News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

This thread is dedicated to the posters Russ Tanner and CTD, both of whom have asserted that a person who is tan and works hard will have tan, muscular children, to provide supporting evidence for this claim. It is out of respect for Russ Tanner in particular, who unlike myself has done his homework and knows why evolution is a lie, that I leave a thread specifically for backing this crucial bit of information (that tanned skin and physical fitness can be inherited). In so proving this all of you will be witness to just one of the many examples as to why evolution is not evolution at all. Species can adapt and change subtly over time but there is no need to conjure up this hogwosh about "rocks into humans" or "monkeys into men".

If you don't believe me just wait for the evidence that the two posters surely have to provide, be they in the form of Kent Hovind hyperlinks or Christian websites or even the employment of sheer logic itself (I mean, it makes perfect sense to me that someone who sits in the sun for a couple of weeks will give birth to a sunbrowned baby - but of course they can explain this better than I).

Without further ado gentlemen, and taking into account that you are both very busy individuals without a great deal of free time, the ball is now in your court.

As founder of this thread I kindly ask that no one else interfere with their argument (at least until they have had time to make their claims). My thanks in advance to everyone for treating this thread professionally and respectfully as well as my thanks to posters Russ Tanner and CTD for providing us with the information that we are simply ignorant to.

Hi! It's been a while now since I've posted this and I know you're all very busy people. I respect the time you put into defending your solidly backed arguments which is why I kindly ask for a reply to the above post at your earliest convenience.

I'm hereby bumping this post just in case it got sidetracked or unintentionally overlooked. These sorts of things happen all the time, I completely understand.

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

Your ultimate point in stating that a tanned strong man will give birth to tanned strong children is that evolutionists are dishonest? In other words strong tanned parents do NOT give birth to tanned strong children? Thank you for pointing out where the dishonesty lies.



Yes, I'm beginning to see just exactly how. Thank you.



So in other words a tanned muscular parent will not produce tanned muscular offspring? I'm not certain how this means that evolutionists are dishonest. I certainly won't point the finger at you but you can see how someone here might think you're the one being dishonest by using an argument that is innacurate (i.e., citing that suntans and physical fitness pass from parent to offspring).



It was you who make the statement, not me - I just want an explanation as to how this is possible. The two do correlate however (sun tan inheritance and evolution) in that you seemed to be inferring that organisms adapt and change slightly but do not "evolve" in the evolutionary/scientific definition of the term. Which is why I need an explanation as to how.



As I've already openly admitted in another thread, I realize the evolutionist posters here have deceived me. Bex has proven this for me by observing LindaLou's, RAZD's and LinearAq's "complex" wording. However, if I could just figure out how a parent passes his sun tan and physical fitness on to his child, I think I could understand how I've been lead astray. This is where you and CTD come in since I am too ignorant and naieve to figure out the answer.

Or are you saying there is no answer? You were kind enough to reply to my post but you still haven't indicated one way or the other if a) this is possible and if so then b) how.

OK.

By reading what you've posted above, I think you have completely mistaken my conclusions. Let's try to clear this up.

You asked...



OK, this is a complex subject, and as much as I'd love to write you a nice small book on the subject, others have already done this quite nicely.

One of the first places you could look is here:

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

I haven't read this all the way through, but in scanning it, I think it is very well-detailed as well as readable, and should serve as a great introduction to the subject.

I do have a little problem with the section called "Genes and evolution" because it fails to point out some of the problems with the conclusions it draws, but, of course, that's not the purpose of the article, so I'll save that for later.

Wikipedia is quite biased in it's handling of some information (such as evolution and chemtrails and amalgams) but that's par for the course. It's the tomato effect.

Nevertheless, this article does a good job of explaining inheritance and I do hope it helps.