<p>
[quote]
If this is so, then apparently, God is Hell-bent on tricking us into thinking evolution is true. Not only does this call God's sanity into question, but we also must ask why he would create all this evidence for evolution, while simultaneously providing evidence that "refutes" it. Your God is an idiot.
[/quote]
I think God wants to keep us guessing. What is the point of having faith if you can prove something beyond a shadow of doubt?</p>
<p>God exists outside Space & Time so trying to put him into a 4-dimensional framework is useless.</p>
<p>science says PSEUDOGENES have no purpose..but they do(they influence)....part of design.If they had no purpose..natural selection would have phased them out millions of years ago...right?</p>
<p>About RNA:</p>
<p>Now that I bothered to read through talkorigins.org, I'm only more strengthened in my resolve that certain evolutionary theories, are indeed, ridiculous ponce.</p>
<p>
[quote]
DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication [Jeffares et al, 1998; Pool et al, 1998; Leipe et al, 1999]. The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids [Böhler et al, 1995]
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Could and likely are not an acceptability. We want, can and is - kapische?</p>
<p>
[quote]
A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes [Levy and Ellington, 2003].
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What sources suggest that deoxyribozyme is the specific trigger of such replication patterns and not any other? If deoxyribozyme has been isolated as the prominent catalyst of the evolutionary trigger mechanism, I would like to see concrete evidence.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Claim CA005.1:
Charles Darwin was himself a racist, referring to native Africans and Australians, for example, as savages. </p>
<p>Virtually all Englishmen in Darwin's time viewed negroes as culturally and intellectually inferior to Europeans. Some (such as Louis Agassiz, a staunch creationist) went so far as to say they were a different species. Charles Darwin was a product of his times and no doubt viewed non-Europeans as inferior in ways, but he was far more liberal than most; he vehemently opposed slavery [Darwin, 1839], and he contributed to missionary work to better the condition of the native Tierra del Fuegans. He treated people of all races with compassion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And a serious matters this is. What a nice way to overlook the agenda - downplay Darwin's guiltiness by comparing his rotten values to the rank injustice of his own civilisation. Though it may be true, "measuring" one's degree of racism (is that even possible?) in direct correlation to the cultural opinions of the fellow men of that era, reduces the scientific insight of this website to ashes. That is why if Darwin opposed slavery, it was probably because he endured personal nightmares about the negro race becoming rampant fixtures of his time, thereby increasing the possibility of a mixed race - a backward move in his case. Perhaps this is something Hitler would identify with.</p>
<p>"The break between man in a more civilised state, as we hope, even than the caucasion, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
- Charles Darwin, The Descent Of Man, 2nd. ed., New York: A. L Burt Co,</p>
<p>The propensity to alike negro men to gorillas obviously devalues the scientific merit and achievements of Darwin - a fallen man, in my opinion. You might also like to know that Darwin had never undergone a formal education in biology - so long for diploma mills.</p>
<p>Also, Darwin was aware that his theories faced a lot of problems. The difficulties in explaining fossil records, complex organs of living things that could not possibly be explained by coincidence, i.e, the eye, and the instincts of living beings. Darwin hoped that these difficulties would be overcome but that didn't stop him from coming up with a number of very inadequate explanations for some:</p>
<p>"On reading The Origin of Species, I found that Darwin was much less sure himself than he is often represented to be; the chapter entitled, "Difficulties of the Theory" for example, shows considerable self-doubt. As a physicist, I was particularly intrigued by his comments on how the eye would have arisen."
- H. S Lipson, A Physicist's View of Darwin's Theory, Evolution Trends in Plants, Vol 2, No. 1</p>
<p>
[quote]
The views of Darwin, or of any person, are irrelevant to the fact of evolution. Evolution is based on evidence, not people's opinions.
[/quote]
This is the height of mediocrity - it is a poor attempt to dilute racial stigma. If I had a personal vendetta against a given subject, there would be more than a likely probability that I would assimilate and throw this negativity into the groundwork - even refraining from being proactive in this instance, would change the foundation of my subject to some extent.</p>
<p>Considering this is a man who fathered evolution, and also the fact that his work was an evidence of at least some racial prejudice, it is a disgusting reveal into the much hyped-up ******** perpetuated by many evolutionists, under the sickening guise of reason. Given such acclaimed and respected status, Darwin's intelligence should have prevented him from making such tragic speculations regarding the racial ladder. From here, it's plain to see Darwin is on a propaganda ride.</p>
<p>As reiterated, many scientists, do indeed, use farcical theories and lunatic theologies, funded by their own lack of cultural respect, to pave the way for the next heatwave of scientifical anarchy:</p>
<p>"Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take us across the gap from mixture of simple natural chemicals to the first effective replicator. This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but it is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to the origin of life by Alexander Oparin."
- Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Summit Books, New York.</p>
<p>Conclusion: If I was ever convinced about the fallacy of bogus evolutionary theories, I am more so now. I believe that variance within a species is attainable - indeed, one can see this happening before our very eyes, but I draw the line at the merest mention that one species developed into another.Not only do I have time limitations, but I doubt we will ever achieve mutual understanding. We will only end up spiralling further into dissension and discord. However, I do have to say this: I apologise for creating a breeding ground of impertinence and secretly commiting to shove ten-inch needles in a voodoo doll of your liking.</p>
<p>Rest assured this was not a competition, but a mere exchange of beliefs, in which mine remain intact.</p>