21. “Natural Selection Made Easy”, a Scientific Review


The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at AmazonThe URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.

The page begins below. 

Click on the lower left arrow.

Preface

Potholer54 on YouTube put together a video series explaining everything from how the universe began to how man evolved. Each of the videos is titled “………Made Easy”. What a title choice for a series of events that are more complex than any man who ever lived or lives on the planet earth could possibly understand. I have picked his #6 video to review, since it really is the centerpiece of the evolution debate. Again, my comments will be from a completely scientific standpoint. I am only interested in scientifically disproving the Theory of Evolution, which I proudly admit.

Before I start the review, I would like to explain how illusion (magic), and evolution science are nearly identical. The goal of both is to get perfectly rational people to accept and believe things that under normal circumstances they would laugh at as preposterous. I will then show how each step is exampled in this video. I call evolutionists “evillusionists” because what they promote is a mix of science and illusion. Here is how it works:

Step 1: Have a very credible demeanor as if you are “above it all”. Sound British, and intelligent. Be or be like a college professor. Talk in echo-y lecture halls. No one will want to challenge you, whatever you say. The audience will be responsive, worshipful, intimidated, and even more enthusiastically on your side. They will laugh at your jokes, no matter how bad. At every chance, make light and fun of those in the skeptic group. It will shrink and skeptic turncoats will come over to your side. No one wants to look foolish.

Step 2: Group all skeptics together, no matter their reasons for being skeptical. Make fun and light of the least credible in the group so it seems like the whole group is equal to the buffoon. Most in the audience will not want to be associated with the group of skeptics, and will willingly and enthusiastically be on your side. No one wants to look foolish.

Step 3: Make the audience think that they are witnessing an impossible event of your choosing, or that an impossible event took place that you describe. Make them think they are seeing something that they are not. Fool them into believing an event took place that didn’t. Once they believe in that one impossible event, they can be easily convinced the next impossible event also took place. As each impossible event is displayed, the audience will be more and more easily convinced, until an entire series of impossible events of your choosing will be accepted by the audience without question.

Step 4: Bait and switch. Make the audience think you are going to show, do, or describe something unbelievably difficult. When the audience is convinced, show, demonstrate, or describe an event that is far easier for you, but convince the audience that the new task is ever MORE difficult than the one you originally were going to show, do, or demonstrate. As they are already in your pocket because of the first three steps, they will accept step 4 without question. The video on my page on “Irreducible Complexity Revisited and Illusions” is a perfect example of this step.

Review of “Natural Selection Made Easy”

For clarity I will discuss this video section by section. The commentator for these videos has a British accent, sounds very credible, and is perfect for Step 1.

The video starts with a rather silly situation where a man opens a jar of peanut butter, and the audio says, “Sometimes if I open a jar of peanut butter, I should find new life inside” to the giggles of an audience. This is a probable “creationist” video that makes fun of evolution and ev-abiogenesis. I refer to evolution’s version of abiogenesis as ev-abiogenesis.  Abiogenesis certainly did occur, as once the earth was sterile. Life did then form.  Certainly not the way promoted by evolutions scientists today.

Potholers54 says, “Oh Jesus, your being serious!” (Step 1 and 2.) and of course he completely demeans the silliness of the video. He will then go on to show the “peanut butter man” to be a buffoon, of course. In reality, the video makes a valid point. Ev-biogenesis, the formation of life from non-life, is not happening anywhere on the planet earth today, at least that can be demonstrated. Life in the form of living cells will never be replicated in a lab. One very simple DNA molecule that was labeled as a virus has been fabricated, however that is not even one trillionth of the way on the road to making living cells that can nourish themselves, respond to stimuli, and reproduce.  Ev-abiogenesis is completely un-provable, and it always will be. It’s nothing more than the complete figment of the imagination of evillusionists, who then demean those that don’t believe in their imaginary tales.

