Why I can’t accept the evolutionists

Preamble: I’ve written about this before previous post HERE (https://lwtc247.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/evolution-a-look-at-the-mutation-twaddle/)  ( and I am catching a plane back to the UK in a few hours. Hence I’m rushing posting this which I typed last night/this morning.

I’m not sure when I’ll be able to get back on line. At worst it will be a month before I’m back online. I just don’t know. I might be too busy back hime.

It may take you all a month to read this anyway.

TTFN. Lwtc247.

– – – – – – – – –  – – – – 

If your into probability, how about this?

The Universe contains about 250,000,000,000 galaxies each one containing approximately 300,000,000,000 stars. Out of all possible planets surrounding these stars (and science reports more and more planets found every year) we know of life on one of them. That isn’t to say there isn’t life, but despite searching we have found no trace.

Again, by chance, as anti-creationists would have us believe, the output and variability of one of these stars, the sun, isn’t so harsh in terms of solar electromagnetic and particle radiation  and variability, that allows for life as we know it to exist.

The earth which just happens to have a disproportionate amount of oxygen on it bonded to metals and non metals making up the physical earth)in the crust, bonded to hydrogen to make water and in a bimolecular form in the air. The oxygen concentration isn’t too high that should a combustion process like a forest fire develops that it would be impossible to put out, nor is too low that it many organisms in the sea would have difficulty is using oxygen to assist life sustaining energy cycles.

Low oxygen conditions can sustain life (e.g. hydrothermal vents) but there is a large difference in those life forms to the sort that sits at the end of the evolutionary chain, and those environments aren’t totally starved of oxygen.

Our planet us theorised to have an iron core again immensely disproportionate with the rest of the local cosmos. All these ultra small possibilities are permutated with the probability that these conditions just happen to support a temperature and pressure in which water, the substance regarded as being vital to any life as we know it, just happens to be a liquid.

PHASE DIAGRAM OF WATER. Source: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html

Phew that was lucky. Too much or two little pressure and waters liquid range would be even more precariously narrow – and as for the temp, thank the lucky stars that the temperature range is narrow enough to enable molecular vibration be not too slow – preventing reactivity of large structure and making any reaction painfully slow, however just enough vibration there that the active sites of enzymes can be accessed and proteins can maintain a significant quaternary structure so as not to denature.

And in relation to water, we’ve got the pH factor. pH in living organisms can only change over very narrow limits before it beings detrimental effects to the vitality of life sustaining processes . ranges cause havoc with life processes. It’s mighty lucky the pH of the oceans wasn’t too far from

All by chance of course. – P.S. anyone keeping score of the math p(life by accident)=?

And there’s more… and this is where I’ll hand over largely to information in a DVD I bought the other day called “The collapse of Evolution. Subheading The fact of creation. By the Science research Foundation, Istanbul Turkey based on the book “Evolution Deceit” by the Harun Yahya, one of the most greatest scholars today.

Everything living thing is furnished with complex systems that enable it to play its role in the overall system to the best of its ability. Darwin argued all species descended from a common ancestor by means of little cumulative changes over long periods of time. Darwin could advance no sound evidence of that claim.

He was aware of the great many facts that invalidated his theory. He admitted these in his book The Origin of Species (TOS) in Chapter VI – Difficulties on Theory. He hoped in time science would overcome these difficulties. It hasn’t. In fact it has made them more disputable.

Louis Pasteur said about 5 years after Darwins book, TOS: “Can matter organise itself? No. Today there is no circumstance known under which one could affirm that microscopic beings have come into the world without parents resembling themselves.”

It is proposed that Darwinism supports the development of all life via a simple organism. All life as we know is due to cells. The cell is where life take place. So what of cells?

Russian Evolutionist Alexander Oparin “Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question that is actually the murkiest aspect of the whole theory of evolution.

Stanley Miller 1953. Millers organic chemicals are meaningless. Nobody can say the chemicals he synthesised made life or could conceivably bring about life. There is a question about the gases he used as to how accurate his composition was as to that that of the young pre-life earth. Miller eventually admitted to the invalidity of his experiments.

Leading Evolutionist Geochemistry Jeffrey Bada  Feb 1988 in the periodical “Earth” said: “Today as we leave the 20th Century we still face the biggest unsolved problem we had when we entered the 20th century. How did life originate on earth?”

Even single cell organisms are remarkably complex in their composition. How did the Cell first originate. He didn’t address this fundamental point. A cell is an immensely complex system. It cannot function if one of its organelles doesn’t function. All these functions of the cell, The chance that€

A living cell is made of thousands of tiny parts that work in harmony. As a comparison: There are power stations, high tech factories, a complex databank, huge storage systems, advanced refineries and a membrane that controls what enters and leaves the cell.

In order for the cell to survive all of these organelles have to exist at the same time. What is the possibility of that?

Scientists haven’t been able to synthesise a single living cell from non-living matter. Oh how that probability dwindles, yet people are perfectly prepared to take on this immeasurably small probability that life wasn’t designed and created by The Creator himself.

Sir Fred Hoyle, Mathematician and astronomer, Nature 12 Nov 1981, said: “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged by chance is comparable that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”

Francis Crick confessed A structure like DNA could never have emerged by chance.

A million pages needed to write all the information present in DNA. That’s numerous times the amount of pages in {an older version of} encyclopaedia Britannia. In the cell, all that info is in the nucleus 1 micrometer in size.

No evolutionist has formulated a non-DNA way of sustaining life. All models of life are thus based on DNA. Evolutionists therefore want us to believe that in a maximum of 4.7 billion years (the age of the Sun) atoms just happened to assemble into ribose units, phosphates, Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, Thiamine and Uracil (RNA) and that these molecules happened to come into contact with each other. Remember they have to do so within narrow pressure, temperature and pH windows here – meaning a lot of this 4.7 billion years isn’t available for evolution to occur in as the earth had to cool down and stabilize to such limits to allow the biochemical processes we are familiar with today.

A DNA chain with 9 base pairs would be utterly useless in coding for a viable animal. We have to accept the very small probability that DNA chains grew to such length that the complexity of a living thing became possible. Then we have the problem of molecules like the enzme transcriptase, polymerise and all the amino acids just happened to be present and that everything else present in the cell was present to facilitate the replication of DNA. There must also have been significant DNA repair mechanisms too (as DNA has today) all those millions of years, background radiation would have been higher and so caused damage to DNA and hindered its replication (see more about this point later)
Then we have the problem of what fuelled this process? Sunlight powerplants such as Mg2+ centred chlorophyll just also happened to be assembles and present at the same time as did the lipids to make the cell wall. We have yet again the Stanley Miller problem in that many of the molecules necessary for the creation of a cell are only known to be produced by living organisms and not electrical discharges through gas mixtures.

We have another low probability that reproduction spontaneously came about. As if some cell was tired of splitting by being zapped by lightening or forced about by some unusual chemical/physical stimulus so by chance, was able to interact with another cell (or collection of cells – more complex so more difficult) to produce off spring, yet this feature wasn’t present in the generation immediate prior the ‘J’taime’ generation. And what of food consumption. How did a cell change from one that obviously mustn’t have had a method and orifice for the intake of food, by chance develop such a set of devices to consume food, whereas once again the generation before had no way of consuming food. The thought that an organism would by chance develop a system to facilitate external consumption is deeply preposterous, or that over time one happened to be in the process of forming.

