This page is one of two large www pages which I maintain. The other, the Catastrophism page, is more complicated and more of a load to try to absorb than this page, but contains an overwhelming argument against any and all contemporary versions of evolution, which most Christians in particular will be unfamiliar with: a straightforward demonstration that nothing heavier than 21000 lbs. could stand or walk in our present world, along with a huge body of historical evidence indicating that the peculiar set of circumstances which did permit much heavier animals to live in the past came to a final, convulsive end within the memory of man. That, of course, utterly destroys the gigantic expanses of time which evolutionists like to use as an enabling mechanism for their dogmas.
Books now available on Bearfabrique
Several books are now available for sale either as print on demand books or ebook downloads on the product section of bearfabrique. This includes a little book about gravity and dinosaurs, as well as two very large books dealing with Immanuel Velikovsky and the controversy surrounding his works over the last 55 years. Taken together, those two items amount to around 1260 pages in the form of two five-dollar downloads in pdf format, i.e. less expensive than communist literature used to be in the CCCP.
Catastrophism and Christianity Discussion Forum
In other words, how do any of these renegade science findings impact religion. The header reads:
The purpose of this forum is mainly to acquaint Christians with the emerging new branches of science called neo-catastrophism, electrical cosmology and the like, and to discuss what effects, if any, findings from these new fields will have on Christian beliefs, and what support they might lend to Christian beliefs. This does not in any way preclude others from participating in this forum, nonetheless that is the main thrust of the forum. There are other forums dealing with neo-catastrophism for those absolutely allergic to religion.
There are numerous reasons for rejecting evolutionism, many of which appear on these pages, but there is one which should be kept in mind above all others.
The notion that "survival of the fittest" is the only moral principle in nature was one of the most major and probably the most major philosophical foundation of the nazi, communist, and fascist regimes of the last century. Sir Arthur Keith, in his treatise "Evolution and Ethics", notes that the 'law of Christ' can never prevail upon this Earth until the 'law of evolution' has been destroyed, and that:
VISITORS TO GERMANY IN 1934 FOUND AN emotional storm sweeping through masses of the people, particularly the more educated. The movement had much in common with a religious revival. The preacher in this case was Adolf Hitler; his doctrine was, and is, tribalism; he had stirred in the emotional depths of the German people those long-dormant tribal feelings which find release and relief in mutual service; men and women who had been leading selfish lives or were drifting aimlessly were given a new purpose in life: service to their country the Third Reich. It is worth noting that Hitler uses a double designation for his tribal doctrine National Socialism: Socialism standing for the good side of the tribal spirit (that which works within the Reich); aud Nationalism for the ethically vicious part, which dominates policy at and outside the German frontiers.
The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front"; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people. He has brought into
Social Darwinism, the logical precursor of fascism, was generally accepted from around 1870 until WW-II. Communism has finally been rejected in Russia after untold misery and suffering caused by it brought the soviet state to the brink of total collapse. The victory over the other adherents of these ideas was not achieved with super weapons, but rather was purchased with an ocean of American, British, Canadian, Australian, and Russian blood. These people laid down their lives and asked very little in return other, presumably, than that we conduct our own lives in such a manner as to occasionally justify the sacrafice. There is simply no rationial way in which adopting the same idiologies which were the foundations of the Nazi and fascist states may be construed as doing that.
The first ten or twelve paragraphs of the section on races and nations in Mein Kampf sound so much like Darwin's works that it's hard to tell the difference.
In fact, the brilliant evolutionist crew of talk.origins, aka bandarlog aka brothers of Ediacara/Toromanura, were once given an opportunity to see if they in fact could tell the difference between the writings of Hitler and those of Darwin, and they failed the test.
The ICR documents some of the extent to which evolutionism fertilizes the soil for racism.
Claims from evolutionists notwithstanding, the milieu in which Darwinism arose makes it impossible to believe that Darwin was ignorant or innocent of the kinds of uses to which his theories would eventually be put.
We observe that any change to a substantially different kind of creature with new kinds of organs, an entirely new set of system integration requirements for those organs with both old and other new organs, and a new plan for life, is seen to be a zero-probability event, both statistically and programmatically.
The basic problem is that evolution requires millions of such events while, as we have seen, even one such event is basically impossible. Every once in awhile you get lucky in life; a theory which required one or even two miracles to happen in the entire history of the Earth might still be worth looking into. But an essential infinity of zero-probability events? You have to want to believe something pretty badly...
Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some axpect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, Muhammed...
To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror or F for Fornicator or some such traditional device, or an I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the former choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:
God hates IDIOTS, too!
The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.
Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.
Most people only have to take one look at a flight feather with its complex system of interlocking barbules under a microscope to comprehend that such a thing could not possibly evolve from any sort of a pre-existing down feather, the purpose of which is insulation rather than control of air streams.
For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.
In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.
All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.
And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.
Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.
Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.
And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:
Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now: OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....
You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.
But it gets even stupider.
Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.
Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).
Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:
1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools. For instance, I could as easily claim that the fact that I'd never been seen with Tina Turner was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her. In other words, it might not work terribly well for science, but it's great for fantasies...
2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...
3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.
4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.
5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.
The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.
And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:
They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:
ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!
Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.
I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?
Evolutionists insist that the conflict is between evolution and religion. It isn't; the conflict is between evolution and mathematics, as noted in the documents of the Wistar Institute Symposium of 1966 and following symposia, as Dr. Bass comments upon below. One thing you notice in comparing various religions to evolution is the count of miracles: the sum total of miracles in the bible, violations of apparent physical laws by supernatural agencies, is probably between 25 and 100, and closer to 25. Evolution requires literally billions of probabilistic miracles, i.e. real violations of mathematical and probabilistic laws.
It has been said that the only two religions which might possibly serve as replacements for evolution in American schools, would be voodoo and rastafari, and even that statement is an unwarrented insult to the voodooers and rastas. In fact, you could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and even that would make sense compared to evolution.
The human mind and brain appear to have been originally hardwired for a form of communication as far above anything we now have as anything we now have is above smoke signals. Moreover, a google search on the two terms 'military' and remote viewing' turns up over 6000 hits. That is probably because our military does not have the luxury of ignoring new scientific developments because they are not paradigmatically pure. The idea of anything like that "evolving" is clearly ludicrous.
The theory of evolution today is in such a state that any collection of quotes from paleontologists regarding the fossil record, mathematicians regarding the odds involved in abiogenesis etc. will amount to a horrific indictment of the doctrine (evolutionism). The best collection of such quotes I am aware of resides at Steve Jackson's Vast Cosmos www site.
For evolutionists, there is no possible rational response to the overwhelming case these collections of quotes make other than say to themselves "Gee, how did I ever believe in anything like that?" and cease being evolutionists. Obviously nobody should hold their breath waiting for that to happen, and one may therefore anticipate that their response will be irrational. They won't disappoint you; the basic response of the evolutionists on the net to anybody attempting to quote any of these lists of quotes on discussion groups has always been that each and every one of the scientists being quoted is being quoted out of context, that the gist of what they were trying to say has been inverted in each and every case, and that the person posting such a thing is therefore a liar. One WWW site advancing such a view is that of Andrew MacRae. The claim is that each of the scientists (in the case of evolutionists) remains an evolutionist, and that therefore I have to be a liar.
My response has always been that the full context of each of these quotes is basically irrelevant despite the rest of the page in most cases giving reasons why the author remains an evolutionist.
It's as if a general was trying to get a picture of what was happening on the front and were to debrief a number of lieutenants and sergeants and each one said something like "Well sir, we took a lot of casualties this morning and really got our butts kicked, but overall things are proceeding ok and I'm sure we're gonna win..." Macrae would insist that the data be interpreted as meaning that the general had no problems; in real life the general would be insane to assume anything other than that he had a major problem on his hands. Discussions of these kinds of quotations on talk.origins tend to be nasty to the point of being comical.
Then, of course, there's always the ultimate evolutionist quote, taken from an interview with Jeffrey Dahmer:
"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When we died, you know , that was it, there is nothing..."
Basically, the next time an evolutionist calls you a liar for quoting paleontologists and biologists on the pitfalls of evolution, run this one by him, saying "Make my day: tell me how Dahmer really believed in evolution, and how I'm a liar for quoting him out of context!"
Robert W. Bass is one of America's greatest living mathematicians and the author of a dynamical derivation of the Titus-Bode law in celestial mechanics. His comments on evolution and on several related topics are interesting to say the least. Apparently, not too long ago, a group of the world's best mathematicians investigated the likelihood of evolutionary scenarios and ruled them flatly impossible. Dr. Bass comments on this and other topics.
Human/hominid and other large animal remains in Carboniferous strata indicate that paleontological dating schemes are FUBAR. FUBAR (Fouled Up Beyond Any Recognition) is US Army terminology for a maximum possible state of disarray and disorder.
David Plaisted is claiming that published mutation rates are either much too high (much lower ones would eliminate all possibilities of evolution) or, if correct, would imply a genetic meltdown of all animal species within a terribly short time, a few hundred generations. That would imply either a very young age for all animal species, or the constant protection against this sort of meltdown until very recent times, by some super agency, God, Odin, or whatever you want, but again ideas about evolutionism would be superflous under such conditions.
The entire discipline of population genetics would appear to be a pretty lethal environment for evolutionism. Particularly the question of the Haldane dilemma, named after the famous geneticist J.B.S. Haldane who, in the 1950's, provided mathematical qualification for the immense time frames which would be required to spread any genetic trait throughout any halfway large population of animals.
The most major expert in that sort of that thing on the internet is Walter Remine. The event of the year in 1995 on talk.origins was Walter ReMine's demolition of the t.o. bandar-log in a series of exchanges constituting the worst beating which the bandar-log/Ediacara/Toromanura crew has ever absorbed. Well worth reading. ReMine's Biotic Message is now featured on a special www site for the purpose maintained by St. Paul Science.
There are at least four aspects of evolution which need to be examined in order to understand why many scientists act so much like people who have painted themselves into corners on this particular topic:
The problem is that even a one-celled organism turns out to be far more complex than anything which man has yet built.
The odds against even the simplest parts of a one-celled animal arising via chance are known to be far beyond astronomical.
Of course, no available amount of time would suffice for trying to overcome those kinds of odds, least of all the piddling four billion years which evolutionists claim as an age of the Earth. You're still looking for an event with odds like 1 to ten to the 167,887 power EVERY YEAR for a billion years, assuming one-celled animals are supposed to have arisen in a billion years.
That's asuming a cell might have developed ala evolutionism over a billion year time span without being destroyed by outside forces as Struss notes. Realistically, the cell would probably have to completely form from scratch in less than one day.
Aside from the impossible odds, there is another problem just as bad. All versions of abiogenesis require a "pre-biotic soup", a rich amalgom of the major kinds of building blocks required for living cells in the ancient oceans of the world. Such a concentrations of proteins etc. would leave traces in the rocks of those oceans; unfortunately for the evolutionists, there are no such traces.
Thus, abiogenesis, by any rational standard, should be viewed as a simple impossibility for which there is zero supporting evidence.
The question becomes, how do evolutionists deal with this? The general answer, at least judging from what one sees on talk.origins or the Ediacara WWW system, is via a combination of insulting people who mention the problem, and attempting to claim that abiogenesis and evolution are two separate topics. The working hypothesis from the point of view of the evolutionists is that, if they get sufficiently good with the ad-hominems, they will only have to defend one indefensible theory as opposed to two.
Of the four areas mentioned here, this is the one in which evolution has not been shown to be flatly impossible in anything even remotely like its present forms. Thus, an anti-evolutionist, creationist, or whatever should usually leave this one for the evolutionists to gloat over. Common decency in fact demands this; it's all they really have.
Nonetheless, trying to argue from this one area of applicability into the larger realm of macro-evolution, as evolutionists do, is like claiming that one's Harley would suffice to get to Mars because it suffices for getting from D.C. to Philly. Further, there is the very real question as to whether bacteria do themselves any long-term good in mutating to defeat antibiotics.
Dan Hughes (email@example.com), replying to a typical evolutionist claim that such mutation/adaptation amongst bacteria constitutes proof of evolutionary principles, noted:
If this phenomenon is evolution, the evolution has been disproved. When these bacteria 'evolve' to avoid the effects of the antibiotic, the change _always_ reduces the viability of the organism. This does allow the organism to grow and reproduce in the presence of the particular antibiotic however. This is why multiple antibiotic therapies are being tried. The multiple mutations necessary for the organism to overcome all of the antibiotics usually render it unable to grow and reproduce. It's just a matter of how many antibiotics are currently available for any particular organism. In addition, some organisms may require more antibiotic challenges before they reach the point of having mutated beyond the ability to grow and reproduce. The only evolution ever detected in nature is devolution. All present life forms are degenerative forms of what we find in the fossil record. The evidence does not support increasing complexity, it does support decreasing complexity, longevity and variety. Evolution is a deception for those who reject God.
That, of course, is the dim view, and in all likelihood the correct one.
The rise of man and other higher creatures from one-celled animals via mutation and other random events involves a chain of millions of events, each of which is impossible both from a view towards statistics and from a programmatic point of view as noted above.
To get an idea of how impossible it is to gain any sort of a complex capability or even the tiniest bit of a complex capability which you do not already have in nature, I recommend a look at the case of the escaped (or 'feral') chicken.
Consider that man raises chickens in gigantic abundance, and that on many farms, these are not even caged. Consider the numbers of such chickens which must have escaped in all of recorded history; look in the sky overhead: where are all of their wild-living descendants??
Why are there no wild chickens in the skies above us???
A flying bird requires a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including flight feathers, wings, a special light bone structure, specialized flow-through design hearts and lungs vastly more efficient than ours, specialized tails and balance parameters, and a number of other things. Now, you can imagine the difficulty involved for something like a dinosaur which did not have any of these things to evolve them all, but the feral chicken
In other words, if there's any chance whatsoever of a non-flying creature evolving into a flying bird, then surely, surely the feral chicken, close as it is, could RE-EVOLVE back into being a flying bird. They're only missing the tiniest fraction of whatever is involved.
They've got wings, tails, and flight feathers, and the whold nine yards. In their domestic state, they can fly albeit badly; they are entirely similar to what you might expect of an evolutionist's proto-bird, in the final stage of evolving into a flight-worthy condition.
According to evolutionist dogma, at least a few of these should very quickly finish evolving back into something like a normal flying bird, once having escaped, and then the progeny of those few should very quickly fill the skies.
But the sky holds no wild chickens. In real life, against real settings, real predators, real conditions, the imperfect flight features do not suffice to save them.
Thus we see that "proto-bird" (TM) not only couldn't make it the entire journey which he is supposed to have, he couldn't even make it the last yard if we spotted him the thousand miles minus the yard.
The basic question is: How in hell is some velociraptor supposed to make it the thousand miles, if history proves that a creature which amounts to the final stage of such a development cannot make it the final yard of such a process?
The rise of modern man from supposedly ape-like ancesters within the roughly 10 million year time frame which is usually given out is the final area which must be considered. The bottom lines here are fairly straightforward. The Neanderthal, which used to be viewed as a missing link of some sort turns out to be a modern man as we can see from Jay Matternes' reproductions; the other "missing links" we really don't know enough about to talk about; results from genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma, clearly show that modern man could not begin to arise from anything remotely ape-like in ten million years, via any process involving chance. Finally, evolution postulates the development of ever more refined creatures in the rise of modern man, during a long period of time within which refinement would be a serious disadvantage.
As if to make matters worse when that would not seem possible, recent research in Germany shows neanderthal DNA to be "about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee", clearly explaining the lack of evidence of our ever having interbred with them. This poses a big logical conundrum for the evolutionist: If we could not possibly be descended from the neanderthal via evolution, then an evolutionist must believe that there is some nearer hominid ancestor which we ARE descended from. That closer ancestor would have had to have left traces however. Neanderthal remains and works are all over the place and the nearer ancestor would have to be closer to us in time THAN the neanderthal. Nonetheless, there is no trace of any such ancestor on this planet.
Of course, there is a real answer as to the relationship between ourselves and the neanderthal. Gunnar Heinsohn, one of Europe's leading scholars, notes that that there is no reason based upon evidence to assume that the change from neanderthal to modern man took more than one or two generations and, as noted above, you have to regard such a change as evidence of bio-engineering or re-engineering rather than as evidence of any sort of a long sequence of events driven by stochastic processes and guided by "natural selection", which is what we call evolution.
Given all of that, just what is it that scientists would have us believe? The answer is that it depends on who you listen to. We have, in rough chronological order:
Evolution generally requires assumptions which would embarrass a used-car salesman. A list amounting to a small sampler of these would include:
The normal Darwinian version assumes that minute differentials in some capability will drive a multi-thousand generation process of change from one kind of creature to another. In real life, who lives and who dies will be far more powerfully determined by such things as fights, disease, bad luck, volcanic eruptions, floods, predation (in real life, groups of adult predators take what they want, and not just the sickly or unfit...), wars, accidents...
Evolutionists assume that the tiny handful of strange animals which their hundred-year search for intermediate fossils has turned up constitutes a case for evolution. That is plainly idiotic; evolution requires that the vast bulk of all fossils ever found should be intermediate forms and Gould, Eldredge, and numerous other serious paleontologists are now clearly on record to the effect that there are no meaningful intermediate fossils. In particular, the Talk.origins/Ediacara Intermediate FAQ is transparently bogus.
Evolution assumes that natural selection can select for hoped-for as opposed to real functionality. For instance, in the case of proto-bird, it is supposed to select on the basis of traits which lead towards the hoped-for ability to fly over a period of thousands of generations. It won't. If it selects for anything at all, it will select for traits which are useful NOW, while traits which might be useful a million years down the road will do some sort of a random walk about a mean.
Evolution assumes and requires that, despite an overwhelming preponderence of neutral and harmful mutations, it is ALWAYS the beneficial mutation which survives and propogates through a population, just as we know from experience that it is always the good which drives out the bad in government work, teaching, academia, politics...
Evolutionists generally assume that categories of evidence which could be interpreted many ways constitute unquestionable proof of evolution. In particular, they invariably assume that the rare fossil records of sequential changes indicate evolution. There is no reason to assume this; using the same logic, a junkyard or museum with Chevrolets from 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958... could be seen as evidence that the 58 Chevy had evolved from the 54 model.
At some point, any theory can only be mangled so badly, and you're better off without a theory. Evolution has evolved its way to this exalted status.
EvolUSham dot Com
Many Experts Quoted on FUBAR State of Evolution
"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When we died, you know , that was it, there is nothing..."
Jeffrey Dahmer, noted Evolutionist
Given standard theories wrt the history of our solar system and our own planet, nobody should be finding cities and villages on Mars, 2100 feet beneath the waves off Cuba, or buried under two miles of Antarctic ice.
They say that the darkest gloom clouds sometimes have a silver lining, and that April showers bring May flowers. In the case of science and technology, it sometimes turns out that a project which utterly fails in its original intent or application, is useful for something else.
If evolution cannot rationally be viewed as a way to get from ape-like creatures to man, then cannot the use of evolutionism as an ideological belief system get us from man to an ape-like creature? Such a capability would be of enormous value in politics and a number of other fields in which IQ reduction is known to be a positive advantage, but in which drugs, alcohol, and the normal means of achieving this are increasingly in disfavor for social and political reasons. The following testimonial pretty much sums it all up.
Return to Bearfabrique home page.
Theory of Evolution - Another site taking a critical look at the theory of evolution.
This site has been visited:
Free Hit Counter
times since the morning of 3 March, 05.