While wiki's bias has been fairly obvious for some time now, it disgusts me to report they are now using talkdeceptions as a source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

The second "Reference" listed for this article is


Don't everybody puke at once.

Wikipedia has been used as a source of disinformation regarding the dental amalgam issue and the vaccine-autism issue as well. The information posted there is horrific and clearly propagandistic.

I can only say that people who accept evolution are blinded beyond belief. To believe that natural processes produce highly-complex, self-reproducing, symmetrical machines is truly madness.

The referenced page on Talk Origins is currently 404 (missing). Actually, the entire website appears to be down. Maintenance perhaps.

Could be. I got a "network time out" error myself when I posted. They pull a lot of their propaganda; gotta wonder why they bother posting some of it in the first place. It's so weak it has to be counterproductive with intelligent readers, or even readers who simply aren't desperate for evolutionism to be true.

Shoot, even they might have their faith shaken if they realize how weak that stuff is. And the way that junk gets copied & pasted, it's gonna encounter scrutiny sooner or later.

Wiki reference to it says "Retrieved on 3 December 2008", so it may be it's still there. I'm getting curious now... checking... they're totally down, best I can tell.

Yes. I've read some of their articles completely and found that they consist of huge speculations based on enormous assumptions. They are often cleverly written so that many will miss this.

I just checked and the entire talkorigins.com site is still down.

Looks like it is back up here.

Perhaps you could pick a particular article and dismantle it here by pointing out the "huge speculations and enormous assumptions".

I can only say that people who accept Literal Genesis Creationism are blinded beyond belief. To believe that the Christian God would implant false information like distant starlight and endogenous retroviruses is truly madness. (Response to your similarly worded statement in post #46448)

You said...



Ironically, God makes no claims of the sort.

I'm saddened to see people (such as yourself) who have relied on the Discovery Channel as their source of Biblical information rather than checking it out for themselves.

Have you done the same when learning about evolution?

Of course you have.

I have read the Wikipedia articles relating to Thimerosal in vaccines and dental amalgam (mercury-based) fillings, and they are clearly propaganda pieces. They are in complete conflict with the medical literature. Instead, they continually rely on establishment opinions or known faked epidemiological studies as their references. They always avoid the myriad of research (usually in the vast majority) that conflicts their propaganda. (We live in a dirty world LinearAQ.)

Nevertheless, this is the way disinformation travels: Through people who faithfully believe whatever they're told.

Evolution is a social control.

All the best!


A short study in creation: http://urlbam.com/ha/M0020

I agree that God's Word (Bible) makes no claims of God placing the same retroviruses in the chimpanzee DNA as He did in the human DNA. However, they are there.

Since God put the stars in the sky on day 4 and it is claimed by Literal Creationists that this occurred 6000 years ago, then the Christian God must have placed the light in route in order for us to see stars that are 120,000 light-years away. Anything that we observe as occurring really didn't happen because those distant stars didn't exist 120,000 years ago. I guess that Literal Creationists believe that God just made something like a movie to play out as if the stars really existed before 4004 BC.

Don't pretend like you have any idea what methods I have used to study the Bible or anything else. Additionally, your pity is wasted here.


Like Hovind followers?

I have read your assertions over and over again yet still see no evidence provided on your part to support this particular one.

You honestly come across as someone who has a boo-boo with God.

As far as my position on Biblical creationism, I don't know how you could have possibly read what I wrote and keep bringing up these strawman arguments.

Here's a link for your convenience:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M0020



Well, I can share with you the method I use to study the Bible:

I read it.



No. Like deeply religious evolutionists.

Hovind Wisdom (from the light side): http://urlbam.com/ha/K



Just keep looking

No. Just your interpretation of what He has done.

Still doesn't explain how the stars can be made on day 4 6000 years ago yet still have their light reach us as if they existed 100,000 years or more before that.

OOOO spooky. You would think he could have come up with a script that was different from his dad's baloney.

I read that as you saying you can't support your assertions. That was expected.

You're obviously not reading my posts.

I'm not a young Earth creationist. In fact, my creation account (which you are responding to) was written for the purpose of explaining why.

So, your statement simply does not make sense.



The truth does not change. There is no need for people to attempt to change it unless they have an agenda.

For those with an ear:

Hovind Wisdom (from the light side): http://urlbam.com/ha/K



Oh, C'mon. Let's at least try to be nice.

I base my life on the research that I have done over the past 20 years. It's that important to me.

What I have discovered in this world is that the majority of people just accept what feels good to them. This is the difference between a Christian and a non-Christan.

As a Christian, I am subject to truth and I am compelled to tell it. I am accountable to God.

