MN public school board chairwoman: Evolution is outdated because ‘it was discovered in the 1800s’...

Capt Gregory Prickett there is evidence noah built the ark during the bronze age. How does that fit in with evolutionary theory. Building styles found in Egypt were the same as those in Peru, and in Okinawa, and China. Polygonal locks with

PO1 Jerome Newland blocks of stone cut so precisely and fit together so perfectly a knife blade can't fit between the

PO1 Jerome Newland blocks found in Okinawa, Japan, China, Mayan, Incas with the same building styles at the same times. Moving blocks so huge, our best mechanisation can't duplicate any of them. But, not any evidence of how or why these things were done. Easter Islanders hail from Hawaii and the Polynesian Islands. They, along with the how and why they built the monoliths, gone. The list is endless that a worldwide phenomena laid entire populations and almost all traces of them, to wast. The Bible tells us of dinosaurs attacking men, with their weapons bouncing off them. Down to the color of their skin. A sophisticated language structure for Neanderthals and trogs. That made into the written word thousands of years before dinosaur bones were discovered, not millions. First, a hypothesis, then experiments to prove or disprove it. Then interpretation of the results, consistent with the findings of the day. Whatever didn't fit was just removed rather than be scorned by the scientific community. Darwinism made sense, until it came to people then it stopped. Sure, we see some changes, mostly from intermarriage, but not in specific species of men. Black, white, red, tan, cinnamon, color variations. But, not brain patterns, bone structural components, internal organ arrangement, emotional capacity, the things that make us human would also make us heretics in the old world. If we were meant to fly, God would have given us wings, the earth is square, a train across the country, can't be done. Einstein, Edison, Tesla, Da Vinci, Capurnicus, Galileo, Pasteur, Curie, Marconi, Newton, all had the facts, not just theories. But were shouted down by their scientific peers. Laughed at, o

PO1 Jerome Newland ostracised. The scientific community et al, is based on the principal of religion like Sun worshippers, druids and Gregorian Monks. You should know better than to clash with God's statements of His power and authority. Faith has always transcended knowledge, a belief system more powerful than a slide sule, able to leap into hearts all over the world. Including yours. If you really are a serious man of scientific principles. Apply them to Christianity, and see if miracles can really happen. Could a flood drown the world. Can a people, protected by God, living hundreds of years, repopulate the planet. Starting with 4 couples, and two of every kind of animal, without the flaws associated with inbreeding starting with the second generation. Can it be done? Obviously. Can you figure out how without resorting to faith?
Senior Chaplain Jerome Newland Philippines

1SG (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel

Enjoy the laugh.

Capt Gregory Prickett - Critiqued or attacked? The three academic leaders in the "getting beyond Darwin" movement are Steven Meyer, David Berlinski and David Gelernter, all of which point out that the mechanism of Darwinism can't be demonstrated and from the genetic and statistical standpoint, are mathematically impossible. Scientist tend to treat Darwin as a religion and not a theory to be tested. Remember that this theory is based on the observation that a species will adapt to it's environment and from that came the theory that Natural Selection is capable of making adaption that include new species and phylum's. That has never been demonstrated. I would suggest you read the essays by these three scientists to get the real data and make up your own mind.

Capt Gregory Prickett - You are kind of making my point. Both articles are attacking the person and not the data or theory. That's dogma and not science. These guys could all be wrong, but until the other side comes up with more definitive proof of their theory, nothing in science should not be questioned and debated.
What Gelenrter and Belinski both stated was that the formation of life was too complex for random mutations and any technological system that we have today that is anywhere near as complex is intelligently designed.

Capt Gregory Prickett - Again, consensus is not proof and personal attacks aren't science. Any scientist that is honest recognizes that the proofs for Darwin don't exist and if they are denying scientific debate on the subject, it's dogma.
Darwinism and Climate Science have the same problem, there is a lot of serious debate about them gets shouted down by the true believers. I work with computer models every work day, comparatively simple ones when you compare it to the atmosphere. In my world, we understand that the model just represents your input, which may or may not be valid. If your results don't match the real world, no matter how many people believe your input it right, your model is screwed up.
Oh, and Micheal Mann just lost the libel suit he filed against Timothy Ball. So the skeptics win another round.

Capt Gregory Prickett - You are missing the point. There are huge gaps in natural selection, while at least somewhat valid within a species, does not explain the explosion of life and of difference phylum of species in short geological time span, the Cambrian Explosion being the most prominent. What Belinski and other are pointing out that with what we now know about genetics, you can come up with a reliable statistical models that predict the chances of both random chemicals forming life or that a random mutation is viable and would lead to a viable new species. The math says it's highly improbable. That is a huge point. So if the statistical probability of the mechanism of that is now being used as the foundation of evolution, mutation, is statistically improbable, that certainly needs debated.
Ball lost his lawsuit because he failed to produce his research that was supposed to back up his Hockey Stick theory, which was the main point of Ball's critique.
But again, you want to attack the source rather than the data. Believing something is true and being able to demonstrate it are not the same thing. If Belinski and Gelenrter are wrong, then they need to demonstrate why they are wrong, and I haven't seen that yet.