giraffe.jpg

The video goes on to show drawings of giraffes with gradually lengthening necks (“Oh Jesus, your being serious!”) apparently caused by the need to stretch higher and higher for tree branches in the drawings. Of course there are no fossils that show short necked giraffes evolving to a long necked versions. And, why aren’t there other species that do the same? There must be other species that eat out of trees. Just imagine what a giraffe herd would look like if it was geographically separated on a land mass that had only palm trees! The possibilities are amazing! Above left is a giraffidae. Above right is the Sivatherium giganteum. Evillusionists say these are the extinct precursor to modern giraffes. Since their necks are short, they would have to be earlier precursors. More modern precursors would, of course show longer and longer necks. Since they came millions of years later than these precursors, they should be a relatively easy find. But they are not. According to: http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm: “Present day evidence does not support Darwin’s (and this video’s) explanation since during the dry season (when feeding competition should be most intense) giraffes generally feed from low shrubs (Simmons and Scheepers, 1996).This would suggest that the long neck did not specifically evolve for feeding at higher levels.” Potholer54 needs to update his research.

Potholer54 should have really thought about it before using giraffes as an example of natural selection. Giraffes are absolutely astounding animals. There is no species like them on the planet. Their necks are so long that a great deal of pressure is required to pump blood all the way up to their heads. They have very large and strong hearts, stronger than almost any other species. They have a series of valves in their ascending aorta which aids in supporting the up-flow of blood. When they need to eat grasses, or drink, by putting their heads down, the downward pressure of the blood would cause a cerebral aneurism or CVA (a stroke) due to the long length of their necks. The aortic valves close, which holds the blood in their necks and prevents excessive pressures from forming in their heads. If, when they were drinking, a predator came along, they would have to rapidly lift their heads and run. This radical move would cause the brain to lose most of its blood supply, and they would pass out. They would be easy pickens’ for any predator. To alleviate this problem, they have a series of spongy reservoirs which keeps blood in the brain until normal blood circulation can resume. Their necks are completely unique in the animal kingdom. What an astounding design. Is this design evolvable?

The video next discusses (1) that Animals replicate themselves, and (2) that there’s always variation. This part is a given. (And here comes step 3) The video then uses a cartoon make believe animal called hypotheticus to demonstrate how an animal could get a longer and longer neck by eating higher and higher in trees, over generations of course. But this scenario for giraffes has already been refuted by evolution scientists (above). So this cartoon should also go into the trash.

Another problem for Potholer54 is the fact that there are numerous fossils of species that still live today that show absolutely no evolution of the type Potholer54 describes. A few samples are above. T. Rex (upper right) had arms that were so short it couldn’t clap. In 20 million years, ten times longer than it took man to evolve from early primates, T. Rex’s arms didn’t evolve at all. In fact there were no notable changes in T. Rex fossils over that period. Evillusionists say the reason is that it didn’t need longer arms! No matter how major the evidence problem, they always have a lame explanation. Wouldn’t T. Rex have been better able to grapple and survive if it had usable arms, just like giraffes who supposedly grew long necks so they could eat high in trees? Everywhere evolution needs to be, it isn’t.

Coelacanth is a perfect example. Coelacanth is an ancient fish with good 410 MY old fossils, but it was once thought extinct. Shockingly, it was found in the seas around India 75 years ago, with absolutely no sign of change at all, a bad surprise to the world of evolution. It hadn’t grown legs, arms, or anything! Keep in mind that 410 MY is 200 times longer than it took man to evolve from early primates to Homo sapiens. There are numerous examples of fossils that should show the changes portrayed by this video that don’t.

“For the sake of Republican candidates and peanut butter man”, Potholer54 is going to demonstrate his great intelligence, and break things down so even fools can understand how it all happened. A perfect example of Step 1 and 2.

He tells us that “Animals with hairy bodies will have a better chance of survival. Pretty obvious?” Obvious with one immense exception: Homo Sapiens. Why did we completely break the rule of natural selection and dis-evolve our all weather covering? Of the billions of species that live or ever lived on the planet earth, we are the only ones that can’t survive outdoors unclothed. Potholer54 would probably say, “We didn’t need all weather skin and fur because we evolved in equatorial areas.” But, so did gorillas, and they didn’t dis-evolve their all weather covering. According to Potholer54, we should be extinct. So Potholer54 will just have to ignore this obvious problem or come up with another tale to explain.

