Debunking of darwin conspiracy dot com

”What is the origin of life?

Most scientists admit they do not know.

But all atheists think they do”

OK, so a straight out lie as a first argument. No, atheists can believe a number of different things surrounding the origins of life, most admit to not knowing.

”all atheists have one and only one theory to explain the origin of life.”

Nope. Atheism only means you do not believe in god. Some atheist believe life had natural origins, most say they do not know, some think Aliens put us here.

”Every single atheist claims that life began purely by chance”

Nope, they do not. How do I know? Because I am an atheist and I do not say that. Most scientists believe that there was some sort of ”pre-evolutionary-process” that caused the first life (abiogenesis), evolution is not random, so why would this process be? I believe (but do not know) it was a naturally guided process, just as natural selection guides evolution.

”and there is no God.”

Yes, finally something that is correct, an atheist do not believe in god, that is all. Besides that, an atheist may believe ANYTHING.

”But if life could originate just by chance,”

No one says that, and ”chance” is still more likely than ”god”.

”then God could also originate just by chance.”

Sure, I agree to that. There just is no evidence of god.

”The atheists’ theory that life began by chance on Earth was well presented by George Wald in his book “Origin of Life” when he wrote:
“The important point is that (….) and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles.”
In other words, atheist George Wald and all other atheists postulate that life began by chance.

No, HE personally does. He speaks only for himself, all though many people probably share his views.

”and the existence of life was accidental and there is no God or Creator.”

No, we do not believe in god because there is no evidence for god, there is no second reason needed.

”If life was formed by chance, then God could have also been formed by chance, and therefore there could very well be a Creator.”

Yes, now you just have to provide EVIDENCE for this creator. That he MAY have been created by chance, does not mean that he was.

”George Wald was a professor at Harvard University so we guess he must have exhibited some intelligence – but he was obviously not intelligent enough to realize that his “the impossible becomes possible” theory backed him into a corner such that he would have to admit that God was also possible.”

I think most atheists would say god is possible, there is simply no reason for believing in one.

”Atheists claim that over the course of billions of years, “the impossible becomes possible.” We say the possible includes God.”

The difference being, that the theory of evolution has MASSIVE evidence, this creator has absolutely none supporting his existence.

”In fact, God is much more likely than man because GOD HAD more than NINE BILLION EXTRA YEARS to be formed by chance”

BUT, there is no evidence that he did, there is quite strong evidence man actually came to be. No matter how likely you say it is, you have no evidence of this being.

”whereas life on Earth only had less than 4.6 billion years.”

Only?  Haha, yeah, only 4, 600 000 000 years, that’s like yesterday!

”Here is why God had nine billion extra years to come into being:”

Aha….

”Scientists think the universe is 13.8 billion years old”

Mhm…

”and our Sun is only 4.6 billion years old.”

Mhmmmm…

”This means that God had over 9 billion years to develop itself before our Sun was even born.”

Aha, but then you are saying god did NOT create the universe then? Since it formed before he did? But was rather something that EVOLVED into the being it is now?

”Atheist Harvard professor George Wald, the revered leader of modern atheist thinking, wrote that in two billion years, anything that can happen will happen.”

Well, he said ”is very likely”. It is all about the odds. If the odds is one in a billion that something will happen, it will happen in one out of a billion attempts. That is what odds describe.

”God had 9 billion years to be formed before Earth even existed.”

OK, think I just answered this?

”God had 9 billion years to develop and advance Itself before our Sun even got started.”

OK, waiting for the actual evidence here. You do know that arguments are not evidence?

”So, according to the atheists’ own “reasoning,” in 9 billion years, God not only is a certainty, God also became Supremely Powerful.”

So, god is an evolve being that is not from earth, now it sounds like you are describing an Alien. I think most atheists can agree it is possible that a super evolved alien lifeform may exist out there. But there is still no EVIDENCE of one.

”GOD IS MORE LIKELY THAN MAN,”

You can not talk ODDS after something has already happened, we know humans exist, we do not know that god exists.

”You Can Bet Scientists Lie About Anything Related to Evolution and God”

Mhmm, lets see what evidence is presented for this claim…

”Most of the time, scientists are not liars and are genuinely trying to discover and understand the laws of the universe.”

Creationist scientists being one of the exceptions… No evidence of the above claim of course..

”But whenever scientists are confronted with anything that has to do with God or evolution, then scientists on the whole always lie to us and they are brazen about it.”

And of course examples of this would be nice…

”For example, until 1956,”

Ok, here we go..

”scientists falsely claimed that humans and apes had the same number of chromosomes and therefore humans evolved from apes.”

Examples of this would of course be good, but lets trust that it is true..

”But the fact is, humans actually have 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes.  Apes, gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, etc. all have more chromosomes than humans”

Yes, which today, when we have a greater understanding of it, is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for evolution (chromosome 2). That is, if humans have one less, 2 had to merge, so one chromosome should look like 2 merged ape chromosomes, and chromosome 2 does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29

”During the first half of the 20th century, that fact would have seriously weakened “ape into human evolution theory” because there is no way to explain how apes, with 24 pairs of chromosomes, could have evolved into humans with 23 pairs of chromosomes.”  We all know that if we lose a pair of chromosomes, we cannot reproduce.”

So, you call a reduction from 24 to 23 a reproduction? IT was actually a MERGE.

”During the first half of the 20th century, there was a ferocious war between evolution theory and creationism and Darwin’s supporters were extremely hard pressed to “find the missing link.” Darwinians could not find the missing link so they simply fabricated one by faking the Piltdown Man skull.”

And then other SCIENTIST debunked it because it did not fit into the findings in nature, we did not evolve intelligence first, we evolved walking on two first. Creationists had nothing to do with debunking it.

”Darwinians also were determined to hide any evidence”

Then how was it proven wrong? (But yes, ONE GROUP did so, not academia as a whole).

”that contradicted their beloved evolution theory.”

Nope…

”That is why atheist scientists simply concocted a lie and told us apes and humans both have 24 pairs of chromosomes.”

No, we didn’t know better back then, sadly, since us having 23 is one of the strongest evidence we have for ape to human evolution (which is a weird word since humans are still apes).

”An atheist scientist named Theophilus Painter took the lead and published a paper in 1921 claiming humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes.”

And now, we know better. Science is an ever changing field, we change with the evidence.

”Other atheist scientists “confirmed” this in other scientific papers.”

Because that was what science thought back then, no one has said science is absolute truth.

”It was not until 1956 that the fraud came to an end because evolution theory had gained enough support to not need to be buttressed by the 24 chromosome lie.  The “apes and humans have the same number of chromosome lie” had done its damage to the truth”

But the fact that we have 23 is even stronger evindece for evolution, so that makes no sense.

”Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung all pointed to the “24 chromosome lie”

Reference? Also, Hitler was Catholic.

”as a reason for them to ban the teaching of creationism from German, Russian and Chinese schools.”

Well, you really do not need a reason (they certainly did not) for doing so, it is a proven lie.

”It is worthy to note that even now, scientists are prevaricating about this matter and they insist they did not lie to us about humans having 24 pairs of chromosomes.  Instead they tell us they made an “understandable mistake” and it was very difficult to accurately count all the way up to 24 pairs of chromosomes.”   

Which would be true. There is no reason to lie. IF they wanted to prove evolution, us having 23 chromosomes among which one is 2 merged ape-chromosomes, is stronger evidence than if we had 24.

”It is absurd for atheists to assert that the counting of just 23 pairs of chromosomes was so difficult that none of them could do it correctly for over 30 years.”

NOW it is quite easy, it was not back then. How about you take a look at an image of DNA and tell us what you can see? Can you even understand simplifications as this one?:

”Guess what? They had no trouble counting the much larger number of chromosomes for other animals, such as dogs who have 39 pairs.”

Yes, they had.

”We are trained scientists and everything you read on this website is based on the latest scientific discoveries”

That is why it has ZERO references to modern science?

”published in the most respected peer reviewed scientific journals.”

OK, lets see if you deliver on this further down, one may hope. So far you had quote mines or outdated scientists.

 ”Nothing we write on this website is based on the Bible or any religious beliefs.”

Doubt that, but OK..

”But we are persons of faith and proud of it.”

Surprise!

”In fact, we have no doubt we are better scientists because we embrace Divine Providence”

So you believe making untestable assumptions makes you better scientists? This is what is known as ”bias”.

”as did all fifty-six Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence.”

White slave-owners agreeing it was OK to own black people, OK, great group to listen to.

”The only goal of this website is to use scientific methodology to seek the truth and the truth is there have recently been earth shaking scientific discoveries in genetics that now proven Darwin was wrong because:”

OK, here it comes, the evidence, or?

”“Ape to human evolution” is impossible – recent DNA tests reveal that ape and human DNA are far too different for humans to have evolved from apes.”

No reference of course, and that human and ape DNA is far apart is just ridiculous.

“One species into another species evolution” cannot occur in bisexual animals becaue the laws of genetics and embryology preserve each species and prevent any bisexual species from evolving into another.”

No, evolution is based on cells being UNABLE to make perfect copies of themselves, so there are small changes. This does not change in asexual reproduction (I have no idea what bisexual reproduction is).

”This website will provide you with details from peer reviewed scientific journals to support all this.”

Strongly doubt that.

”If you are wondering why you have not read about any of this, it is because a very powerful Darwin Conspiracy, led by atheists, has suppressed the truth about evolution theory and fed us lie after lie after lie for over 100 years.”

Who would have money enough? We already know that companies such as McDonald, Coca Cola, and the Tobacco industry, failed to bribe the scientific community as a whole, which is why we know they are unhealthy. Where does all this atheist-money come from?

So no, thanks to peer review, we know this is utter bullshit.

”The Darwin Conspiracy has both faked evidence”

No, single scientists did.

”The Piltdown Man is an example of the power of the Darwin Conspiracy”

But, it was proven wrong by DARWINISTS! So, how does that fit?

”Researchers in genetics and embryology are learning something new every day.  The more they learn, the more obvious it becomes that it is impossible for humans to have evolved from apes.”

Not according to experts on genetics, but sure, why not trust a website instead of all the people actually working with this?

”We wish to reiterate and emphasize that this website will inform you about the latest scientific discoveries based on peer reviewed research papers published in the most respected scientific journals.”

So far, no references to such.

”Darwin Buster One: Darwinians have been dead wrong whenever they have claimed that the ”genetic matter of ape and humans is 98% identical.” The ape and human chromosomes are remarkably divergent and too different for ”ape to human evolution” theory to adequately explain.  For example, the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.”

Which, according to 99,5% of the experts on the subject (Actual numbers), in no way changes that we have 98% of our DNA in common. This is YOU people personally reinterpreting scientific findings to suit your own presumptions.

”Darwin Buster Two: There are laws of embryology that directly contradict ”ape to human evolution.”  One reason is that genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development.  This makes it impossible to add genes to any genome because there is no way to coordinate any new gene with existing genes.  Yet ”ape to human evolution” requires apes and humans to be able to add genes – for example, the chimpanzee Y chromosome has 37 genes and the human Y chromosome has at least 78 genes.”

And yet, we have millions of examples of it:
– Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
– Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
– Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
– A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
– Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
– In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
– Lactose tolerance – why humans with significant European ancestry can digest milk as adults.
– Antibiotic resistant bacteria – at least beneficial from the point of view of the bacteria.
– Radiation resistant fungi (and perhaps other lifeforms) inside Chernobyl
– ”German Superboy”, an individual example of a human mutation that not only doesn’t cause any visible disfigurement or impairment, but if anything will probably make it easier to maintain a muscular physique and/or low weight. These are characteristics that could be considered desirable in the modern day, when food is abundant.
– The ccr5-Δ32 mutation confers HIV-1 resistance to those with a double copy of the allele (homozygous). The mutation also confers resistance to plague and smallpox while increasing susceptibility to west nile virus.
increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:

Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)

”Darwin Buster Three: The laws of genetics prevent ”ape to human evolution” from ever taking place.  One reason is there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes.”

LOL. There are several, cell division being one. Maybe look up the basics of genetics?
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask358

”But ”ape to human evolution” relies on apes and humans having the ability to create new genes with new functions.”

Which is done trough ”mutations”. This is 5th grade science you don’t understand here.

”New genes are required in order to have morphological changes”

And here is a page explaining to ninth graders how that happens:
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask358

”such as gills into lungs or more efficient brains.”

We have evidence of it happening of course:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/fishtree_09

”So called ”gene duplication” is not evidence that organisms can create new genes.”

Yes, it is…

”Although bacteria can duplicate existing genes by mistake through ”gene duplication,” this only occurs in single sex bacteria and this is not evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions.”

Every human ever born has done so, we all have mutations. So, this is just a really stupid claim.

”Darwin Buster Four:  Darwinians have no explanation for why humans and apes have a different number of chromosomes.”

Yes, 2 merged, and are today one of the strongest pieces of evidence FOR evolution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29

”Darwinians claim that ”chromosome fusion” of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome resulted in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs.  But there is not one example of ”chromosome fusion” in mammals.”

Humans ARE an example. How the fuck can one say we have no examples, when SPEAKING of such an example!?!

”Darwinians claim that 1 in 1000 human babies have a ”fused chromosome” but this is an out and out lie.”

I can find nothing about this, but, if scientists say it, in fact, if a high school stundent says it, it is more believable than this website.

”They are actually referring to Robertsonian Translocations, which are ”translocations”

Which IS caused by merging:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertsonian_translocation

”and not fused chromosomes”

Yes that is the cause of Robertsonian Translocations, see above…

”and does not result in a change in the chromosome number.  Besides, scientifically derived facts refute ”chromosome fusion” can occur in apes or humans.”

And yet, ,you provided an example of it yourself.  Chromosome 2 in itself is also an example.

”We have just provided you with a summary of four Darwin Busters.  Each one busts and invalidates ”ape to human evolution.”

LOL, noooo..

”But of course almost all atheist scientists refuse to admit any of them because they worship Darwin”

Darwin is completely irrelevant for science today.

”And almost all scientists are atheists because people of faith no longer seek careers in science.”

Well, they do, they just fail in reaching that level.

”Also, you probably have not even read any news about any of this because there is a very powerful worldwide atheist Darwin Conspiracy that actively suppresses the truth about evolution and instead spreads lies.”

Do you have any EVIDENCE of this? That is all that matters really.

”This is why we created this website.”

No, you created a website to spread Christianity in the cover of science.

”We are here to combat the Darwin Conspiracy and bring you the scientific information you need to make your own judgment about ”ape to human evolution” theory.”

OK, a good start would be to bring any information that SCIENTISTS DO NOT KNOW ABOUT.

”SUMMARY OF ”APE TO HUMAN EVOLUTION” THEORY”

OK, lets count the misunderstandings, just for fun.

”Darwinians have asserted that humans evolved from the African ape”

No, error 1. We share a common ancestor with the African ape (and with all apes).

”Darwinians tell us that the biological differences between humans and apes can be entirely accounted for in the differences in their genes (DNA).”

Not only human and apes, between human and say, bananas as well.

”They have claimed for decades that the ”genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical.”

It still is…

”They insist that apes evolved into humans because of gradual changes to their genome.”

Well, close enough…

”The biological instrument for ”ape to human evolution” is changes in the genome, especially the genes.”

And we see that every time any lifeform multiplies.

”Darwinians further theorize that each such change in the apes’ genes was minor but over the course of over six million years, the accumulation of such small changes in the genes of apes resulted in ”ape to human evolution.””

Jupp…. Your evidence against that being what?

”Darwin’s supporters boast that there are ”genes that make us human” and that soon they will find and identify all such genes.”

True…

”In summary – Darwinians claim the ape genome evolved into the human genome through changes in apes’ genes and very few changes were necessary because the genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical.”

And have proven so….

”But since 2001, scientific researchers in genetics and embryology have discovered proof that virtually every detail of ”ape to human evolution” is contradicted by scientific facts.”

So why do basically every scientists still believe it? Oh, because of a conspiracy of course.. I have however already explained why such a conspiracy is impossible. The paper is referred to further down, and this is NOT the conclusion of it.

”Below are some of the recent discoveries that prove ”ape to human evolution” is impossible.”

OK, lets see…

”APE AND HUMAN CHROMOSOMES ARE NOT 98% IDENTICAL”

You are referring to a study by Roy Britten that says we are 95% alike.

1) That does not disprove evolution in any way.
2) That is still just ONE scientist, listen to the great majority of scientists instead.

”BUT ARE TOO DIFFERENT FOR EVOLUTION TO EXPLAIN”

Evolution can explain fungus to human evolution, 3% less alike REALLY is not a problem for the theory.

”Scientists in genetics and embryology are learning something new every day.”

Yes, that is the whole point of science that creationists are missing..

”One of the things we now know is Darwinians were lying to us when they insisted that the genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical.”

You see, you already disproven that you understand science in this very sentence, they were not lying, if it turns out our DNA is a little less alike, then the scientists was a little bit off, and we change the theory a little.

If future studies show Roy Britten’s study incorrect in the future, it will change back to 98%. But THAT new science you will not accept, since you think science is complete as soon as it has proven what YOU PERSONALLY want.

”During the last 12 years, there has been a steady flow of scientific discoveries informing us that Chimpanzee and human chromosomes are so remarkably different that it is inconceivable for the ape genome to evolve into the human genome.  For example:”

(OK, lets see what you got)..

”In 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled ”Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content.” (Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)”

And what does the paper say? Well, it says: ”… the extraordinary divergence of the chimpanzee and human MSYs was driven by four synergistic factors: the prominent role of the MSY in sperm production, ‘genetic hitchhiking’ effects in the absence of meiotic crossing over, frequent ectopic recombination within the MSY, and species differences in mating behaviour.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html

IT did not disprove evolution, it provided further understanding of it. Once again, this website has proven to be run by dishonest people with a clear agenda. .

”The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of ”ape to human evolution.” ”

And they provided an EXPLANATION that did not mean dismissing evolution to the phenomenon, as quoted above.

 ”Nonetheless, they found that:
The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome.  Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37.
The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes. ”

True, here is the study:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html

It is just that you are lying about the conclusions.

”Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.”

Yes it does, it is called ”evolution”. And that is not the conclusion of this papers, the conclusion was: ”It is caused by four synergistic factors: the prominent role of the MSY in sperm production, ‘genetic hitchhiking’ effects in the absence of meiotic crossing over, frequent ectopic recombination within the MSY, and species differences in mating behavior.”

”That is obviously baloney – there is no way that could have happened.”

Then how come we can fully explain it? IT is because of   the prominent role of the MSY in sperm production, ‘genetic hitchhiking’ effects in the absence of meiotic crossing over, frequent ectopic recombination within the MSY, and species differences in mating behavior.

Maybe read the papers you are referring to before assuming they prove your point?

”This means that in order for the ape Y chromosome to evolve into the human Y chromosome, apes had to add 41 genes.”

Yes, so what? Between human and Fish there are thousands of genes that needs to be added, and we see no problems with this from a scientific point of view, so why would 41 be a problem?

”In order for apes to add genes, they would have to have a genetic mechanism to generate new genes and insert them into their chromosomes.”

No, that is not how it works, and we know the reason this happens. It is because cells cannot make perfect copies of themselves, DNA cannot either, every time a living being multiplies there are mutations.

”But apes do not have any ”gene generating system.””

A gene is a locus (or region) of DNA that encodes a functional RNA or protein product, so, adding genes is the same as changes or addition to DNA.
In genetics, an insertion (also called an insertion mutation) is the addition of one or more nucleotide base pairs into a DNA sequence. This can often happen in microsatellite regions due to the DNA polymerase slipping.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_%28genetics%29

That would be an addition to DNA = addition of genes.

”Nor do apes have a ”gene insertion system.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_%28genetics%29

”This means that ”ape to human evolution” theory is missing the genetic mechanisms necessary for evolution to actually take place.”

Nope…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_%28genetics%29

”This is ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE that proves ”ape to human evolution” is impossible”

No, it is an absolute misuse of scientific papers in hope to twist things your way. Dishonest, and disgusting.

Annonser

Kommentera

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Twitter-bild

Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Facebook-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Ansluter till %s