No, here again what you're assuming is, that all their testing relies upon the theory of evolution. This is simply not true. However, if they are putting across a theory as a fact, without evidence to back up their claims, then yes they are dishonest and are falsely indoctrinating based on assumptions, rather than solid observable, scientific proof. Here is what happens when one who works in these fields does not comply with their theory.

Christian Biologist fired for creationist belifes: (this is just one example, but hardly isolated)

Christian biologist and zebrafish researcher Dr Nathaniel Abraham is suing the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in New England, USA, for $500,000, claiming that he was fired in 2004 for telling his supervisor he did not accept evolution as scientific fact because he believed the Bible presented a true account of human creation.

Religious discrimmination is obviously alive and well in the USA establishment, despite any protestations to the contrary. Dr Guillermo Gonzales, assistant professor of astronomy and physics at Iowa State University in 2007, fired for his belief in intelligent design, despite his publishing more than his colleagues.

Also note, the refusal of Scientific American to hire Forrest Mims III (The most widely read electronics author in the world) when they found out he was a creationist, despite admitting that his work was first rate (www.creationontheweb.com/mims).

The irrelevance of evolution to real science is shown by the fact that Dr Abraham was not dismissed until he had been working at Woods Hole for eight months and presumably would be there still if he had not mentioned his creation beliefs....

These are just some examples. People can arrive at their own ideas about conspiracy theories, but it sure doesn't look good.



Charles Darwin "It is mere rubbish to talk about the origin of life; one might as well talk about the origin of matter."

I believe in biogenesis (life coming from other similar life). Where is the evidence for abiogenesis? I know of no evidence that indicates an organic soup, even a small organic pond, ever existed on this planet. And fail to see how this can be tested, observed or proven? The idea that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is the most implausible hypothesis. Explain to me how DNA could have formed from any chemicals present? When the complexity of information contained in DNA in one human being is astounding and could simply not erupted spontaneously without intelligent intent. Just as the most advanced computer system requires a programmer, so too does the most complex structures in nature require designer. You can believe in spontaneous development of this if you wish, but it's not science.

Just because a scientist maybe an expert in what he can test and observe today, does not mean he's expert in origins or how things were in the land before intelligent observation and testing were possible. This is based on alot of assumptions and faith and sadly often passed across as science. To mix true testable science with theories, even if those theories are just assumptions, is a form of indoctrination without fact.

No matter how you try and explain what must have occured in the beginning, it requires faith and it depends on what you're willing to put your faith in. Whether things that happened with purpose and intelligence/life, or whether they happened by chance...and were they complete? Or did they gradually evolve and gain new information?


Yes I absolutely believe that all life, variation and laws arrived through intent, intellect and purpose. Whether I believe that God required billions of years of evolution in order for these things to reach fruition is something highly debatable. Again, we've not observed any signs throughout history of animals and human beings being any different than what they are today. More blind assumptions on our past based on pre-conceived beliefs.


Yes, iron is part of life.....I don't think i've disputed that. And what happens when we don't get enough of the right elements? (including iron) We go down hill. I don't see how life can start or be sustained without all the right elements already in place in order to nurture that life.

I mentioned before that the reproductive system could not be half finished and continue to produce life. The complexity of the reproductive system is what is necessary for life to take place cannot possibly have occured without fully functioning organs in place. Even now, people can have trouble conceiving, though they have all the equipment. Things can still go wrong. How on earth would half evolved creatures have brought forth after their own kind during their evolution?. All these things must be in place and working so that life can beget life. Billions of years of evolution? This makes no sense in light that all life dies eventually, unless we keep reproducing offspring to keep it going.....Even if you go down to the tiniest miscroscopic forms of life, they ALL have complexity. You tell me something that does not? Then give me an example of its evolution/reproduction. That is started off without full information, yet new information was somehow added as time wore on..... You cannot possibly evolve gradually into a complex being, if the complexity was not there from the beginning to allow for continuation of a species.

These things cannot be compared with amalgam toxicity testing. Amalgams exist today, we can observe and test. Even then, there are arguments over accuracy in testing and many things can come into it. Low mercury levels do not always equal lack of poisoning. Yet some doctors believe it does. There are many different reasons for test results too and alot of contradiction. Now if there are contadictions in testing a solid existing material and its' effects today? How then can you possibly test the past?

Actually, the burden of proof lies on the evolutionist who is teaching their theories as fact in the science room. By your statement above, you obviously feel like Linda, who uses the term "Truck loads" of evidence.....then why don't we see this? So far I've heard nothing but assumptions and animated pictures without any solid proof. See if evolution was scientific, it would not be debatable. There should be easy observations to see this in action or in the past at least, without the evolutionists scrabbling for a missing link. Evolution should be obvious and speak for itself time and time and time again. All arguments would be put to sleep very quickly.

The evidence will be forced to fit around their belief system, rather than the other way around. There are ex-evolutionists who seem to feel that the evidence itself was what drove them to creation/design. Instead of having their belief confirmed by evidences, they found it being challenged and even slowly deroded. Investigation is what drove them to design....

Retired evoluyionist chemistry professor Dr Homer Jacobson, now aged 84, looked himself up in google to see what use was being made of articles he had written in his career. To his horror, he found that creationists have been quoting his 1955 paper entitled "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life" published in American Scientist (45 (1):12 ff, January 1955). as proof that life could not have emerged on Earth without divine intervention. So after 52 years, Dr Jacobson has written to the American Scientist journal, retracting the offending statements. In this letter he says that one passage about the probability that a single moecular of a particular amino acid could spontaneously form from its components he now says "is completely inapplicable". He said his retraction was "because of continued irresponsible contemporary use by creationists who have quoted me not merely out-of-context, but incorrect statements, to support their dubious viewpoint"

How could it be "out-of-context" or "irresponsible" for creationists to quote what Prof. Jacobson put forward as gospel truth for evolution in 1955? He now calls it "bad science". We must wonder how many of his own statements Darwin would now retract if he was alive today!

A candid admission from geologist Diana Northup from the University of New Mexico, USA: "Many theories of the origin of life have been proposed, but since it's hard to prove or disprove them, no fully accepted theory exists".

Evolutionists continue to cling to their ideas, regardless of lack of viable evidence one way or the other. You can try and bring God into your theory and say that it can still be compatible, but again your theory is still based on assumptions of what took place before recorded history....and therefore does not require anybody to believe in it, unless that is where they wish to put their faith. My faith is in the God of the bible, not the God of time, chance and billions of years of evolutionary processes.


I don't place evolution under the same catagory as credible science. Where are examples of organisms evolving and gaining new information along the way through evolution? Give me an example of simplicity becoming complexity over time. How can new information be added spontaneously unless the information is not already there in the first place?


Again, this is based on faith and assumptions rather than any viable or solid proof. And then you accuse creationionists of the same. when creationists simply believe what is already around them and what history has repeatedly shown to us....why do you evolutionists toy around with the land before time and fill in the gaps with your own dubious theories and call it science? Creationists don't require this at all. Variation and reproduction....where's the mystery? We don't see any kind becoming something it's not, nor have we even observed this, other than variation. "Micro-evolution" if you really want to throw the word in there.