Next Potholer54 wastes his video time bringing up Noah’s Ark (Step 2), an obvious Biblical tale not believed by too many Christians today, and how some theologians think rapid “super” evolution happened after the flood to produce all of the species we have today. He then asks what physical evidence do they have that super evolution happened over two thousand years? “None”, he exclaims, showing a Bible, and he reiterates. “None!” Potholer54, there are many reasons to be skeptical of the TOE. People that are skeptical because they have religious beliefs that include the Bible are only one group. Biologically, mathematically, and logically there are also numerous reasons to doubt. It is completely disingenuous to include all doubters in the same group. Ev-illusionists always complain that skeptics use strawman arguments. Potholer 45 is doing a great job of using one here. He is an expert in the use of Step 2.

Potholer54 then goes on to show skeletons (fossils?) of different species, and note how similar they are. He thinks that this proves natural selection produced all of these species, one morphing into the next. What he does prove is that they are biologically and by natural design similar, which they obviously are. What he does not prove is that one species evolved into another by natural selection. The evidence for that: NONE. Similarity does not prove that natural selection produces new species from older ones.

Here comes Step 2.He then shows a baby picture of President GW Bush, and then an adult obviously fake digitized picture to make to make Bush look buffoonish. (Potholer54, if you read this, the line around the mouth is a dead giveaway.) He explains that if we looked at Bush day to day we wouldn’t see any changes. But over time, we would. The problem here for ev-illusionists is the plethora of ancient fossils for species still living today that show almost no changes as shown above. Potholer54 just ignores that fact and videos onward. If Potholer54 wanted to be more “accurate” he should have brought up a truer example of Pres. Bush and what evolution should really look like. He should have shown Pres. Bush from ovum through fetal development, childhood, and on to adulthood. These stages are what evolution should mimic over time. We should see a plethora of fossils showing limb growth to full tetrapods, species growing wings, and giraffes growing necks, just like a fetus would. But these evidences are totally lacking in the fossil record, which is a good reason for Potholer54 to not mention fetal development.

Some Step 4: Now we go back to more hypotheticus (“Oh Jesus, not that again.”) cartoons and we are told that some of them might evolve different feet that might be better for digging, and they might shrink and become unable to breed with longneckus hypotheticus. Isn’t imagination wonderful? This cartoon sure is good evidence that hypotheticus separated into two different species….in this cartoon anyway. Cartoons are much easier to work with than reality.

Next Potholer54 explains how a single celled species can evolve, over time, into a species with an incredibly complex brain. “Breaking it down into evolutionary steps, It’s EASY to understand.” (Step 4) Potholer54 has no grip on reality. Easy to understand how a single cell can evolve into the human brain? WOW. Sorry, but WOW. No person now living or who ever lived on earth has the intelligence to comprehend how the human brain could have formed. I’m glad it’s so easy for Potholer54. He goes on to explain how amoebas have central sensors that feel heat, cold, and chemicals. He next lets us know that these sensors could then evolve (a favorite phrase for ev-illusionists) into a sensory system with a central processor, which could get “bigger and better”. He then gives us drawings of a rat, cat, and rabbit brain. These animals can “do more things”. He talks about objections to his scenario which come up “time time and again” with a very bored condescending voice as if the objections are just a silly nuisance and a waste of time. (Perfect Step 2) What Potholer54 does not want you to do is think. Just accept this preposterous scenario. “Brains are caused by natural selection. Period.” And, not using your brain can cause you to believe this nonsense.

Potholer54 then recommends that we watch Richard Dawkins “excellent” video fantasy about how eyes evolved starring Dawkins as himself, and a toy eye as itself. Dawkins puts the toy eye together piece by piece and explains to us how the eye evolved in over 350,000 steps (mutations) except he does it in about five. Really excellent!

Potholer54 finishes with the startling information that mutations may not be the engine of change! After all of these years telling us the unbelievable tale about how mutations and natural selection produced species, organs, and us, and mocking those that don’t believe, evolutionists now find out that they were wrong? Could it be that after over a century of trying to sell the idea that mutations caused the evolution of organs and species, they realized that most mutations are neutral or disasters for the host, a fact that even grade school children know? The new story that we are supposed to believe, or we will be mocked and made fools of, is Cis-regulaion and, Epigenetics a process whereby proteins turn genes on and off! All I can say is, “Oh Jesus, he’s serious!”

Advertisements

19 Comments

  1. Samuel Clemens said,

    Step 1-“Have a very credible demeanor as if you are “above it all”. Sound British, and intelligent.”

    Ah, yes, lure your audience to delusion with a fake British accent.

    Step 2-“Group all skeptics together, no matter their reasons for being skeptical.”

    No one wants to be the peanut butter guy.

    Step 3-“As each impossible event is displayed, the audience will be more and more easily convinced, until an entire series of impossible events of your choosing will be accepted by the audience without question.”

    Fact: It’s impossible. Why? Because it is. But, we have to convince the audience that it’s not. Then, they’ll be under our power. The poor, stupid audience is tricked into believing natural selection through the evil, underhanded tactics of emperical evidence and logic.

    Step 4-“Bait and switch.”

    You don’t need to understand science to teach evolution. You just need to be a good salesman.

    • jan said,

      Hey SC, Get specific, in a scientific sense. I dont buy your assertions, just like i dont buy the people you criticize’s assertions. I will give you a hint…. study and report on the selection processes necessary to go from chemicals to whatever the hell we are………….

  2. stevebee92653 said,

    You got it. You are right on!

  3. jan said,

    Steve, it seems to you are obviously uncritical to anyone who agrees with you. How about a little bit of discernment here. LOok, I know that apparently, you have been a successful inventor, and you know the financial value of developing a product and getting royalties off subsequent sales by those that take the risk of producing and marketing those things…..But shit,,,,,,,, this is not such a situation,……… YOu have to establish more credibility by becoming more discerning of even those who, in principle, agree with you……..The search for truth in this arena is not, in my opinion, a resolved issue. You must appeal to any side of the issue with substantiation…………….

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I don’t quite get what you are saying. My stance is that evolution is an archaic ill wind that defeats good objective science. My objective is good science. Those that agree, for what ever reason, are allies. Where do you disagree?

  4. jan said,

    Steve,
    After looking at your communications on your site in more detail, and finding my above post at a later date, I feel compelled to retract my comments regarding your “discernment”. I think you “have it” and are “right on”. Thanks for your commentary and display of insight.

    jan

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks! I appreciate the retraction. I don’t want to sound braggy, but I think I am right on too. You as well. I like your stuff. You are a little too four lettered for me. You’re way of rousting out the evos? But what you have to say is right on the money. I don’t know if we are on the exact same wavelength, but we seem pretty close.

      • Andre said,

        Hi there Steve, 🙂

        First of all, I really appreciate you taking the time and putting in the effort to create and maintain site. Thanks a bunch! It just goes to show that religious people aren’t the only ones who have problems with Evolution.

        I don’t mean to randomly jump in like this, but it seems the only way to contact you and I thought this was the best place to do this, because of the video; even though I will be a bit off topic. I hope you will forgive me.

        The main hurdle that I think Evolutionists must over come is that in order to make me consider believing in evolution they must first present me with a Theory of Evolution. Unfortunately they can not. There is no such thing. What exists instead are many THEORIES of Evolution. There is no consensus among evolutionists how evolution occurred. That is the reason why evonauts can use the same, tired, old rhetoric of, “You don’t understand evolutionary theory”. Well, how can you, or I, understand something that is not concrete?

        For example: If you say, “Evolution of giraffes couldn’t have happened over millions of years because there is no fossil record to back it up.” then the evonauts will say, “It didn’t occur over millions of years, it happened over the course of a relatively short period of time and that’s why there is not fossil evidence for it.” They constantly change the rules so you can’t pin them down on anything. Evilutionists are sure a slippery bunch.

        Now about the video listed here. Strangely enough, Punctuated Equilibrium, or an identical explanation under a different name, was scoffed at when some creationists used it to explain how Noah got all those creatures on the ark. Example: Noah had two “Cats” on the ark that went on to produce lions, tigers, cheetahs, ocelots, ect. Evos said this notion was ridiculous since evolution takes millions of years. It’s in the vid. A few minutes later we hear about this Punctuated Equilibrium theory from Potholer54 saying evolution happens in bursts. If that’s true then it only backs up the argument put forth by some creationists. Strange that Potholer didn’t catch that.

        Anyway, Steve, what I really wanted to talk about is this. There is a topic that I haven’t seen listed on your site and that is “The Web of Life”. Today it’s well established, but in the ancient past how could new life forms survive without the symbiotic relationship life shares today? For instance: What did primordial life eat? Each other? Minerals? Sunlight? If they ate each other then they wouldn’t have been able to sustain themselves. If they consumed dissolved minerals then how did they come to have functioning digestive systems capable of absorbing this particular nourishment in the first place? If sunlight, then how did they come to be able to photosynthesize in the first generation and why change to other, less advantageous, forms of assimilating energy? I know that this will be dismissed by evos, but the Web of Life is Irreducibly Complex. There comes a point where, if you take enough species away, life with collapse. For instance, take away insects and the Web would unravel.

        I just thought that you may want to write an essay about The Web of Life. Yet one more problem with evolution that I rarely hear addressed by Evilutionists. Please tell me what do you think, Steve. Thanks!

        PS
        This message was addressed to Stevebee so if you aren’t him then I will NOT respond to your message. I don’t care what you say, I won’t do it. I simply don’t have the time.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        I really like that thought. I have a vid on “The Age of the Universe: A Paradox”, showing that a universe, which appears to be 13.7 BYO, needs a conscious observer to exist, and of course, conversely. So the question then arises, which came first. The humans who needed a universe to be born into, or the universe which can’t exist without a CO. And the answer is simply not attainable. Your Web of Life is the same. Everything needed to be present for life to survive. So how did it originate, one at a time? What did the first living cell (singular) consume? There is no possible scientific scenario that I can come up with; nor can any person who ever lived. This conundrum does well for religious people, but not for me, since I am basically not. This is such a thought provoking subject, and the most frustrating but enjoyable Puzzle ever. And I wish there was a solution. But I have a feeling there never will be for mankind. It seems we can only delve so far. Then the chamber door closes tightly. Thanks for the very thoughtful note.
        Steve

  5. jan said,

    Steve,
    You are welcome on that. I know I have used strong language. But it just underscores my frustration with the “blank check” the evolutionary community has had for so many years regarding their hugely scientifically unsubstantiated assertions. And as if it has no important philosophical impact on society.

    I mean, let us take the concept of “natural selection”. The claim, as far as I can figure it out, is that “natural selection” is a fundamental force in nature throughout the earth’s history that has been “scientifically” demonstrated to have the abilities to guide the processes required in the chemicals to living organisms progression. I know evolutionists insist that the origins of life is a separate issue, but you and I both know that is a bunch of shit. That claim is a self serving proclamation by the bastards (foxes in the hen house) that assert their own self serving agendas on the “peasants”.

    They assert that they have proof that the “top down” explanation of living ecosystems can easily by explained away by a chemicals to living organisms explanation. But then, they “demonstrate” the concept of the huge requirements of unimaginable number of (oh shit, personal incredulity) steps required is demonstrated by top down reasoning using examples from (the top)current living ecosystems (the faster lion gets the prey and lives to screw another day) to support the infinitely improbable capabilities of what is required in their philosophical fantasies. The fucking hypocrites.

    I have much more to say, it is just that I don’t have the amount of time I would like to devote to this discussion.

    Thanks

  6. jan said,

    Observation, chip shot on perhaps the largest metaphorical “golf course” in history. But, maybe significant observation. Chemical reactions are scientifically observed in laboratories all over the world. I don’t think that there is a scientist in the world that would claim that “chemical reactions” in and of themselves could, without a doubt, be the only significant causality factor moving non-living matter all the way to even the simplest living organism.
    “Chemical associations” are without a doubt NECESSARY in the progression of matter to life. But, NOT SUFFICIENT, ( as far as science can demonstrate).
    It is demonstrated that chemical reactions, FAR OUTWAY ANY OTHER SELECTION PROCESS THAT MAY HAVE, in formative stages of “life’s development, existed. So, rote chemically reactive tendencies would have RULED, the material reality in far ancient history. My question is this…. What kind of currently observable selection pressure that we associate with fully formed, huge animal phenotypes, could possibly be analogous to the selection processes on a the early stages of life’s development that could override the huge array of possible chemical reactions that would ABSOLUTELY, ON SO MANY LEVELS, DERAIL ANY SIGNIFICANT PROGRESSION TO THE HIGHLY CONSTRAINED BIOCHEMICAL PATHWAYS TO COME TO EVEN THE SIMPLEST LIVING ORGANISM????????? Who can answer these questions (not fucking philosophically) but “SCIENTIFICALLY” ?

    Thanks for your forum
    Steve.

  7. jan said,

    Where are you, whoever you are? I keep waiting for adequate explanations to my questions. e scott, p meyers, r dawkins, eldridge, ruse, etc. etc. etc. etc.(fill in the blanks, i am sure there are hundreds and even thousands more names…….)
    As far as i am concerned, if everybody interested in this topic were to look at this forum and see these postings, it would create quite a relevant controversy regarding the beloved philosphical underpinnings that support your beloved lifestyles…….

  8. jan said,

    Where are you? Why don’t you answer my questions? Aren’t you all there to help us (the public) understand what you have been paid, probably in large part, by public funds to help educate us fools, the common public? Please, put forth your non-speculative information that we deserve to have access to. We pay taxes to support you assess, Let us see the evidences we have paid for to support the concepts of reality regarding the origins and development of living systems that we have paid for. NO SPECULATIONS ALLOWED PLEASE. Step up and answer all sides of the questions, or ADMIT, YOU DON’T HAVE THE EVIDENCE REQUIRED AND CAN NOT FUCKING CLAIM THAT YOU HAVE ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIMS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. It has been one big fucking PARTY FOR SO MANY YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!

  9. jan said,

    Let me start by calling out the mastermind of all of this speculation. You prick, r dawkins. where are you you son of a bitch who hides behind your GROSSLY UNSUBSTATIATED METAPHORS, IN LIEU OF REAL SCIENTIFICALLY REQUIRED EVIDENCE. You are materially wealthy because your antics. You perpetuate the myth that “science” has sufficiently demonstrated “chemicals to living systems”.
    Real science would admit that it hasn’t and couldn’t. But you continue to use the misconceptions and the mass media, for the sake of profit, to perpetuate your speculations. And i think, at a cost to humanity that you can’t even begin to understand. ( You arrogant bastard) dawkins, you chicken shit. I know you have all sorts of ignorant followers watching this forum that will give you word of these comments. You stinking coward, come here and let us discuss. But you won’t will you, you stinking ass coward.

    • Radhacharan Das said,

      Hey Jan, i hope dawkins or some other high profile evillusionist comes and debates with you lol, try going to their websites if you haven’t already. I’d like to see you kick their butts hehe. oh and if u have time, i watched the whole of this debate between Stephen C Meyer and Peter Ward, and in my opinion and to the neutral observers, Meyer made Ward look like a fool. All Ward mostly did was make stupid comments or straw mans in regards to definitions of intelligent design. Ward even appealed to the crowd by saying things like, “if we allow intelligent design to be taken seriously, we will suffer as a country, look at china… they are turning out more engineers/intellectuals than us, what will happen to the country?” (paraphrased). What a loser! Anyways it was a good watch, here’s the link:

      • Challagar said,

        China is turning out more engineers and intellectuals than we are because the population of China in general are basically perfectionists. I had a Chinese room mate in college who mourned every time he had less than an A+ (which was very rarely). Nothing was ever good enough for him and everything had to be exactly right. The Chinese are so much more focused than Americans. It has nothing to do with the theory of evolution or creationism or intelligent design.

  10. jan said,

    RD,
    Thanks,
    I have seen that, and to me, Ward’s public “proclamations” demonstrates the extent to which the evolutionary status quo has “advanced” it’s philosophically preferred assertions by having the ability to command it’s position in the vacuum it has been operating through for so many years. “Intellectually” (“intellect” which is absolutely scientifically unaccounted for) based resistance, however, is inevitable in the realm of human mind, when bad smelling shit tries to assert itself without adequate substantiation on those who don’t “buy the shit”. Exposition of publicly funded, unsubstantiated personal philosophical assertions in the public realm demonstrates the need for the “public being served” (oh fuck, sure thing) to insist on real science, which is what we are paying for, to replace these self serving slugs.

  11. Alejandro said,

    Natural selection is a philosophical excuse. It’s so relative, so flexible and so plastic that can be adapted to anything. There’s not a clear way, not a clear direction, not a clear patern, It goes in millons of opposite directions at the same time… doesn’t matter what the evidence is, there’s allways gonna be a “good” excuse.

  12. Andre said,

    Thanks for your response Steve. You are correct that the “Web of Life” is a major hurdle for evolutionists to overcome. Just one more reason I can’t believe in Darwinism.

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

%d bloggers like this: