Evolution: An Objective and Skeptical Look
The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below.
About this Site-My Statement
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” Galileo Galilei
“Whether all this which they call the universe is left to the guidance of unreason and chance medley, or, on the contrary, as our fathers have declared, ordered and governed by a marvellous intelligence and wisdom.”-Socrates
The theme of this blog involves a discussion about the scientific validity of evolution. This blog has nothing to do with any kind of religious arguments, so if you are looking for that kind of discussion, this is not the place for you. Here I take a critical and objective look at evolution. The scientific argument about the validity of evolution should not be a debate about evolution versus Genesis or any religious tenets. Religion involves personal beliefs, and beliefs should not be a part of objective scientific discussion. There is no doubt that random mutations and natural selections do occur, and that they can alter the characteristics and traits of populations of living organisms. The debate should be about whether or not those random selected mutations were and are up to the task of forming new species, and of inventing and improving the initial designs of biological systems. Or is there something else in nature far more impressive? My primary problem with evolution doesn’t involve design. Evolution’s greatest problem involves invention; the bringing into existence of complex systems that were new, useful, and not obvious, (the requirements for invention from the United States Patent Office) where they didn’t previously exist at all. Every biological system is an invention, far more so than any invention that was ever made by any man. So basically this is the theme of my blog. If this fits what you are looking for, I hope you will enjoy perusing my pages.
To introduce myself, I am a recovered evolutionaut. A brief “about me”: In undergraduate studies in college I majored in biological sciences. I attended dental school, and graduated in 1967. For most of the time since, I was an avid fan of Charles Darwin and evolution. Obviously, not now. I make YouTube videos, many of which are on this site, under the pseudonym stevebee92653, on the subject of evolution. I spent over thirteen years engineering products for the dental profession. Most of that time I was also working as a full time dentist, so for quite a long time I was working over 100 hours a week. I am now retired. I own four current patents, and have several patent applications on other products. That’s me above with one of my patented designs. I am an avid tennis player and golfer, and as you can tell from this blog, I enjoy writing. Particularly about this fascinating subject: that of our origins. I write under Stephen B. Lyndon DDS. I am not a ” Biblical, or “young earth” Creationist” in any way. I am married with two “children” and three grand-children. I thoroughly enjoy objective science, particularly astronomy and sciences dealing with the origin of species.
In 2002 I visited my son who was attending medical school in Chicago. But a visit to the Field Museum there activated my natural skepticism. Seeds of doubt about Darwin’s ideas were planted in my mind as I looked at those beautiful fossils. I hadn’t been to a museum of natural history for over twenty years. I expected to see a huge number of new fossils and new information that would surely prove evolution far beyond the level I had seen at my last visit. In reality there was no advancement. Nothing more interesting than there was twenty years ago. I was disappointed to say the least. My visit brought up a lot of questions about evolution sciences that weren’t there before. I wondered why those tiny arms on their magnificent T. Rex fossil didn’t evolve a lick in millions of years. Wouldn’t a T. Rex with bigger arms be a better grappler? I began pondering if Darwin was really right. The more I thought about what I saw, the more questions arose. I actually battled those questions in my mind. I tried to ignore them. I wanted to believe the current scientific model for the origin of animal species and mankind was right. But, in my mind, Darwin crashed; badly. When I returned home I began doing a great deal of research. And the more I did, the worse it got for Charles. My evolution bubble popped. I realized that evolution was not how things formed; not even close. I began this blog to keep track of all of the interesting information I had found. As I researched and wrote, I became more and more convinced that Charles was wrong.
If you’re an evolution believer, and you are exploring this blog, I would encourage you to consider the concept that evolution may not be the answer to the incredibly beguiling Puzzle of the origin of life and its species and biological systems. I realize I can’t instantly convince you that you have to stop believing in evolution as the source. What I would like to do is to invite you to be open the idea that evolution does exist, but that it isn’t remotely close to being powerful enough to be the originator, former, and shaper of all of living nature. I realize it’s completely unlikely that I can change you today. But I do I want to challenge you to explore the concept of origins a lot deeper. I want to plant a seed in your thinking that will grow so that you will ponder and wonder and question. I hope my writing will increase your skepticism and critical thought in all directions; in all phases of life. Don’t be critical and skeptical in only one field, such as religious creationism. Be skeptical of all fields, of everything you are told by supposed experts.
If you are a religious creationist, or simply a skeptic like me who thinks that the search for the origins of living organisms is far from complete, I hope my book will help to support your skepticism. I hope it will allow you to see that we all need to be skeptical of all teachings, no matter what our belief; no matter who it comes from. I also hope that no matter what your stance is, this blog will be a challenge to your thinking. My sincere wish is that at least some of my writing can dazzle you like I have been dazzled by my own research, and by so many scientific discoveries that we modern humans are so lucky to be able to study and appreciate. No matter what your stance is, no matter what camp you are in, I encourage you to keep your mind wide open. What you think might be real, and have been told is real, very frequently turns out to be an illusion.
Most of the argument about the subject of the origins of life and man are composed of two very large camps:
(1) Those that think our origins are born of religious sources and reasons, and that all of living nature is the result of the existence and actions of an all powerful supernatural God. Surrounding this argument is the notion that this supernatural being, God, rapidly, in just a few days, created the entire universe, earth, and all of the life, species, and bio-systems in it; and man. This immensely powerful being communicated with mankind through ancient books. In this case, a supernatural power created and formed, in supernatural fashion, all of life, species, bio-systems, and man.
(2) Those that think Natural Selection and Random Mutations were the source and reason for our existence. The formation of the universe was due to a near infinite number of Dumb Luck steps that occurred, one after the other in perfect order, strength, and configuration, which produced a universe and planet that could support life as we know it. Then life on that planet appeared from some completely unknown but natural source. Next Natural Selection and Random Mutations took over and changed the first living organism, slowly, over millions of years, into the incredibly complex bio-systems and species that exist today. In this case, a natural entity created and formed, in supernatural fashion, all of life, species, bio-systems, and man. That’s right. A “natural” entity with absolutely no intelligence whatsoever creating, inventing, designing, assembling, and sustaining the species and complex systems of nature is nothing but supernatural.
So, on the one hand, a supernatural entity, God, who, by the religious, is thought to exhibit supernatural power, rapidly produced all of unimaginable living nature. On the other hand, a run of the mill natural entity, Natural Selection et al, through its supernatural talents, slowly produced all of unimaginable living nature. The supernatural exists in both camps. One admits that it does, the other does not. It’s interesting to note that the formation of all of living nature is considered supernatural by evolutionauts if the source is God, but it isn’t supernatural if the source is completely unintelligent. If it has an IQ of zero, and zero ability to construct, design, or assemble. And in both cases, we arrived at the exact same place: all of the species and bio-systems of nature, mankind, consciousness, and intelligence. Exactly equal results either way.
You and I and every person who ever lived on the face of the earth actually observe ID every waking minute of every day. Evolutionauts completely take design for granted because it is so common. Imagine if we were some sort of observing spirit, and we could view, for the first time ever, two humans doing what humans do: seeing, reacting, thinking, emoting, speaking, listening, building. We would be blown away. Our shock would be unimaginable. But because what we observe is an everyday occurrence, there is no amazement. No WOW factor. Neither of us and no person who has ever lived has observed evolutionary invention and assembly. The religious admit to being believers, and belief is difficult to argue. But evolutionauts, who think they are purely scientific, and not the least bit believers, choose to ignore and not accept what we all can actually see AND experience. They tout and believe what they and no person has ever observed or experienced; a strange conundrum that I will never understand. Why are there so many evolutionauts? Many of them so easily call people who disagree with them IDiots, retards, and morons. They have no idea how moronic they look when they use this tactic. Groupthink will prevent them from realizing.
I would really love to see science find some sort of acceptable answer to this Puzzle, and with evolution blocking the road, it cannot. What I have found with my study is that the “science” of evolution is devoted to proving Darwin was right. It is not in any way an objective science looking for answers. Information and testing is bent to prove the theory. The theory cannot be modified, even though supporters say it can be and is. There is simply no where to go from random mutations and natural selection.
Evolution’s bedrock is “natural selection”: the biggest euphemism in science, where there should be no euphemisms. The term is far easier to swallow than the reality. Natural selection is the process whereby one organism is able to kill and consume another organism due to some genetic/mutational advantage the predator has over the prey. The advantages are formed by non-occurring good mutations. Non-occurring because mutations forming just the right healthy useful tissues in just the right amount, just the correct shape, just the correct location, and shutting off at just the correct time, have never been demonstrated. Remember, evolution happens in incredibly tiny steps; steps so tiny, they are invisible. A secondary process is sexual selection, the choosing of a mate for the purpose of procreating. Environmental survival is also in the mix. But, by far the most pervasive foundation for evolution is the selective killing of one type of organism with no advantage by another with a genetic/mutational advantage, and the repeat of this process over eons. Are these processes capable of inventing, designing, assembling, and improving complex bio-electromechanical devices? Evolutionauts will argue to the death that they are, without the slightest bit of evidence to show they are. Natural selection should be changed to “Selective Procreating Dying and Killing” so those who are taught this fake science will at least know what it is really about. And the term “random mutations” should be renamed “Non-occurring Miraculous Mutations”. They have never been observed and if they did occur it would be a miracle. “Natural selection” and “random mutations” sound so mystical. It is treated almost as if it is itself some sort of god form; a creator. It isn’t. The really strange part of this whole evolution scenario is that plants are just about forgotten. It’s as if this is a science for animals, not plants. Do plants selectively kill and consume each other, and in doing so advance their bio-systems and complexity? Do fruit trees enjoy being at the bottom of the food chain?
Evolution needs to show that the foundation of evolution isn’t a fantasy: that mutations can, do, did, and will form healthy, histologically correct, necessary, utilitarian tissue. And that it can, do, did, and will place that tissue in just the right location, in just the correct shape, in just the correct amount, and that tissue will be “selected for”by being advantageous to the individual so it can continue on to become more utilitarian and more complex. And that these advantages, many 1/500,000 of the finished product, prevent the individual from being consumed by another species that doesn’t have that tissue. And because of that tissue mutation, that species will be able to consume other species that don’t have that tissue. And these events have to be performed over and over again, trillions of times, perfectly, for nature to be the way it is. The size, strength, and speed of the species that have evolved the new tissue, and that of predators of that species, must also be erased as a factor. Tissue mutation alone must trump all other features. Of course, it’s easy to see how vision, claws, and teeth would help protect a prey and advance the abilities of predator. But would a 1/500th liver? Would a 1/1,000 pancreas?A 3/10,000 gall bladder. How do these organs fit into the picture of protecting prey and aiding predators?
Nowhere in the natural world do we see any species gaining genetic information that was not possessed by its ancestors. Evolution is all about the natural gaining of genetic information. Evolution has never been able to display an increase in genetic information from generation to generation, but evolutionauts carry on and pretend like they can. Evolution needs to show that this increase commonly occurs. Many evolutionauts say genetic increases haven’t been proven or found YET. But that means evolution should not be considered a science YET until this found and proven.
It’s interesting that the first cells appeared about 3.5 billion years ago. Humans have about 3 billion base pairs in their genome. This means that, on average, every year a new base pair should be added to the genome of every organism on the planet. With the millions of species now in existence, it should be easy to test a number of them to see if any are actually increasing the size of their genomes. If we extrapolate the numbers, humans should add about 100 base pairs in the next century. Is evolution science running experiments with organisms see if increases are actually occurring? None that I can find. Bad results would be devastating for this fake science, so of course this experiment is not being run. Why gamble?
Papers have been written and calculations made on the rate of increase of the genome of different organisms, but those articles pre-conclude that the genome increased in size due to evolution’s random mutations and natural selection. An example:
Alexei A Sharov Genome Increase as a Clock for the Origin and Evolution of Life AffiliationsLaboratory of Genetics, 12 June 2006, National Institute on Aging (NIA/NIH), 333 Cassell Dr., Baltimore, MD 21224, USA
These papers conclude that genome’s have increased, but they don’t seek to find current increases. Rates of increase are determined by measuring the size of bacterial genomes with those of complex modern species, then calculating and graphing the rate which these numbers would yield. Never to my knowledge have experiments been set up to determine if genomes are currently increasing, which should be the case. Evolution, if it is the source of all of nature, should be as constant as the flow of a river. It should be ongoing. A major undertaking by evolution science should be the search for genomic increase. Experiments should be setup and ongoing. Even if one set of scientists had to hand the experiment off to future generations of scientists, the results would eventually show up. It should almost be like mankind’s challenge to land on the moon. Of course a problem might arise: how large can genomes become. Would mankind have millions more base pairs at some future date? How large can genomes become? What would species with genomes twice the size of today’s genomes look like? The questions can become endless.
A major foundation of evolution is “peer reviewed” papers. These papers usually entail articles written by evolution biologists on subjects that no one who ever lived or lives on the face of the earth has the answer to; such as the evolution of teeth. How were teeth “invented”? How did things go from “no teeth” to “teeth”? Why did that happen at all? And how did mutations form the complex dental designs we have today as humans? How do the cells that form teeth (ameloblasts and odontoblasts, et al) “know” just where they should be so they could do their job? How did they know just exactly when to start and stop their knitting of enamel and dentin so the teeth could form just the correct anatomy? How did the upper teeth evolve to exactly match the lower teeth like perfect puzzle pieces, specially when different gene pathways formed upper teeth and lower teeth? This is an elephant, not a monkey, on the back of evolution that cannot be ignored or removed. And, of course, it isn’t ignored by bio-evolution’s writers. One writer, of course, there had to be a first, wrote a paper on how he thought teeth evolved. “Teeth came from fish, who had simpler dentition. Then they evolved into more complex…….” Of course the stories are made up, then “peer reviewed” by other evo-biologists. More papers are written. Species are cited. “These early fish……” Paper piles on top of paper, it is told and retold so many times, the story becomes truth. A whole mountain of papers are built, one on top of the other. On Google, there are over 1300 references to “peer reviewed papers describing the evolution of the dentition. And, now these are cited as evidence. Papers written about the evidence actually become the evidence. So, if anyone asks, how did teeth evolve, they are referred to the piles of “peer reviewed” papers on the subject. And this house of cards is the “evidence”. And if you speak up, you are challenging “science” and thousands of wonderful “peer reviewed” papers.
A great example of “peer reviewed papers” failing science are the ones touting man-made global warming. A huge pile of these papers were “peer reveiwed”, and accepted as real science. Until Russian hackers, in November of 2009, broke into a British set of computers owned by global warming scientists. Hackers have stolen the correspondence between University staff members and made it public on the Internet. Researchers have been discussing the ways to forge data in order to correspond with the idea of global warming.
The real data surprisingly shows the decrease of Earth’s average annual temperatures. The University of East Anglia confirms the theft, but refuses to give any comments on the correspondence.One renown paper used the rings of trees in a forest in Siberia to prove without a shadow of a doubt that man-made global warming was real stuff. Then came the hackers, who found that in that Siberian forest, three “selected” trees were used to display world wide global warming, a fact not mentioned in the “peer reviewed” paper. Other scientists wrote that they would destroy any information that went against global warming if they were forced to give it out under the Freedom of Information Act in Great Britian. Good old peer reveiewed papers. Not a guarantee of real science. Sorry evolutionauts.
For evolutionauts, a very simple premise: (1) Bio-systems are designed in a far more intelligent way than any intelligent man who ever existed has the capability of designing. That fact doesn’t need testing. It is just pure fact.
(2) Nothing has ever been invented, designed, assembled, and improved by an entity with an IQ of exactly zero. No man who ever existed can show that has or can happen.
If you want to play pretend, fine. Because for you to believe evolution, you need to completely reject and ignore the the above two facts. And if you can and do, there can be no discussion with you. Your foundation is then a fantasy, and all other discussion on the subject worthless. The debate is over.
So, these major foundations of evolution are not foundations at all. The invisible mutations and the house of cards that is the “peer reviewed” papers make evolution a house ready to collapse. It may never, but it is teetering. The reason it doesn’t collapse is the strong beliefs of the bio-scientists and rabid evolutionauts that support it. THAT is the foundation for this “science”. If you read this blog with an objective eye, you won’t be able to help but find that evolution is not the answer, unless you have been successfully programmed. But most of all, for me, it’s rather fun to debunk a science that is so self aggrandizing, highly promoted, and pushed into the science classrooms of unwary school kids by legal groups such as teacher’s unions and the ACLU. And, what I really enjoy the most about writing this blog is that I have found such fascination in a science, biology, that I studied as a chore when I was in school. I didn’t appreciate at all what was right in front of me. Now I love every minute of digging through books and websites and rediscovering what I took for granted years ago. If you are one of those who are absolutely certain there is no intelligent design in nature, take a look at the picture at left. It is a carbon atom, the building block for all of life on earth. Can you actually look at this picture and say you see no invention and design? Does this atom display “apparent design” as evolutionauts call design? Or is it an example of real actual incredible invention and design. Me, I will take the second choice. Invention and design are so obvious. If you told me you see none, I could not believe you. And if the building blocks of life show such invention and design, then life and nature were invented and designed as well.
Humans, and all animal species, are incredibly engineered machines; thousands of times more complex and better engineered than any man made device on the planet. Not only do our electromechanical devices show design, but they are inventions, as there was absolutely no “prior art” models for nature to go by. We have servo-motors (muscles) that pull on rods (ligaments) that in turn move ball and socket joints (hip, mandible). We have an incredibly complex and efficient pump (heart), a pair of digital cameras that produce three dimensional images (eyes), miniature microphones (ears); and on and on. The greatest engineering group cannot come close to synthesizing the simplest of our organs. The one thing that makes us different from an incredibly engineered robot is LIFE; that we are alive. Life separates us from robots. And, life is the one thing that separates evolutionauts from being able to see intelligence in the universe. NOT religion, but intelligence; there is a big difference here. If we were functioning and not “alive”, and were constructed of plastic and metal, and an evolutionaut could observe us, he would have to admit that we are the result of an intelligence beyond imagination. The amazing thing is that evolutionauts have absolutely no idea how life formed. They are completely unable to form life in the laboratory. Yet they are absolutely certain that there was no intelligence that brought about life and the origin of species and their bio-logical-systems.
This is how I see the battle between religious creationism, and modern evolution: we are toddlers in the scheme of the universe. Imagine us as two year olds who are trying to figure out the engineering and assembly of a nuclear submarine. One group of toddlers thinks some great mysterious being suddenly and magically made it. The other group thinks the nuclear submarine simply evolved into existence over a long time, much more time than the two years they have been in existence. But they don’t know how the raw materials got here. They argue that some sort of mysterious selection process was responsible for putting the parts together. A huge battle rages. Toys fly. In actuality, neither group or individual toddler has anywhere near the ability to figure out any nuclear submarine was invented,designed, and assembled. They can’t even figure out the manufacture of a row boat. So what they have is a tempest in a toddler teapot. Toddlers simply lack the required cognitive skills. We as adults have the same problem trying to figure out the Puzzle. In actuality, toddlers may be much more able to figure out the nuclear submarine than we adult humans are at understanding how life, nature, and, species originated.
The idea that random mutations and natural selection were the sole formative forces for the assembly of all of nature is an embarrassment to nature. Modern biological sciences have traveled light years beyond that simplistic idea. Most scientists just don’t face that fact. It’s amazing how once an idea sticks, it remains stuck. And evolution is stuck like fly paper in the minds of so many very intelligent people. Evolution needs to show that the foundation of evolution isn’t a fantasy: that mutations form healthy, histologically correct, necessary, utilitarian tissue, and can place that tissue in just the right location, in just the correct shape, in just the correct amount, and that tissue will be selected by being advantageous to the individual so it can continue on, and so that the individual won’t be consumed by another species that doesn’t have that tissue. There are absolutely no positive mutations capable of forming complex electromechanical entities that can be cited by evolution. Evolution cites bacteria that can eat nylon, moths that change from white to black, and a few other dubious examples. As it stands, 100% of mutations, or near that figure form either neutral or horribly disfiguring errors. Disfiguring mutations are large and obvious, unlike any “good” ones cited by ev-illusionists. Good mutations are largely invisible, while bad ones are usually an obvious nightmare for the poor unlucky mutant. Natural selection is a force that removes those mutations out of a population, and in that way , keeps the population strong. The mutations that no evolutionaut or ev-illusionist would want are prevented from being carried on to the next generation by natural selection. But the idea that selected mutations can form and cause the design of incredibly complex electromechanical devices and bio-logical-systems is no more than wishful fantasy.
The age of the universe holds a very interesting conundrum for the formation of nature in general, and human beings specifically, as humans are the only conscious observers on earth, and the only species capable of recording and contemplating what we observe. I made a video on just this subject if you are interested:
Just a Note for Evolution Fans that May Read this Blog: The earth and solar system, by all good scientific evidence, appear to be 4.5 billion years old. Accurate biological time-lines given by biologists could and should be very accurate. Unfortunately, many are not. Species are placed on clade charts in completely incorrect chronological order so that it will look like evolution produced a gradual morphing of one species into the next. The dates of the appearance of the species is rarely included. Evidence of this is in my “Evolution of Birds and Flight: It’s Impossible (part 1)” video, on this site and at YouTube. There seems to have been some minor evolution that has taken (takes) place. I have absolutely no idea how species came into existence, and I don’t promote any solution to that great and fascinating Puzzle. This blog is only interested in scientific and objective discourse. Origins of species is an incredible subject, but it is also a useless science. No cures for disease or mechanical marvels will be produced by it even though that is unblushingly claimed by evolutionauts. In reality, few people spend much time thinking about our origins. I am one of the few who do. I find it immensely fascinating, thought provoking, and fun. I am bothered that evolution is taught in schools as if it is a lock, that pseudo-intellectual evolutionists treat those that are not believers condescendingly, that if a person is a non-believer in the TOE most evolutionists think that person must believe in Adam and Eve, and that evidence is bent to make TOE look like real science. That is why I am writing this log. I am starting with this note so that any evolutionauts that may read this blog will know where I am coming from, and if they comment, hopefully will keep this in mind.
Please don’t waste your time trying to box me in as a Biblical creationist nor religious. I am neither. It is quite obvious that if the Genesis record of creation were true, all species would appear at the same geologic level. A seven day Creation would be very apparent in all fossil digs. But that is not even close to the case. My experience with religion has been pretty much summed by this quote from Thomas Szasz: “If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you are a schizophrenic.” I am not an atheist or agnostic. I believe in an incredibly intelligent Source or Creator, but my beliefs go no further. I have no idea who, where, or what that source really is. And, that is my belief, it is philosophical, and so it is not posed as an arguable or scientific position. So don’t use this last sentence as a strategy for your argument against me if you are an evolutionaut. I have often been asked what is the difference between a philosophical belief and religious one. There is a big difference. Instead of writing the differences myself, here is Wikipedia’s version, which would be identical to mine:
Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning, by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature. The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect. Most religions have organized behaviors, including clerical hierarchies, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, congregations of laity, regular meetings or services for the purposes of veneration of a deity or for prayer, holy places (either natural or architectural), and/or scriptures. The practice of a religion may also include sermons, commemoration of the activities of a god or gods, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture.
Philosophy, again, defined by Wikipedia, and again, similar to what mine would be:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. The word “philosophy” comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means “love of wisdom”.
I am fascinated with the science of evolution, and its effect on its believers and supporters. From my experience debating evolution, I have come to the conclusion that evolution’s improbabilities and impossibilities are so believed, and promoted with such vigor, that it is almost impossible to have a rational discourse with those that support it. It is also obvious that the true underpinning of evolution is atheism. When evolution is being argued, the true argument is a religious one. Atheism is a religious belief just as surely as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam are religious beliefs. Atheism is a reaction to and a belief about God. It’s a reaction to the Atheism is completely dependent on evolution for its existence. Without evolution, atheism has no possible explanation for how we and all of nature got here.
If evolution can come up with real instead of imaginary evidence, I will be the first to step up and be a full supporter like I was a few years ago. As it is, most evolution evidence is greatly exacerbated by imagination. A great deal of evidence that is touted by ev-illusionists has nothing to do with evolution. Most evidence simply backs up the fact that there is a great biological and natural design connection between all living things. Evidence given by evolutionists should be carefully evaluated by objective peers to determine whether that evidence really backs up what is being promoted. Of course the trick is to find objective observers. In this science, I really don’t think I have found one. What I do think is that nature is unbelievably intelligent. There is no scientific evidence for the source of that intelligence. One thing I know for sure: I am intelligent enough to know that there is not now nor has there ever been a living person on the planet earth, including myself Albert Einstein, and Charles Darwin, smart enough to figure out the Puzzle.
I believe that evolution can account for possibly up to 5% of the status of nature today, while it is credited with 100%. Actually, evolution has huge flaws, huge gaps, and tiny evidence in favor, which makes for an impossible rift among the interested like you and me, if you are reading this site. And that 95% is not formed by evolution is my OPINION, and what I deduce from my observations of the evidence, nothing else. Evolution science is kind of like the state of astronomy. 90% of the universe is dark matter, and we have no idea what dark matter is, so we make explanations. But we know it’s there, just like we know eyes and hearts are here, but how the heck did they form? I guarantee you it wasn’t from selected mutations. On the really great side, we are so lucky to live at a time when we know so much, and have the ability to search, debate, and communicate. Imagine describing a black hole to someone in the 1850’s. It would be hilarious.
If you would like to further search this blog, I would recommend starting with page 20, a test for evolution. It will give you a starting point, and a good idea of what questions and answers you will find here. Another good starting point would be page 4a and 4b. It shows ten impossibilities of evolution. Feel free to challenge any of the test questions, or any of my impossibilities. Interestingly, to falsify evolution, all I have to do is prove that one single biological entity cannot come about through evolution. Evolutionauts have to prove every single one did. As there cannot be two separate theories that each built part of nature
ozredneck22 11/25/11, YouTube comment:
As Ian Juby says “Abiogenesis is easy…, first you purchase a Expedite Automated DNA/RNA Synthesizer from Applied Biosystems (Forster City, CA) for $35,295, take Isolated E.Coli genomic DNA at $50.00/oz. This is then used to synthesize the Oligonucleotides. Histidine-tagged T7 RNA polymerase is purified from E.Coli strain BL21 containing plasmid pBH161 provided by William McAllister State University of New York Or you purchase the Oligonucleotides from Integrated DNA Technologies, So there you have it, no intelligence required, all natural processes as found in the early earth…right? The look on evolutionists faces when you tell them it can’t happen naturally……..PRICELESS….…… for everything else there’s MASTERCARD