Evolution is a Lie - Intelligent Design is the Truth!

Nature: Galápagos Finch "Species" Can Interbreed
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/nature_galapago083531.html



The Galápagos finches are often touted as a great example of an adaptive radiation, showing how new species can arise through evolutionary processes. A new article in Nature by Galápagos finch researchers Peter and Rosemary Grant, "Speciation undone," confirms what we we've said here in the past -- Galápagos finch species are capable of interbreeding -- but adds a new twist: they're interbreeding so much that in multiple cases, two "species" may be fusing back into one species.

According to the article, "New observations suggest that two species of Darwin's finches are hybridizing on a Galápagos island, and that a third one has disappeared through interbreeding," as "one population of Darwin's finches has become extinct through interbreeding with another."

Those species are tree finches on Floreana Island, which initially had three species -- the "large," "medium," and "small" tree finches. It was thought a species of large tree finches arrived first, and then diverged into a "medium" species and "small" species. Later, a new type of "large tree finch" invaded the island, leading to the three species. As the Grants now note, new observations reveal "the large tree finch has disappeared from Floreana!"

Plus, the remaining medium and small species seem to be hybridizing, which they call "speciation in reverse." But you can only have "speciation in reverse" if you had actual speciation in the first place. As I've explained before, the biological species concept defines a species as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups." So if the "medium" and "small" finches are interbreeding with one another, then they're not reproductively isolated, meaning they're not different species, meaning "speciation" never took place in the first place.

Incidentally, this isn't the only example where Galápagos finch "species" have been observed to interbreed. As the Grants go on to explain:

On the small uninhabited island of Daphne Major, two species of ground finch (genus Geospiza) have been converging morphologically and genetically for more than 30 years as a result of persistent (although rare) introgressive hybridization following a natural change in the food supply. If introgression continues at the same rate, the two species will fuse into one in approximately 40 years.

They end with a telling admission that some famously touted "radiations" of species (like cichlids or the Galápagos finches) might not be so very different, biologically speaking, after all:

Rapid radiations of fishes and finches are especially at risk because their morphological evolution is not accompanied by strong barriers to gene exchange. Uniquely valuable in showing how speciation is done, such species deserve special protection from being artificially undone.

In other words, what we think are separate "species" might not really be that, after all.

“Materialist philosophers argue that consciousness is a construct of matter. But Plato and almost all the great classical philosophers, East and West, suggest the opposite. Matter, at least as it appears to us, is a construct of consciousness.”

“…Consciousness is real and creative. It is not just a by-product of the world we perceive. Without consciousness, that world, the world we perceive, would not even exist. Another quantum physicist, John von Neumann, said, ‘All real things are contents of consciousness.’ This is about as far from materialism as you can get – and it is an interpretation of modern physics, not some weird religiously inspired theory.”

––Keith Ward, retired Professor of Philosophy at Kings College, London, and a member of the Council of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, as quoted in his book Is Religion Irrational?

“…This sense of wonder leads most scientists to a Superior Being – der Alte, the Old One, as Einstein affectionately called the Deity – a Superior Intelligence, the Lord of all Creation and Natural Law.”

–Abdus Salam, winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in electroweak theory. He is here quoted in his article entitled Science and Religion.

“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen that none will work without God.”

“Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.”

–Physicist and mathematician James Clerk Maxwell, who is credited with formulating classical electromagnetic theory.

“There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.” (italics added)

–The knighted mathematician, physicist and astronomer Sir James Jeans as quoted in his book The Mysterious Universe.

“For myself, faith begins with a realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence—an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered—-’In the beginning God.’”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Arthur Compton, discoverer of the Compton Effect.

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

“Something which is against natural laws seems to me rather out of the question because it would be a depressive idea about God. It would make God smaller than he must be assumed. When he stated that these laws hold, then they hold, and he wouldn’t make exceptions. This is too human an idea. Humans do such things, but not God.”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Max Born, who was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics.

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

–Lord William Kelvin, who was noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale based upon it.

“Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism.” [“Solipsism” is defined as “the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.”]

–Johns Hopkins University physicist Richard Conn Henry

“Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.”

“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

–Max Planck, the Nobel Prize winning physicist considered to be the founder of quantum theory, and one of the most important physicists of the 20th century…indeed, of all time.

“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Paul A. M. Dirac, who made crucial early contributions to both quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics.

“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

–Werner Heisenberg, who was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics for the creation of quantum mechanics (which is absolutely crucial to modern science).

“Atoms are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom. The universe is also weird, with its laws of nature that make it hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it passes beyond the scale of our comprehension.”

–Princeton University quantum physicist Freeman Dyson, as quoted during his acceptance of the Templeton Prize in 2000.

“…Discussing the creation of the universe in terms of time and space is like trying to discover the artist and the action of painting by going to the edge of the canvas. This brings us very near to those philosophical systems which regard the universe as a thought in the mind of its Creator, thereby reducing all discussion of material creation to futility.”

—The knighted physicist, mathematician, and astronomer Sir James Jeans as cited in his book Mysterious Universe.

“I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”

–Albert Einstein

“It is evident that an acquaintance with natural laws means no less than an acquaintance with the mind of God therein expressed.”

–James Joule, propounder of  the first law of thermodynamics (on the conservation of energy).  Joule also made important contributions to the kinetic theory of gases. The unit of heat known as the “Joule” is named after him.

“An equation for me has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God.”

–Srinivasa Ramanujam, who is widely regarded to be one of the greatest mathematicians of all time (on a similar plane with such greats as Archimedes and Newton).

“Is intelligent mind an ultimate and irreducible feature of reality? Indeed, is it the ultimate nature of reality? Or is mind and consciousness an unforeseen and unintended product of basically material processes of evolution?”

“If you look at the history of philosophy, it soon becomes clear that almost all the great classical philosophers took the first of these views. Plato, Aristotle, Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Kant, Hegel—they all argued that the ultimate reality, often hidden under the appearances of the material world or time and space, is mind or spirit.”

–Keith Ward, retired Professor of Philosophy at Kings College, London, and a member of the Council of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, as quoted in his book Doubting Dawkins, Why There Almost Certainly is A God.

Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing.

–Sir Isaac Newton

University of Delaware physicist Stephen Barr discusses the topic of underlying order, or structure, in Modern Physics and Ancient Faith:

“The overlooked point is this: when examined carefully, scientific accounts of natural processes are never really about order emerging from mere chaos, or form emerging from mere formlessness. On the contrary, they are always about the unfolding of an order that was already implicit in the nature of things, although often in a secret or hidden way. When we see situations that appear haphazard, or things that appear amorphous, automatically or spontaneously ‘arranging themselves’ into orderly patterns, what we find in every case is that what appeared to be amorphous or haphazard actually already had a great deal of order built into it.”

“In fact, we shall learn something more: in every case where science explains order, it does so, in the final analysis, by appealing to a greater, more impressive, and more comprehensive underlying orderliness. And that is why, ultimately, scientific explanations do not allow us to escape from the Design Argument: for when the scientist has done his job there is not less order to explain but more.”

Another Evolutionary Biologist Rejects The Bogus Theory of Evolution

Intelligent Design, Peer Review, Predictions, Dissenters

Why The Fossil Record Does Not Support Evolution

The speaker in this video clearly has been hooked by abstract mathematical obfuscation as well as the heliocentric myth, but nevertheless, still manages to discredit Darwinian evolution, so this is worth listening to:

Admin wrote:

Fantastic presentation, right on the mark!

Biochemistry professor debunks Darwinism

In the Netherlands Homo naledi (you know, the one they found in a cave deep below the ground...) came in the news today, claiming it's much younger then they first thought. On YT the only hoax video that I could found on this matter was this one:

Any more thoughts one why this find is bogus? Love to hear them

Check out Viruses are a hoax. Search "virus hoax" and you'll find a lot of interesting info.

I'm just not surprised anymore on the vastness of the deceptions.

Looks like Turkey will exclude evolution from school textbooks.
Head of the education ministry's curriculum board Alpaslan Durmuş announced that a section on Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution would be excluded from biology textbooks in the ninth grade (14 and 15 year olds) from next year on.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40384471?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

I was thinking about what I was told about evolution and how humankind spread himself across the earth. This always made sense to me, but by now I know this could be a complete lie.

So my question is; Is humankind created/designed in Africa and populated the earth from there? And if this is so, did humankind adapted (micro-evolution) to the different circumstances, so different ‘races’ started to exist. Or is this ‘spreading of humankind’ a complete lie (and races might be designed separate)?

I would love to hear some thoughts on this. Enjoy your weekend!

[/url]

Most recent Jew-Created version of human-evolution presents:
Gerard Gierlinski together with Grzegorz Niedzwiedzki Polish paleontologists have "discovered" footprints made by hominins 5.7 milions years old.
https://phys.org/news/2017-08-fossil-footprints-theories-human-evolution.html
Photos below are supposed proves:




I have spent my hooliday one year ago just 1km away from this location (Trachilos) and this place is full of turists passing by when going to popular Lagoon Balos and stoping there at Trachilos to see biggest port in that region.
I have seen similar rock formations all over Crete, and this is FANTASY STORY being pushed by media to make us believe we are insignificant.

Hadron Collider Hoax

I once read where someone said that evolution was the equivalent of a tornado passing through a junk yard and in its wake it produces a 747! Simply not going to happen.

I'll even go so far as to offer up this example.... I'll give you all the materials necessary to build a house and place them all in a large yard. Not the raw materials mind you, you'll have the edge of getting already somewhat prepared materials with cut timbers, windows, electrical cables, etc. All the "fixins" to build and finish out a home. I'll make it so that weathering and decay can never degrade these items as well as an infinite amount of time in which the sun, moon, hot, cold, winds and rain, lightning and earthquakes can work their magic. Now, tell me, how long will it take for those stacks of materials, the "building blocks of a home" to somehow fling themselves accidentally together and become a house? A shed? A simple lean-to? The answer, and every clear thinking individual can see this... is that it will NEVER happen. And to think that something far more complex, on the level of cells and DNA with the ability to replicate would suddenly spring forth is so utterly beyond being simply absurd but clearly a lie beyond lies. Now I'm not a creationist by any means but I certainly can smell bullshit and I can attest to having been covered over with truck loads by liars and lickspittle hangers-on for my entire life.

ivanxxx wrote:Biochemistry professor debunks Darwinism

Great video.

The bacterial flagellum alone provides profound evidence against the modern Darwinian theory.
Our bodies are truly amazing.. with VERY complex molecular machines that are always working conjunct and know exactly what to do at the right times.

This is a great 5 minute video using Dawkins own words against his beloved theory of evolution:

Evolutionist use pigeons as proof that evolution is true by their quick adaptation they make. It takes between 1-2 generations for a pigeon to completely adapt to its environment. Because of their quick ability to adapt they are now used in breeding competition to manipulate them into exotic birds which bare little resemblance to their original form. In the video below a judge of these competitions explains how Darwin’s theory is shown true because of their adaptation. One huge hole in the judge’s theory which he completely ignores is the pigeon always tries to revert to their original form. By doing this the mutation of genes do not hold and only with selective breeding will they stay in these unnatural forms. I believe this shows the exact opposite of evolution. Due to design the birds will adapt to their environment rather quickly, not thousands to millions of years. Also this shows that adaptation does not equal evolution as only through extreme stimulus do the changes hold but as soon as the stimulus is removed they revert back to their natural form.

In the video below it will show the different breeding competitions of pigeons and exclaim see, see evolution. It will talk about extreme breeding, breeding them to race, and their natural ability to adapt in the wild. As I stated above this will show the exotic breeds I am talking about and explain that it usually takes 7 generations to get to these extreme forms. After they stop selectively breeding them in 2-3 generations they revert back to their original form. This showing how adaptation can take place very quickly and go away rather quickly which is the exact opposite as how evolution is explained. Just like how a domestic pig can become wild in a few months. This ability of quick adaptation seems to be built into many animals’ design.

"...built into many animals’ design". I believe that about answers it.

Hope this finds everyone well.

I have spent quite a bit time here, slowly going through all of the informative posts. I thought that this may be the best place to ask people their opinions on the age of the world in which we reside?

They claim the earth is 4.5 billion years old. According to the big bang theory. How old do you all think it is?

How long ago do you think intelligent design came into play.

Thanks for your time.

Tankjones1991 wrote:Hope this finds everyone well.

I have spent quite a bit time here, slowly going through all of the informative posts. I thought that this may be the best  place to ask people their opinions on the age of the world in which we reside?

They claim the earth is 4.5 billion years old. According to the big bang theory. How old do you all think it is?

How long ago do you think intelligent design came into play.

Thanks for your time.

This is a research forum not a survey forum.

Realearth wrote:

Tankjones1991 wrote:Hope this finds everyone well.

I have spent quite a bit time here, slowly going through all of the informative posts. I thought that this may be the best  place to ask people their opinions on the age of the world in which we reside?

They claim the earth is 4.5 billion years old. According to the big bang theory. How old do you all think it is?

How long ago do you think intelligent design came into play.

Thanks for your time.

This is a research forum not a survey forum.

That was a little blunt. Surveys are very much a valid form of research. But since you seem concerned about like-minded researchers asking for enlightened opinions as to the age of this flat plane of existence, do you have any compelling research or analysis upon which we may begin to build learned answers regarding the age of this here realm?

Please advise.

Oliver_Bestfall wrote:

Realearth wrote:

Tankjones1991 wrote:Hope this finds everyone well.

I have spent quite a bit time here, slowly going through all of the informative posts. I thought that this may be the best  place to ask people their opinions on the age of the world in which we reside?

They claim the earth is 4.5 billion years old. According to the big bang theory. How old do you all think it is?

How long ago do you think intelligent design came into play.

Thanks for your time.

This is a research forum not a survey forum.

Surveys are very much a valid form of research.  
asking for enlightened opinions as to the age of this flat plane of existence,
Please advise.

Be advised.
Opinion = Belief = Theory = Pretend = No factual value.
Survey of Opinions = Survey of Beliefs = Survey of Theories = Pretend = No factual value.