The Need for Answers

    Newer Older

    where do you draw the line?

    an image having a related theme may be found here

    - a discussion thread regarding this image at reddit.com
    - a brief article regarding the use of flowcharts generally in art and specifically in this image at wrt.ucr.edu/wordpress
    - a well thought out analysis of this image at wayofthemind.dehumanizer.com
    - a discussion thread at community.livejournal.com/convert_me
    - links to other blog discussions regarding this image: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

    (improved image here)

    View 20 more comments

    1. Landscapeben 76 months ago | reply

      Work in progress :D

    2. choda42 76 months ago | reply

      Wow! Lots of reading!
      A good range of Gods and religious texts mentioned.
      It's a shame that this argument goes in circles and will never end.
      Religion will be the fall of the human race. Unfortunatly, we will probably bring the rest of the planets species down with us.

    3. DougButcher 76 months ago | reply

      "The mere fact that God has no beginning and no end makes Him God."

      You're presupposing God exists in order to prove that God exists. Sorry, too circular for my liking.

      "Richard Dawkins, one of evolutions greatest activist, when confronted with the fact that the beginning of the earth (and universe) must have come about by some sort of intelligence, stated that he believes that maybe we "earthlings" may have been seeded by an alien race that is very intelligence."

      He didn't say he believed that. He said that that was the only plausible way that we could have come about by way of an intelligent creator. He did go on to say that the aliens would still need an explanation in their own right. So he wasn't claiming to have a wacky belief in alien origins, as some like to claim.

      Sorry, I'm at work and cannot comment more at the moment, but I just wanted to mention those two things.

      Regards.
      Doug

    4. godserv 75 months ago | reply

      Hi dougbphotos :)
      You quoted me and then think you know how I think. First off I was not trying to hypothesize the existence of God by saying "The mere fact that God has no beginning and no end makes Him God." However I was saying that A+B = C where C = makes Him God, not "prove that God exists" I am not a defender or provider of proof for God's existence, He is His own defender and provider. The very planet and universe you live in, speaks of His existence. I do not need to prove Him right.

      Have you not known?
      Have you not heard?
      The everlasting God, the Lord,
      The Creator of the ends of the earth,
      Neither faints or is weary.
      His understanding is unsearchable - Isaiah 40:28

      Anything that I say about God was not revealed to me by flesh and blood but by the Father who is in heaven through His Son Jesus Christ.

      About the Richard Dawkins thing
      Obviously I was paraphrasing so you must leave way for slight error.
      You do prove my point in you clearing up the facts though.

      You can flip it, turn it, pull it inside out,
      but, I was still amazed at how quickly he gave credence (plausibility) to something that is not yet established as fact. Oh ye of little faith. I would not give credence to anything else beside creation unless it was established as fact. Therefore I will forever hold on to the fact that this earth and universe was created by God. ( I say forever because, God say He did it, His Word is trust worthy and I believe Him) The God of all other man made gods. There is too much evidence of this, thanks to Science and the Word of God. I think Science is Evolution's, Worst Enemy.

      Evolution (back to the subject). Credence (plausibility) is being given to it in the form of teaching this Hypothesis as a Theory / Law. That is the problem I have with evolution. No problem with coming up with an Hypothesis. This is how we study things in science.

      I have a brilliant friend that is a coder and can actually see codes by looking at things and thinking of how they work. We were discussing evolution vs creation and he thought he got me when he said he saw and wrote down the code for evolution. I was impressed as he explained. Now that sounds like a plausible way of defending evolution, but as Landscapeben so eloquently explained, we must define what type of evolution we are discussing. Macro or Micro. I explained to Him that his mathematical code only describe how the universe goes through minor changes each day. This is something that can be proven, I have no problem with that. His mathematical code cannot and I say again cannot theorize or explain how this universe came about from nothing, neither can it explain how a monkey can change to a man. FYI we are closer related in our DNA structure to a pig that a monkey. BTW I still have not convinced my buddy that he speaks predominantly of micro evolution :)

      His (God's) understanding is unsearchable - Isaiah 40:28


      Here are a couple rhetorical questions from the word of God, about God:

      Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord,
      Or as His counselor has taught Him?
      With whom did He take counsel and who instructed Him
      And taught Him the path of justice?
      Who taught Him knowledge,
      And showed Him the way of understanding? - Isaiah 40:14

      Here is my answer, and you can quote me, "No One, He is God"

      READ All of ISAIAH chapter 40 - Even if it's only for fun.

    5. DougButcher 75 months ago | reply

      (I don't have time right now for a specific comment, but I just found this interesting post on Yahoo! Answers in response to someone's question about evolution)

      The theory of evolution is not a story. Only religiously-motivated people trying to deny reality to support their faith say things like that.

      Incommunicado speaks with certainty as he spouts nonsense. But that's typical - science is evidence without certainty, whereas religion is certainty without evidence.

      Evolution-deniers claim Evolution is "only a theory". But in science, any complex model in science is called a "theory". The theory that life evolved from earlier life is as well supported as the "theories" that the continents drift, that germs cause disease and that stuff is made of atoms. You can bet you life on all of those "theories".

      Evolution-deniers claim there is no evidence for Evolution. This is a lie. Here are a long list of strong evidence for evolution, and even a list of how you'd disprove evolution, and why the evidence supports evolution:
      www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/...
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of...

      Evolution-deniers claim scientists are "abandoning" evolution because 800 scientists signed a statement saying they are skeptical that Darwinian evolution accounts for all the variation in the species. But (1) this doesn't mean those scientists believe it takes divine or non-natural intervention for evolution to happen, and (2) there are more scientists who fully support evolution even if you limit your list to just scientists named "Steve" (LOL). Not only that, but there are nearly 12,000 Christian CLERGY who've signed a statement supporting evolution and rejecting the teaching of creationism as science. Science isn't about voting, but even if it was, evolution still wins.
      ncseweb.org/taking-action/project...
      www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Chri...

      Evolution-deniers claim the fossil record does not support evolution, and that there are no intermediate species. This is an outright lie. Here is an "Old Earth Creationist" explaining about all sorts of intermediate species and how the fossil record absolutely supports evolution: www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4h...
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4GdZOlPr...

      Evolution-deniers, unable to refute the actual theory of evolution, then say "evolution doesn't explain the creation of the first life or the creation of the universe." That is also dishonest, because the theory of evolution doesn't ATTEMPT to explain those. It has nothing to do with those.

      Evolution-deniers claim we've never SEEN evolution - that's a lie, because we have:
      www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/scienc...
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lon...
      www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...
      www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13845002/

      So only by rejecting knowledge and denying reality (or by lying) can you deny that life evolved and continues to evolve.

    6. DougButcher 75 months ago | reply

      Damn, when I copied and pasted the above, the links didn't copy properly. I'll try to find the original page if I can. Some of them still work, though.

    7. Landscapeben 75 months ago | reply

      Majorly busy at the moment, but I will be back with responses to all of this some time soon, sorry for leaving you in the conversational lurch.

    8. Landscapeben 75 months ago | reply

      Hi Doug, I keep trying to get around to writing some more on here, but I have just become the provider for two families as my father-in-law has been made redundant. As a result I am working every hour that GOD sends :) and am finding it very difficult to get around to posting in the conversations I am part of on Flickr. I hope you will understand, and will not feel badly of me for leaving in this way, I would love to continue at some point in the future though.
      Take care Doug.

      Ben

    9. DougButcher 75 months ago | reply

      Sorry to hear about your father-in-law's circumstances. There are many people having a very difficult time at the moment. Take your time, and leave this thread to gather dust for a while - there are more important things to deal with! I also need to spend more time sorting out some things in my life, so it's not the best time to be sitting and debating at the computer!

      All the best.
      Doug.

    10. Landscapeben 75 months ago | reply

      Thanks for being so understanding Doug.
      Until next time then :)

      Ben.

    11. skiingutah 75 months ago | reply

      I hope humanity can push through to the left side of this image... It seems like whenever we cannot answer a question we automatically assume that "God" did it. It may in fact be evolutional and beneficial, religion. Because groups that banded together holding these beliefs would profit from the fact that they would survive longer.

      Meaning as a species we may already be susceptible to religion. I personally hope we can start thinking more logically as a whole.

    12. adamj1990 [deleted] 74 months ago | reply

      amazing powerful work, congratulations on this its inspiring and a really creative way to portray this!

    13. godserv 74 months ago | reply

      @Skiingutah? There are historical, archeological and written evidence for the Christian faith. Search out an Apologist (here is one - thechisholmsource.com ) and ask him/her any questions that gives you doubt. As for other religious orders, there is just so little digging you'll need to do before you realize they are fake.

      It's evident however that we do not use God as a scape goat to explain away everything, not my God, because, historically humanity have been looking elsewhere to explain thing away, may it be an idol, self , foolish speculations and even science sometimes. Even when we see the evidence of God's work in front of us we said He must be doing this work through demonic means.

      Humanity is basically anti-god, so, for a huge fraction of us to be followers of the one true God, it takes more than just "scape-goatism" it takes divine revelations from God himself. However that same God, when He came down to us in human form (Jesus), said, speaking of His death and miraculous resurrection - blessed are those who have not seen, but have believed - showing that it also requires a measure of faith in light of all the evidences given by past witnesses.

      Ours (Christians faith) is not a blind faith.

      BTW Christianity is not a desease, therefore we are not susceptible to it, you would have been afflicted with it aleady. Can't speak for the other religious sects ;) theirs may be, because of all the demon and devilish stuff going on in all of them, may it be worship of a cow or the sun.

      Regards
      Godserv

    14. Christopher Thielen 73 months ago | reply

      I'm surprised that theists aren't offended by this. The left side demonstrates thousands of years of intense, complex and genius thinking, while the right exemplifies the violence done to rational thought by religion.

      I know theism vs. atheism makes people very upset; I mean no harm, but nothing, absolutely nothing, should be exempt from critical thinking, including questioning the existence of God and the validity of ancient texts.

    15. NullSession 73 months ago | reply

      It is amazing that we can understand extremely well how the sun works, and show direct evidence that the sun is 5b years old. It amazes me still that people can look at the right hand side and find that "enough" of an answer. It is like your Mom telling you, "Because, and that's all you need to know. Now go to your room and stop asking me questions."

      We learn more and more FACTS every year, yet the right hand side is still based on tribal stories that are thousands of years old. I think I hear "Don't worry, be happy" playing in the background....

    16. Trenrade23 70 months ago | reply

      lmao so true

    17. Paul Rumsey 70 months ago | reply

      Hi, I'm an admin for a group called British Astronomical & Sciences Group, and we'd love to have this added to the group!

    18. carlafierro7 42 months ago | reply

      ha ha funny pic .. reminds me of the Philosophy of Science course i took in college :)

    19. ~Vision ~A i r y ~ © 28 months ago | reply

      I try and see both sides at the same time,one needn't cancel out the other!

    20. Truth in science 10 months ago | reply

      If people would only think for themselves - there would be no atheists.
      Atheism is anti-logic and anti-science ......

      Atheism is the rejection of one of the only 2 origins options.
      The only two options are:
      1. An uncaused, supernatural first cause.
      2. An uncaused, natural first cause.
      Atheists categorically reject option one, therefore they believe in option two - by default.
      Option two (an uncaused, natural first cause) is impossible according to logic, natural laws and the scientific method.

      Every natural event/effect/entity has to have an adequate cause.
      All material/natural entities/events are contingent, they rely on preceding causes.
      A natural first cause, cannot be a very FIRST cause because something (which didn't need a cause) must have caused it.
      A natural first cause also cannot be the very first cause of the universe because it is woefully inadequate for the effect. An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
      So atheism is a set of beliefs which violate the scientific method, ignore logic and defy natural laws.

      Atheism is akin to a religion because it credits matter/energy with similar creative powers and attributes as those applied to a creator God, which is really just a more sophisticated version of pagan naturalism, which imbued natural entities such as Mother Nature, The Sun or Moon god etc. with creative and magical powers.

      To explain further ....
      If there are only 2 options and one is ruled out as 'impossible' by logic, natural law and the scientific method, then it is safe, indeed sensible, to deduce that the other option is the only possible, and likely one.
      Anyone who believes in science should know - that the basis of the scientific method is looking for adequate causes for every natural event/effect.
      An 'uncaused' natural event is an anathema to science, it cannot even contemplate such a prospect.
      If someone were to propose a natural first cause of everything, science would have to ask - what caused it? You cannot claim it was uncaused - that defies the scientific method.
      However, if it was caused - if it had a preceding cause, ... then it cannot be the FIRST cause. Because FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.
      So the very first cause of everything must be UNCAUSED ... which means, according to science, it CANNOT be a NATURAL cause.
      In other words ... it cannot be a contingent entity, it can only be an eternally self-existent, self-reliant, autonomous, infinite, omnipotent entity which is entirely independent of causes, and the limitations that causes impose. In other words .... a Creator God.

      Furthermore, the first cause also has to be completely adequate for the effect, the effect cannot be greater than the cause ... so the first cause has to have adequate powers, properties and potentiality to create the entirety of the universe, i.e. nothing in the universe can be superior in any respect to the first cause.
      That means the first cause must embody, or be able to create, every property and quality that exists, which includes: natural laws, matter/energy, information, life, intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, design, skill, moral values, love, sense of beauty, justice etc.
      All proposed, natural first causes - Big Bang's, Singularities, quantum mechanics etc. are not only ruled out because, as contingent events, they cannot be uncaused, they are also grossly inferior to the effect, which definitively rules them all out as credible first causes.

      To put it more simply ... all effects/events/entities are the result of a combination of numerous, preceding causes, but the very first cause is unique, inasmuch as it is a lone cause of everything.
      Everything can be traced back to that single cause, it is responsible for every other cause, entity and effect that follows it. Unlike other lesser or subsequent causes, it has to account for the totality of everything that exists. So it cannot be inferior in any respect to any particular property, entity, event, effect, or to the totality of them all.

      For example .....
      If we have intelligence then, that which ultimately caused us cannot be non-intelligent.
      Atheists assume that we are greater in that respect than that which caused us .... that is ridiculous and it defies logic and natural law. Foolish indeed!

      What about infinite time?
      Time is simply a chronology of natural events. Time began with the origin of the material realm. No natural events ...means - no time. All natural entities, events/effects are contingent, they cannot be self-existent, they rely on causes and the limitations that causes impose. they are not autonomous entities, to propose that is anti-science.

      Atheism = NOTHING created EVERYTHING, for NO REASON.
      Makes perfect sense .... NOT!
      www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments- gods-existen...

      Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.
      But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.
      The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.
      Why do atheists have such a problem with it?

      Atheists seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.
      This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.
      That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.
      But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.
      A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.

      Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.

      Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.
      Such as it arising from nothing of its own volition, for no reason.
      Or even the utterly, ludicrous notion of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating!

      Another idea which seems to be popular with atheists at present, is a continuously, reciprocating universe, one which ends by running out of energy potential and then rewinds itself in an never-ending cycle.
      However, the idea that the universe can simply rewind itself in a never ending cycle, which had no beginning, is complete, unscientific nonsense.
      It seems atheists will try anything to justify their naturalist ideology. They apparently have no compunction about completely disregarding natural laws.

      The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out such atheist, pie-in-the-sky, origins mythology.
      There is no such thing as a free lunch, the idea of a rewinding universe is tantamount to applying the discredited notion of perpetual motion - on a grand scale, to the universe.
      Contingent things don't just rewind of their own accord. The Second Law (not to mention common sense) rules it out. Where does the renewed power or renewed energy potential come from? If you wind up a clock, it doesn't rewind itself after it has stopped. The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. That is what science tells us, it cannot rewind itself.

      Such ridiculous atheist musings are just a desperate attempt to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion of logic, and the Law of Cause and Effect which are the real enemies of atheist ideology.

      Atheism is hoisted on its own petard by natural law and science, not by religion.

      Atheists can’t refute the Law of Cause and Effect which is so devastating to their naturalist agenda, so they regularly invent bizarre scenarios which ignore natural laws, and hope people won’t notice. If anyone does they just brush it off with remarks like “we just don’t know ”.
      Sorry, atheists apologists may not know …. but we do know, we certainly know what is impossible …. And we certainly know that you cannot blithely step outside the constraints of natural laws and scientific principles, as atheists do, and remain credible.

      Atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, while they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.

      A further nail in the coffin of atheist pseudoscience is existence of order.
      The development of order requires an organizational element. To do useful work, or to counter the effects of entropy, energy needs to be directed or guided. Raw energy alone actually tends to increase the effects of entropy, it doesn't increase order.
      The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA.
      Natural laws are a type of information which guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it. They are an inherent property of matter/energy, natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws. They cannot exceed the parameters of those laws.

      A major problem for atheists is to explain where natural laws came from? In a purposeless universe there should be no regulatory principle at all.
      Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.
      Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure and we would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.
      This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy scream …. ‘purpose’. Atheists say the exact opposite.
      Furthermore, if we add the accepted, atheist belief; that matter is inherently predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive.
      The atheist idea of a random, purposeless, universe is left completely in tatters.

      It is the atheist ideology that is anti-science, not necessarily individual scientists.
      There may be sincere, atheist scientists who respect the scientific method and natural laws, but they are wedded to an ideology that - when push comes to shove, does not respect natural laws.
      It is evident that whenever natural laws interfere with atheist naturalist beliefs, the beliefs take precedence over the rigorous, scientific method. It is then that natural laws are disregarded by atheists in favour of unscientific fantasies which are conducive to their ideology.

      Of course, in much day-to-day practical science and technology, the question of violating laws doesn't even arise, and we cannot deny that in the course of such work, atheists will respect the scientific method of experiment and observation within the framework of the Law of Cause and Effect and other established laws of science.
      Bizarrely, It is a different matter entirely, when it comes to hypotheses about origins. It then becomes an 'anything goes' situation. The main criteria then seems to be that it doesn’t matter whether your hypothesis violates natural laws (all sorts of excuses can be made as to why natural laws need not apply), all that matters is that it is entirely naturalistic, and can be made to sound plausible to the public.
      However, the same atheist scientists would not entertain anything in general, day-to-day science, that is not completely in accordance with the scientific method, they make an exception ONLY with anything to do with origins, whether it be the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, or the origin of species.

      Atheism is not simply passive non-belief, you can only be a ‘genuine’ atheist if you proactively believe in the following illogical and unscientific notions:

      A natural, first cause of the universe that was ‘uncaused’.

      A natural, first cause of the universe that was patently not adequate for the effect, (a cause which was able to produce an effect far greater than itself and superior to its own abilities).

      That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.

      That natural laws simply arose of their own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

      That energy potential at the start of everything material was able to wind itself up from absolute zero, of its own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

      That the effect of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics) was somehow suspended or didn’t operate to permit the development of order in the universe.

      That life spontaneously generated itself, of its own volition, from sterile matter, contrary to: the Law of Biogenesis, the laws of probability, the Second Law of
      Thermodynamics, Information Theory and common sense.

      That the complete human genome was created by means of a long chain of copying mistakes of the original, genetic information in the first living cell, (mutations of mutations of mutations, etc. etc.).

      That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.

      That the very first, genetic information, encoded in the DNA of the first living cell, created itself by some unknown means.

      That matter is somehow inherently predisposed to develop into living cells, whenever conditions are conducive to life. But such a predisposition for life just arose of its own accord, with no purpose and with no apparent cause.

      That an ordered structure of atoms, guiding laws of physics, order in the cosmos, order in the living cell and complex information, are what we would expect to occur naturally in a purposeless universe.

      The claim of Dawkins and other atheists to be the champions of science and reason is clearly bogus. They think they can get away with it by pretending to have no beliefs. However, when challenged, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause. Whenever possible, they avoid declaring those beliefs explicitly, but you don’t need to be very astute to realize that relying on those beliefs is the unavoidable conclusion of their arguments. That is why atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is doomed to the dustbin of history.

      Evolution is on the rocks - some recent evidence:
      www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/7215 7635944904973/
      Fossil museum:
      www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/7215 7641367196613/

      So much for atheism .... What about progressive (macro) evolution?

      There is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.
      Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants.
      However, the changes possible through selective breeding were known by breeders to be strictly limited.
      This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new structures and features (macro-evolution).
      Darwin ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over millions of years.
      Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale.
      That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated. But because Darwinism had acquired a status more akin to an ideology than purely, objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.

      Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.
      Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, additional, genetic information.
      This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history,
      However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.

      A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.
      That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... genetic, copying MISTAKES.
      The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.

      The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been right all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment.

      The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge.
      A sort of progressive evolution of the idea of evolution.
      This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.

      So what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?
      Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro evolution based on a belief in a total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.
      However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it is should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability and Information Theory.

      People are sometimes confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. However, evolutionists often cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.
      Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked, and it is a disgrace to science. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations capable of creating new structures, organs etc. and that is a fact. It is no wonder that W R Thompson stated in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.

      Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any constructive changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, genetic information, that is essential for macro evolution.
      Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim.
      Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various dogs breeds, for example, are merely an example of limited micro-evolution (selection of existing genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they begin to realise that they have been fed an incredible story.

      To explain further.... Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ridiculous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of millions of genetic copying mistakes..... mutations ... of mutations .... of mutations.... of mutations .... and so on - and on - and on.

      In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a series ... of mistakes ... of mistakes .... of mistakes .... of mistakes etc. etc.

      If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain where that original information came from?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - features, structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:
      skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes ... mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - over and over again, millions of times. That is ... every part, system and process of all living things are the result of literally billions of genetic MISTAKES of MISTAKES, accumulated over many millions of years.

      So what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Incredible!
      If you believe that ... you will believe anything.

      Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations (mistakes).

      Conclusion:
      Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.
      The evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.
      However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.
      Want to join the club?

      What about the fossil record?

      The formation of fossils.
      Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.
      Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.
      So it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.
      The very existence of intact fossils is a testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.
      You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.
      Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.
      The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.

      Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist's, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.
      In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?
      You don't even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.

      Rapid formation of strata - latest evidence:
      www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/7215 7635944904973/

      All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.

      The Cambrian Explosion.
      Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.
      Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.

      See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:
      www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/127020466 04/in/set-72...
      Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/7215 7641367196613/

      What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?
      The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:
      Piltdown Man (a fake),
      Nebraska Man (a pig),
      South West Colorado Man (a horse),
      Orce man (a donkey),
      Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),
      Archaeoraptor (a fake),
      Java Man (a giant gibbon),
      Peking Man (a monkey),
      Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)
      Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)
      The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),
      Peppered Moth (faked photographs)
      The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)
      Etc. etc.
      Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.
      All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.

      Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?

      Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
      www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
      www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-scie nce-paper-ju...

      Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.
      Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.
      Is that 'science'?

      The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.

      Piltdown Man... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..

      Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as evidence for the evolution of humans, and artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. It was also used as 'scientific' evidence for evolution in the Scopes Trial. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.

      South West Colorado Man, another tooth .... of a horse this time... It was presented as evidence for human evolution.

      Orce man, a fragment of skullcap, which was most likely from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any proof of human evolution as it was made out to be.

      Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.

      Archaeoraptor, A so-called feathered dinosaur from the Chinese fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.

      Java Man, Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... admitted much later that it was actually a giant gibbon, however, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it, so evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it, and still maintained it was a human ancestor. Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention that he found the bones of modern humans at the same site.

      Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient limestone burning industrial site where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.

      The Horse Series, unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.

      Peppered Moth, moths were glued to trees to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing gene pool, is not progressive evolution. It is just normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.

      Is macro evolution even science? The answer to that has to be an emphatic - NO!
      The usual definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief.
      Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes to man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.

    keyboard shortcuts: previous photo next photo L view in light box F favorite < scroll film strip left > scroll film strip right ? show all shortcuts