For those without any accountability, there is no need to tell the truth. In their minds, their life is all about their own experience: Physical pleasures and fantasy. It's all about "them".

There is a vast difference between selfishness and selflessness.

My beliefs are firmly supported by evidence, as should be all beliefs.

Actually I do understand that you are not a young Earth creationist. The problem lies in the fact that although God may have said let there be light before Day 1, the text clearly and strongly places that occurrence on Day 1 because that is what defined Day 1. Even if God made light billions of years before it struck the Earth and defined Day 1, there are other problems. The text clearly places the creation of the Sun and the Stars on Day 4. It says He made the stars...created them. The text is clearly chronological. To say that it looked like God had created the stars on Day 4 when all he did was create the Moon, the planets and the Sun on that Day, ignores the words used. I thought you were a Biblical literalist.
Besides, who was here to see the light from the stars arrive on Day 4? Plants? It seems like a lot of trouble for God to build stars through successive eons so that the light from each star would arrive on Earth on Day 4 just so plants could bask in their pinpoints of light. Did He miscalculate when the starlight would arrive on Earth?

Your statement requires that "Lies in the textbooks" is truth. While it contains some truth, (the name of the speaker...etc)most of it is a misrepresentation of evolution and the texts that are used in public schools. Unless, of course, you believe that one error or untrue statement invalidates everything in an entire book.

I thought you wanted honesty regardless of how it feels to the person receiving it. Such honesty pervades your statements about stupid and dishonest scientists, deluded, sheep-like masses, and evil businessmen.

I realize it is important to you. However, it doesn't seem important enough to you that you would grace us with the evidence you discovered in that 20 years. You feel that my soul is in jeopardy because I agree with the theory of evolution but don't care enough to provide me with the evidence necessary for me to change my mind.

I have found this to be true of almost all people...Christian and non-Christian.


I'd like to believe that the evidence exists but without you showing it to me, I will have to maintain a certain amount of skepticism concerning your point of view regarding evolution.

It is called Lies IN The Textbooks - Neither we, nor Kent stated the entire textbook is a lie because of some untruths contained within. He made it very clear that much of the information is often completely sound. He simply wants to see the parts containing lies/misrepresentations removed, especially ones that were proven wrong years ago and continued to be presented as fact. He agrees with a lot of the science and biology, he simply doesn't agree with outright lies or assumptions being squeezed in there, either unproven or disproven.

Perhaps you could list the specific points of concern on what teachings of evolution you feel Kent is misrepresenting on his video "Lies in the Textbooks" and getting it wrong and give us an explanation. I have the videos and I would like to find out which points Kent is apparently not being honest?

At the top of wiki pages, there are a couple of interesting tabs I just discovered. "History" and "Discussion". The bias isn't hidden at all there.

Those who care should use 'm while we can - features like this have a way of disappearing.

Hello Everyone,

I was reading some of the posts made on 'Keeping the faith', etc, etc. and was reminded of an interesting article I read in the ICR- April 'Acts & Facts' magazine.

An introduction letter 'FROM THE EDITOR' stated in his opening paragraph:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Please open your Bibles to Genesis chapter one." With this, Dr. John MacArthur opened the 2009 Shepherds' Conference. For the next hour, he told nearly 3,200 church leaders that no self-respecting pastor, evangelical, or Christian should attempt to deny that God created the heavens and earth in six literal days. Those who have difficulty believing the historical account of Genesis, he warned, will have much more difficulty trusting the rest of the Bible and its accounts of the virgin birth, Christ's atonement for our sins, and the resurrection of the dead, all miracles that cannot--that must not--be subjected to the reasoning of finite men."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lawrence E. Ford; Executive Editor of ICR magazine continues:

It was a blessing to hear this great Christian leader expound in his typical no-nonsense fashion that God meant what He said, that the Bible can be trusted from the very first chapter. This contrasted with a number of other conferences ICR has attended where speakers did their best to avoid the issue of the authority and accuracy of the Bible, or sadly, compromised God's Word with evolution-based "creation" theories such as day-age, theistic evolution, progressive creation, and the like.

Dr. MacArthur is celebrating his 40th year as pastor-teacher.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My husband and I have studied the Bible along with this highly educational Pastor, Dr. John MacArthur, for over 18 years.
He is a well sought-after Pastor for Conferences and Christian Radio programs. I would highly recommend him to your use of studying the Word of the living God. His radio program is named, "Grace to You", with John MacArthur ~

Thank you, Abishag <><

Discussing all the points in which Mr. Hovind is incorrect would take a great deal of time. Perhaps you could provide some of the "lies" that he discusses where you believe his arguments are particularly strong. I will then provide my reasoning as to why his point of view is incorrect.

A small sampling of wikipedia's bias.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Bias_in_Wikipedia

The project of compiling an exhaustive list would tax the planet's manpower resources severely.

I am happily surprised to report a little success which demonstrates that in spite of their efforts, wiki can still be somewhat of a resource.

"Reason is the Devil's whore ... it must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed." or some such (there are several variants) is a quote Satanists and atheists are simply mad about attributing to Martin Luther. I googled the quote and got

That's the biggest number of hits I've seen in ages, and the vast majority on the first page were fairly openly anti-God.

Others have tried and failed to verify the quote and / or obtain it in full context (not surprising). Initially, my best clue came from
http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/000646.html

The blog was closed because there were too many non-productive responses coming in.

But there's a link to a play, and one incarnation of the quote is definitely in the play.

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/parade/abj76/PG/pieces/john_osborne_2.shtml

Of course, this doesn't prove Luther himself didn't say it. But at least it's a source. That got me to thinking about sources, and I remembered wiki's Achilles' heel: they are in the habit of sourcing extensively (and they keep histories).

So I ventured over to
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

Sure enough, they had the quote. How could they fail? It's hugely popular among the anti-God population - they even have a hate Luther T-shirt (link withheld on purpose) with a version of the quote printed on the back.

So sure enough, wiki's got
Attributed to Luther. AND they give a source. Their chosen interpretation, however, differs from that of their own source.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/luther/


Yes, for those who don't know, Martin Luther spoke German. Depending on how it's defined, philosophy can be a bad thing indeed; I would call much of what passes for philosophy among scoffers a direct product of Satan, and I don't worry at all that many Christians would dispute the matter with me.

Scripture discusses vain philosophies. God had invited men to reason together with Him. If Luther succeeded in conforming his ideas to scripture, we should not be surprised to see philosophy ill spoken of. Reason would be another matter altogether.

My point here in this thread is not that God's enemies are still attempting to smear a man so long departed. My point is that you can still use wiki to your advantage - you just have to be a little smarter than the scoffers who staff the place. Let wiki put you onto good sources, and don't forget the history feature (it's a tab-style link at the top of every article) if you need to access more sources or more accurate versions of articles.

Hmmmmm, (((( Smiles ))))

I was reading this above and...



Who said that God placed a retrovirus there?
What if God didn't.
Virus's are invaders that most likely came about from the fall of mankind like sickness, death and decay.
As in their perfect state of being, there was none of that.
And someday will be no more of that.
The Bible states.
It even infected the animals with the fall, flesh is flesh.
The DVD Cosmic Conflict The Origin of Evil had an interesting scene in the DVD about that.
The changed state of being.

http://www.cosmicconflict.com/

As also in Isaiah 11:6 and the wolf shall live with the lamb..
Not in this world as it is of now , as it will be in a much different state of being.
According to the Bible, humans inflicted theses diseases and sickness's which include virus's of course..
upon themselves.
By their fallen state of being.

Maybe the virus's evolved instead.. ((( Smiles )))

Endogenous Retroviruses (ERV's) are, as things go, fairly confusing things to discuss. I found a good piece on the concept at

http://creation.com/large-scale-function-for-endogenous-retroviruses

Evolutionists think by continually asserting that such things exist, it will become so. What's required is for a virus to insert themselves into germs, and be inherited by the resultant offspring as genetic components. I have never seen any evidence that such a virus has ever existed. Before posting I reviewed over a dozen pieces on the topic; all assume such things exist, but none supplied actual evidence.

Such a bug would be quite remarkable in several respects. Targeting germs is not a very plausible "survival strategy". Normal viruses target cells, and the victim, being alive is going to have cells. The target of an endogenous virus would have germs, if mature, but the strategy relies on the target germ's success.

Think about that. If you're the bug, you need to infect not just any germ, but the 1 in what? 100 million that is actually successful! The odds slim even further when one recalls that the bug plays the role of a genetic defect. If the selection goddess is on duty, the offspring's chances of survival - well, some versions of the goddess would automatically off the offspring. This bug is playing nonstop Russian Roulette, depending so so so heavily on the luck goddess just to survive for one more generation.

As is typical, the ERV evohype depends on folks just taking their word. I am not willing to fall prey. Until I see evidence that such a bug ever existed outside of imagination, I shall consider the bug to be imaginary. ERV's are not observed; they are designated. Any stretch of genetic material that matches the parameters (which do not include seeing them actually do anything) gets called an "ERV".

This is also a handy opportunity to recall that evolutionism cannot plausibly account for the origin of any virus. Nothing "evolves" without reproducing, and a virus requires a specific type of cell in a specific host in order to reproduce. Without a very specific form of life, a virus cannot reproduce and thus cannot evolve.

But take the link, those who have an interest.

I stumbled onto a little helpful information.
(bold is mine.)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18198388

So it turns out some are working on trying to demonstrate something in the real world.

Research results are "mixed"


https://www.researchgate.net/public..._sclerosis_in_a_large_family-based_study

This next one seems confident


Source

I notice a couple of things
1.) They custom "built" this virus, rather than simply catching one "in the wild". (I'm confident they didn't build it from scratch, of course.)
2.) They omit to claim it will infect germs and be inherited.

So they still have a 'ways to go. And for all the effort, if ERV's did in fact exist, they would, like so many other things, demonstrate design features for all the world to see - at least all the world that can wade through the language they choose to employ.

That doesn't seem to be deterring anyone much. Evolutionists are confident that "shared ERV's prove evolution", although there is some mighty peculiar "sharing" going on. Think "Bird Flu" and "Swine Flu" makes people part bird and part pig? The "strongest" part of the argument lies in the terminology, as usual. If they thought folks really understood what they were saying, they wouldn't be excited about this one at all.

Remember how wiki has histories of their articles? So long as they continue this practice, it is possible to investigate how silly the atheismmongers actually are.

Their cumulative take on Ernst Häckel is amusing. They love what he said, but they dare not embrace him too closely. They try to give the impression that they understand him to have been in error, yet they want you to believe his "biogenetic law" or "recapitulation theory" true. They even try to attribute his mistake to following (straw) Lamarck rather than (straw) Darwin.

Häckel's take on recapitulation was not opposed by Darwin; neither was Lamarck's contention that acquired traits are passed along to offspring. Häckel's recap ideas were opposed by T.H. Huxley, who did a competent job of debunking recap fairly early on, but Darwin didn't listen or didn't care. I won't go into the politics, for we don't have time.

We're looking at wiki. According the the present propaganda,


Now over at EFT, and moreso at his own website, Ikester has explained how evidence of Häckel's conviction has been removed from the University of Jena's website.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3206&st=40

Of course the evomongers at wiki would be sure to plead ignorance, but they cannot plead ignorance in the removal of evidence from the wiki article itself!

It used to be there!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ernst_Haeckel&diff=next&oldid=6857965

At one time, wiki's article included a link to an interview with Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard in which he said ''Ernst Haeckel did forge. Many of his pictures of organisms simply are inventions to prove his theory...'' or in the original German "Ich glaube nicht, dass heute mehr gefälscht wird als vor hundert Jahren. Es gibt in allen Berufen Menschen, die sich in den Vordergrund drängen wollen, in allen Bereichen Betrug und Fälschung. Die Wissenschaft ist davon nicht ausgeschlossen. Ernst Haeckel hat gefälscht. Viele seiner Bilder von Organismen sind schlicht erfunden, um seine Theorie zu bestätigen ? "
http://www.zeit.de/wissen/biotechnologie/winnuess

Note the part I bolded. Here 'hat' means 'has' and 'gefälscht' breaks down to the very term we get our word 'false' from. The ge- prefix indicates past tense; the root word is falsch if you want to look it up in a German-to-English dictionary.

So who is Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard? Is wiki correct in dismissing him as an unreliable source? Click on the first mention of his name here - it's a link. Their very own article on this man says

Not only does he study the very field of science relevant to recap, he has won a Nobel Prize for his work in this field!!! He also speaks German, the very same language as Ernst Häckel! Who could be better qualified to know? Who who who!!!

Yes, "anyone can edit wiki", but they have a system in place to supervise the edits and as we see here, remove evidence they don't like. These people consider talkdeceptions to be "a reliable source" and reject Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard. I suggest that's all one needs to know about them. Not only did Ernst Häckel lie, wiki lies to protect his lies, and there can be no mistake about either.

The portion informing readers in no uncertain terms that Ernst Häckel did indeed lie was removed 16 June, 2005. , along with the reference.

Subsequently, on 29 June 2005, images were supplied so readers could compare the fraudulent drawings to photographs of real embryos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ernst_Haeckel&diff=next&oldid=17824585

How much do they hate the truth? If you take the link, you won't even see the image, but rather a box that says "File:FraudtopRealitybelow.jpg
Haeckels drawings top, Reality below" and contains a broken link.

The image survived until 1 October, 2005, when it was removed under the false pretext of "copy-vio".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ernst_Haeckel&diff=next&oldid=24493028

Seen enough? I think I've presented enough. For now, at least.

"Wikipedia: Five Pillars"

"Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View"

It gets better: