Evolution: An Objective and Skeptical Look

The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at AmazonThe 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 t rex toilet paperquestions 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, ucarbon atomnless 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.

robots2.jpg

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.[1] 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.[1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] 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


<!-

943 Comments

  1. Ed Myers said,

    Mr. Blume,

    I have to respond because I find the points you make very interesting. I’ve only read a tiny fraction of what you have written here, but a lot of it makes sense. I don’t agree with everything you’ve said, but I like that people who are scientifically-inclined are willing to speak out against the falsehood of evolutionary theory. Those who argue strongly in favor of evolution are often unwilling to see (or maybe to admit) the way their position requires faith, a willingness to ignore unanswerable questions, and a desire to oppose the teachings of alternate views; isn’t that ironic? Frankly, I still don’t understand how Nye’s attack on Noah has anything to do with arguing in favor of Evolution rather than simply being an attack against the Bible as a historical document (not that I would agree with his view). Sadly, those who argue against evolution are often ill-prepared to do so.

    I am a Christian who believes that the Bible is true, but I also believe that good science and proper understanding of Scriptures should be 100% in agreement. When the two disagree, I believe that we either have the science wrong or we haven’t understand something properly about what the Bible says. I know many will not accept this view, but there it is. I also think that science tells us “how” and religion tells us “why.” Right or wrong, that’s just how it is. As soon as we think that science can tell us “why,” we’ve turned it from a useful tool for increasing human understanding into a dogmatic faith that can only hobble humanity. Isn’t that also ironic? This is the greatest error of the evolutionist and many modern scientists: They fail to see that what they are creating is essentially a mythology about the origins of life that can only hinder human understanding.

    I find it astoundingly, mind-numbingly incredible that all life evolved from a remotely ancient common ancestor through completely random genetic alterations into forms perfectly suited to their habitats, with swim bladders, with echo-location, with vision adapted more than adequately to each habitat, with spinnerets able to produce thread stronger than steel, etc, and with systems highly analogous even though there is no direct line of evolutionary ascent. Let the evolutionists answer this: Why do rattlesnakes have rattles if, as recent developments lead one to believe, they are more likely to escape destruction with a genetic sequence that leaves the rattle off? The rattle is an accident of mutation? Where did this even begin? Where are the series of gradient developments that led to the highly developed mechanism that rattlers use to warn those who approach? And who is the warning intended for if not humans? Are other animals less likely to tangle with a venomous snake if it makes an unusual sound? I doubt that any creature other than the human being is foolish enough to need a rattle sound to tell it not to tangle with a dangerous snake. To my mind, these things all hint very strongly at intelligent design. And we (Christians) are supposedly the ones with limited capacity for understanding?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks for the comment. I find that the debate between religion and evolution to be absurd. As you intimate, the Bible isn’t meant to be a science book at all. Evolution should be able to stand on its own without the constant demean of religions. My debate here is: is evolution a valid theory or not. The easy conclusion is: NOT. Evolution cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny, so its followers choose to demean religious tenets as a smoke screen for their failed belief system, which is no different than any religion. Time, mutations, and selection are their trinity, and those three performed miracles that compete with any in the Bible.

  2. Robert Bradley said,

    Very good stuff. Sounds like you have much free time to read about a great passion of yours. I too am a scientist, a physician and thinker who is “hooked” on defending truth and exposing errors in science and reasoning. Please take the time to read literature by the organizations such as Reasons to Believe, or works from John Lennox before you put “religious” or biblically based thinkers in a certain box. I for one see no problem with the current creation story in Genesis and the record of such left to us to study.
    Seven Days that Divide the World by John Lennox would be a good start.

    A Creator who fashioned this world with the complexities of life and the profoundness of beauty and the capability to reason and the capability to love and intimacy would by sound logic have to have the same characteristics. What a different world it would be if created by a powerful yet unloving and decidedly uncaring God. Your passions and reasoning to expose the fatal errors in evolution and the profound case for a creator where also not placed in you by accident. Keep seeking for the true God. He is seeking you also.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      The nice thing about creationists is we can certainly agree on evolution not being the source of all of living nature. And we can have intelligent conversations about that fact. Obviously that source is far more impressive than RM and NS.
      But the loving caring god you so believe in chooses to be invisible as an entity. We were constructed with love and laughs which makes one think the source of the creation must have those as well. So where are they? Where was God when his ” chosen” people were slaughtered? When there is so much misery that goes along with the love and laughs? The source of living nature must exist, but seems to be AWOL since creation, whatever form that took, unfortunately.
      Thanks for the comment.

      • Nayef A. Qashou said,

        For what it’s worth, I’d like to respond to your thoughts on this matter.

        I will break this down so each issue can be understood better.

        “But the loving caring god you so believe in chooses to be invisible as an entity.”

        This is basically a rephrasing of two different, but similar issues:

        1) “If God exists, then why can’t we see God?”

        2)”If God exists, then why doesn’t he reveal himself to us?”

        The answer to both questions lies in the fact that this life is a test. If God reveals himself to us, then there would be no test. This life is also a trust. In Islam, there is a concept called pre-existence. When God created Adam in Heaven, he also brought into being ever human that would ever exist. So God had a trust and humans chose to undertake this trust. Part of this trust was that we would worship God under our own freedom of choice and that we would bear the consequences of that, good or bad. So, in this context, it can be understood that if God were to reveal himself, then there would be no test and we would all choose to submit to God.

        Besides this, our bodies cannot handle seeing God in this world. This concept is vividly portrayed in a chapter of the Qur’an where Moses asks to see God so God says to him, “If the mountain can see [God], then you will able to see.” Then, when God revealed a minute amount of Himself to the mountain, it exploded.

        “We were constructed with love and laughs which makes one think the source of the creation must have those as well.”

        You are correct. One of the Noble Names of God is “The Loving One”. There is also a narration from Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) where he mentioned that God would laugh on the Day of Judgement. The Prophet also said, “Allah is more merciful to His servants than a mother is to her child.”

        “Where was God when his ”chosen” people were slaughtered?”

        I’m assuming you are referring to the Children of Israel. However, I’m not sure if you are talking about in ancient history or in modern history. Anyways, the Islamic teaching is that they were the chosen people as long as they kept their covenant with God, but the covenant was broker after they committed major transgressions so they weren’t the “chosen people” anymore.

        It is worth mentioning that death is one of the things that God tests us by. You can gain more understanding about this topic (why people die / why do believers in God die) by reading the Qur’an since it covers this extensively.

        “When there is so much misery that goes along with the love and laughs?”

        There are various reasons for this. This life is a test. How would God’s mercy be manifested if there wasn’t suffering for God to remove us from? Also, do you prefer a world that is based on freedom of choice? A lot of misery that takes place in the world is a result of humans hurting other humans by their actions or inaction. Also, it is well-known that a key religious teaching is that God punishes transgression in the next life in Hell, but God may also choose to punish transgression in this life. And when God’s punishment comes to a people who have been engaged in transgression, it does not differentiate between the good and the bad or the innocent and the guilty – in other words, people can be the cause of their own punishment as well as the misery of others by engaging in transgression. This is a long subject, but as I said before, you can gain a better understanding of this issue by reading the Qur’an.

        “The source of living nature must exist, but seems to be AWOL since creation, whatever form that took, unfortunately.”

        This sentiment (if you can call it that) is based on a misconception, which is that God is suppose to seek us out and not the other way around. In fact, the reality is the complete opposite of this. We are suppose to seek God. It makes sense that we wouldn’t be able to do this on our own (which perhaps is related to your sentiment), which is why God has sent us guidance in the form of revelation (God’s words of guidance) and a messenger from among our own species to show us the right path. If we are sincere in this regard and sincere in accepting the truth wherever it is to be found, then this is what matters.

        Any mistakes in what I have said are from myself and all good is from God.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Thanks for your reply Nayef. I have no doubt that there exists an immense intelligence and source of the creation of living nature and the universe. There simply has to be. The notion that all of this came together by dumb luck and chance happenstance is absurd. What that immense intelligence is I really have no idea. I don’t choose to find it in religious doctrine. Many, like you, do. It would be nice if the source of living nature made itself more obvious to humanity. The fact that it doesn’t has caused the formation of a great number of religions, and unfortunately, a great deal of sadness as a result. One religion who thinks it’s right slaughters another who thinks it’s right. Endlessly.
        On this blog, and personally, I am only interested in pure objective science. What CAN be and CANNOT be proved scientifically. From there, everyone has the right to his/her interpretation. Personally, I don’t interpret beyond what I observe.

      • Nayef A. Qashou said,

        I appreciate your focus on objective science. However, I do find your evaluation of religion to be flawed. I don’t subscribe to this notion of “religious doctrine” where an authority dictates something to you and you blindly accept it because the authority belongs to the same belief system as you do. I am well-aware that the so-called clash between religion and science is a fictional one, but I must say that describing me as someone who “chooses to find it in religious doctrine” is as absurd as me saying that you “choose to find it in scientific doctrine”. When it comes to questions of truth, whether we are talking about scientific claims or religious claims, it is all suppose to be treated the same i.e. evaluated using our reason and based on the evidence.

        There are multiple problems with your argument about a great deal of religions causing sadness because one religion chooses to slaughter another that it doesn’t agree with.

        The first thing that comes to mind is that this is a blanket statement and a gross generalization. If I wanted to, I could replace the word “religion” with “government” or “political group” in the statement that you made. Does this mean that because there have been many in the history of politics who have abused their power to the point of slaughtering those that did not agree with their viewpoint that all political positions that support a government are wrong and that we should just become anarchists? Of course not. Every belief system should be judged on its merits and what it teaches.

        There is also a phenomenon which you fail to note (perhaps because of ignorance) which is the ability of a true religion with true guidance from God in ending this bloodshed and establishing a society where people have the freedom of religious belief. This is what Islam teaches and what it did historically to the point where atheists published books promoting atheism in medieval Baghdad in the heart of the Islamic Caliphate and these atheists were not harmed or prevented from publishing these books. Jews flourished in Spain and Turkey and many Christians in Egypt became prosperous to the point that many Muslims became jealous of them.

        So then, where does this bloodshed come from? It comes from people. People who desire wealth, power, glory, fame, and territory without any concern for humanistic principles such as those taught in the major world religions. In other words, it is the lack of religion and not religion that causes this bloodshed to occur – even if it is claimed to be in the name of religion, which may be simply be a lie. For example, the U.S. constitution sets out certain principles that guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, if other nations which have constitutions that guarantee similar rights commit crimes against humanity such as mass murder, then does that mean that we should stop believing in the U.S. constitution? Of course not. If the U.S. government, which claims to believe in the U.S. constitution, commits or supports mass murder, then does this mean that the constitutions of the world have been a source of a great deal of sadness? Such a claim is beyond absurd. Rather, the problem is the lack of adherence to the constitution and what it teaches.

        It would be worth noting that the statement, “It would be nice if the source of living nature made itself more obvious to humanity.” is based on subjectivity. Why should the source of living nature act in accordance with your expectations? If it has such immense intelligence as you point out, then wouldn’t it make sense that we act in accordance of its expectations (or try to establish whether those expectations exist through objective inquiry)?

        Although I can believe that in general you do not interpret beyond what you observe, it seems apparent that you subscribe to the belief that all religions are man-made doctrines. Is this belief based on objective science? Although you claim that you do not interpret beyond what you observe, I would suggest that by believing that all religions are man-made doctrines, you have made such an interpretation since you probably have not studied all religions. If you are willing to take the time to read “The Origin of Species” in an effort to assess the truth claims with regard the reality of our origins, then I would suggest that it would be more pertinent to read the Qur’an to establish whether or not it has any truth with regard to the reality of our existence.

    • Kent Perry said,

      Robert, I too was a skeptic of the Biblical creation account but the more I looked into the writing of CS Lewis and your Prof. John Lennox I find there could be no other means of our existence. When I saw Lennox debate Dawkins scoring a shut out, I was impressed to say the least.

      I don’t “go there” with Steve and he doesn’t mock my faith ever and it is in that context of sticking to the science I think will eventually bring him to that epiphany many scientists and great minds alike have experienced and when that time comes, he may ask my opinions on the matter and it is then I will share the more intimate details of our lord and savior.

      Until then, I have enjoyed a most satisfying friendship with man I can honestly say has no religious motivation for his skepticism of evolution and someone I have always known from the time I first met him here on this board, has a lot he can teach Christians about this age old argument .

  3. Fog Maestro Cephalopoda said,

    The real problem I see you have is you don’t the imagination to understand evolution and the fact that NO ONE can honestly understand what 65 million years is. You are too hung up on an anthropomorphic viewpoint. I don’t demean the religious to prop up science. I demean it because there is no evidence for it. Just like any fairytale that I’m supposed to take seriously. DNA proves that evolution exists and can actually track it’s course over time.

    I read your test. It is loaded with biased, ridiculous, and unprovable assumptions:

    Humans are the only animals on the planet who cannot survive unclothed in the wilderness. ( Any child who has seen a National Geographic with naked people in it knows that this is BS.)

    Blood couldn’t exist until there was a heart to pump it. ( There are many single celled creatures who use iron like a blood cell.)

    Detail the evolution if (of) bird flight. ( Bats and insects and paper airplanes can fly without perfectly aerodynamic wings. What the hell is a perfectly aerodynamic wing?! if it flies – it’s perfect. Feathers are found on flightless creatures. Penguins and ostriches have wings and can’t fly. Dandelion seed fly without wings!!)

    I could go on, but using your logic, all I have to do is show you have one flaw in your reasoning to discount all the rest of it.

    I like your comment, “The source of living nature must exist, but seems to be AWOL since creation, whatever form that took, unfortunately.” That could be because we just haven’t seen it because it’s actually so simple. Unfortunately you have enough intelligence and cleverness to keep you unable to address your emotional problems that have led you to this irrational crusade. I hope you have the right experience or medication to help you to realize that evolution might not give you enough answers but it still gives you more real answers than any other system of inquiry. Of course this whole site might be trolling, and in that case you’re just a run of the mill muck raker. I honestly can’t tell. I’ve wasted too much time on this already. I’m outa’ here!

    • bullviii said,

      you’re outa’ here? ahhh, you will be so sorely missed…

    • Kent Perry said,

      Quote:”The real problem I see you have is you don’t the imagination to understand evolution and the fact that NO ONE can honestly understand what 65 million years is.”

      I agree,, it takes a LOT of “imagination” to “understand” evolution. However, I don’t know where you find the time to poll every person on the planet, asking them their personal grasp of 65 million years. The fact, as you called it, our so called inability to fathom such a staggering concept in your view, us NOT just our problem, then is it. But it is YOUR problem to solve. It’s what science does is explain the complex making it intelligible and easier to understand.

      Quote:” I don’t demean the religious to prop up science. I demean it because there is no evidence for it.”

      How the hell do you know? No seriously smart guy,, HOW WOULD YOU KNOW? You say we have no physical matter in evidence to prove a creator or God if you will? What physical matter, do you have, that you can even compare it too? This might be a little more difficult for you to grasp atheist, certainly you can concede to that having enlightened us how hard it is to understand 65 million in years much-less an infinite and eternal creator of the heavens and the earth.

      So if in fact, all physical matter in the universe was created by God,, what do you have as physical matter, NOT made by God to compare it to? YOU WOULD HAVE NONE. , in fact, you wouldn’t even know what physical matter NOT made by God even looks like,

      much-less what it doesn’t.

      Quote:”Just like any fairytale that I’m supposed to take seriously”

      Ha ha the Irony of you Darwits. Fairytale,, you mean like that one about the frog that turns into a handsome prince, given enough time and mutation?? Or that one about life coming from non living matter Or how the whale was once some four legged fox or wolf looking thing

      This just astounds me how vacant your thought processes must be.

      Quote: Blood couldn’t exist until there was a heart to pump it. Then YOU SAY: ( There are many single celled creatures who use iron like a blood cell.)

      Relevance?? You will have to explain how that has anything to do with the problem of blood STILL needing something just like the heart to make it work and the aimless, thoughtless, mindless, mechanism, if natural selection just like everything else it seems to make that any engineer would ask for, just gets lucky AGAIN and accidentally mutates a pump so revolutionary, at the same time what ever the third part bio utilities are keeping this critter on life support for theh millions of years this heart pump is “evolving” not to mention the brains unconscious reminder to make it beat and at the speed according to the bodys need for oxygen.

      Yeah all by happenstance.

      Riiiiight

      If you believe that, I got a Fairytale I can sell you.

      Quote:”I could go on, ‘

      OH PLEASE DO. I am still waiting for the part where you are supposed to show one flaw and destroy his whole argument.

      But you keep bringing up flaws in your understanding of his argument by mentioning attributes and discounting words like Aerodynamic as meaningless and flightless birds having feathers as if that has anything to do with his supposition once you remove the distinction Steve made, NOT just for feathers BUT more importantly “aerodynamic wings”.

      If steve wanted to use birds without that kind of physical attribute he wouldn’t have mentioned that very important detail and the very reason birds without it won’t fly.

      What YOU didn’t think we know what a penguin is??

      BUT if we wanted to design a bird that could live in freezing temps and needed to be excellent swimmers having wings like little flipper fins so they could catch fish as there are no rabbits to swoop down on,., The Penguin would be another shining example of creation with intent for that type of bird to survive that way,

      Birds having feathers is no reason to think they all have to fly else they are design flaws, anymore than birds having flipper fins and webbed feet mean all birds MUST have to swim.

      You claim all this CRAP about DNA,

      Atheists all over the internet who continue to repost Ken Miller’s antiquated report about Chromosome 2 fusion, as if it was hard evidence of a common ancestry, are NOT aware that his report actually creates problems against the theory of evolution in fundamental ways. Humans have 46 chromosomes.

      This chromosome count is a steady factor. This determines what is called the “fixity of species” because the chromosome count does not change except in instances that produce genetic deformities, such as forms of Down Syndrome. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot be changed. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation.

      Multiple studies have revealed that sheep which have multiple chromosome fusions are indistinguishable from sheep which do not have the fused chromosomes. What this means is that such fusions do not create new and beneficial genetic information that causes one kind of critter, like an ape, to evolve into another kind, like a human.

      Science shows that human chromosome 2 contains complex genetic information that is not found in apes, including many protein coding genes. Likewise, scientists have never shown how such complex genetic information could come about by natural processes.

      It is the genetic data that is the big difference between ape and man – not the number of chromosomes holding the data. Afterall, tobacco plants, like apes, also have 48 chromosomes yet no one is claiming that they are close relatives.

      In other words, even if human chromosome 2 was the result of a fusion event it would be best explained as the fusion of two human chromosomes, not from a fusion that occurred, once upon a time, in some non-observed primate ancestor.

      So what does human chromosome 2 have to do with Darwinism? Absolutely nothing! Now after you get some more practice jethro,, then you can come back and tell Steve, his mother wears army-boots since ad-hom immaturity and an uppity atheist attitude us all you can muster when someone hands your godless ass to you in a debate pusscake .

      Cheers!!

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Hi Meastro
      Thanks for the visit, and the attempt to take my test. I’m glad you do have a big imagination. You need one to believe the bullshit of evolution. Just curious. Does evolution destroy your skepticism and objective thought processes, or were you born without these? The interesting thing about the DNA you cite, the whole basis for evolution, (selected copy errors) is that there are way too few genes for the number of proteins that exist in the human body. (about 100,000 proteins, about 30,000 genes) Which means that there aren’t even enough genes to make human proteins, and certainly not enough to produce cell type, cell controls, body designs, and characteristics. That damn genome project has put evolution fake scientists on another mad scramble to explain evolution. I’m sure evo-illusionists will come up with another fable, like punctuated equilibrium, like little T. rex’s evolving into hummingbirds, and little 20 lb. “wolves” evolving into 100 ft long 400,000 lb. whales. And you will believe, say hallelujah. Find out what a troll is. You are one here. Bye

  4. Fog Maestro Cephalopoda said,

    You are the guys who say that the earth was created 4000 years ago. Enough said.

    • bullviii said,

      which guys? who says? and what is your point?

    • Kent Perry said,

      No that would be atheist’s saying, we say that. Just like they say, we say “God did it” all the time. But if you google the phrase, you find it is atheists saying we say it, in yet another attempt to use mockery and ridicule as their only tactic for debate. When it comes to logic and reason and all those words atheist’s like to surround themselves with, they continue to prove they are the worst examples of all of them.

    • Kent Perry said,

      Quote:”You are the guys who say that the earth was created 4000 years ago. Enough said.”

      Ha ha ya know how often I have heard atheist scientists scrambling to re-calibrate all their time measurement mechanism’s and rewrite the time it took for the earth to form and a species to emerge with each new discovery of how complex these life forms are? Any idea? It has got to the point that with each new fascinating property of our DNA that is found, they then have to add that many more millions of years for such a property to have come about. The failure comes when we realize that weather changes and earths own upheavals don’t wait around for these processes to take place and most of these evolving proto species would be wiped out long before these adaptations could be a benefit to them under the earths new environmental conditions. The earths age is keeps getting older and older just to accommodate your silly theory.

      So when you say, enough said coming from someone whose belief depends on an inexhaustible amount of time just to make his theory patent and yet becomes impossible still.. I got to ask myself,, who the hell are YOU to mock anyone over time constraints. The only alternative you got is like Steve said, Punctuated Equilibrium

      Enough said.ha ha

      • Adrián Calderon said,

        Your entire response can be summed as this: “I can’t figure it out or i don’t understand how we could have evolved from this, therefore i won’t use my brain to think on an answer and therefore claim that a divine being did it, without any mental effort from my part”

        You know intelligent design is unfalsifiable right?
        You assume because a watch is complex then it must have been designed. There is a logical fallacy right there. Aside from the fact that you discount all the bad “designs” and when these are pointed out to you to make another unparsimonious explanation like “oh, well the divine creator must have put them for a reason”

        Steve is not even a scientists, he claims that the whole scientific community is conspiring against him. He hasn’t even published a single paper on the subject. Yet he claims he is smarter than all the scientists. Delusions of grandeur.

      • Kent Perry said,

        Try to pay attention Adrian, I am RESPONDING to a quote Neil DeAss Tyson makes where he assumes if their IS one, we would just sit there awestruck never thinking we could figure anything out. I never said anything or everything a divine creator makes, proves the divine creator. At least not to an atheist. This idea that scientific advancements can only come if one believes we evolved from a Rock ( or a common ancestor to a rock) is just planed ridiculous. no more provable than evolution.

        Quote:”Evolution on the other hand, has been proven my multiple areas of science,”

        No it hasn’t NOT an IOTA of proof has EVER been shown for a molecules to man evolution. Give me your best example and ill prove your example is a load of crap. but you creation deniers are all the same.

        Quote:”evolution-deniers hasn’t even bothered to show an experiment that shows the limits of how much a species can mutate.”

        Yeah,, they can mutate so much they die. Death is a pretty good indication of the creature’s mutation limits.

        Now if you are talking about “mutations over time”, you Darwits have done that FOR us.

      • Adrián Calderon said,

        When i talked about mutations i was talking about species not individual organism. Your proof requirements are ridiculous “a video that shows a progress that took millions of years from molecule to man, otherwise it’s bullshit” It’s as stupid as to say “show me a complete video from your birth to this date of you to prove that you exist”

        As far as i know not a single remarkable person has doubted evolution, and people who do don’t publish any paper disproving it or even making a paper proving their intelligent design theory.

        And it’s stupid to assume that every human being was divinely created with no evidence at all, imagine at a biology class “oh well we suddenly popped up into existence when you grow up don’t bother to be a scientist figure out any other theory because intelligence design is a fact.”

  5. Adrián Calderon said,

    “Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance. You cannot build a program of discovery on the assumption that nobody is smart enough to figure out the answer to a problem… I don’t want students who could make the next major breakthrough in renewable energy sources or space travel to have been taught that anything they don’t understand, and that nobody yet understands, is divinely constructed and therefore beyond their intellectual capacity. The day that happens, Americans will just sit in awe of what we don’t understand, while we watch the rest of the world boldly go where no mortal has gone before.”

    -Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist, in “The Perimeter of Ignorance,” Natural History, November 2005

    • Kent Perry said,

      Quote:”You cannot build a program of discovery on the assumption that nobody is smart enough to figure out the answer to a problem”

      What does that have to do with an intelligence of some kind, creating the universe.?

      Quote:”I don’t want students who could make the next major breakthrough in renewable energy sources or space travel to have been taught that anything they don’t understand, and that nobody yet understands, is divinely constructed and therefore beyond their intellectual capacity. ”

      Conversely, I wouldn’t want to give students who understand how a creator designed something having a specific and finely tuned, function, as an excuse to dismiss the intellectual property rights of that divine creator. What would give Neil Discograsse Tyson the idea that everything divinely created is beyond the scope of our intelligence?

      It’s a text book strawman argument and Tyson never impressed me as being the sharpest knife in the drawer.

      Yeah scientist or not,,

      he is pretty stupid

      • Adrián Calderon said,

        “Tyson the idea that everything divinely created is beyond the scope of our intelligence?”
        Big flaw there, divine creation hasn’t been proved and probably never will. Evolution on the other hand, has been proven my multiple areas of science, and evolution-deniers hasn’t even bothered to show an experiment that shows the limits of how much a species can mutate.

  6. Kent Perry said,

    Quote:”You assume because a watch is complex then it must have been designed”

    Yep and ya know what else,, I’d be RIGHT you idiot and ya know why?

    BECAUSE A WATCH IS DESIGNED MORON!

    • Adrián Calderon said,

      Yes, but it is a moronic assumption that assume that all swans are white just because you happened to see only white swans. Same with “design” Oh and know you begin to insult me, tipically it’s when the other persons lack enough arguments to support their case, considering the few exchanges we have made so i have little interest to keep replying.

      • Kent Perry said,

        Quote:”Yes, but it is a moronic assumption that assume that all swans are white just because you happened to see only white swans. ”

        Yeah and that would have been a GREAT response to my “all swans are white” argument too but with this one little problem.

        I never said all swans are white and what that has to do with my being unequivocally correct about watches being designed GOD ONLY KNOWS (pun intended) and how you figure that to be “same as design” makes no sense what so ever. Try debating arguments I make and not ones I haven’t but you saw someone else use as one of the many cookie cutter copy pasted quotes, you darwits borrow from your anti creation websites. Yeah some “free thinker” you are.

        Quote:”Oh and know you begin to insult me, tipically it’s when the other persons lack enough arguments to support their case, ”

        That may be YOUR experience with your opposing interlocutors but it sure isn’t the case here. I called you a MORON because you are a MORON. I called you STUPID, because you prove to be VERY stupid.

        Quote:”“a video that shows a progress that took millions of years from molecule to man, otherwise it’s bullshit” ”

        Hey it ain’t MY fault you can’t find that kind of proof but even MORE absurd is to believe that is how it goes without such proof. You haven’t proven it happens much less that it happens over millions of years so who is it shoveling bullshit smart guy. Bon-a-petite

        Quote:”As far as i know not a single remarkable person has doubted evolution,”

        Not a single intelligent person, has doubted creation and anyone that does,, is an idiot, inspite of your uninformed opinions.

        Quote:”And it’s stupid to assume that every human being was divinely created with no evidence at all, imagine at a biology class “oh well we suddenly popped up into existence when you grow up don’t bother to be a scientist figure out any other theory because intelligence design is a fact.”

        You believe in evolution with no evidence at all,, I don’t see the problem.

        Quote:”“oh well we suddenly popped up into existence”

        Well,, that is what Darwits keep saying. First there was nothing and BANG here we are. Let me guess. Public school educated? Lot of fluoride in your water supply?

        Quote:”considering the few exchanges we have made so i have little interest to keep replying.”

        Awe gee,, I’m all broke up about that.

  7. Kent Perry said,

    Quote:”evolution-deniers hasn’t even bothered to show an experiment that shows the limits of how much a species can mutate.”

    Ya mean none of the fruit fly’s have turned into Jeff Goldblume ?

    • Adrián Calderon said,

      Oh again, when evolution doesn’t even claim that species turn into another spontaneously overnight you keep making that straw argument. In fact that would be evidence against evolution if you suddenly found that, that just proves your ignorance on the fact. I mean like seriously, we’ve been waiting for experiments proving that things can spontaneously generate. Yet a talking snake is perfectly plausible.

      • Kent Perry said,

        Quote:”Oh again, when evolution doesn’t even claim that species turn into another spontaneously overnight you keep making that straw argument”

        That’s a lie. I haven’t made that argument at all.

        Quote:” I mean like seriously, we’ve been waiting for experiments proving that things can spontaneously generate. ”

        Keep waiting or should I say “wishing”

        Quote:”Yet a talking snake is perfectly plausible.”

        Let me see now,, we have the Gorilla Koko that has a complete vocabulary using sign language, then there is my own experience working with Dolphins in the Navy. We had conversations with them all the time and did you know you can communicate with honey bees also?

        I would say plausible is an understatement. Then AGAIN,, I seem to be more educated than you are in the latest advancements for communicating with animals so, I just don’t see the problem you have with a talking snake.

        I mean just look at Neil Degrasshole Tystick or Dick Dawkins,,

        Now THERE,, is your

        talking snake

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 60 other followers

%d bloggers like this: