Hey P,

Thanks for your "kind" words.

You're right. I am a busy guy so I don't often have time to follow up with discussions, but I'll do my best even through I'm due for dinner in a few minutes.

In making these statements, I was baiting the conversation into a discussion of genotypes versus phenotypes. Nevertheless, I'll attempt to fast-forward to the conclusion to make this more concise.

My ultimate point is that evolutionists (at the highest levels) are dishonest. Of course, the reason they are dishonest is because the evolutionary myth is being used as a social control.

Evolution is promoted for the purpose of discrediting the Bible, and the reason for discrediting the Bible is to create the necessary social condition to allow socialism/communism to evolve.

The reason these political systems are being artificially (and dishonestly) induced is because they allow the conglomeration of power; A condition necessary to enable a very small number of powerful yet corrupt families to control all aspects of human life on this planet—"voluntary servitude"—a type of induced (by deception) slavery, ironically, a condition that widespread-knowledge of the Bible would not allow and a condition that the protestant movement delivered us from.

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
(John 8:32)

In other words, ignorance of the Bible literally induces slavery.

Of course, it is easy for a small number of people to set the tone for a great deception as long as people don't communicate with each other. This is why the Internet is doing such an effective job of exposing government corruption and medical lies that have been accepted by most people—that is until people have been able to be exposed to the underlying lies that have supported these false ideas for decades (and much longer); False ideas such as the safety of amalgam fillings and vaccines.

People, being inherently fearful of (social) rejection and poverty (losing their jobs), and therefore being easily manipulated by the promotion of an image that the "majority" of evidence supports evolution or that the majority of scientists accept evolution (etc), have easily trickled down an unchecked faith that these things are true when in fact they are not, simply by social induction through fear.

This is the same mentality used to coerce many dentists into believing that amalgam fillings are safe, even when they contain AND OFFGAS a known toxic substance. (This social-inductive process is effective.)

In short, people are gullible and easily controlled.

Getting back to genotypes versus phenotypes, I believe that by making a provocative statement thereby provoking a discussion about the dishonesty of the way evolution is currently changing its own definition of itself, we can finally realize that we are being lied to.

Although, this logic will fail in part because people have also been conditioned to "believe" their emotional evaluations rather than observing facts (emotionalism), it will have some success when people finally do what the Bible has asked them to do all along (for their own benefit), and that is to examine themselves ("know thyself") and see if there is any self deception (BIAS) going on, so that by realizing this, we can correct it so that way may then learn to be more logical and reasonable in our deductive reasoning, which will eventually lead you to an understanding and relationship with the God of the Bible (a good thing), which is freedom.

In short, we are biased against the Bible because we have false information about what it says (through propaganda from the same power brokers mentioned previously), which is illogical (against logic and reason), and is certainly not scientific; It is emotionalism. We should have the intellect to know what we don't know, but this inability is also induced by "dumbing down" processes, both chemical (mercury, fluoride, MSG, etc.) and educational (enough said).

Finally, besides the myriad of "problems" (and I say that kindly) with the evolution myth, one problem is the mathematical improbability that evolution can occur (as it has been defined for the past 100 + years) but that adaptation (the "new" definition for evolution) will occur.

So, let's ask ourselves, two things:

(1) Just what are the chances that getting a tan will cause you to have tan children, and

(2) What does this have to do with the original definition of evolution (the one taught for the past 100+ years)?

You have been baited. You have bit.

The ball is in your court.


Uh Oh. I'm late for dinner