START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
Offbeat

Rave

Evidence For Evolution

Posted 14 months ago|203 comments|1,919 views
And it shows!
Written by
I thought it was only fair for me to give the other side of the story... the last few days I have had to do some soul searching, and some query as to the crossroads I find myself on today. The rest of this post I would like to admit what evidence I have found for the evolution of apes to man.....
UPDATE - 14 months ago
It is under duress I am forced to post other peoples findings, to make this a valid post for some members on this site...

apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to
apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to
apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to
apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to
apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to
apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to
apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to
apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to
apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to
apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to
apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to
apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to
apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to
apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to
apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to
apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to
apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to men to apes to

UPDATE - 14 months ago
Because of the many references above were general in essence, and with out direct quotation or plagiarism... I didn't find it necessary to provide links for their sources... however I will provide a token link rebutting this seeming insurmountable evidence on the side of evolution...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...

UPDATE - 2 months ago
John Piper - "Don't waste your life"
http://dwynrhh6bluza.cloudfront.net/reso...
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
14 months ago: That's some pretty convincing theory. But it's not new.

I just want to know one thing. Is there a single living organism that has totally unique DNA?

Did anyone stop to think why we share 60% of our genes with a banana? And what about molecules? Don't molecules combine to form DNA? And don't atoms combine to form molecules?

Look at a rock. Isn't it combined of atoms and molecules? So why aren't we considered to be the descendants of rocks? Because they don't look like us?

Seems a little limited.
14 months ago: You oughta be in the science business, OOTB.

"Did anyone stop to think why we share 60% of our genes with a banana?"

Absolutely. Charles Darwin didn't know about DNA, but was way ahead of you.

"In 1859, Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in which he twice stated the hypothesis that there was only one progenitor for all life forms. In the summation at the end he says, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." [5] (p 484). The very last sentence is a restatement of the hypothesis "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one."[5] (p 490)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_univer...

"Is there a single living organism that has totally unique DNA?"

You mean that shares no biological characteristics with any other living thing? I don't think we know of such a thing, but this might be of interest

"A December 2010 NASA press conference revealed that the bacterium GFAJ-1, which has evolved in an arsenic-rich environment, is the first terrestrial lifeform found which may have this ability. The bacterium was found in Mono Lake, east of Yosemite National Park. GFAJ-1 is a rod-shaped extremophile bacterium in the family Halomonadaceae that, when starved of phosphorus, may be capable of incorporating the usually poisonous element arsenic in its DNA.[41] This discovery lends weight to the long-standing idea that extraterrestrial life could have a different chemical makeup from life on Earth.[41][42]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
14 months ago: "Absolutely. Charles Darwin didn't know about DNA, but was way ahead of you."

Only by time of birth. Consider this. Computers are made of silicon, copper, plastic, and steel, among various other things. A Commodore 64 is made of basically the same things as a super computer. Does that mean that the Commodore 64 evolved itself into the more powerful versions, or does it mean that the persons making them used the same types of materials to produce different products? A billion years from now, if a race of silicon based intelligent computers finds Commodore 64's buried lower in the trash pile than a Pentium 5, will they assume that the Commodores evolved into Pentiums?

I've been waiting since December for confirmation on the arsenic utilization of GFAJ-1, but as of yet, nothing. As it turns out, the sample cultures used in the initial experiments were allowed small traces of phosphorus included in the salts as trace impurities. So the jury is still out on that one.
14 months ago: Ok, I get your point about the computer. It's a very amusing thought. "Where is the transitional form between the Pentium 4 and 5? Where is Windows 6?" The silicon based aliens might think the computers on earth made the animals.
14 months ago: "Look at a rock. Isn't it combined of atoms and molecules? So why aren't we considered to be the descendants of rocks? Because they don't look like us?"

It won't be news to you that every animal and plant on the planet is ultimately made out of minerals that come from the soil and the environment, just like rocks. We aren't getting the flesh shipped in from outer space or heaven.

We aren't descendants of rocks. We didn't come from the wombs of rocks. Pebbles are not baby rocks. Rocks don't have babies, but you knew that.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_univer..., particularly the "cladogram", organized by genetic difference.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
14 months ago: And which bacterium group did man spring from?

Again, with all the billions, if not trillions, of possible combinations of minerals and conditions, why would life come forth from only one? (Back to the ET theory, trillions of stars, trillions of chances for life to emerge.)
14 months ago: BOX,

Since God made man from the dirt...
...seems to be the only thing that he's been able to prove since!
I think "scientists" have been peeking at our textbook and test papers!
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
14 months ago: Just saying. If the odds are, and most evolutionists also subscribe to the theory of life on other planets (what are the odds, they say, that out of trillions of other planets, we are the only planet to spontaneously develop life?)

I say, what are the odds that over supposed billions of years, life stayed based on the same four chemical compounds that comprise DNA? Wouldn't some life have emerged that bears no resemblance whatsoever to us or any other creature that we know of? Wouldn't the DNA itself mutate itself into a different compound as needed?
14 months ago: It's a good question, but I don't think we know how likely it is for a different type of life to spring up.

If you say a different life has a good chance of springing up (and surviving in the face of established life, bacteria etc) in a few billion years I don't know if you are right or wrong.

"Wouldn't the DNA itself mutate itself into a different compound as needed? " What are you, an evolutionist? ;) I think that's exactly what it does.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
14 months ago: But yet all DNA is still comprised of the same basic elements.
14 months ago: Stan,

"The variation in DNA between human individuals shows that racial differences are trivial. This genetic unity means, for instance, that white Americans, although ostensibly far removed from black Americans in phenotype, can sometimes be better tissue matches for them than are other black Americans."
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/ra...
14 months ago: You only accept a tiny dose of science at a time, Truthrary.

What is the variation in DNA between a horse and a donkey?

What is the variation in DNA between a chimpanzee and a human?

Are any of these things related?
14 months ago: Stan,

You are too smart to let this one pass your notice... sometimes I think you are a "closet Creationist" ...let me break it down into terms we can agree on:

1) mate a human with a human = Human
2) mate a horse with a donkey = mule that only survives one generation
3) mate a chimp with a human = what evolutionists have been doing all along!

... bestiality is an abomination, it doesn't work and never will...
...I believe you are awake now... don't go back to sleep.
14 months ago: There are some really intelligent people that are simply blind, and some by choice...
...and yet others by God's choice... to shame them!

"Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done." Romans 1:28
14 months ago: I look forward to your ground breaking address to biologists everywhere.
14 months ago: Stan,

If you have a link with some refs... for "biologists everywhere" I will.
14 months ago: Well, you could put advertisments in publications about biology, stating your theories and referring them to RantRave.
14 months ago: Yeah, I never got that... evolutionists don't believe in God, yet they believe in ET...
...for all the same reasons they don't believe in God?
14 months ago: A short rant like this one mocks the purpose of R&R, is anti-intellectual on a site struggling for quality and is uninteresting. Rants should not be valid if they have less than, say 150 words, which is the bare minimum anything worth listening to can be said.
14 months ago: Doesn't mock the purpose of Rant Rave, mocks folks who won't use their brain.
14 months ago: Pluto,

It would seem you haven't read this book by Dr. Alan Francis, that has sold millions of copies under different pseudo writers...
http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Men-Kno...

[The book is completely empty !:]
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
14 months ago: "Anybody can have ideas–the difficulty is to express them without squandering a quire of paper on an idea that ought to be reduced to one glittering paragraph." Mark Twain

Perhaps you would define "anti-intellectual"? Does that mean "unable to accept the infallible conclusions of the self-proclaimed intellectuals"?

I thought several points made here were both philosophical and intellectual.
14 months ago: Box do your job -- did you read this post -- it's bogus -- there is no post, and that is what I am talking about. Don't give me **** about any source of intellectualism here.

I see R&R being more and more a dead end -- I've been searching for other places to post new works, Common Dreams picked up an article this past Monday of mine and I have one out making the rounds at the editorial page of a few newspapers out of Wisconsin. I sure ain't wasting a chance on getting any exposure on R&R. Even these comment threads seem pretty bare these days.

I'm probably gonna be like the others, say I'm leaving, peak in the door once in a while, maybe make a comment here or there, but really, I'm not posting original work here anymore -- no, I'm not gonna waste it on you guys, **** none of you like what I write anyway. Today y'all can partay.
14 months ago: Pluto,

I think my "update" complies with your request... seeing as it is now part of my post. This update was included in my post under duress ...you have forced me to include the the most accurate findings since Darwin has expounded on this subject.
14 months ago: Pluto,

You are a smart guy, you should come up with a better line than...
"If I don't get my way, I'm taking my bat and going home!"
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
14 months ago: Plutonomister

First, congratulations on getting an article on over at commondreams.org. But isn't that like preaching to the choir? How will you hone your craft if everyone you write for believes the same things you do?

As far as this post is concerned, it has done what it was intended to do. It has stimulated the desire to debate, which is a good portion of what RantRave is intended to be. The comments are just as high brow as those of any philosopher or theorist you can name.

I personally do like what you write. I don't agree with with most of it, but it provides me with insight into how others think. If you feel posting on RR is not worth the expenditure, that's your call. If you don't like people disagreeing with you, go over to the leftist websites where they won't even allow disagreeing comments. RR will remain neutral.

I also sense that you feel that since I'm a moderator, I should keep my two-cents-worth to myself.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
14 months ago: Pluto
If you feel this article isn't worthy, flag it. I'll let the other moderators have a look and if they share your opinion, I'm sure one of them will delete it. I personally think it has flair, and would have stood on its own even without the updates. But since you think I'm biased, I'll leave it up to MB, AK, and RS. I'll also send them each a PM with this link, and inform them there has been a complaint lodged.
14 months ago: Box - this post is fine.

Sometimes people take themselves too seriously. Fun stuff like this is one of the reasons I enjoy the site.

Also - you have posted nothing here that should be seen as intrusive or over the top. Sheesh!
14 months ago: This is cool a Christian gets a little "inquisition" ...what if there are other rants and raves under the 150 mark??
14 months ago: I like what you write.
14 months ago: Stan,

You are just saying that because it's true... and you get a chance to show off your intellectual muscles... Oh Yeah!
14 months ago: Love it. Air tight.

14 months ago: A clue to the "origin" of this post and it's intended purpose, is revealed in it's Rant/Rave classification designated "Offbeat" section. The title alone would fit.
14 months ago: I like the men to apes part.
14 months ago: Be careful what you say in front of Pluto,
remember the "visual" he got from one of Ed's post pictures...
14 months ago: Then he will have to answer my question on "relativity of time" and the "big bang". How can they be related? Millions of years? Billions of yeras? The way I figure it. A blink of Gods eye is a million or a billion years or more..... So, let's argue mathematical theory....and include it into the evolution theory.... Yep...The EVOLUTION THEORY... Time started when? Creation or Explosion? Either way.

Pick one.
14 months ago: I think our time started with Creation....

"And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years"
Genesis 1:14
Content Removed by The Cypress Gang
14 months ago: Mock Pluto? One of the mocking birds complaining. That is too, too funny.

Get your own house in order before complaining about how much someone else's property drains onto yours....

Maybe dig a ditch.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
14 months ago: There's still a lack of understanding on how Rant Rave works. For the purpose of clarification, there's three types of articles that we deal with.

1. High quality articles that get submitted to Google News based on moderator approval per the editorial guidelines.

2. Other quality articles that are not submitted to Google News based on moderator rejection of the article.

3. Articles that violate that our various posting policies such as spam or plagiarism.

Unless an article is in category three, we don't delete it, and in my opinion this article fits in category two (low quality off-beat humor). By the guidelines, we look for clarity, originality, and tone. Length of article is not part of the criteria, and in fact, I've rejected numerous lengthy articles because they might lack clarity, are didactic, or lack originality.
14 months ago: Thanks Mark,

My jokes aren't funny most of the time, so sometimes I have to resort to sarcasm...
14 months ago: By "didactic" do you mean "too didactic"?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
14 months ago: BTW Pluto, one difference between writing for Rant Rave and Common Dreams is that the latter is a partisan "progressive" website where your your audience would be your head nodding choir. If that's what suits you, by all means.
14 months ago: CD has 200,000 signed up members, R&R has about 5 -- do the math.

CD has editorial standards, R&R does not -- do the quality.

I have always been repulsed by my kind, (like north to north magnets) that is what attracted me to R&R, as I found a somewhat unruly audience to test some of my writing on and see what would come of it, but R&R kinda just melted away recently, and we're left with junk posts like this one, and I've simply lost all interest.

I'll be lucky to have another submission accepted by CD or any other editorial news outlet, as the competition and standards are very high and I feel like I had beginners' luck with the piece that was printed. Markbyrn, however, made clear what the editorial standards are at R&R, and it seems like I could puke on the paper and get it accepted.

I'm just not into you anymore. And the update to this post drags down the quality of this website. It's all yours -- like I said, I'll peek in once and a while out of a voyeuristic curiosity, but that's where my interest ends these days.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
14 months ago: It's been fun getting to know you. A place like RantRave is a good place to learn that everyone has more in common with others than they might think.

I think what markbyrn related was the best part of RantRave. It is truly one of the only outlets designed for the everyman. We believe that everyone has the right to be heard, and that every opinion is just as valid, not just the elitists who think they know what is best for everyone else.

Good luck with your endeavors, ...except for that whole revolution thing. I can see by this exchange that any such revolt would simply empower a different group of tyrants.
14 months ago: Amen on the everyman bit, OOTB.
14 months ago: Another swan song.

Sorry to see you go too Pluto.

BTW - RR has over 4500 members. When one falls off, there are always others to replace them.

Personally, I get tired of the dramatic exits.

If one wants to make a difference, they can contribute to the site, question and make suggestions not give ultimatums.

There is enough good stuff here for everyone that has eyes to see it and wants to contribute. The administration has promised more good and positive changes over time and I fully support their efforts

Whoever wants to can take their ball and go home if they want, however we still have a large storage room full of equipment here to play around with and keep us busy.
14 months ago: Huey,

Speaking of... you didn't return the "bungee jumping" equipment!
14 months ago: I'm not done with it yet. And you still have my catcher's mitt!
14 months ago: This article has perfectly captured the essence of "creation science".

Bible Scientist: There is no evidence for evolution. Scientists are fools, blinded by Satan, and damned by their lack of faith.

Sincere Person: Isn't genetic change and adapation an absoulte fact of life?

BS: Good evolution, yes. Biblical evolution. Little evolution. Genes can only change a little bit. Big evolution is ridiculous and could never happen because it is an abomination.

SP: You blithely say there's no evidence, but actually, the entirety of what we know about life is consistent with . .

BS: NO. Are you a monkey? Have you seen a fish turn into a dog? RIDICULOUS! Are you going to mate with a squid? Ha, ha, you monkey! No type of animal is related to any other type of animal. Horses are not related to donkeys! Parrots are not related to macaws! Gibbons are not related to babboons. Computers! The Bible says this.

SP: So, why do you think science has something to do with what you are talking about?

BS: Science is stupid. Scientists are stupid. Unless of course they say what is in this book.

SP: And you know this because . . . .

BS: Because I own this book. And I firmly maintain that there is NO evidence.

SP: So, you base your views on the weight of evidence, and find none on the side of the the scientific basis for evolution?

BS: That's right. The entire point of science has been a futile and concerted attempt to discover things and refute this particular book, all with NO evidence.

(Continued)
14 months ago: SP: And what sort of evidence would you classify as being any sort of evidence at all?

BS: None would be good enough, because of my faith. But I would like to see a fish turn give birth to a giraffe. And if God said evolution was true, and wrote that into my Bible. That sort of example might half convince me.

SP: You know that no scientist has ever proposed such fish/giraffe nonsense, which would in fact be contrary to evolution, right?

BS: Oh, I've got a website that says scientists are fools AND it uses maths, so I don't really care about that.

SP: That's very interesting. Thank you for your views. And what do you have to say about holy books and scriptures that contradict the Bible.

BS: Superstitious nonsense inspired by Satan, of course, but only to the extent they contradict the Bible.

SP: So, in summary, there is no evidence?

BS: That's right! And God commands us to be honest and virtuous, so you can count on us knowing that there is no evidence when we tell you that. We must not promote our views with wilfull ignorance and disingenuously tendentious sophistry. God AND science say that I am right, monkey man.
14 months ago: First,

Finally a come-back!

Secondly, I meant that sex with a monkey was an abomination, would you agree, or would you be in favor of teaching sex with monkeys is as valid as with humans?
14 months ago: Well, I would have to check with what the Bible has to say about sex with monkeys.

My gut instinct is that if a man lie with a beast, he should be put to death. It's probably best to kill the animal too. It was asking for it.

Now, while God's followers have to be told this specifically, by God, it would be nice if some secular advertisments could be put on television about this, to stem the tide of scientists screwing around with monkeys.
14 months ago: If not for the Bible, what would be your attitude to a really attractive monkey?
14 months ago: You know, nice hair, good sense of humour etc.
14 months ago: Stan,

You sound like Pluto, just give a "strait" answer... you are trying to avoid your responsibility to tell us all if you think we are all "primates" ...if so having sex with a monkey would be natural, regardless what the Bibles says. If you do you would also find real science against you if you were expecting natural offspring. Pick a side.
14 months ago: "if you think we are all "primates"...if so having sex with a monkey would be natural, regardless what the Bibles says"

I'm not sure I follow that logic. Sharks and tuna are both fish. Is it natural for them to have sex?

You say science and the Bible are against monkey sex. Good. I don't advocate it either.
14 months ago: Stan,

Just saying that the Bible is not against good science... it is just the "science" of evilution would have us all in the same bed with monkeys... and I just wanted you to see that that was the inevitability of ape "evolution".

"Cross-species transplants had been tried before, without success."
http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id302.htm
14 months ago: "it is just the "science" of evilution would have us all in the same bed with monkeys"

I marvel at this. Be sure to include it in your advertisement advertising your theories.
14 months ago: I suggest that your advertisement could conclude with something like:

"STOP having sex with monkeys, because that is what evolution is trying to trick you to do."
14 months ago: Stan,

We sound like "The Two Ronnies" ....one won't and the other can't !:]

If our comedy takes off we have to split it 50/50 ...but just remember I get the 50 !:]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz2-ukrd2...
14 months ago: 50! You must be joking. You are not getting any more than half.
14 months ago: I dig that Two Ronnies clip.
14 months ago: Fork 'andles! I bet they never dubbed that clip into another language. I'd like to see it.

"Manches de Fourche"
"Pourquoi êtes-vous me donner des bougies?"

(Thank you Google Translate.)
14 months ago: Stan,

That's 'ole' school comedy ...I caught my 18 year old daughter looking up their clips the other day and sharing them...
I think they were inspired by Tim Comway and Harvey Corman.
14 months ago: Stan,

Do you think it is healthy for us to be on the opposite side of the fence...
...and not hate each other? I like a good fight as you can tell,
knock-down slug-it-out... but get up shaking hands!
14 months ago: Agreed.
14 months ago: That was too easy, I feel I'm about to get a left hook... Ha Ha!
14 months ago: I do have a question... how does Evolution account for the 4 main people groups?
14 months ago: TB - Stan is the kind of guy we could shoot pool with and have a root beer together.
14 months ago: Didn't answers in genesis deal with that?

(I take it you mean ethnic groups, yeah? Not optimists, pessimists, farty, sporty, latte drinkers, and other types of people groups.)
14 months ago: That's real kind, Huey.
14 months ago: As I recall, the answers in Genesis explanation was pretty much an evolutionary one.

People dispersed to different parts of the world where they did not much interbreed with each other.

Over generations different genetic characteristics came to predominated in the various populations, probably most obviously in skin color as an adaptation to the environment. That is, those ancestors better adapted tended to contribute more of the gene pool to the next generation.
14 months ago: If you mean microevolution not macroevolution... we are in agreement. Do you think that is a sufficient answer or am I to expect that left-hook I was talking about?
14 months ago: I don't know, I might get my but kicked at pool... and I thought ya'll drank Dr. Pepper?
14 months ago: I would call it evolution. No left hook.
14 months ago: So you see it as the same... evolving from a chimp to a human, as human to human?
14 months ago: I don't think humans are evolved from chimps.

Chimps and humans are disinct species with a common ancestor. That common ancestor had offspring that diverged and separated into distinct species. Even after that separation, the offspring didn't develop into humans or chimpanzee for a long time. Still the DNA of a chimp is signficiantly similar to ours.

The qualitative difference between evolution from old humans to new humans and separate related species is an important one. Speciation.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolu...
14 months ago: Stan,

This is what I am talking about... I was schooled in this line of thinking and here is the problem, there is no EVIDENCE for the theory. At least with the Bible we have bones to go along with some stories included in the Bible... but there are not "links" to the theories in the public school textbooks...
that is why they are still called MISSING.

Yours is a faith like mine is... only we have an historical document that offers some explanation.
14 months ago: Stan,

When you get done with that... can you tell me why apes and humans do not share the same blood?
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...
14 months ago: Even in humans, you can't just take some blood out of one person and expect it to work in someone with a different blood type.

It's no wonder apes have different blood, they are a different species. Humans even have different blood, amongst them.

Even "Answers in Genesis" deals with changes in blood, and acknowledges that mutation and evolution alters blood, despite Adam and Eve being the only source of genes "If Adam and Eve did not have all three blood type alleles, then there must have been a mutation creating the O allele while the human race was still very small and before humans dispersed across the globe. Whether the origin of blood type O was in Adam and Eve at Creation or whether it arose as a mutational event that took place shortly before or after the Flood, it strongly supports that all humans today are descendants of two individuals or a small group of people that eventually populated the globe. Both scenarios are consistent with the biblical model of human origins." http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...

While we are talking about apes and blood, we can't leave out the Rhesus blood group system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhesus_fact... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhesus_Maca...

"The Rhesus macaque is well known to science owing to its relatively easy upkeep in captivity, and has been used extensively in medical and biological research. It has given its name to the Rhesus factor, one of the elements of a person's blood group, by the discoverers of the factor, Karl Landsteiner and Alexander Wiener."

"In 1940, Drs. Karl Landsteiner and Alexander S. Wiener reported a serum that also reacted with about 85% of different human red blood cells.[2] This serum was produced by immunizing rabbits with red blood cells from Rhesus macaque. The antigen that induced this immunization was designated by them as Rh factor "to indicate that rhesus blood had been used for the production of the serum."[3]"
14 months ago: Stan,

I can see that "similarities" in blood matters little when it comes to blood transfusions, and it needs exact match or there is problems. Fact is human blood types can still be mixed... and drugs can keep "clumping" under control... but human blood and monkey blood cannot be mixed.

Blood Groups, Blood Typing and Blood Transfusions...
http://nobelprize.org/educational/medici...

"The 'Rh' stands for the rhesus monkey because researchers recognised that this human blood antigen was similar to a rhesus monkey blood antigen."
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2...

...as you can see only the "antigen" found in the monkey blood makes it "similar" to human blood, but the types of blood are not the same and it is still incompatible... and cannot be mixed with human blood.

Blood from any animal cannot be used by humans.
14 months ago: Stan,

Still waiting to hear back on why monkey blood is not being used for transfusions... as it is totally different and only shares a "characteristic antigen" and nothing in it's basic make-up. Again human blood can be used of any type with any other type... with stabilizing drugs, but monkey blood is never used... why?
14 months ago: "The number of deaths caused by interspecies blood transfusions prompted a halt to the dubious process, although other interspecies transplants did continue with variable rates of success. Animal glands in particular were occasionally grafted onto human organs in an effort to bolster the patient's overall vitality or sexual potency or other alleged benefits. Rejection of these grafted glands was a common and often lethal side effect."
http://www.wisegeek.com/are-interspecies...
14 months ago: Because it doesn't work, apparently.

However, horsehair wigs work.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
14 months ago: Uh, hellooooooo..... You can't take parts from a .....ok, we already did the computer analogy, didn't we?

So dinosaurs evolved into birds, eh? How many dino species did this? Do all birds have a common ancestor from the dinosaur eras?
14 months ago: Well, I will try to give a Biblically correct answer. The best evidence is that the dinosaur era started about 24 hours before Adam and Eve. Initially, all the dinosaurs were vegetarians, which was quite inconvenient for some of them.

After the Flood, dinosaurs lived with people, on earth. However, because of sin, the judgments of the Curse and the Flood have greatly changed earth. Post-Flood climatic change, lack of food, disease, and man's activities caused many types of animals to become extinct. The dinosaurs, like many other creatures, died out. Unlike elephants, oxen, monkeys, dodos and giraffes, who could still find food and basically beat the dinosaurs at their own game.

Birds were created 24 hours before the dinosaurs. Birds species are not related to each other, let alone dinosaurs. Each type was individually created by God, except newer domesticated types that are really not Biblical.

So in answer to your question, no dinosaurs are related to birds or anything else, such as alligators. And birds are not descended from different birds, either.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...
14 months ago: Stan,

It may seem incredible... yet the evidence all around us screams the fact that every creature suddenly appears in the fossil records without any transitory species... and evidence for a global flood is everywhere.

"You will not apply my precept," he said, shaking his head. "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" -Holmes
14 months ago: No, you need to go to the Bible for that kind of evidence. If you don't care about the actual evidence, that doesn't mean it's not there.
14 months ago: Even 1600 years ago, within just 400 years of the time of Christ, St Augustine was way ahead of you, Truthbary.

"But the hermeneutics of Augustine merit great praise, especially for their insistence upon the stern law of extreme prudence in determining the meaning of Scripture: We must be on our guard against giving interpretations which are hazardous or opposed to science, and so exposing the word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers (De Genesi ad litteram, I, 19, 21, especially n. 39). An admirable application of this well-ordered liberty appears in his thesis on the simultaneous creation of the universe, and the gradual development of the world under the action of the natural forces which were placed in it. Certainly the instantaneous act of the Creator did not produce an organized universe as we see it now. But, in the beginning, God created all the elements of the world in a confused and nebulous mass (the word is Augustine's Nebulosa species apparet; "De Genesi ad litt., " I, n. 27), and in this mass were the mysterious germs (rationes seminales) of the future beings which were to develop themselves, when favourable circumstances should permit. Is Augustine, therefore, an Evolutionist? "

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02089a.h...
14 months ago: Stan,

First all the fossils found in the strata is there... without any transitional fossils from one species to another. That's it. NO evidence for evolution. End of story. NO drama.

If we were to go on evidence alone, all we have are animals showing up without transitional forms. ALL the links are MIA!
Content Removed by Truthbrary
14 months ago: 2 seconds ago: It matters little if Augustine was an evolutionist... he had greater flaws in teachings than that. To site a misguided ancient like Augustine is quite "telling"
...if I may say...

"Augustine was the principal architect of Catholic dogma that included his support of purgatory, baptismal regeneration, and infant baptism, mortal and venial sins, prayers to the dead, penance for sins, absolution from a priest, the sinlessness of Mary, the Apocrypha as Scripture, etc."
http://www.thebereancall.org/node/6535
14 months ago: Stan,

Let me give you the "short" version... when God created the world and all in it He created it perfect "with age" already built in. He created Adam and Eve fully mature and ready to procreate... the same with the animals and the entire planet, planets and stars. Created by a perfect Creator ...or... by random chance, you be the judge.

The weight of observable, non theoretical evidence points to Intelligent Design...
...not random accidents. [To believe one or the other... remains belief... faith !:]
14 months ago: So, the age of everything is built-in so that the earth seems to have existed for millions of years.

Luckily, you think your book tells you otherwise.

Without it, you'd probably have to agree with scientists in fields such as zoolology, biology, astrology, paleontology, and gentics who judge the evidence without looking at your book.

This would be like Sherlock Holmes working out the the rotting body on the floor was not the result of a death, but had been created there in a rotting state becasuse he read it in a book written by men, purporting to write for God.
14 months ago: Truthbrary's conclusion: Truth is not in the work of God. Truth is contrary to the observable work of God. Truth is in the book written by the hands on men on to paper made by men, claiming to speak for God.

Beat that.
14 months ago: Stan,

All science agrees with my statement. Everything is in a state of entropy, right?
SO, if everything is "going down hill" from there and here...
it must have started perfect. Agree?
14 months ago: Stan,

God is not limited to the failings of humans not their imaginations... for God to Create a perfect world, it would be a "walk in the Garden" to not only communicate with His Creation (in His image), but to help preserve a record of it. The record that we have proves it's authenticity by recording all the juicy details of the Bible "heroes" failures. If it was manipulated and corrupted... we would have nothing but a completely politically correct watered down textbook we could use in the classroom!
14 months ago: Stan,

You said...

"This would be like Sherlock Holmes working out the the rotting body on the floor was not the result of a death, but had been created there in a rotting state becasuse he read it in a book written by men, purporting to write for God."

...no, Sherlock Holmes could come to any conclusion, and still be a perfectly entertaining work of fiction... but it's intelligent author (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) would agree with me based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics...
http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-la...
14 months ago: I'm sorry to tell you that just as God to pre-oldify the work, he also made transitional species that are in the fossil record.

You'll have to incorporate that.
14 months ago: Are you keeping a tally of all your incorrect assumptions? If not you might continue to make them, Truthbrary.
14 months ago: Stan,

Have you been getting enough sleep? There ain't no transitional species.
It is like going to Dairy Queen... and asking them "who put the "freak" in Pizza!"
14 months ago: "All science agrees with my statement. Everything is in a state of entropy, right?
SO, if everything is "going down hill" from there and here...
it must have started perfect. Agree?"

If you think "all science" agrees with your casual dismissal of all science, it must really be a mystery to you that Biblical creation is only believed by religionists, and not taken up by non-Christian scientists as a reasonable proposition. Well, it's not a mystery to me. I can explain it if you like. You shouldn't be so proud of being dismissive of science, and at the same time claiming it supports your non-science based assertions.
14 months ago: "Have you been getting enough sleep? There ain't no transitional species.
It is like going to Dairy Queen... and asking them "who put the "freak" in Pizza!"

OK, where did you get this idea that there are no "transitional species"? Answers in Genesis?

What do you think a transitional species is?
14 months ago: Stan,

"The first thing that needs to be addressed is "what is a kind?" Often, people are confused into thinking that a "species" is a "kind." But this isn't necessarily so. A species is a man-made term used in the modern classification system."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...
14 months ago: OK, where did you get this idea that there are no "transitional species"? Answers in Genesis?

What do you think a transitional species is?
14 months ago: Stan,

I am going to site someone from your corner on the most confusing double-talk and circular reasoning available... only Dawkins could have done better...

"The problem is that there is really no such thing as a transitional species. The reason for this is that all species are transitional species."
http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/0...

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!?

I am saying man did not evolve from an ape or any other "species". We are going around in circles... if you have found the "missing link" produce it. There is nothing in the camp of evolution to prove any such thing... and also nothing to disprove the Biblical account. By you simply saying that there is, or debating based on speculation or theory, will not produce any evidence. Therefore, I will stick to evidence that is in the favor of Biblical Creation and Intelligent Design.
14 months ago: So, you selectively quote in order to misrepresent. You are losing points by the score, Truthbrary.

Your bald statements that your beliefs make facts are being judged for what they are worth.

What do you think the missing link is supposed to be?
14 months ago: Get back to me when you can be frank.
14 months ago: When the Evolution theory states that humans come from "apes" ...it fails to provide any transitional forms that bridge the humongous gaps we observe today.
14 months ago: According to Darwin non-whites bridge the gap. That is part of the postulation. The evidence of inferior, less evolved races is all around us.

http://www.rantrave.com/Rave/Darwins-Pla...

Remember?
14 months ago: Truthbrary, the fact that you still insist "there is NO evidence" reeks of something.

The facts that

1. you don't know about the evidence
2. you don't care about the evidence
3. you think its virtuous to deny that there is evidence
4. you think that scientists spend their days looking at "no evidence"
5. you reject as non-existent any evidence written by God that contradicts your book that was written by men,

do not in any way entitle you as an honest man to say "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE".

The fact that you think that your insight into the Bible demands you to reject any facts or conclusions contrary to it does not entitle you to be the arbiter of any fact whatsoever.

Facts for you do not enter into it, when they contradict your book idolatry. So, you can't make use of facts.

Your opinion, if formed on that basis, has no worth at all as it rejects "evidence" as "no evidence" as if that was virtuous when it is in fact dishonest.

It's bad enough that you call "evidence" "no evidence", but you should own up to the fact that there could not possibly be any evidence to satisfy you, because you already know you are right because you have a Bible written by men.

Where did you get this idea that there are no "transitional species"?

What do you think a transitional species is?

What do you think the "missing link" is supposed to be?

How many transitional forms between apes and humans do you need to see?

Would you like a list of evidence set out for you, or would I be wasting my typing fingers while you call "evidence" "no evidence"?
14 months ago: "According to Darwin non-whites bridge the gap. That is part of the postulation. The evidence of inferior, less evolved races is all around us.

http://www.rantrave.com/Rave/Darwins-Pla...

Remember? "

I remember how wrong that article is.

Huey, the fact that you still, from lack of knowledge and care, misrepresent Darwin on your high horse is not a credit to you. Your article is still an embarrasment. You don't care about science and inquiry, so don't worry about it. It's all trumped by religious dogma and ideology for you.

As per Darwin:
People cannot be classified as different species
All races are related and have a common ancestry
All people come from "savage" origins
The different races have much more in common than was widely believed
The mental capabilities of all races are virtually the same and there is greater variation within races than between races
Different races of people can interbreed and there is no concern for ill effects
Culture, not biology, accounted for the greatest differences between the races
Races are not distinct, but rather they blend together
14 months ago: Stan,

Every time I ask you to provide some proof you say I ignore the proof without providing anything...
so start typing so I can let you know what I think of your evidence.
14 months ago: You are the one who insists that your ignorance of the existence of evidence gives you the right to insist that evidence doesn't exist.

Answer these questions before I start, please. Otherwise I suspect you are going to pull the "no evidence" rug again.

Where did you get this idea that there are no "transitional species"?

What do you think a transitional species is?

What do you think the "missing link" is supposed to be?

How many transitional forms between apes and humans do you need to see in order to conclude that the two are related?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
14 months ago: >>>How many transitional forms between apes and humans do you need to see...<<<

If I may interject here, modern evolutionists don't claim there are any transitional species from ape to man. They theorize that all ape species and man share a common ancestor, which was neither ape nor man. Therefore there is no missing link between ape and man, it never existed. The only link between man and ape came prior to both. I'm not saying that's what I believe. There's not any undeniable evidence. And I don't have the memory of being there when it happened, so I truly have to take it on faith.

Hey, here's a whatifee. What if Adam and Eve were the last stage in the progression to sentience. Living in blissful ignorance, no conscience in the human sense of the word, living off natures bounty, carefree. Kinda gives the tree of knowledge a new twist, eh?
14 months ago: A welcome interjection, OOTB.

That's a very nice way to look at Adam and Eve. It's quite touching to reflect on the mystery and majesty of it all.
14 months ago: And BTW, there is no evidence for that theory either. That is all I am saying, where is the ancestor that "man" has come from? Oh, I know... from the textbook.

The Bible has one story... and the public education has their story too...
both require faith... the difference is that the evidence we do find shows only humans procreating with humans... ergo there is evidence for the Biblical account. IF it is otherwise it remains to be seen. And I admit that I have faith in the Biblical account.
14 months ago: Truthbrary, where did you get this idea that there are no "transitional species"?

What do you think a transitional species is?

What do you think the "missing link" is supposed to be?

How many transitional forms between apes and humans do you need to see in order to conclude that the two are related?
14 months ago: Stan,

I am going to tell you what I have always told people, that have either cursed me out, mocked or yelled at me... "I know you are, but what am I?" ...and that is....

Is that all you got? All righty then!
14 months ago: You seem to think "the evidence we do find shows only humans procreating with humans" has some probative meaning. Like men and fish make frogs.

So, since you don't see to know what evolution is about, or care, your confidence is entirely misplaced.

The evidence we do find is that every creature alive is a genetic relative to its ancestors, don't we?

Every man is of woman born.

So we would have to assume the same of Adam, by your logic, to be consistent.
14 months ago: "Stan,

I am going to tell you what I have always told people, that have either cursed me out, mocked or yelled at me... "I know you are, but what am I?" ...and that is....

Is that all you got? All righty then! "

That's a weak dodge.

You imply you know and understand the evolution and have concluded it is no evidence. Therefore I predict you will do the same when presented with evidence.

The least you can do is answer my questions as to what you think a transitional form is, and how many missing links you want, so you don't shift the goal posts.
14 months ago: Ok Stan,

I will answer your question if you answer mine...

IS there any evidence that Jesus Christ is Lord?
14 months ago: Yes.
14 months ago: Stan,

I agree literally that we are all "transitional" forms of humans.
14 months ago: Far from an embarrassment, that article is a shining light.

I take back what I said about you not generalizing. I guess I was just trying to believe the best.

The fact that Darwin's theory has racist undertones and overtones has absolutely nothing to do with any supposed religious dogma and everything to do with error passing itself off as science.

Folks like the Pygmies or Aborigines and a host of others are the transitions of the theory. The links that are not missing. The inferior races of common ancestry.

TB has an anointing for dealing with hard heads that I've yet to develop.
14 months ago: So, Truthbrary,

Where did you get this idea that there are no "transitional species"?

What do you think a transitional species is?

What do you think the "missing link" is supposed to be?

How many transitional forms between apes and humans do you need to see?

Would you like a list of evidence set out for you, or would I be wasting my typing fingers while you call "evidence" "no evidence"?
14 months ago: What about what I said?
14 months ago: Darwin was a Christian and a sincere scientist, regardless of what you think, Huey. He followed the facts he could determine where they led him.

You are not a scientist and patently reject the scientific method. Each to their own.

Your diatribe makes as much sense as some twit saying that the discovery of melanin has racist undertones and overtones, and we should reject it.

Huey, the facts of common human descent don't get racism applied to them until people like you put it there.

That's your choice.

Here's some news for you. Humanity originated in Africa. Every ethnicity has developed since then. Every ethnicity is favored.

You can carry on with your ideological sort of rot till the cows come home. Educate yourself before you embarrass yourself further, is my suggestion.

If you can't abide your wild unsubstantiated thesis being critiqued, you probably shouldn't publish it where people can read it.

If you would like to educate me with your view of science: Tell me how to understand the descent of man as understood by science, without being called a racist by the likes of you?
14 months ago: Now Stanley,

My, we sure have been "commenting" a lot... you keep repeating your phrases and questions like a monkey looking for a peanut... well, did you get one? That's right, "WE" have writers block for 5 months, and feel the need to ask others to "educate" you... why don't you write something, out where people can read it... to see if it holds more than a bucket of grey water? Let's see if you have an original thought in your head.
14 months ago: Ding! Fries are done!
14 months ago: Truthbrary,

You might recall you promised you would tell me:

Where did you get this idea that there are no "transitional species"?

What do you think a transitional species is?

What do you think the "missing link" is supposed to be?

How many transitional forms between apes and humans do you need to see?

If you are backing down, just put it in writing so I'm not confused.
14 months ago: Stan,

Where did you get this idea that there are no "transitional species"? =Bible
What do you think a transitional species is? =inferring man comes from apes
What do you think the "missing link" is supposed to be? =evidence of man from apes
How many transitional forms between apes and humans do you need to see? = one
If you are backing down, just put it in writing so I'm not confused. =you are already
14 months ago: Ok, thank you for that, Truthbrary.

It seems you consider the Bible as the arbiter of whether species exist or not.

There's not much to inform you of if you are sticking to that.

That's fine, but you shouldn't be under the illusion that your view has anything to do with science.

You can say "evolution doesn't tally with the Bible". Fair enough.

But when you "say evolution doesn't tally with science, and there is no evidence of evolution", you are getting into a fight without any ammunition.

Your views are contrary to science, but this should not surprise you, or trouble you, if you think the Bible is superior to science.

Here is a list with "29+ evidences of evolution"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of...

When you, on a scientific basis, that doesn't involve reliance on the Bible, explain how each of those 29 evidences don't exist, I will be glad to discuss that with you.
14 months ago: You say you only want to see "one transitional species".

Here is an account of several "transitional species" leading to mankind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolu...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitiona... "Following this definition, all living organisms are in fact to be regarded as intermediate forms when they are compared to some other related life-form. Indeed there are many species alive today that can be considered to be transitional between two or more groups."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tra...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolu...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fossil...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogeneti...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitiona...
"Proponents of creationism have frequently made claims about the existence or implications of transitional fossils that paleontologists consider to be false,[11][12] and in some cases deliberately misleading.[13] Some of these claims include:

* 'There are no transitional fossils.' This is a claim made by groups like Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research.[3][11][14][15] Such claims may be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature[14] but are also explained as a tactic actively employed by creationists seeking to distort or discredit evolutionary theory and has been called the "favorite lie" of creationists.[3] Some creationists dispute the lack of transitional forms.[16]
"
When you have assimilated those articles you will know more that you do now, and can converse informedly on the topic.

Only then would you even have a basis to make the bald statement "there is no evidence". Making the statement without the knowledge is just wrong. You would just be seeking to distort and misrepresent.

Glad to talk.
14 months ago: Stan,

You said...

"When you, on a scientific basis, that doesn't involve reliance on the Bible, explain how each of those 29 evidences don't exist, I will be glad to discuss that with you."

OK, here it is...
A Critique of Douglas Theobald's
"29 Evidences For Macroevolution"
by Ashby Camp
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
14 months ago: Stan,

Congrats on finding Wikipedia! Check out...

Debunking Evolution:
problems, errors, and lies exposed...
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32....

Human Evolution—Faster than a Speeding Bullet...
http://www.rantrave.com/Rave/Evidence-Fo...

Why Evolution is False...
http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sa...

Human Evolution Made Easy Debunked...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkkaYrHA9...

6 myths about evolution...
http://www.creationtips.com/6_myths_evol...

Evolution DISPROVED...
http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/ov...

The Fake Ape-Men - The Evolution Conspiracy clip 1-2 (Missing links still missing)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8W88otaP...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncsBSMmqZ...

Is there fossil evidence of 'missing links' between humans and apes?...
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/ai...

False proofs of evolution [1-3]...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxDj4ROHg...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1LVJ1NNU...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I2c8PVWL...

False proofs of evolution 2nd part 1-3...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAHOAbIKS...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymcyFiC9k...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m99wvVkC1...

Evolution Exposed: Deconstructing False Science... 1-7
http://www.realtruth.org/articles/080502...
FLAG THIS COMMENT
14 months ago: Sorry I ran out of space...

Evolution Exposed: Deconstructing False Science...
http://www.realtruth.org/articles/080602...
http://www.realtruth.org/articles/080804...
http://www.realtruth.org/articles/080905...
http://www.realtruth.org/articles/081002...
http://www.realtruth.org/articles/081203...
http://www.realtruth.org/articles/090105...

Evolution Is Religion, Not Science
Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. ...
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution...

A Primer on the Scientific Reasons that Evolution is Wrong!...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18764293/A-Pri...

Well, there is only a thousand refs to go, I think I will call it a night.
14 months ago: Stan,

You are a good guy, but you are full of crap.

Where in anything I said is there evidence of ignoring the scientific method? That's just stupid. Blow more smoke.

Darwin at his death was an agnostic at best, not a Christian. Racism is not applied to Darwinism until he makes racist statements like -

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."

Or geneticist James Watson - a Darwin disciple

"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so"

You love to ignore the obvious and have yet to really address the issue. Guess that helps you to sleep at night.

Stick with your monkey relatives. I have enough sense to know that humans have always been just that, human.

You can believe what you want and BTW you have way too much time on your hands. Your whole diatribe is an embarrassment to intellectual thought, objectivity and pure scientific reason. Your comments are pretty much spam at this point. TB is a real trooper for trying to communicate the truth to you that you refuse to consider or take seriously.

TB - you got this one 'casue now it's like talking to a fence post and I've got bigger fish to fry. Peace.
14 months ago: Thanks for the effort Bro,

It is a little tedious... but thanks to the www there is an inexhaustible amount of info against evilution, unfortunately there seem little to combat "stupid" ...but I'll be here for these Dawkinsians, it could be that God will allow them to see a little light... it wasn't too long ago that I was the militant RC believing in everything from evolution to Astral Projection. You make a good point though, and thanks for the expose on Darwins "dirties" ...this sort of crap needs to get flushed from the school system!
14 months ago: Stan, your take on this is...

"Scientists are fools, blinded by Satan, and damned by their lack of faith."

I am not implying that scientists are fools... rather ape-to-man evolution theorists are! These are not damned by their lack of faith... goodness no! They have mis-placed faith ...choosing to believe that we come from apes and are made in their image, than from the hand of God... and made in His image.
I don't think that they are unintelligent... ignorant on purpose.

Just like the evidence for the flood...

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Peter 3:5-7
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
14 months ago: * Ex. 22:19, "Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death."
* Lev. 18:23, "Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion."
* Lev. 20:16, "If there is a woman who approaches any animal to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."
* Deut. 27:21, "Cursed is he who lies with any animal. And all the people shall say, 'Amen.'"

Why?


HIV (the "AIDS" virus) was originally a zoonosis acquired from primates.
Syphilis is believed to have come from sheep.
Then there are a bunch of bacteria, parasites, and fungi. Ewwwwww.


14 months ago: So, health check first?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
14 months ago: Nah, I wouldn't be able to tell if she really loved me, or if she was just in it for the peanuts.
14 months ago: You could probably hear me laughing from where you are sitting, OOTB!
14 months ago: It says I can unsubscribe from this junk so I won't get it in my inbox -- where the **** is the unsubscribe link?

"You are receiving this email because you have written or chosen to subscribe to this Rave. If you wish to stop receiving updates, please click "unsubscribe" on the Rave page. "

I don't see the unsubscribe button on this rave page -- my wife saw this crap in the in box and she railed at me for hanging with losers -- "no honey, really this is not what R&R is all about...I promise."

No, in fact this is what R&R is about, she's right. This rant is so much worse than anything happygolucky could complain about, it is so much more lame than the smartygirl because it mocks decent ranting and raving, all she did was plagerize: the update is not funny, nor is it original, rather it is nanana-boo--boo, and drivel, much like the whole of the creation debate.

I sent two right-of center folks to check out my writings here on this site and they both came back to me far more critical of the site than my writings -- dude, get outta there is what one person said -- they make you look ridiculous. Really, being embarrassed by the company I keep at R&R is beyond words: maybe it's the TCG spats, or the other infantile fights and such, but really, it is these two posts by truthbrary and the ridiculous comments that follow that are most damaging.

I feel sad for Box because he's the kinda person who will hang on to the bitter end like atlas, being the one upstanding individual around here to hold things together. If, Box, you are the last one standing and you rebuild R&R into something again, then I'll be there, but right now I'm outta here. Talk to your helper, Alex, and see if he can follow your directions and be a good elf to assist your management of this site, although you did say this post is a good one, so who am I kidding...myself...oh well, I'll get over it...
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
14 months ago: Scroll up to the top of the page, on this link. Just under the OP, it says "unsubscribe from this post". That will take you off the mailing list for updates to this post. You will only get notices for articles you submit, or those you have commented on.

It's been nice getting to know you, Pluto. Good luck to you.
14 months ago: What's the OP?

My screen does not have an unsubscribe post link, and I have checked each pixel -- is there a joke going on about making the link letters colored white so the pixels don't show up on the background? It was terrible for me to have to scan this page so closely again, looking for the unsubscribe link -- is there a reason why I cannot find it?
14 months ago: OK, I found it.
14 months ago: Hey Pluto,

You can dish it but ya can't take it... (below is your "high-quality" post)
http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/Jesus-is-in...

...not mocking at all is it?
14 months ago: Nice touché TB!!

Lot's of folks around here like to dish it out but can't take it. That's why they run away screaming like infants. Hillarious.
14 months ago: I can't wait until I get blamed for this one...
14 months ago: TCG,

Too late... you got him mad, and now he is after the poor mindless ones who can't defend themselves as well as you can!
14 months ago: Does anyone know where Pluto went?
14 months ago: My guess? Might be out on one of the following. It's pure conjecture though...call it an non-educated guess....

1) Pluto is out buying the skankiest (have a good laugh with this link http://www.thefreedictionary.com/skankie... ) goat/sheep he can find to stake out alive as bait for a Mountian Lion (Cougar for the dimwits).

2) Pluto is out marking the watch zone with urine so the Mountian Lions (Cougars for the dimwits) stay away from the camp and head to the bait.

3) Pluto is packing the supplies his children need to watch the Mountian Lion (Cougar for the dimwits) kill the live bait he has staked out to be killed.

4) Pluto is in shopping for a TuTu. He is a dancer (see link above).

5) Pluto is busy planting rutabagas.
14 months ago: A better question would be...

Where is the "site princess"? What happened to the "site princess" when all of those bogus twiiter feeds went South? Why is it that when something "goes south" it is considered a bad thing?
14 months ago: 5) Pluto is busy planting rutabagas?
14 months ago: TCG,

Now you are just being a "SmartyPants!"
14 months ago: I'll have you know I own two trench coats. If I was going to flash my stuff I would not be wearing pants. However since I do wear pants and do not intend to flash my stuff (over and over and over again) I need to continue to ask...

Where is the "princess flasher"?
14 months ago: Pluto,

If you have something to refute or to add to the post... do it! Stan Five doesn't agree with me either but has rather chosen to slam some arguments down and force me to deal with them...
...is this your defense on behalf of Evolution... to yell for censorship?
14 months ago: Seems like that's all Pluto's got. You and Stan are like Duran and Leonard.
14 months ago: That's too bad... I wanted to be Leonard!
14 months ago: There was no particular order. You are both scrappy.

BTW - your arguments are tighter.

Stan gets respect for being civil while presenting the case. Have had many a debate on the issue where it degenerates into insults, name calling and blanket generalizations without thought or care from the other side.

Refreshing.
14 months ago: Huey,

I am sorry my man for not getting back to you sooner, I have been trying to keep up with some Stan Spam, I think you got some of that on the Darwin post.

I think the tone is a changing...
14 months ago: Huey,

Thanks for joining in and for your insight, many times you seem to be the voice of reason, you seem to know when to hold'em, and when to fold'em !:]
14 months ago: I taught him everything he doesn't know.
14 months ago: TCG,

Well, there is always hope !:]

I was thinking about a man who was to go up against his pupil in a contest, and was asked if he was worried.. he said that he wasn't. He said "I taught him everything he knows... just not everything I know!"
14 months ago: Kinda reminds me of me...

I have forgotten more than most will ever know.
14 months ago: War has been declared! Yep. Read the stupid statment from five-fingers-and-a-thumb.

http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/Why-is-Rant...

Catch it before the site admins delete it. I hope they don't. I'll repost it until it sticks.
14 months ago: Question to Dawkins, modern hero of evolution... STUMPED!

"Can you give an example of a Genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi360...
http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-...

Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw5...

EVOLUTION FORGERIES...
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter9....

Evolution is a Hoax...
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution...

The Big Hoax!...
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution...
The Evolution Hoax Pt1-2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd63xDfy-...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu0t-mWPs...

EVOLUTION IS A HOAX – DOCUMENTED! by Dr. R. L. Hymers, Jr.
http://www.rlhymersjr.com/Online_Sermons...

Evolution Bloopers Hoaxes and Contradictions...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hV-rqCDh...

Evolution Fraud...
http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud...

Evolution vs. Creation...
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/evolmore.ht...
14 months ago: You said there was no evidence of evolution. I gave you a list of evidences. You posted a link that you assert agrees with your view that there is no evidence.

It actually doesn't.

It acknowledges the evidence. What it does is attempt alternative, convoluted and inconsistent hypothoses to account for the evidence that is accounted for by evolution.

Have you read the evidence? Did you find it interesting? If so, what do you make of it? What do you make of the genetic consistency of the phylogenetic tree? It's consistent with evolution, isn't it?

The funny thing is that you are the one pushing what the non-denominational world scientific community recognises as the wacky unsubstantiated fringe nonsense. You seem to believe that the vast preponderance of scientists who actually study such things, after excelling at school and university, are such numbskulls who don't understand their own specialty.

Maybe your fringe science is right. Maybe the entire scientific world is full of nothing but crazies. You see the hill you have to climb here?

Any person who has failed to benefit from study and doesn't know much about evolution can publish a "common sense" "non-peer-reviewed" ideological article on the their own Christian website. That is exactly what they do, by the score. Hundreds of idiosyncratic articles that rely on ignorant folksy derision and misrepresent evolution as meaning a lump of coal turned into a chicken don't help.

If Wikipedia is too wild for you, you could try mainstream publications such as Encyclopedia Britannica. The "Christian science" articles such as you have linked to would not qualify for publication in a legitimate encyclopedia. Did you know that?

If by pointing you to Encylopedia Britannica and the current best knowledge of science is wacky and annoys you, call me and the rest of the world wacky, and go back to your "special needs" science.
14 months ago: "Peanut Butter: The Atheists Nightmare".

Just plain dishonest misrepresentation of evolution. Forget the Ninth Commandment. Pathetic. Nothing more really needs to be said, does it.
14 months ago: Stan,

You forget that I was raised in your type of public system, where we were raised on Darwin, and put to bed at night with evolution! I used to preach your kind of mindless ravings... you guys deserve the "Peanut Butter" illustration. I was on my way to "evolve" into the next level of "sheeple" when I finally woke up. AND guess what... my Granny is not monkey!

[Oh, did you get the Dawkins.. "Abedy", "Abedy", "Abedy", "Abedats all folks !:]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi360...
14 months ago: Stan,

If you want to be a Dawkinsian "cousin" to a fish... "fly" at it! But if you want to be counted with the rest of the intelligent population of humans, you are welcome back...
just make sure you do it be fore Hale-Bop returns, or you may find yourself evolving back into a cool-aid induced rock formation.
14 months ago: So just sit baaaaack and get you some popcorn... and enjoy the videos and articles,
I am still forced to "enjoy" your publicly funded religion,
every time I watch National Geographic.
14 months ago: Stan,

Let's start off small one article or video at a time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxDj4ROHg...
14 months ago: [There will be a test !:]
14 months ago: Actual opening quote from "False proofs of Evolution part one."

"Although the theory of evolution has been utterly discredited in every field of science. . ."

Well that's the credibility problem right there, isn't it. Mr Youtube Evolution Disprover has paid no attention to the Ninth Commandment.

But, I guess if every field of science has discredited evolution then the show's over.

I don't know what you are still going on about, Truthbrary. I guess the universities and research institutions have been shut down and replaced with a big Bible, a dinosaur ride, and a jar of peanut paste.

Let see what other fields of enquiry can be deemed religiously incorrect, next.

I'll start.

"The dogma of atomics has been utterly discredited in every field of science."

"Some people say there are electrons in out bodies and we are made out of the same atoms the rest of the world is made out of. Like rocks and chickens. Well I aint never seen no electron. Ain't none in the Bible. My grandaddy sure as heck wasn't made out of hydrogen and atoms. Ya ever see a atom turn into a person? Crazies, I tells ya. Science says so too. I saw it on youtube. You can be a danged rock if you want, not me."
14 months ago: Test #1

1) Dawkins in his "stumped" video, stated that we were not descendent's of apes, rather we are "cousins" because the "original parents" that we allegedly both came from cease to exist... and there remains no evidence for this theory nor these so-called ancestors at all... outside the textbooks and imagination.
True or False?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi360...

2) "Piltdown Man" ...over 500 doctrinal thesis were written on this find that was found out to be a hoax... 1949 Kenneth Oakley (British Museum Palaeontology), developed a "fluoride test" and discovered that the jaw of "Piltdown Man" was only a few years old, and the skull a few hundred years old. The jaw belonged to an orangutan, and the cranium belonged to a man that had died some 500 years previously. Potassium dichromate was use on the find to make it look ancient. A professor from Oxford University revealed the fraud and called it a "deliberate fabrication."
True or False?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxDj4ROHg...

3) In Ernst Heackle's theory of "recapitulation" all illustrations revealed that:

a) Ernst was the first Dr. Jekyll
b) Every illustration was fake
c) "Heackle's Fraud Rediscoverd" was a published Science Journal headline
d) Heackle's confession to his fraud, included "hundreds of fellow-culprits"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxDj4ROHg...

4) These fraudulent examples are still being taught from textbooks today.
True or False?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxDj4ROHg...
14 months ago: Answers to Test #1

1. (I will charitably assume that you don't know the Dawkins video is not a demonstration of Mr Dawkins being "stumped" by some incredibly clever creationist question. It is being misrepresented as such, sadly.)

You seem to believe that fossils can be dated and authenticated or revealed as frauds, so I'll run with that.

It shouldn't surprise you that we had ancestors, and we have evidence of them. In more modern fossils there are apes, and people and no dinosaurs. In older fossils there are apes and more robust people and no dinosaurs. In even older fossils there are apes and rugged people with smaller brains, and no dinosaurs. In older fossils still the people are more like apes, there are apes, and there are no dinosaurs. In even older fossils there are apes and no dinosaurs. In even older fossils there are dinosaurs and no apes, and no people. In even older fossils there are simpler creatures, no dinosaurs, and no apes and no people.

In answer to your question. The evidence of our ancestors is all around us, written in the world by God. You can see the progression of skeletons.

So, the answer to your question is, false.

2. "Piltdown Man" was a fraud, confirmed so by science. Isn't science clever?

3. The recapitulation theory was a theory, but was discredited because the evidence didn't stack up. It was based on the development of embryos, and area of study that is still of great interest to biologists. Isn't science great the way it can work out that things don't have evidence, and is willing to abandon them? Not like the creationists.

4. I am sure these fraudulent examples take up a great deal of wasted space in creationst textbooks.
14 months ago: Test #2 will be on the next video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1LVJ1NNU...
14 months ago: Test #2 based on video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1LVJ1NNU...

1) In 1922 H.F. Osborne discovered a tooth in West Nebraska.
True or False?

2) On the basis of this tooth "scientists reconstructions" made a scull and body.
True or False?

3) Top "scientists" published illustrations of "Nebraska Man's" wife and children were also made on the basis of this single tooth.
True or False?

4) In 1927 (5 years later) other parts of "the skeleton" and realized that the tooth belonged to an extinct wild pig.
True or False?

5) Archaeopteryx is found to be an intermediary between birds and dinosaurs.
True or False?

6) The theory of the Peppered Moth "species change" was a scientific scandal discovered by fellow evolutionists.
True or False?

7) "Equine Evolution" is the only form of evolution from one species to another,
a dog-like creature to a horse.
True or False?
14 months ago: I will watch this material, Truthbrary.

But I get the feeling I'm being dudded.

I don't think that you've read the material I found for you.

You're still on the "My grand-daddy wasn't no fish, Monkey Man", tack.

You're not reciprocating.
14 months ago: Again Stan,

I went to public school, was tops in science class... I not only read the material, but was a defender of the faith of "evolution" ...I parroted many a Dawkins. Watch the vids and take the tests... then you will see what I had to go through, being faced with the evidence and the frauds. It was like getting Santa getting debunked!
14 months ago: BTW.. I still look through the raft of links you send, it gives me great ideas!
14 months ago: The thing is, I don't think you'd be promoting these videos, if you had read what I sent you.
14 months ago: Answers to test #2.

1. Close. The tooth was found in 1917

2. I don't think so. Beware misrepresentation by ideologists. The London Illustrated News published a picture created by an artist, specifically disclaimed thus""reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius."" Scientists did not reconstruct a body based on the tooth. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_n...
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol...

3. I don't think so. See above. Once again. Beware creationist's casual relationship with the truth.

4. Probably. See above "The scientific world, however, was far from accepting without further evidence the validity of Professor Osborn's conclusion that the fossil tooth from Nebraska represented either a human or an anthropoid tooth. (Gregory 1927)
Identifying the tooth as belonging to a higher primate was not as foolish as it sounds. Pig and peccary cheek teeth are extremely similar to those of humans, and the specimen was worn, making identification even harder. "

Isn't it great the way science rejects falsity, based on the evidence? I think God would approve.

5. Do birds have teeth? Archeopteryx does doesn't it. So I guess its not a bird.

6. You are saying that evolutionists worked out some facts? It's not about "species change", it's about natural selection, so the premises of your question are wrong.

7. Every species is a result of speciation, as far as we know.
14 months ago: And it's good night from me .. . .
14 months ago: Test #3 based on video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I2c8PVWL...

1) The "evolution of the horse" is a theory devoid of any reality, yet presented as not only fact but a feature of demonstrated equine evolution.
True or False?

2) The human "family tree" is...

a) and apple tree
b) a hoax
c) really a blueberry bush

3) Human evolution from apes resembles more of that of Mr. Potato Head assembly than that of real scientific procedure.
True or False?

4) Evolution resembles more of that of a religion belief system than science.
True or False?

5) There are more fraudulent findings in Evolutionist findings, than in any TV evangelist claims and benefits to our communities.
True or False?
14 months ago: You really haven't read the material have you.

1. The video quotes Boyce Rensberger to alledly prove that the horse didn't evolve. Do you really believe Boyce Rensberger? You need to read this quote from the same man, in its entirety: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news...

Have you read it?

It also quotes Niles Eldregde to allegedly prove the horse didn't evolve. You need to read this: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creat...

So your video is running two malicious or ignorant falsehoods for two. That's a bad record. Consistent with the other parts, though. Gotta use falsehoods to convince us of this argument, right. I'd be ashamed if I'd made that video. How do you feel about it? Is it justified to deceive to get converts?

2. This isn't a sensible question.

3. This isn't a sensible question.

4. False. And a very misguided question. You are the one confusing religions and science? Are you saying religions are bad? Is the theory of electricity a religion? Genetics? Innoculations? Agriculture?
14 months ago: Oh, and you'll need to read about the apparent author of that material, the honesty-challenged, islamic holocaust denier, Harun Yahya. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar
14 months ago: Oh, and holocaust confirmer, and lots of other things.
14 months ago: Oh, and this http://orionsyndicate910.wordpress.com/2...

It explains a lot. Not the sort of chap I would tarry with.
14 months ago: This link really reveals a lot about you Stan, there is nothing at all that this guy or anyone has come up with that is contrary to the information and frauds exposed in this post. You should know that.
14 months ago: Sorry, here is the ref you wanted me to see, that only exposes your ignorance...
http://orionsyndicate910.wordpress.com/2...
14 months ago: Stan,

Nice try at misdirection... Ad hominem abuse? I will even quote you in order to get the truth! I don't care a lick who exposes or publishes a fraud... even if it was Clinton himself... I will remind everyone the FRAUD still exists. People resort to this sort of stuff when it appears that they are loosing an argument. The evidence will reveal the truth, not necessarily who dug it up. And the point of this exercise is that our "faithful scientists" have been perpetrating a fraud on the public. It matters little if someone makes a million dollars on the information or sleeps with a chimp !:]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
14 months ago: You have been a good sport until now, finish taking test #3 and we will consider your grade.
14 months ago: 5) on Test #3 is still remaining.
Content Removed by Stan Five
Content Removed by Stan Five
14 months ago: The fact that the author of those videos has flat out lied in those videos, or been wilfully ignorant, is quite relevant to whether anyone should take his word on anything.

The fact that his claims don't check out suggests not.

The fact that his writings have a consistent pattern of illinformed statements trying to appear authoritative is not an ad hom. It's a question of credibility.

His facts don't check out. That's not an ad hom. Bad tree. Bad fruit.

Answer to q.5. I don't have figures on the extent of truthfulness of TV evangelists. And I haven't worked out what the question meant, so pass.
14 months ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility

"Traditionally, credibility has two key components: trustworthiness and expertise"

Video author's trustworthiness: poor.
Video author's expertise: poor.
Video author's credibility: poor squared
14 months ago: Well your score came back 100% ...because you are such a great sport and went along with my juvenile testing and means to get you to watch videos that normally one wouldn't. All this to say... if we say our video producer is disqualified for personal lies or character flaws... then we too should disqualify all the textbooks and National Geographic HD videos, for continuing to promote material that has been proven fraudulent and deceptive. Every day the media is flooded with "scientific" discoveries that are fraudulent... because that is where the money is... publicly funded "science" is a cash cow for all parties involved. If the money dried up like what might happen with "planned parenthood" you will soon see the decline of "discovery."
14 months ago: Thanks Truthbrary. You're a great sport too.
5 months ago: Stan...
These were the good ole days... man I have been trying to find a new angle for a new scrap! Problem is it's tough to slam someone that's so darn sportsman like !:]
vibram
vibram
New York, NY
Content Removed by RantRave
14 months ago: Made in Kina by Misking Lenks?

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave