligence and/or design into all these evo-experiments, it’s all a transparent failure.
I believe in adaptation. I believe in change over time, but not to the point species make such leaps as Darwin proposes.
Another one that didn't get the memo. Bezerkley makes it a point that evolution addresses origins. Evolution 101.
The Darwinian paradigm builds upon the godless liberal interpretaion that life just up and came from nothing...no design, no purpose, randomly, no intelligence allowed: first a single celled life, then salamanders, newts...and so on, right on up to apes and then man.
I don't understand. Did they create life in a test tube?
Thanks for the ping!
“No, I believe in the Scriptures but I don’t accept some Luddite interpretation of a passage verbatim without using the brain God gave me.”
And what other Luddite interpretations of Scripture don’t you believe? Yep, pick and choose your interpretations and make that your religion.
This must account for the scientists studying prayer and then with a complete straight face, the cultists parrot the demand that God be kept out of the science classrooms or demanding religion not be dragged into the science classroom or science debate while simultaneously dragging the Pope into the equation. :)
Seriously, liberals are all over the map. I think they simply gave up on getting out the myriad memos and are so utterly confused they just don't even try to keep up anymore. Such as "origins is somehow sterlie from or unrelated to evolution", for instance.
This has too many red flags screaming ***CULT***!!!!!
Oh, I don't know, DU and/or DC would probably accept evo propoganda with open arms...right up there with algore's hot air cult. Which of those two are "your" website?
Who?
That is the explaination I expect from you.
The evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life, it only shows how life has changed since it inception. This is an often-repeated misconception.
Please show me where I asked you to explain origin. Although it seems reasonable to begin at the beginning,....i.e.how did the first cell evolve.I did not ask you or Zulu that question. I asked how conciousness, sentience, logic, reason sprung forth from covalent bonds in an evolved biological system?
Science does not address things outside of the physical world because they are not testable, or repeatable so they cannot be falsified. If it cannot be falsified then it is not Science.
This is the only honest statement you have made to be. I agree. Youradmission that science stops at that word you detest...the moment of creation, requires a transcendent being. That is moment of creation which the scientific materialist cannot possibly hope to examine. Perhaps you are one who denies the Law of Causality.
It is surprising with the degrees you have that you did not know this.
Your derision humors me. I will leave your opprobruium with you to consider. It means nothing to me.
The evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life, it only shows how life has changed since it inception. This is an often-repeated misconception.
Science does not address things outside of the physical world because they are not testable, or repeatable so they cannot be falsified. If it cannot be falsified then it is not Science.
It is surprising with the degrees you have that you did not know this.
Wow, where do I begin?
It seems the liberal indoctrination centers can't even get their subjects on the same page. Perhaps a view of Evolution 101 at the liberal Bezerkley University out in Cesspoolifornication will enlighten you...origins is plainly addressed.
Then we move onto what is or isn't science, as if someone, somehow, sometime gave liberals the keys to science in the first place.
We have string theory, multiverse theory and scientists studying the effects of prayer of all things, on the tax-payer dime no less...and you parrot that science isn't science unless it's testable and falisfiable and observable?
Liberals always make rules they never intend to abide by themselves.
Now that I think about it, this makes me wonder, speaking of all the degrees he has, it seems to me the Gallup poll allmendream linked sure seems a bit peculiar with all the scientists on dissentfromdarwin.org, FR, etc. etc. etc.
The theory which they laud and which validates their existence is crumbling all around them. Their willingness to confabulate, even conspire in weaving a series of lies is astonishing. Clearly their a priori commitment to materialism is their faith and their sofistry knows no limits. It becomes disgusting after a while. I am humored by such claims as, “the theory of evolution does not deal with origin (first cell, or origin of the universe)”. They cry “Kings X...time out....lets get the rules worked out before we begin discussing these matters.....or another way to deal with a theistic universe is for them to say....”O.K. give us an 11 billion year headstart, give us the progenitor cell,...and give us the atmosphere we want , and we will engage in your discussion.” They have painted themselves into a corner with the declaration that all there is is materialism and this will be discovered by scientific methodological examination. Well, O.K., lets talk about that. But they do not want to talk about that. They infer it is not fair to speak of origin. Where did they get the notion that ‘fairness’ evolved from dead matter? Fairness is a moral assertion and there is no natural law in darwinistic materialism which they will affirm which could have evolved. They claim to be arbitors of reason, yet reason itself cannot be accounted for by materialism. Yet they clammor to ring the bells of derision to intimidate. Denying anything other than materialism they cannot justify or explain the concious mind, logic, love, hate, justice, sentience, or selfless acts. In denying these qualities the neodarwinist have only materialism with which to explain them. They cannot, but cry foul when such is pointed out to them. Without the slightest justification to account for logic and reason, they thump their chests and claim reason their exclusive domain. When asked about this, they begin ad hominem attacks or evasive maneuvers almost unmatched by Pattons third army. They lay claim to science as the only residence of truth, yet darwinism cannot account for truth. It cannot examine truth. It cannot, through scientific methodology, examine truth, and therefore, in their worldview, must be forced to admit its denial of existence. How much does truth weigh? What is the molecular formula for logic or reason? The echo of these questions remain unanswered by the materialist, nothwithstanding their vitriol. When asked if truth can be known to a materialist, they say yes, but they cannot say how. This is what vexes them. Ask the materialist darwinsit to tell us how truth could be asserted by molecules the answer....silence (other than their squeals of Unfair! Unfair!)
Indeed, and liberals project-alot. They sure bend into mind-boggling contortions when confronted. And keep repeating debunked nonsense over and over.
And somehow they pretend as though only they understand science, and that someone, somehow, sometime, somewhere gave them the keys to science classrooms. And obviously they know as much about science as they do about Christianity.
But the thing that makes me chuckle most is that they actually think normal people aren’t onto them! I mean, FR of all places! Sometimes they stray off course and go into government or whatever and really shoot themselves in the foot. It’s quite comical!
What debate would that be? Luddite ignorance on your behalf?
Sad that you quoute Burke in your tagline - if he were alive today, he would slap you in the head.
If you can’t take the heat, don’t post.
Your hubris in thinking that you have refuted an entire field of study that it is obvious that you do not even understand is laughable.
Education is no barrier to having a childlike faith in God; but glad to know you take pride in you and your compatriots ignorance.
The more one learns, especially about science, the less likely they are to be a Creationist.
I guess you are content with the High School drop out set, they are probably less likely to ask you to back up your delusional grandiose claims with actual knowledge that you do not possess.
“BS Whenever I paraphrase Dawkins, I do so to people who already know the original quote, and exactly what he meant by it.”
Then why do you bother if you only seek the approval of your echo chamber? You really should form a closed, members-only forum where you can bask in the mutual dishonesty of the entire cult. Does “New Scientist” ring a bell? How many times have you posted that cover without context? You’re a cultist fraud.
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.