Probability check?

I said to Cambridge based Cosmologist Prof who said dark matter was proposed to make up for the fact only 4% of the matter of the universe appears to be present, that if I did an experiment and only got a 4% outcome, I’d be inclined to change the basis of the theory on which that experiment was conducted. I think most people would agree. Yet the recursive near zero chance of all of these things from happening are acceptable to evolutionists.

The problem is no matter what strong scientific reasons are put in front of some people, they cannot submit to the evidence chiefly because they cannot physically perceive God The Creator, they don’t want to embarrassed being seen to do rituals ridiculed by some. They don’t want to devote some of their life to worship the physically discommoded God. However much of the science today concerns physical processes which cannot be physically perceived like space-time or the pico/femeno world of the atom, however these models of approximations are whole heartedly accepted by many who put faith in such things, but not in God.

Life generated from non-living matter by chance.
No mechanism in nature to carry out the process of evolution. There is no mechanism where a cell can be transformed into a more complex living createure and then go on to tbecome the ancestor of millions of other living species.

Natural Selection:
This really is a joke and maybe from the comfort of your own chair backed up with a few seconds of rational thought to might also see its funny side for it is a self defeating mental construct.

Take the common scenario pimped into your mind on nature programs. That of the poor gene slow running deer picked off by a predator leaving behind a strengthened heard.

Wouldn’t that be likely to see the demise of the predator as the strengthened heard would make it too difficult for the predator to make a catch? And if you say the predator evolves also to catch more slightly strengthened deer, then that is where you destroy your own argument. It would render the natural selection / strengthened survivors postulate dead in the water. It would also put significant pressure on all the other species who the predator might go for as he could catch them more easily. The other prey would have to run quicker or strengthen too in order to face extinction. So played out over hundreds of thousands of years, the deer would be ultra strong, capable of huge speeds, so would the predator and all of the other prey. Such a scenario would/could allow for the possibility of some muscle eating organism to flourish what with all those Herculean muscles present, or the modification of existing birds into Rocs or Griffins to catch these deer which hardly any land animal could.

Obviously Darwin never witnessed natural selection in the Galapagos Islands. He simply postulated something that he thought might be able to account for the unique species there. Much is made of the Islands isolation, but I wonder if this is a deliberate deception because the heralded uniqueness is nothing special. In highly connected land masses such as the geophysical Eurasian continent you get numerous specific animals living in specific areas.

Aaaah, but due to mutation of genes, a number of slow deer will be produced. The predator picks off these ones. Well, lets brush aside the totally unsubstantiated nature of such a claim. Lets not demand they supply genetic proof to support their argument. Lets suppose it’s true, then the number of slow-genes by mutation would necessarily be quite high to allow the survival of the predator in which case why has natural selection not produced a heard that is relatively free of suffering from mutation? The evolutionists only apply their pet theory when to the unquestioning gullible and not when ‘their’ theory proves themselves wrong. Plus of course, very significantly, there is NO scientific data to back up that rash defence claims.

If the predators evolution wasn’t as good as the Deer’s, then it would have to eat the young baby deer, jeopardising the existence of the herd AND resulting in the deaths of ‘good gene’ stock too! The same goes for the old deer that the predator may be forced to eat. Would natural selection not also favour leaving behind deer that would live longer and also be stronger during the course of their lifetime? After all, the old deer did come from a strengthened stock!

You see natural selection is nothing but edited spin of human conceived fantasy. That does not mean natural selection of some kind does not occur, it may well do, but certainly not in any of the ways it is portrayed and upheld by the pro-evolution brigade.

But when you hear some charming man charismatic man like Attenborough on the telly spinning out this 2% construct, it is easy to agree because when you watch TV, not many people sit there and critically analyse the info given to them.

And even if I am wrong, crucially, the strengthen hers does not transform into AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SPECIES. Speciation and natural selection are not the same thing. Darwin used both, stitching them together, but to the minds of most they are one in the same. Natural selection would only help with the survival of a species, by virtue of lack of ANY evidence, it does not have to have any evolutionary consequence.

Darwin was also aware of this problem and confessed in his book “Natural Selection can do nothing can do nothing until favourable chance to coccur” 1st Edn p177

Genetics, microbiology and biochemistry did not exist as brfanches disciplines. Laws of inhereticane were not known. Darwin and the man who influenced him Lemar thought it was

Darwin said in his chapter on difficulties of the theory “If I could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down.” 1st Ed. P189

The Austrian Botanist, Gregor Mendel (sweet peas) who established the science of genetics (beginning
It was not acquired physical traits, buy only genes that were transmitted to subsequent generations” This made it clear that a scenario suggesting that a trait accumulated from generation to generation and generated different living species was implausible,

There were no inheritable variations for Darwin’s proposed mechanism of natural selection to choose from.

Evolutionist Palaeontologist. Colin Patterson “ No one has ever produced a species by mechanism of natural selection. No one has ever got near it. And most of the current argument in Neo-Darwinism is about this question.” BBC, 4th March 1982
20th Century science shows the irreducibly complexity of life. That is a single component of a living system or organ is lacking, they will not function. Doesn’t this mean they must have been fully formed when their species emerged. How then can minor changes of time lead to these systems and organs?

When man mutates genes, the results are damage to the DNA and only harm the living being. No beneficial mutation have never been observed. It is impossible for a reptile to develop wings or an eyeless creature to develop eyes. Countless experiments on fruit flies show this. Dolly the sheep, the first publicly acknowledged clone sheep developed complications later on. As for Polly the later generation sheep, I haven’t heard any related news.

Here’s a couple of stills of Dawkins pausing and giving no answer to the Question: “Prof D can u give an example of gene mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome”

The video said he hesitated but annoyingly didn’t show him giving ANY answer, meaning that some would go away thinking he had no answer. That was poor form and annoyed me. I don’t believe Dawkins could have given an example, but I wanted to hear what he said none the less.

The complexity and intricacy of a hand made pocket watch points to the existence of an intelligent maker. Why doesn’t the beauty and complexity show the existence of a Creator?

The fossil record.
No fossil remains supporting evolution has ever been found in every corner of the earth. There are NO transient species for ANY species. The intermediary species should be numerous too, not And a lizard mutating into a bird as evolutionists believe, with a half wing is unlikely to

“If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties linking most closely all the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed… Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.” Origin of Species 1st Ed p179

Darwin knew there was no evidence in his time. He wrote a special chapter in his book on this point.  Chapter IX: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduations, do we not see everywhere innumerable transitional forms? But as by this theory unnumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

But something that is missed by most people and that is… Today’s species should also show signs of transition, but they don’t. I have never heard an evolutionist make a single argument saying in effect evolution amongst today’s species has stopped. Why then do we not see clear signs amongst the hundreds of thousands of species today any sign of transition. The more species means the more mutations one should find, indeed that is what evolutionists/mutationists say is responsible for the diversity we see today. The sea gannet, frog, and flying fish are debatables, yet Creationists have the upper hand saying the lack of any Neanderthal frog, gannet or flying fish, that these species have no precursor and so are like every other species which have, like modern man, appeared suddenly in isolation and not through evolution. It is true that absence of proof is not proof of absence, but believe in proof when proof is absent is highly tenuous whereas belief in absence in light of absence of proof is the most logical standpoint.

The honeycomb eye structure of trilobite has survived for 530 million years without a single change. Bees and dragon flis has the same eye structure. There is not complex life form known to have existed before the trilobites and other species of the Cambriem period. The Cambrian species came into existence all of a sudden without any ancestors.

Dawkins says “It is as though the species of the Cambrian were just planted there, without any evolutionary history” the Blind Watchmaker, 9186, p229.

“If numerous beloinging to the same genera or families have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the [Darwinian] theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.” TOS 1st Ed p302

The Cambrian period formes the outset of
Living species always apprar abruptly and fully formed. Fish, birds and mammals. After All the thousands of species withing them after appeared suddenly with distinct structures.

There is NO transitional form.

Palaeontologist Mark Czarnecki: McLeon’s, 18th Jan 1981, p 56: “A major problem in proving theory has been the fossil record. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants. Instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fuelled the creationists argument that each species was created by God.”

There are difference in structure of a between a 400m year old shark and a modern shark, a 100m year old ant and a modern ant, a 135m year old dragon fly and a modern dragon fly, a 55m bat and a modern bat.

Proposed transitional fossils included Coelacanth and Archaeopteryx.  Coelacanth only (the proposed transitional primitive legs and a primitive lung) was found to be the same as a fish discovered in sub 180m waters in the Indian ocean 1938. It didn’t have primitive legs or a primitive lung. 1992 the creature had a sternum – the chest bone essential for flight meaning it was a perfectly formed bird, not a transitional form. Stephen Jay Gould a stalwart of evolution admitted it oculd be taken as evidence of a transitional form.

Warm blooded/Cold blooded.
This aspect occurred to me getting on about a year ago. How did cold blooded reptiles evolve/switch to warm blooded birds. The difference in physiology between them means it is impossible. A single cold blooded reptile one day couldn’t have become slightly warm blooded, and then mate with a cold blooded reptile to have its progeny slightly more warm blooded which in turn mated with more cold blooded reptiles. To increase the blood ‘warmth’ In reading up on these two types of physiology it seems to me that the evolutionists realised this gaffe and have tried to mussy the waters as to what exactly cold blooded and warm blooded means. Nonetheless their you cannot devise a logical scenarios whereby a warm blooded gene sequence would spring forth only to have it spread in a cold blooded population to remain distinct and then over thousands of years produce species that were totally divergent. Any dominant gene would have destroyed one of the populations, either the emergent warm bloods or the cold bloods. The recessive gene would have been destroyed? Even if you say “Aaa ha” that’s why we have zonal habitats, but there are no warn blooded lizards and birds (the proposed result of lizard evolution) occupy the same habitats as lizards.

Then we get the reptile/mammal egg/giving birth problem and lactation amongst mammals. So where are the half lactating organs? The half eggs? The half live births?

Its nonsense.

6500 ape species have existed so far. Most have become extinct. Doing the morph trick where on TV a carrot can be morphed into a person (commonly projected in terms of man) is a mockery of the intellect.

Australopithecus is an extinct species of ape not man.

Richard Leakey Palaeontologist in The Making of Mankind. 1981 p62” “These differences [in ‘man’ skulls] are probably no more pronounced than [what] we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans.”

Indeed the BBC showed a very interesting picture of a collection of Cambodian skulls (victims of the Khmer rouge) on a rack. Those skills were from the same race and showed quite a bit of variation.

PIC ———-

So we move to propaganda. Imaginary drawing that appear in textbooks and computerized depictions in nature programs pushing the idea that man came from monkeys. These artists illustrations are a disgrace to science. Quest for Fire was a work of fiction. Much of the bodily characteristics are missing from the bone fragments. The bones of a modern day ape can be wasily clayed up or fleshed up to produce an image that looks exactly like a man.

S. Nisan in the 1964 Sunday Times, Maurice Wilson and Evlul in the 1960 National Geographic used  exactly the same Zinjanthrophus skull yet reconstructed totally different final images


Remember Piltdown man? The put a Orang-utan jaw to a human skull. Now can you imagine the outrage if say a real transitional skull was sabotaged in order to support the theory of Evolution? A similar hoax – Nebraska man’s tooth was that of a wild pig.

However the deceiving drawing of man walking from apes to humans is pushed into kids minds, depicted as being the origin of man.

Species appeared suddenly.

It’s the sign of creation.

I never had all this information when I decided that I accepted there was a God, although I realised some time after trying to prove to a Muslim how man deviated from apes, that my line of argument was flawed and merely a matter of how I chose to draw the deviation and word it. I realised I could equally well have said that any common ancestor could have been called man and that apes could have come from that. After all, if man and ape were subject to evolution than who is anyone to say the converged lineage can rightfully be called ape of man?

Well that’s it.

Evolution for me has been well put to rest. And after 6 hours of typing this, I feel glad to have written it.

I don’t discount that the physical form of man has changed, in fact, isn’t it indisputable that man has been shaped and changed? The tall Kenyan Massai and the small Indonesians, the Australian Aboriginies and the Chiense, The wuropeans and the numerous Native Americans, the long graves and weapons of historically peoples, clearly suggest we can and have changed. But WE ARE THE SAME SPECIES, the same breed – we can propagate amongst these differences.

I credit Darwin, who seemingly in his early days knew of the serious errors of his hypothesis and had the decency to log them, however I think it went to his head as he was held aloft to much praise by people who had no time for religion.

So speciation, spun-mutation and spun-Darwinism is finished.









30 Responses to “Why I can’t accept the evolutionists”

  1. 1 StefZ June 8, 2008 at 11:30 am

    I’m personally not a very big fan of Drake’s equation or thinking that runs along the same lines of Drake’s equation…


    especially the bit where you feed in the percentage of planets which will spontaneously generate Life

    The last time I looked we only know about one planet which has Life on it and we haven’t come anywhere near close to figuring out how Life started on it – we certainly haven’t been able to replicate that process. Which means that 0% (or very near to 0%) is as good an estimate for that element of the equation as any other value. Which makes the other variables in the equation kind of irrelevant

    When I was a kid I was taught (by priests) that slotting God into gaps in our knowledge of how the universe works was an unwise practice. Many scientists appear to have no such reservations about fairy stories and quite happily make up nonsense, which is no more supported by evidence than the existence of unicorns, and talk about it as if it were real – sludge turning into living cells, dark matter, strings, a bewildering array of imagined sub-atomic particles… the list is long

  2. 2 Jason June 8, 2008 at 9:38 pm

    “Then we get the reptile/mammal egg/giving birth problem and lactation amongst mammals. So where are the half lactating organs? The half eggs? The half live births?

    Its nonsense.”

    You’re right, it is nonsense if you actually think these things you’re saying have anything to do with evolution. Like most creationists, you’ve been lied to about what evolution actually says, and now you’re just attacking a straw man of evolution.
    If you folks think there is no evidence for evolution, you’re sorely mistaken and need to educate yourselves. You can argue for alternative explanations of the evidence (like, I guess, god designed life to look like it was evolved?) but the one thing you can’t argue is that evolution is a completely reasonable conclusion from the evidence.
    Evidence, including some of the many observed instances of speciation – http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    There are really only two reasonable explanations when you examine all the evidence. We know that certain species that lived in the past are no longer alive today, and we know that certain species that are alive today didn’t live in the past. You can conclude that 1. creation is a continuous, ongoing process, where god is constantly making new species and allowing old ones to die off (which invalidates the 6-day idea) and god is also doing it in a way that suggests a direct lineage between the species through molecular and morphological characteristics, or 2. evolution. Since both give the same predictions (organisms that appear evolved) then evolution is more acceptable via the principle of Occams razor.

    It’s almost stupefying how you guys can think you know more about biology that 99.9% of PhD biologists. Oh right, you think they’re just looking for an explanation that doesn’t involve god, because they’re all atheists, right? Nevermind that over 50,000 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science believes in a personal god and supports evolution.

  3. 3 Jason June 8, 2008 at 9:45 pm

    By the way, there are only 4 or 5 fundamental constants which will necessarily lead to all your ‘unlikely’ conditions for an earth that supports life – the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the planck constant, and the boltzman constant, and maybe one or two others depending on the argument made. That’s all that’s required for earth like planets to form, everything else follows necessarily.
    The problem with your probability arguments is that it’s fundamentally impossible to do statistics with a sample size of 1.

  4. 4 Art Esian June 9, 2008 at 11:21 am

    The report on my imminent death is premature. I have been sloshing around in the basins on the crust for more than four billion years. I now cover nearly 71 per cent of the planet. Since the last ice age I have lifted myself out of the basin by 120 metres and scared the tribes of Noah to the higher ground. During deep time I became the universal solvent for the volcanoes and the clouds. I have taken up as much salt as required by local circumstances and sometimes give it back in hot shallows and desert areas of my world. I have given man the salt in his blood. Your CO2 output is infinitesimally small. I have absorbed as much gas as I need to maintain balance with the organic world within me and on land. The exchange is so peaceful that science calls it equilibrium. I can absorb more CO2, if the plants do not need it, and it does not give me acid imbalance. My pH will remain basic no matter what you say. These variations you measure have come and gone many uncountable times on the planet and your baseline is too small to know the truth. What you do not get is that warming of the oceans releases CO2 and other gasses from my water, while cooling my water allows me to take up CO2 in vast amounts to nestle with the other molecules in my coldest most remote realms. I can absorb all that man can produce because your impact is feeble compared to my capacity.
    Please watch me with humility for you cannot change me. I am the ongoing sink for the planet, and I am huge and my heat content is beyond your estimation. Measure me here and there with your microscopes but know that I will never be that way in that place again. Open your mind to the infinite cycles of chemistry and physics and kneel on my beach. You can only hurt me by not respecting my infinite ability to change chemistry and temperature in all the corners of the seas. My CO2 feeds your plants and your plants provide all the oxygen you breathe. Your base line is infinitesimally small yet your mouth is wide open.


  5. 5 antireptilian June 10, 2008 at 2:18 pm

    Living with

    Firstly, how are you?

    Origins of man are a hard one to peg down. Evolution/creation? which is it to be? I dont know for sure. One thing that is hard evidence, but ignored by most of those behind the two trains of thought is the ancient texts and tablets. These, for the most part, and not discounting the belief systems of the times, tell the tales of the past. The general outline remains the same, whether the Indian Vedas or Sumerian, or Aztec tales.

    One thing i found of great interest was the discovery of the bones of giants. As you may know, tales of giants litter the ancient works.

    Here is a link. The image of the guy standing next to a femur spells it out for me. I have seen Sumerian tablets where they depict these giants with lions as pets, being worshipped by tiny men.


    Please dont worry, im not a bible basher, the link had the images on i was looking for heh heh


  6. 6 lwtc247 June 12, 2008 at 9:11 am

    Hi Stef.

    Yes, Drakes equation is highly contestable but I think it’s good in as far as its something to try and help us get a handle on and there isn’t one scientific model or approximation that is flawless (I comment on this in my latest post)

    I would agree that rationally the 0% weighting is applicable

    “When I was a kid I was taught (by priests) that slotting God into gaps in our knowledge of how the universe works was an unwise practice.” – That’s an discourse that could take many months to assess, but one immediately forthcoming aspect of it is that conventional science could find a simple explanation for the physical phenomenon and depending on the theists mental aptitude as well as his flock it might being the concept of God into disrepute – of course this would be incorrect as the premise of the philosophy relating to the scientific/theistic issue was flawed and so would the anti-theistic rebuttal and desertion by the disillusioned. Actually that’s why I respect agnostics (again see my latest Post) even though I believe they are deficient.

    I don’t know the reasoning behind why the priest said that but I imagine it could be along the lines I say above.

    As for modern science, from what I see of it (and I see a lot) it is ever extrapolating into supposition and spin. We are very close to a problem whereby to push back the frontiers of science is limited by technological aspects and significantly our short lifetimes. Progress is I feel, impeded despite dare I say it useful knowledge pyramid systems that have yielded a lot of progress so far.

    The fundamental mistake about science is that it is portrayed as an absolute, whereas it isn’t (and cannot be – see latest post) and not simply a workable approximation of this energy level of the universe we can perceive with 5 rudimentary senses. This is not an accidental mistake but propaganda pushed by those who desperately want others to share their faith that God is a myth. Instead of God filling in gaps in knowledge, fallible human perceptions and theories fill those gaps – superstrings, wormholes, speciation etc.

  7. 7 lwtc247 June 12, 2008 at 11:07 am

    Hi Jason.

    First off thanks for contributing. I apprecaite hearing from from people who hold views contrary to my own.

    ” now you’re just attacking a straw man of evolution.” ok I’m listening, but I think you’ve haven’t appreciated some of what I’ve written.

    Thanks for the link. I will read it as the use of evolution to negate God is of great interest to me, but as I’m not at my usual station at the moment, It’s unlikely I can go through it anytime soon. But it’s a pity you don’t reply to any of my points in my post. Above and just pointed to a body of work instead. Could you personally address the lack of transitional species, resolve conflicts within the logic of evolutionary driving forces, how a cell forms and how the earliest cells could form and function in absence of all the known and necessary components parts we know of today? Info presented from both sides should be deliberated upon, not just each side putting ones beliefs forward. That is why I will read you’re cited info and will comment on it in due time.

    Even if evolution were true, which as the main thrust of my post shows, supports that on balance that we should actually push it to one side, I still don’t think that negates God, as it can be argued that God has set in place the free and entropic energy parameters by which evolution operates within, and God is the source point for physical life itself and you address such a point in your comment.

    I don’t accept your use of the word continuous in context of God driven processes because there is no evidence that Gods creations of life forms/species will continue. Creation of life could have been discrete and indeed the sudden appearance and disappearance of species would indicate exactly that. And it would seem more likely that evolution doesn’t occur and so cannot be the same as your God driven premise.

    You (mis)use Occams razor and use it in the way I really dislike. As I mentioned in my post, I would hold Occams razor says we should accept the spun-Darwinism as the least likely option. But as anyone who flags that razor should realize, it isn’t sacrosanct. Whereas it seems you use it as a system of proof.

    You should be careful about trying to draw rank based on certificates Jason, not only because you have absolutely no knowledge as to my or my posters level of recognized understanding but the majority of posters here who I engage with (be they pro- or contra to my POV) are demonstrably intelligent people, and sincere in their amble through life, but you do little to credit them accordingly.

    Your last sentence shows a misunderstanding of my position (perhaps my fault) and also something else I’m not keen on being that science/evolution neglects African scientists, Asian Scientists, Middle Eastern and Native American scientists. Faculty members amongst some science departments comprise almost 100% who subscribe to some form of theism. Yet the causation atheists DO get more attention than they otherwise deserve. Polemics punch far above their weight.

    Jason.@ 9:45
    I’m not arguing the impoprtance of c, G, h and k etc, embedded in all mathematical descriptions of the physical universe, but it’s potty to think that you could then use those values to explain the universe because a) they are only approximations b) they only operate with known energy levels c) They do nothing to address metaphysical issues d) The offer no explanation as to why they exist nor about their magnitude. E) They don’t explain creation.

    IMO, all physical constants are equation fillers.

    If my arguments use a sample size of 1, then that of the evolution spinners?

  8. 8 lwtc247 June 12, 2008 at 11:13 am

    Forgot to say:
    The link you gave says “Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life).” – which is a common display amongst evolutionists. I believe they don’t address such a point becasue they cant. Anyt attempt to to so would damage their narrow blinkered suppositions in an attempt to push evolution theory as fact, when it is the origin of life – the creation is is really the issue, not the twists and turns within creation.

    It’s like trying to do mathematics without considering zero.

  9. 9 lwtc247 June 12, 2008 at 1:27 pm

    Hi Antireptilian.
    Great to hear from you. I tried posting on your site not to long ago but the post somehow didn’t appear. Oh well. I think we stand pretty far apart on the issue of God, but to me that’s irrelevant as I respect you because I believe you are honest and sincere as are many of my other intelligent bloggers with whom I am lucky enough to converse.

    So I’m fine (thanks for asking) but the UK is too bloody cold. It’s getting to my bones already.

    The ancient accounts Sumerian tablets and so forth about sons of gods / Tamus / Horus / Osirus giants and so forth are very interesting, as is some of the things others used to say about the ancient world. I don’t feel comfortable however in adopting any of those things as being physically factual however as I believe I have stronger stuff on which to grant my acceptance to. There are so many unknowns and possibilities when it comes to the ancient world that I see it difficult to make much progress into regarding the origins and meaning of life etc. (human life – never mind different forms of life) but I do read about these things at times.

    Re: Bones of giants – actually it has been say to me that some of the graves of the followers of monotheism were giants. Is that really a genuine femur? Is it really from a humans? Where do I go from? Zecharia Sitchin’s analysis of tests was disputed and Nephilim and Nirabu are going beyond my internal sense of reason.

    I’ve not seen that site before but it’ll make good reading when I’ve got some time to do so.

  10. 10 lwtc247 June 12, 2008 at 1:28 pm

    Art Esian, thanks for that enjoyable prose.

  11. 11 lwtc247 June 12, 2008 at 1:31 pm

    The stones used in the pyramids and in Lebanon in ancient buildings do indicate some intelligence of physical wonderment from amongst the ancients, but the fascist regimes – especially the economic fascists deservedly are at the forefront of my efforts right now.

    (sorry I’m really rushing – gotta go)

  12. 12 ahmet gozden July 26, 2008 at 7:31 am

    I used to think that there was evolution, but I didn’t understand it. Now that I am an educated scientist, I’ve found out that no such thing ever happened. Not even at micro-scale. No living-being has the force to undergo a series of predetermined changes. Just impossible. We can not even control the cellular functions. How would we make a change for ourselves? Thanks to Harun Yahya, I learned a lot from him.

  13. 13 lwtc247 July 30, 2008 at 6:06 am

    Harun Yahya it seems is a very learned multi-topic researcher who was done well to expose the spin of evolution. It just goes to show how unrepresentitive a person can be of their nation (and those ‘running’ it).

    It seems likely that beings can change as suggested by the different races coming from Adam, BUT change within a species seems not to cause speciation (i.e. a separaton of species).

    There are many species on the planet today, which, if speciation caused by purported cumulative random mutation were an actuality, would provide a wealth of recogniseable transitory species.

    NO one can point to flying foxes or flying fish etc and say with any level of certainty that they are transforming into unique species. No species has a developing feather, or developing lungs/gills. The neuroectodermal appendage (coccyx) sometimes called the ‘human tail’ cannot be argued to be proof of transition. It doesn’t have to be a tail at all, simply becasue someone once described it as such and others glued themselves onto the idea. If I was a betting man (harm), I’d wager we would notice a deterioriation in human function without it. Also fossil evidence shows no regression of a tail from homo sapiens.

    Claim of a tail or other human/non-human transition are utterly baseless.

    EVEN IF speciation occured, it’s irrelevant to ‘confronting’ the Islamic and therefore unspun Abrahamic faiths version of life. The Qur’an says Allah has the power to shape you and change you. Allah could well have used that power. Is the exact fashioning of Adam described? Are we told by Allah that Since Adam no changed have been made?

    Is it possible that Adam was quite physially different from us? we cannot discount the possibility, but I see no reason to accept it – I think Adam was physically similiar to us.

    The crux of the matter is the origin of life from lifelessness, not the change in life. Everything else, such as change, is just a distraction and spin. Did life/awareness/perception just spring forth from a random soup of chemicals or are they the work of a Creator who by definiton can does create – something we consciously can and never will be able to do.

    I’m pretty sure they won’t be able to come up a convincing rebuttal of God in my or anyone elses lifetime. Even if my strong evidence comes to light that makes me change my opinion, I am absolutely certain there will NEVER be a contradiction against the Qur’an. Mans understanding of the Quar’an perhaps, but not the actual Qur’an itself.


  14. 14 lwtc247 July 30, 2008 at 11:03 am

    Here’s an intresting page

    The baby born with a tail is no evidence of evolution”

  15. 15 sam September 11, 2008 at 11:54 pm

    That was grate 5 out of 5 =]

  16. 16 Bryden September 13, 2008 at 8:21 pm

    Ok…here goes nothing.

    In your deconstruction of natural selection you have made a major mistake. Natural selection is not a competition between predators and deer, it is a competition between deer and other deer and predators against other like predators. The species compete amongst themselves and the best equipped for the task generally survive. But, for every beneficial mutation there will be many that add nothing or are even detrimental to survival of the creature. some of those with the detrimental mutation will survive due to chance so the overall change is VERY slow.

    “The fundamental mistake about science is that it is portrayed as an absolute, whereas it isn’t”
    This is how the media portrays it. A scientific theory is the best guess from the observable evidence, NOT a statement of fact.

  17. 17 lwtc247 September 14, 2008 at 5:25 am

    Hi, and thanks for your input. Even though you think it won’t change anything, it is still important to try. The hope is, along the way an irrefutable point(or points) will be made.

    I don’t think I did make a mistake…

    There is some link between a deer and its predator. It comes about by the fact one is the food supply of the other. How could you possibly discount it?

    Evolutionists say giraffes necks grew to be able to eat the leaves at the tops of trees, that the aye-aye developed it’s bony finger and ear to detect differences in resonance’s of wood to that of its prey. That the trigger fish’s acquired it’s ‘shooting’ technique to ensnare its prey and so on.

    Re: predators and deers:
    If a favourable offensive mutation in a predator isn’t countered by some defensive mutation in a deer then the deer is liable to extinction. That a predators mutations are somehow suspended while a different species mutates is very selective and unfounded way to debate the issue (note: having said that, they do say crocs, sharks and Coelacanths are reported to be strangely resistant to mutation – however I could have chosen a lion instead of a croc if crocs are a bit unusual in that respect)

    This highlights a major flaw in the arguments evolutionists put forward, which is: When they put their evolution scenarios, the vast majority of the time, the scenarios have one or two inputs driving and ‘explaining’ any change. Effectively, their scenarios are in utter isolation of any an all other stimuli. Meaning if you take their argument and apply a different set of influences, their argument falls apart.

    People display “Milgram experiment” syndrome to astounding proportions, and the ‘teaching’ of neoDarwinism also has much to do with it…

    When ‘demonstrating’ mutation and propagation of mutation throughout generations, a truly wicked game is played upon students being exposed to this. Only the animal with a positive mutation is highlighted from the crowd and seen breeding ‘positive’ genes into a ‘neutral’ animal to produce many more positive gene offspring. The pattern is repeated until virtually all the population is highlighted with positive genes. At no time is ANY of the NUMEROUS negative mutations shown or the fact that the species with the positive mutation will thereafter be subject to negative mutations, nor does it show them dying out, nor does it show any mutation of a different having or developing a mutation which can specifically target the supposed positive mutation in the animal. e.g. the deer has a mutation causing it to have stronger muscles to run away from lions, but the other predator is a parasite who can breed more successfully in the greater muscle mass which actually means the supposed positive mutation in the deer actually proves to be a negative influence. Also the degree of highlighting (or ‘red spot’) of the deer is also fraudulent as mutations my be almost insignificantly small. In addition, the positive mutation is never seen regressing or mutating into a destructive (e.g. cancerous) gene.

    But virtually NO person subject to this ‘teaching’ ever thinks about such things. They aren’t encouraged to. Education discourages different thought.

    I could highlight many cases of bankrupt posits embedded in neoDarwin propagation.

    Actually what you say later (and I agree with most of it) actually makes mutation a negative influence on species evolution. Mutations especially in an already specialised being are highly likely to be detrimental. E.g. a mutation caused the glands in the musk deer to produce a chemical other than muscone will result in the mutated deer being unlikely to reproduce. In a human if the mutation lead to bone growth, or reduction in cartilage in a critical place (e.g. in a joint – of which there are many) then the person is unlikely to be able to move, significantly reduced the possibility of reproducing.

    Overall as time goes on, the number of negative mutations would outweigh the positives ones and the species would slip towards doom. All the while, the individual ones with positive mutations will be talking on board genes of unmutated individuals and not only that but also different and negative mutations from the rest of the population. Evolution via genetic mutation is strongly arguably as a recipe for DOOM. However as we are still here, there is obviously something else at play and/or our constructs involving mutation are just potty.

    Not only that but with regards to the ultimate mutation, there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a man came from a bacteria. We can’t even connect different species of humanoids. Our line sprang up out of the blue! Other organisms show the same phenomenon. They appear suddenly and disappear suddenly. That an artist can draw the biological tree and have Dawkins wax lyrical about it isn’t backed up with ANY evidence (despite attempts to do so via fraudulent ‘fossils’)

    The body contains mechanisms which can repair genetic damage, as there is none to encourage this damage, then it is a sign that mutation is overall damaging.

    All that said, if a proper argument was put forward in favour of evolution (and not this vile intellectually fraudulent bum-fluff) then I could accept it. Why? Because evolution does not actually negate the concept of God. Evolution could be a simple physical biochemical process, its no big deal, but it certainly is no proof that it is responsible for speciation or that man used to be a bacteria.

    I agree the media portrays science as an absolute but so do some scientits. Science is strictly the realm of what is physically observable. That’s it. Who is to say all things can be observed? Therefore one must leave room n physical science that there is unobservable/unperturbable forces at work.

    Thanks for your comment. I’d apprecate any follow-up to discuss the issue further.

  18. 18 Caillin September 15, 2008 at 12:45 am

    This may sound weird but I am the brother of the Bryden whose post you just responded to – the post was a cooperative effort. I also wish to say that I am not a expert on this subject – I’m a 3rd year degree chemist, not a biologist.

    “There is some link between a deer and its predator. It comes about by the fact one is the food supply of the other.”

    I am not denying that there is a link between the deer and its predators but the point we were trying to make was that the competition is not mainly between predator and prey but between members of the same species and that the predator-prey competition is a secondary factor.
    If the predator develops a major advantage, all that will happen is that after the drop in the prey population the equilibrium between predator and prey populations will stabilise again, as many of the predators will have starved due to lack of prey. In the event of the extinction of the prey, the predators will in all probability soon follow as they will be so suited to hunting their ‘chosen’ prey that they will have severe problems successfully hunting anything else.

    “Overall as time goes on, the number of negative mutations would outweigh the positives ones and the species would slip towards doom”

    I must strongly disagree with this assertion. In fact, I feel you contradicted yourself with the the example you gave.
    “a mutation caused the glands in the musk deer to produce a chemical other than muscone will result in the mutated deer being unlikely to reproduce”
    However, if said deer does not reproduce (as you are saying is likely), then the mutation never gets carried on to the next generation and dies with the ‘sub-optimal’ deer. QED.
    On a less confrontational note, even if it does procreate, its offspring will also be unlikely to mate (if the mutation breeds true – see above) or no worse off (if the mutation is recessive).
    Another point is one that I have heard from horse breeding:
    One attempts to breed several foals from parents – one with great stamina and the other with great speed.
    As I understand it, probability suggests that you will get something like this
    > ‘Superfoal’ – gets speed and stamina of its parents
    > two normal foals (either speed or stamina – nothing really special)
    > A foal with the worst of both worlds – not fast or with great endurance.

    Now this may be akin to the ‘only positive mutations shown’ position but I hold that ‘Superfoal’ will be more likely to get to a high position in any form of herd hierarchy (in the wild) and as such be
    a) more likely to breed – therefore propagating the ‘good genes’
    b) more likely to breed with the ‘higher ranked’ horses, which presumably got their rank by having some form of ‘better genes’

    This would then end up with a net improvement or at least no net detriment (as the worst-of-both-worlds foal would be less likely to breed).
    At the very least, would you not agree that this would maintain the status quo and that if a unfavourable mutation got passed on then there would be room for favourable mutations to take place.

    I’ll get back to you on the fossil record once I’ve done a bit more research and got some sleep – it’s quarter to 2 in the morning as I write this and I’m quite tired.

  19. 19 lwtc247 September 16, 2008 at 8:38 am

    And I’ll post a reply to welcomed comment soon. Sorry for the delay.

  20. 20 Caillin September 17, 2008 at 12:42 am

    A couple of other points and a discussion of fossils.

    “The body contains mechanisms which can repair genetic damage, as there is none to encourage this damage, then it is a sign that mutation is overall damaging.”

    I feel that that’s akin to saying ‘iron is bad for you as if you ingest too much you’ll die’ as although large amounts of mutation is damaging, small amounts are vital for the species as a whole. Mankind actually does not have enough genetic diversity (there is more genetic diversity in a group of chimps than in most of the human race) which leads to the problem associated with inbreeding. As I understand it, in almost all other species, if cousins procreate it will take many generations before any real genetic problems turn up whereas with humans it just takes one or two.

    “evolution does not actually negate the concept of God”
    I agree with on that. I can see it as a sort of experiment on a grand scale – you designs it so it should give the product you want and set it running. (OK that reads a bit too ID-ish for my liking but it’s the best way I can explain it). For the record, I’m on of those ‘deficient’ agnostics :)

    Finally, Re the fossil record:

    Although the fossil record may not be able to provide a direct link from bacteria to the the human race, that is not really surprising. Fossils are extremely rare – for instance, there are only five T. Rex skeletons in the world that can even be called vaguely complete – and T. Rex survived for at least 3 million years. Tracing mitochondrial DNA puts the total age of the human race at about 200,000 years old so logically, complete human fossils should be even rarer.

    Also, after major extinctions – once life begins to recover there is a proliferation of many new species – e.g. after the K-T boundary extinction, mammals spread widely then suddenly diversified – cats, dogs, rodents etc. appeared. Everything grew to huge sizes – fossils indicate there were rodents the size of rhinos now. Over the next tens of millions of years the outsized animals slowly died off.
    This ‘experimental’ phase is where mutations are definitely advantageous as

  21. 21 Caillin September 17, 2008 at 12:59 am

    sorry – posted in the middle of a sentence by mistake – I hit tab, then enter. Going again:

    This ‘experimental’ phase is where mutations are definitely advantageous as the creatures are not specialised leaving room for adaptation in many different directions. After this free-for-all for ecological niches is over, the now specialised creatures stop adapting so fast as they are now fairly good at what they do.
    This is the situation we are in at the moment – the tertiary period scramble is over, giving us the animals we see today.

    If your ‘fraudulent fossils’ statement was an attack the veracity of the fossils, then I would advise talking to a palaeontologist as I cannot comment whereas if it was a strike against the interpretation of the fossil record, then I would rather put my trust in those who work in the field so you and I will have to agree to disagree.
    That’s all I have for now
    Looking forward to your response

  22. 22 lwtc247 September 17, 2008 at 7:36 pm

    Caillin September 17, 2008 at 12:42 am.

    once more, thanks for your time and comment.

    I had almost finished the reply to your earlier comment (Caillin September 15, 2008 at 12:45 am) but it’s on a different computer. Nor now I’ll comment on your last two posts.

    Re: mutation/”bad iron…” I feel that analogy doesn’t help clarify or make progress on my statement: “lwtc247: The body contains mechanisms which can repair genetic damage, as there is none to encourage this damage, then it is a sign that mutation is overall damaging.” – If mutation was favourable, then by the very arguments neoDarwinists themselves offer, the body would have evolved to facilitate mutation, and even encourage it, not to suppress it. One can safely assert suppression is vital if most mutations were detrimental to a species.

    When we look at a population, we see precious little that can be regarded as a positive mutation in comparison to other humans, but we can see plentiful mutations that are negative, mongolism, caner, sickle-cell anemia etc.

    I think the assertion most mutations are negative stands.

    Re: diversity of man. Is there really not enough diversity amongst man? surely an indigenous African procreating with an an Incan or an Chinese with an Indian would offer good diversity. Is there really a problem with cousins having offspring? Marriage between cousins is very common in the Indian sub-continent. I suspect a similar but perhaps less common situation exists for the Chinese – particularly in pre-Capitalist china. I don’t see many genetic problems amongst Indians and it hasn’t really stopped them having a huge population. Also what about Australian aborigines? White ‘masters’ raped many aborigines who had children that were taken away and formed what was termed the ‘missing or lost generation’. Australian Aborigines showed no mutation relative to any other race, and are still capable of bearing children from other races. Yet their society has been quite small for tens of thousands of years (if not hundreds of thousands) No inbreeding mutation is evident with them.

    Although evolution may have parts of it that are compatible with the possibility of God, such as a species (e.g. humans) displaying some diversity as we see with race, there are some evolutionary aspects I strongly disagree with namely pre-modern man to modern man. Even this supposed change isn’t nearly as significant as speciation, yet mans supposed development from pre-modern man is totally derelict of any evidence whatsoever. And as for speciation, there is not one fossil that shows a transitional species. Even today with huge numbers of species, and therefore huge numbers of mutations, we see no species developing feathers, sonar, eyeballs, limbs or other mutations towards cockroach like abilities to be able to digest a vast array of potential foodstuffs. And of all those non-transitional animals, only man stands apart in the cognitive achievements.

    Fossil record “Although the fossil record may not be able to provide a direct link from bacteria to the human race, that is not really surprising.” – There a total lack of evidence, not one single piece of evidence, for that process to have occurred, yet it is somehow held as being scientific to preach that positive assertion. To me that’s repugnant. Belief in ‘bacteria to man’ is an act of faith just like religion. If people want to have that faith, good on them, that’s their prerogative, but for them to pretend it isn’t a faith but science, and caustically attack those who profess religious faith is really the pigswill of human intellect. Belief in bacteria to man is absolutely 100% scant of evidence and 100% ripe in conjecture.

    Re: 3,000,000 T-Rex. To scientifically make that statement, it could only come from radio nucleotide analysis. If the T-rex fossils / DNA spans that time period, surely there would have been easily detectable differences been fossil and genetic material, yet I’ve never heard anyone identify anything other than ‘standard’ T-Rex’s. SSurely some mutations should have occurred in 3,000,000 years, especially as its prey would have been mutating and altering over a similar time frame.

    Apparently, the evidence suggests Modern humans suddenly appeared about 200,000 years ago, like you said, but there is no link at all to any other humanoid species. It is totally unfounded for anyone to say we are elated to anything else. The logical conclusion at this time is that we suddenly appeared 200,000 years ago. If at a later stage the fabled ‘missing link’ is found then we will need to junk that ‘suddenly appearing’ explanation, which at the time, was a rational explanation as it based on the evidence we had at the time. However there isn’t a missing link!

    Because of the evidence, no matter how fantastic it seems, we have absolutely no sound choice but to assert we did appear suddenly. We cannot ignore it because it may offend our personal an obviously incomplete view of things. To do so (and this is not uncommon amongst the western ‘science’ community) would be and in fact is anti-science, spin and intellectually bankrupt and utterly deceitful. Yet they do it. It makes me wanna puke.

    Mass extinction Again the fossil record shows new species suddenly appearing after mass extinctions. why? Evolutionists claim the rate of maternal mitochondria is constant and they use this in numerous discussions about the history of mankind (and I think for other species too) If new species proliferate how can that be if the mitochondrial DNA mutates at a constant rate, and if it is variable, it brings into disrepute the asserted “truths” made by evolutionists.

    The genetic history of dogs is very interesting. Here’s a thought provoking page I came across a few years ago. Scroll down to The Origin Of Dogs.

    And how could some mutation have occurred 200,000 years old that would have meant we were so different from what was before to produce us which seems to have undergone no significant chance since? I’ve never heard anyone identify the neoDarwin mutations that should have occurred.

  23. 23 lwtc247 September 17, 2008 at 7:42 pm

    I found this and I love it. One in the eye for the most horrid of so called “scientists”

    Fossil Hominids
    The Evidence for Human Evolution
    Copyright © 1996-2008 by Jim Foley
    [Last Update: August 31, 2008]
    URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

  24. 24 John A. Davison February 7, 2010 at 10:36 am

    To deny a past evolution is unacceptable. A past evolution is established beyond any question. The central question has always been the same. What is the mechanism by which it took place? I have no intention of presenting my thesis here as I have done so in several published papers and essays all of which are available on my home page. I especially recommend my recent essay “What’s Wrong With Darwinism. You will find my essays on the ESSAYS button at the top of my home page and also on the PREDICTIONS thread. I will be happy to answer any questions my thesis evokes here or anywhere else I am still allowed to speak.


  25. 25 lwtc247 February 11, 2010 at 6:22 am

    Although I don’t crave blog traffic (but some traffic is nice!), I must say, it’s slightly rude to come here and ‘hijack’ readers to go to your site, especially without even a slight entertainment discussion of a single point in the body of the my article I posted.

    However in some ways I appreciate you informing readers of a place where they can get the side of a pro-evolutionist.

    A past evolution is certainly NOT established beyond any question. That’s actually a farcical statement and one which suggests ignorance of counter arguements, arguements which destroy the neo-darwinist myth.

    • 26 John A. Davison February 14, 2010 at 11:10 am

      lwtc247, whoever that is,

      Let the record show that you question a past evolution. I agree that neo-Darwinism is a myth, but it does not follow that evolution did not occur. No one is compelled to visit my website. However, if you should visit my website I would like to hear your evidence tht evolution did not occur.

      “You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him comprehend it.”
      after the horse that would not drink.


  26. 27 lwtc247 February 14, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    lwtc247 just so happens to be the blog owner, but hey.

    It is unusual for someone – you! to come here and not make a single call on any point made above the time of your first comment. In that regard, when you say “You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him comprehend it.” it’s actually quite appropriate!

    I’m sure you’ve been debating and thought about all this at some length. So have I. I have a collection of books on the subject. Admittedly it’s quite a small collection, and is of an anti-NeoDarwinism/anti-Dawkins persepctive, but I have had a large exposure of Dawkins’ lectures and interviews, as well as summaries (via analysis) of his book e.g. Blind Watchmaker, There is no God (astagfirullahenhazeem) – bit I am lothe to pay money for them. As such, I’ve found that too many people have either a sloppy/very hazy understanding of Darwinism and NeoDarwinism. I hazard a guess we are talking about slightly different things were so this may help clarify matters:

    I could well accept – as Darwin himself suggested – that species can change according to their environemnt. Bullfinches, Totroises etc, No problem there, just look at the human species.

    But I begin to get worried when people say Darwin said species change into other species. It was my understanding he proposed this, based on the variations he saw within species (!!) . He may well have {cant say for certain as I’m rusty on this topic right now} proposed questions about his hypothesis and expressed conditions that would disprove the hypothesis, or, were necessary to ‘prove’ it, from which – and here’s where neoDarwinism comes in…- people posited his ideas.

    The overwhelming thing that sets me on fire is, that even if species have transformed into other species (to which I contend there is no evidence whatsoever) then these changes are (preposterously) said to disprove God or they happen independently without God.

    But again, even if ‘God non-intervention’ phylogeny did occur, Then by the physics God himself created, should God exist, then the ball had been set in motion to make those species change!. And actually there’s another point here, evolution is almost a totally different issue the origin of life from lifenessness itself!!!! and/or creation of the Universe itself, which it is utterly insane to think evolutionary biology could ever address. To pretend otherwise is madness! Sheer madness I say!

    I find it more than coincidental that a bunch of (dare I say satanic) eugenicists thieved Darwins hypothesis, and all around about the time that that malignant Zionism was breeding in Britain.

    To summarise, I believe species change within fairly narrow parameters can and does occur. I believe others in effect usurped Darwins ideas, spun/reforged them and sold them according to their outlook on life and personal faiths held pre-Beagle, to try and pull people away from the All Mighty God whom they themselves had turned their backs on previously.

    I am immensely busy right now and I still owe some comments to highly respected past commentators here, so it may be some time before I can examine what you say on you site. I know and didn’t say anyone is compelled to visit your site, and I did indicate thanks for informing me (and us) of it.

    In the mean time, why don’t you actially check out that I said on my site.

  27. 28 John A. Davison February 22, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    lwtc247, whoever that is.

    I see no evidence for a personal God nor no need for one, but to deny the past existence of one or more creative “entities” beyond our capacity to even imagine is mandatory as far as I am concerned. The notion that the origin or origins of life and its subsequent evolution is intrinsic in the nature of non living matter is absurd. If that were true life would have been produced in the laboratory long ago.

    Why don’t you “actually check out what I said on my site.”
    If you decide you might want to discuss it further you can do it there. You will have to identify yourself if you expect to be taken seriously. I have little respect for those who must hide their identity.

  28. 29 lwtc247 February 22, 2010 at 8:52 pm

    You seem to have little respect period, but doubtless you would demand it of others. Perhaps you might consider how you are coming across? Then again, perhaps not.

    Still you don’t address any points above, strongly supporting my initial thought that you are simply here to hijack. If my small readership will of course make their own minds up, but there is no point in you posting here again, having proved unwilling to offer anything other than zero on the subject matter here.

  29. 30 John A. Davison February 24, 2010 at 2:22 pm



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Viva Palestina – break the siege:

Viva Palestina - break the siege

This blog supports victims of western aggression

This blog supports victims of western aggression

BooK: The Hand of Iblis. Dr Omar Zaid M.D.

Book: The Hand of Iblis
An Anatomy of Evil
The Hidden Hand of the New World Order
Summary Observations and History

Data on Fukushima Plant – (NHK news)

Fukushima Radiation Data

J7 truth campaign:

July 7th Truth Campaign - RELEASE THE EVIDENCE!

Recommended book: 3rd edition of Terror on the Tube – Behind the Veil of 7-7, An Investigation by Nick Kollerstrom:

J7 (truth) Inquest blog

July 7th Truth Campaign - INQUEST BLOG
Top rate analysis of the Inquest/Hoax

Arrest Blair (the filthy killer)

This human filth needs to be put on trial and hung!


JUST - International Movement for a Just World


Information Clearing House - Actual News and global analysis

John Pilger:

John Pilger, Journalist and author

Media Lens

My perception of Media Lens: Watching the corrupt corporate media, documenting and analysing how it bends our minds. Their book, 'Newspeak' is a gem.

Abandon the paper $cam:

Honest and inflation proof currency @ The Gold Dinar
June 2008

%d bloggers like this: