My Three Books on the Subject of Evolution: (All three books are now on Kindle.)

3 covers

Before you dig into my blog, I would like to introduce you to the three books I wrote on the subject of evolution. Please feel free to take a look at my two-minute trailers for each book (below). I hope at least one of these books will stimulate your interest. Direct links to each book on Amazon are under each trailer. Below the videos is a brief introductory statement about my blog and two videos that show the problems with ape-to-human evolution. If you would like the Kindle version, go to:

and type in the book title.


Click on this link below to go straight to Amazon and The DNA Delusion:

 The DNA Delusion

Click on this link to go straight to Amazon and Evo-illusion:


The trailer for my second book, Evo-illusion of Man:

Click on this link to go straight to Amazon and Evo-illusion of Man: Evo-illusion of Man at Amazon

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 marvelous intelligence and wisdom.”-Socrates is an objective discussion about the scientific validity of evolution. The scientific argument about the validity of evolution should not be a debate about evolution versus any other notions about origins. The discussion here is about whether or not evolution can stand alone as valid science. Or is evolution a fraud that should be eliminated from textbooks, schools, and museums of natural history. 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 naturally selected random mutations were and are up to the task of forming new species and their organ sets and body parts, and of inventing and improving the initial designs of biochemical and biological systems.  Or is there something else in nature that is 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 are new, useful, and not obvious, where they didn’t previously exist at all. New useful, and not obvious are the requirements for an invention from the United States Patent Office. Every body part of every species, every organ, every biological and biochemical system is an invention, far more so than any invention that was ever made by any man. The only intelligence we know of that is capable of inventing complex entities is us. Humans. Humans were not even around when nature’s unbelievable inventions and designs were created. Even if we were, we are not nearly within light-years of being intelligent enough to invent and design the phenomenal and complex entities in nature. For example, a skin cell is so small that 10,000 can fit on the head of a pin. But each skin cell is more complex than a nuclear submarine. Each skin cell, in fact, all somatic cells in our bodies, manufacture 2,000 new protein molecules every second. The average protein molecule is composed of 500 amino acid molecules that need assembling. Amino acid molecules are assembled in strands like a pearl necklace. Can you imagine assembling 500 amino acid molecules in strands, and making 2,000 strands per second? Well, every cell in your body does just that. Only one living skin cell is light-years beyond the ability of any human to invent and design. The choice then is, did evolution’s complete lack of intelligence invent and design the uber-complex and phenomenal entities of nature, or did an intelligence far beyond our abilities to comprehend do the job. 

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. Below my three book trailers are two videos, How To Tell the Difference Between Human and Ape Skulls, and The Smithsonian’s Fake Hominids. They are kind of an addendum to my book, Evo-illusion of Man. I hope you have a few moments to take a look. Feel free to leave a comment. 


  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.

      • Roy E. Fink said,

        How is it going, long time since we hav talked? Roy F.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Hey Roy E. How have you been? Did you move? Your old email address changed, so??

      • royalfink said,

        Great to hear frm u! Im still in Bonsall, same house. The fire here was stopped only 20 yards from me! 48 race horses perished at the training track, at the bottom, of the hill, that I liv on!! We lost 2 nearby golf courses! I still try to play once a week! Any news on Elizabeth, or Sonya? I luv these idiots, that try to argue , with u!
        R u still playing , some golf, or tennis?
        ps my cell is 949 370 5414
        my email is

      • Dan Biddle said,

        Hi Dr. Blume – I have a question about one of your videos – can you please email me at

        Thank you!
        Dr. Biddle

  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.


      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 .


    • 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

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        “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.” – Stevebee92653

        Excuse me? How is this a problem for evolution again? You never cared to explain. For all I know genes can and do code for multiple proteins….. Its as if you’ve never heard of Splicing.

        But do go on and explain in detail how this affects evolution ….. In detail please. Thank you.

    • Nicolás Vera said,

      If “65 millions of years are beyond our imagination”, why fern fossils show 0 fern evolution after 400 millions of years? Why salamander fossils show 0 salamander evolution after 125 millions of years? Why shrimps fossils show 0 shrimp evolution after 144 millions of years?

      • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

        Nicolas Vera
        Ammmm…. Do you mind pointing out which of the 9,000+ species of extant ferns that show 0 evolution after 400 million years?

        Also point out which of the 500+ species of Salamanders that show 0 evolution after 125 million years…

        And also point out which of the 2,000+ species of shrimp that shows 0 evolution after 144 million years.

        Just like Stevebee92653, you didn’t really think this argument through right?

  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.”

    • Nicolás Vera said,

      Your inference is “A group of people say that earth is 4000 years old THEREFORE the ULTRA-COMPLEX biological machines don’t need a designer”. This is typical straw man fallacy.

  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?


    • 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.

    • Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,

      Watches don’t reproduce with variation and are thus not subjected to the principles of ‘Descent With Modifications’ (evolution)…. That’s why no one will assume that watches evolved or can evolve. Living things on the other hand, can and do evolve.

      Second thing I will like to point out…. The ‘design’ of a watch is mechanical, and performed by biological beings that are subjected to natural processes that can be studied and understood. I honestly dont think the ‘design’ you’re talking about was done by a biological being…… You’re referring to “Magic”, and that’s something no one has any evidence for, or can show that its even remotely real.

  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

  8. Osama Zaghloul said,

    Steve, I have embraced evolution. You left the fake evolution, the one I refused to accept because of the road-blocks you explain so well in your videos. But I found the answer to these road-blocks…. I call it, “Intelligent Evolution”. By design…. not that crap “Randomist Evolution” …. Steven search for my page on facebook if you are interested, I.E. Evolution with the “God-Ribosome”, “smart-viruses”, and fractal geometry…. this is the evolution of the future…Osama84ca

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I don’t know what you mean by “embraced”, but any theory that brings entities into existence in stepwise fashion has major problems. The evolution of a duct or blood vessel or sac cannot be stepwise. Have you resolved that problem?

      • Osama Zaghloul said,

        yes Steve. Smart-viruses designed by G-d. Not in steps, in bursts of information. It is ID through evolution, via smart viruses. This is the real evolution, not that randomist by chance stuff… by design…ny G-d

    • Trust Meten said,

      To get the evolution done, there has to be two types of change in an animal, the physical change befitting its’ development, and the change in its’ genetic code to carry on this change.
      If we understand the interactions that are needed in genetic material to get a very small change in physical structure or functional attainment, we can understand that any animal cannot be converted into another animal through these evolutionary changes.

      • Osama Zaghloul said,

        Intelligent Evolution explains this, check us out on facebook

  9. fatemaster1 said,

    I *love* how people always have to assume that there can’t be more than one answer. The simplest solution is usually the right one but when things get truly complex sometimes the simplest solution is too simple, an over simplification if you will. The fact of the matter is that there are “harmless” viruses that drive evolution, but there have also been interferences that seem to indicate an off world presence. There could very well be other influences that we are currently unaware of.

    • Trust Meten said,

      Theory of Evolution is always propagated by these small fake supports, one after another. A baseless theory that is carried on by one support through another one and thus it is never left to fall down and crumple off as evolutionists are there to support it with one or the other false propaganda

  10. Trust Meten said,

    Nice page stevebee92653

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks, and you are right on!

  11. Walter White said,

    Hey Steve i have a friendly suggestion that may help spread your work. I think with your credentials you can go on the Joe Rogan podcast. He is an actor, comedian, martial artist, sports commentator and podcaster. He hosted the show Fear factor. He has had many academics on including sam harris, and just many regular folks like yourself that no one has really heard of. Go to Youtube and type in Joe rogan podcast. You are both in California and i am sure he will be happy to have you on. Many academics attend just to get their message out and the podcast is really popular especially amongst the young and intellectual crowd. You can probably contact him via twitter. Just a suggestion because Youtube and social media is extremely popular and not many academics use these outlets and so their audience is extremely small.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks for the thought. I’ll give it a look.

  12. Christine Thompson said,

    Stevebee92653 – Hi Steve,

    I very much hope you will read this entirety of this [very lengthy!] post.

    I only came across your excellent website yesterday, quite by chance. I’m an Englishwoman of 56, and have, since the tender age of 9 or 10, been a passionale scholar of many, very diverse BIG subjects in life. Only about a year ago, someone told me something which piqued my interest, re. the Origins of Life debate… prior to that, I’d [surprisingly] never properly thought about it. However, in the last 12 or so months, have read more than 20 books on this important topic. And it’s more than obvious that the evolutionists on the planet – those [so-called] “scientists’ who think in purely materialistic terms. re. life, existence, reality – have got it all so, so wrong.
    Since I discovered your site yesterday, I’ve read just some of the features, and am most impressed by its content!

    Now, the reason for my post to you here, today. After having come across this site just over 24 hours ago, I looked at one of your YouTube videos (I seem to recollect it was the one re. Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Cosmos), and read the comments. In one of your replies (I made a note of your words, but unfortunately cannot now lay my hands on that note i made!, so cannot quote your comment verbatim), you said words re. your realisation that some day, the scientific establishment’s wrong thinking re. their claims of ‘evolution’ will come crashing down like a house of cards, but that you regret that you won’t be there to see it.

    Now HERE is why I’m posting to you now. It’s very necessary to clarify something, before I get to the actual point. The vital clarification is this: let me say right now, that I’m most definitely NOT religious. Ie, I’m most definitely NOT a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, etc….
    However… since 1994, I’ve most definitely been (100% factually) spiritually-enlightened. NB., there’s a very world of difference between being merely ‘religious’ and being spiritually-enlightened: for they’re two completely different things!

    The reason for my having to make that, above, very very clear, is to introduce this very real fact: you said, in one or two of your YouTube comments to sceptics, that you know the mainstream scientific establishment’s wrong thinking re. the origin of the cosmos, and life, in all its disparity/diversity, will one day come crashing down like a house of cards, but that “you regret that you won’t be there to see it”.

    Well, the very real fact is that the event that’s (so very incorrectly) termed “death” is incontrovertibly NOT the end of our existence. For the REAL us is NOT ‘merely’ our physical body ‘coat’: the real us is the eternal, immortal SOUL/spirit being that we each ARE; the soul we each ARE comprises [eternal, immortal spiritual energy. Literally everything in the cosmos is comprised of energy vibrating at different frequecies; energy vibrating at a [relatively] slow frequency creates what we term “physical”/”material” stuff; energy vibrating at a much, much more rapid frequency creates non-physical, ‘spiritual’, eternal, immortal energy.

    The fact is that we reside in a mult-diimensional cosmos; ie, there is far, far more to reality/existence than ‘merely’ what our physical eyes and ears can see and hear. The truth is that there exists a very real spiritual dimension: many levels of spiritual dimension… these spiritual dimensions co-exist with/interpenetrate this physical dimension, and they are where the eternal/immortal soul we each ARE returns to, after we’ve gone through the transitional event that’s so incorrectly termed “death”.
    There have been many thousands of high-quality, scholarly books written, relating how and why we do all survive [in our eternal, immortal soul/spirit form] the death of our physical body ‘coat’. And a large percentage of these have been written by educated, PROPERLY-informed scientists, doctors, psychiatrists, etc etc. They who have discovered the veritable wealth of multi-faceted, objective evidences which truly demonstrate the incontrovertible fact that [amazingly!] we DO all survive [in soul form] the death of our physical body. Countless millions of educated, properly-informed, spiritually-enlightened people, worldwide, are more than fully aware that the actual nature of the event given the term ‘death’ is so very, very different from what it seems to be, when interpreted at its very illusory face-value mere appearance. The many thousands of high-quality, scholarly books on this subject relate the mountain loads of multi-faceted, objective evidences for the veracity of this statement.
    When i first came across some of those evidences myself, in 1994, the beginning of my spirtual enlightenment, being the scholarly person that I am, I decided to initiate an extensive, indepth, scholarly programme of research into whether there truly might exist evidence which would that the actual nature of “death” is very far from what it seems to be…
    And since then, I’ve read more than 750 [seven hundred and fifty+] high-quality, scholarly books on the reality of this ultimate life-truth.

    One of the reasons why we do survive (as i say, in our eternal, immortal soul/spirit form) the very illusory “death” is this: that, contrary to what the vast majority of orthodox scientists merely think/assume, the mind/consciousness is NOT “merely a by-product of physical brain activity”; in fact, the non-physical mind/consciousness is completely separate from the physical brain – the non-physical mind/consciousness operates/manifests THROUGH the physical brain but is NOT created BY the physical brain.

    The point I’m making is this: that due to the fact we DO all survive [in soul/spirit form] the death of our physical body ‘coat’ (and I, as do many millions of other educated, spiritually-enlightened people worldwide, also do, possess literally hundreds of very high-quality personal proofs that my [wrongly-termed] “deceased” family members have indeed survived the deaths of their physical body “coat”. If you are interested, I would be more than happy to give just a few examples, in a later post), and due to the fact that souls who now reside in the very real spiritual dimension are able (HOWEVER it works, there is objective evidence to prove this!) to see their loved-ones who still live here on the physical Earth-plane.
    Ie, when you eventually go through the TRANSITIONAL event that’s so very incorrectly termed “death”, you will be able to tune into events on Earth, and will then (whenever it happens!) watch the “crashing down of the ‘orthodox’ scientific establishment”… when that [so-called] scientific establishment finally discovers/realises that their “evolution” claims did not, in fact, hold water: that they got it wrong, in a big, big way.

    If you comment back on this post of mine in an interested way, I’d be more than happy to add more, including a short representative sample of the many thousands of high-quality, scholarly books which relate the wealth of multi-faceted, objective evidences which demonstrate that the actual nature of the event given the term “death” is immensely different from what it merely seems to be, when interpreted at its very illusory face-value appearance.

    Once again, i love this site, and will most definitely be purchasing your book in the very near future!


    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks so much for the comment and compliment I thought 100% of Brits have been sucked into evolution and abiogenesis. It’s so nice to see that’s not the case. As you may have read, I WAS an avid evolution supporter for a very long time. Until, like you did, I began actually thinking on my own. Once evolution collapses, it goes quick, as you may have found out.
      In Evo-Illusion, my last chapter is about my thoughts on the existence of God. I think you will find it interesting. As far as there being a spirit that lives on after we die, I have no idea. I am certain that there is a lot more to life that what seems obvious. I try very hard to stick to objective science, which eliminates that notion from my writing. I have no doubt that there is far more to life than we can imagine. I am completing my second book right now, and that subject is discussed in detail in my first two chapters. It’s really a fun thought.
      Again, thanks for the comment!

      • Christine Thompson said,

        I certainly don’t think that 100% of us Brits would fall for the ‘scientific’ ToE!! At least, not after having thought about it all for oneself, and after having carried out a lot of research into the subject.

        It just amazes me how anyone could seriously think that life could come about “just by chance”,and from non-life, to boot!! That really IS ‘magical thinking’! They really don’t think properly, do they: as you constantly tell people, on your site, here, and on the YouTube videos of yours I looked at yesterday, the gullible, brainwashed ‘evolutionauts’ simply follow the materailistic scientists who push the Darwinian theory. Ie, it truly is a case of the blind leading the blind.
        Richard Dawkins, here in the UK, is so horrifically dogmatic, with all that he merely claims. Ditto Dr Jerry Coyne, there in the US: he is sometimes referred to as “The American equivalent of Richard Dawkins”. And all the others like those two. The blind leading the blind.

        Yes, it was someone’s words on another online forum, a year or so ago, which made me suddenly think about the Origins question. I can’t think why i never thought about it before then. As a result, I’ve read [as I mentioned in my earlier post] over 20 books on this truly fascinating subject.
        I just finished “Darwin on trial”, by Philip Johnson, a few days ago. An excellent exposition of the nonsensical claims of the Darwinist brigade.
        And, from the (so far) little I’ve read of this site of yours, since I first came across it yesterday, I’m very much looking forward to reading your book!

        I must emphasise this: that the (in fact) 100% truth that we all survive [in our eternal, immortal soul/spirit form] the very illusory event that’s been incorrectly termed ‘death’, is in itself a huge proof that the merely materialistic Darwinian theory of evolution can in no way be correct. For (as I’ve ‘debated’ with Darwinian followers on a major online book review site….) that Theory of Evolution is merely materialistic, and their mere theory does not take into account the incontrovertibly real truth that the actual true nature of the thing we call ‘life’ takes the form of spiritual energy (all in existence is energy… the soul we each ARE is electro-magnetic energy, and it is that which ANIMATES our physical body throughout the duration of our lifetime[s]. That is why the physical body becomes motionless, after the transitional event, ‘death’: for the actual REAL us – the immortal soul being we each are – has detached from/departed from the physical body ‘coat’): ie, that the actual nature of ‘life’ is NOT merely physical matter… which is, of course, what all followers of the Darwinian ToE merely assume – they think that life is nothing other than a conglomeration of chemicals.

        You didn’t make any comment of this aspect of my earlier post, but nonetheless, I’ll here cite just a short representative sample of the more than 750 excellent high-quality, scholarly books I’ve read since 1994 on the fact of everyone’s survival {in soul/spirit form} of the death of their physical body ‘coat’. As i mentioned earlier, a large percentage of the many thousands of books on this vitally important subject have been written by educated, properly-informed scientists, doctors, psychiatrists, etc. As you will see in the short sample list below.
        (By the way, a couple of years ago I ‘fell foul of’ the RatSkep people… I posted about the subject below… and received the vilest of abuses from them)

        So, a short sample list of some of the many very excellent books on this very real life-truth:

        “The Afterlife experiments: breakthrough scientific evidence of life after death”, by Professor Gary E Schwartz {Prof. of Medicine, Psychiatry, Neurology, Psychology, and Surgery, at the Univ. of Arizona, there in the US)
        “Your eternal self”, by R Craig Hogan
        “Irreducible mind”, co-authored by psychiatrist, Dr Bruce Greyson, and others.
        “Beyond physicalism: toward reconciliation of science and spirituality”, ed. by Edward Kelly and others.
        “The art of dying: a journey to elsewhere”, by psychiatrist, Dr Peter Fenwick.
        “The truth in the light”, by the above psychiatrist, Dr Peter Fenwick.
        “Death is of vital importance: on life, death, and life after death”, by Swiss-American psychiatrist, Dr Elisabeth Kubler-Ross.
        “”Glimpses of eternity”, by psychiatrist, Dr Raymond Moody.
        “Closer to the light”, by paediatrician, Dr Melvin Morse.
        “Forever ours: a coroner’s tales of life, death, and immortaliity”, by Janis Amatuzio MD.
        “Life before life: a scientific investigation of children’s memories of previous lives”, by psychiatrist, Dr Jim B Tucker.
        “A lawyer presents the case for the afterlife”, by Victor Zammit.
        “Same soul, many bodies”, by psychiatrist, Dr Brian Weiss.
        “Consci0usness beyond life”, by Dutch cardiologist, Dr Pim van Lommel.
        “Science and the afterlife experience: evidence for the immortality of consciousness”, by Chris Carter.
        “The materialistic wall’, by Bud Carroll.
        “Many mansions”, by Air Chief Marshal Lord Dowding.
        “Lychgate”, by Air Chief Marshal Lord Dowding.
        “The airmen who would not die”, by John G Fuller.
        “Heavenly hugs: comfort, support and hope from the afterlife”, by Carla Wills-Brandon.

        And many, many more, too!

      • Christine Thompson said,

        Stevebee92653 – Hi Steve,

        Just a short note; to say I placed an order for your book today!
        I much look forward to reading it, having, in the few days since my posts above, read a lot more of your site.
        I just had to chuckle at some of the very funny exchanges you had with the die-hard sceptics!! As you say, they don;t think for themselves; they just parrot what the “experts” (Richard Dawkins, here in the UK; Dr Jerry Coyne, there in the States – sometimes referred to as ‘the American equivalent of Richard Dawkins’; Douglas Futuyma; and the many others of the same ilk) spout. Without thinking it all through for themselves.

        I also admired your persistence on YouTube, with another die-hard sceptic called Keira. Yet another who simply regurgitated what officialdom claims, to the world.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Great. Thanks for the interest! I hope you will write me and let me know how you like it. Be they good or bad, I really look forward to your honest review.

      • Christine Thompson said,

        Hi, Steve,

        This is just a quick word to tell you that I’m still awaiting the receipt of your book! I posted you a note on 4th of this month, telling you I’d placed an order for it [with a certain online seller…]. It should have been with me by now, having been despatched a week ago. So, seems like it got lost in the mail! I’ve contacted the sellers, and they’re sorting it out; which will (unless it arrives a bit late!) probably involve them sending me out a replacement copy.
        I’d been out today [here in the UK], and had thought it would be on my doorstep. But no!
        I wonder if the mail deliveries in the States are equally as [sometimes] unreliable as here?!?

        Anyhow, i look forward to reading it, when it arrives!

        Best wishes.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Thanks for the update. I’m anxious to find how you like the read!

      • Christine Thompson said,

        Hi Steve,

        My copy of your book which I’d ordered online, turned up [had been a bit delayed in the mail] 4 days ago!

        Having now read it, i can post my reaction to it, here.
        Well, what an absolutely excellent book!! It’s a superb expose [that last letter should have an accent on it, i know], a wonderful job of demonstrating the utter farce that is the ‘theory of evolution’, as given out by the current ‘orthodox’ scientific establishment, worldwide, as being their attempt to explain the origin of the proliferation and diversity of life on Earth.

        You convey very eloquently the very obvious nonsense which the ‘scientific’ community foists onto the very gullible, brainwashed world masses, in the guise of ‘science’.
        Your words, as i quote them below, are so right!:
        “Invention is treated as if it’s invisible. It’s invisbile only to people who want to believe in evolutjion more than they want to face reality”.

        I truly feel that your book should be translated into every language, and then be required reading in all schools, colleges, and universities on the planet! For it’s very evident that countless millions of people have less than no idea of the multitude of claimed aspects of the “theory of evolution” for which there exists no genuine scientific evidence in their favour; aspects for which no genuine, tangible, objective evidence exists to support their claim to be demonstrative of the veracity of Darwin’s ‘theory evolution’ as it’s touted to be, by the present-day scientific community.
        The content of your book would open a great many people’s eyes, in this regard; eyes which currently are closed to the knowledge that ‘evolution’ as it is described by those many [so-called] scientists who push it, does not have the amount of evidence in its support which the scientific community claims it to have.

        In the last 18 months or so (ever since I first came across the astonishing truth that much of the ‘theory of evolution’ does NOT possess as many objective evidences to support its reality as is merely claimed), I’ve bought, and read, more than 25 books on this extremely important topic. I remind you of what i stated in my initial [lengthy] post, above: that I’m most definitely not ‘religious’ {thought I most definitely AM spiritually-enlightened [also see the two lengthy posts of mine, above]. Ie, that I’m NOT [any sort of] a ‘Christian’. The books on this subject, prior to yours, which I’ve read, have been by authors who have related the ID evidence (Dr Stephen Meyer, Dr Michael Behe, et al).
        But yours is the first which addresses this subject from a purely scientific perspective, and its contents should therefore be taken note of by everyone who wishes to know the actual facts, as opposed to merely accepting what establishment science merely claims.

        I also had quite a number of chuckles/laugh out loud moments, whilst reading your “Evo-illusion”!!! Thank you for such a great read!

        I’m currently engaged in a heated ‘debate’ on the US Amazon site (recall, I’m in the UK!) with a very abusive, dyed-in-the-wool, rabid materialist from California. The debate, intially being about the existence or not of the immortal soul [that we each ARE – see my two lengthy posts, a couple or so weeks ago, here], has recently extended into a ‘debate’ about the “theory of evolution”. The Californian has, on both subjects, subjected me to the vilest verbal abuse, ridicule, jeering, smears, etc etc. His abuse of me (and of another American, the latter being informed, and on my side of the debate) is so severe that amazon have deleted a number of his posts.
        As you yourself have also done, I’ve experienced closed-minded, abusive people like the Malibu man on amazon currently, when, two or three years ago I was engaged in a very similar ‘debate’ with the rabid people on RatSkep! Wow, what a nasty experience the latter was!

        Well, I think I’ve come to the end of this response to your marvellous, excellent book! I so enjoyed reading it, and it will be an important addition to my extensive book collection [covering many, very diverse, subjects!]. Problem is, a lot of shelf space is required, to store them – and my husband and I will, in a couple of years’ time, be moving to the Shetland Isles of Scotland!! A very different environment from the city we now live in!

        Once again, may I say what a great book you’ve written. A perfect relating of the numerous areas of that ‘theory of evolution’ where the claimed evidence does not, in truth, exist. I truly don’t know how the many [so-called] scientists on the planet can think that life, in all its amazing diverstiy, could have come about “by pure random chance”/”by accident”, without any guiding inventiveness/intelligence propelling it along (however it was done).

        A great, very informative read. Thank you!

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Wow, did you read it already? Glad you liked it! Thanks for the great comment.Book 2 is almost completed. It’s about the illusions of modern science, of which there are several very surprising ones. One is human evolution, which I didn’t touch on in Evo-illusion. Digging into human evolution is a kick. Such a fun subject.

      • Christine Thompson said,

        Hi there,

        Yes, i do read very rapidly! Have been a voracious reader since the tender age of 6 or 7!

        I wonder, in your studies of this immensely fascinating subject, have you come across the following book? “One small speck to man: the evolution myth”, by Vic Sodera {he’s a surgeon; was born in India, but has lived here in the UK since the age of 4).
        The book is, like yours, an exposition of the crazy claims put forward by the ‘orthodox’ scientific establishment, as regards how life, in all its diversity/disparaity, came about. It, like yours, concentrates wholly on the scientific evidences which demonstrate ‘Darwin’s theory of evolution’, as it’s touted to the masses, to be nonsensical, and without acceptable evidences. The book is wonderfully presented, and it was only after reading an online article about the author, Vic Sodera, that I learnt he is a Christian fundamentalist!! For nowhere in his book does he give any evidence of that – other than quite a few cases where he writes, “…. [for example]…. the strata which is SUPPOSEDLY [according to orthodox science], 200 million years old”.
        Other than that, no-one would ever guess the author was a fundamentalist Christian {recall, I’m not religious, in any shape or form; I am, however, factually/correctly spiritually-enlightened).
        You may, of course, already be familiar with the above-quoted book. But if not, it’s definitely worth looking at. For, like your own, it talks, in great scientific detail, about DNA, the cells, etc etc etc.

        A paragraph, below, from the Preface of that book:

        “Now, starting from simple chemicals, if it can be shown that chemical laws and biological constraints will not allow the evolution of any number of biological systems, organs, and structures, nor allow the conversion of one creature into a quite different creature (for example, a dinosaur into a bird), then we must face the inescapable conclusion that: no matter how much time you give it; no matter with what energy you supply it; no matter what your interpretation is of fossils or of their supposed dates; no matter how much you dislike the thought of it; no matter if you have no alternative working model to present in its place; and no matter what else…. the evolution of one creature into a different type of creature did not occur, and cannot and will not occur under any circumstances…. ever.
        History shows that regardless of the subject being discussed, any questioning of established and SEEMINGLY proven dogma will generate intense opposition – opposition whcih is often simply emotional and without logical foundation. And the subject of evolution and the origin of Man is no exception. However, to those who would say that to question the theory of evolution is to be at once unscientific, foolish and ignorant, I make no apology for this book. To question is the foundation stone of all science, and only by being willing to look objectively at the evidence, and by being willing to challenge established dogma, can we aim to get at the truth of the matter”.

        I look forward to your next book!

        Best wishes, from the UK!

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Thanks for the heads up. I will certainly buy it and give it a read. It will be interesting to see how another person goes about his challenges to evolution. I tried not to read other anti-evo books when I was writing mine so I could keep my writing original. I used almost all pro-evolution references, and then I challenged. But now it will be interesting to see another writer’s ideas.

      • Christine Thompson said,

        My apologies!

        The author of “One small speck to man: the evolution myth” [see my above post, a bit earlier today] is VIJ Sodera, not Vic Sodera!

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Well, it’s $1769 at amazon. Is that a misprint?

      • Christine Thompson said,

        Hi Steve,

        Wow! When I mentioned the Vij Sodera book, I had no idea of the current price on your US Amazon site. Have just looked, and yes, it does give that US$1769 you quoted. However, I see they also have it at $17.95, “used, like new”, from an Idaho seller.
        Here in the UK the current price for it I discover is £27.49 [= $42.44]. When i bought it a year or so ago, I paid about £17, if i remember correctly.
        I have a friend in the US, who’s fighting cancer, and she posts on a natural cancer treatment site. My husband had cancer a few years ago, hence my having looked on that site, and she and I became friends ‘across the Pond’, She and I were commenting, some months ago, on the horrific fact that on both amazon sites, some sellers [try to] charge the most outrageous prices for books [whatever their subject]; for eg, some books on the UK site are priced at £3,000, £5000, £9,999.
        £9,999 would be in the region of $15,000!!!
        I have no idea why some sellers carry out this outrageous practise of pricing their goods in this nonsensical way.

        Anyhow, your book is excellent, and certainly would make anyone who has an open mind [which the many ‘evolutionauts’, worldwide, do not have…] realise that today’s ‘orthodox’ scientific establishment is not being honest, with regard to the actual facts. You very succinctly relate the many areas which ‘science’ does not address [properly].

  13. Christine Thompson said,


    I’ve just posted my second response, above, and in it I mentioned that {I paraphrase my earlier words, here} “Even though you’d not mentioned my words re. survival [as the soul/spirit being that we in fact each ARE] of the death of our physical body ‘coat’, I’ll cite just a short representative sample of the many excellent books out there, on this vital subject matter”.

    I’ve just discovered that your reply to my first post had earlier, for some reason, not been printed in its entirety; I now see the second part has printed! In which you did remark on my words re. the spiritual stuff.

  14. Kateryna Loievska said,

    Dear Mr. Blume!
    I am an A Level student and am working towards going on to study Medicine.

    I am currently doing some research as a part of my Extended Project, which is relied to evolution ideas, on a topic: “Which biological structures of Indohyus species evolved and are presented in today’s Cetaceans?”.
    I read some chapters of the book: “Evo-illusion”, which are realted to my topic and I am very grateful to you for the information sharing.

    But I would like to know your opinion on some questions, if it is not really bothering for you:

    – According to the results of a research: “Whales originated from aquatic artiodactyls in the Eocene epoch of India”, hippopotamus and whales unlikely had a common ancestor, as cetaceans originated in South Asia, approximately 50 million years ago, while Hippos started to exist only 15 million years ago, in Asia.
    Based on the other research results, the DNA data analyses showed that the family Hippopotamidae is the closest relative to the cetaceans.

    What is your personal opinion about the relationship of cetaceans and hippopotamus?

    – Do you believe that some species of today’s animals might change the land type of life to marine?

    – Do you believe that in the later process of the evolution cetaceans might develop gills?

    Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to hearing from you.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Hi Kateryna
      Thanks for purchasing my book. Firstly, common ancestry isn’t possible. This is proved by purely objective study. It’s not just a notion I pulled out of my head. No body part or biological system could spread from species to species if common ancestry were valid. We wouldn’t see the shared biological systems and body parts we see today. I have an entire chapter on the subject. (Chapter 11) Evolution is not a possible source for all of living nature, so no land animal will wind up with gills. Evolution is not a choice for the origin of species and all living nature. What is? We aren’t within light years of answering that question. We have made up fables to explain it that are no better than ancient fables. Good luck with your medical studies. My son did the same. He is now a radiologist, and really enjoys his work.

  15. a4398 said,

    Hi Steve,
    The more I looked at this blog, it made me remember a bio honors lesson from my freshman year in high school. We were taught that in order for DNA to replicate it would need 2 enzymes, Helicase and polymerase. In order for life to form on Earth billions of years ago, DNA would need to replicate itself in a cell or bacteria that somehow formed. But these two enzymes are not present outside of living cells and bacteria so in order for them to be made the DNA would have to unwind itself without the use of helicase and use an RNA molecule to create a helicase and polymerase protein. But there’s no helicase to create helicase or polymerase which makes the formation of life literally impossible if you think of this situation right?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      You are right on. Why don’t modern scientists realize this? It’s just amazing that evolution killers like this one are ignored as if they don’t exist. Why? I don’t get it. Great point.

      • a4398 said,

        One thing I’ve also wondered about was wisdom teeth. Why do humans have them if they’re useless? They say they are vestigial because our “ancestors” use to eat leaves and junk, but there must be some purpose for them.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        The cosmic creation blueprint isn’t perfect. But it’s still unbelievable. Evolution uses imperfections as evidence FOR evolution. In fact, their only evidence is imperfections. Which shows what BS evolution is. There are far more daunting imperfections than wisdom teeth. Schizophrenia, cancer, pimples… all imperfections. None prove evolution. The human body is 99.8% incredible, and .2% imperfections. Randomness cannot produce that kind of accuracy. If evo is correct, there shouldn’t be schizophrenia, or cancer, etc. etc. They should have evolved out due to natural selection.

  16. Richard Grod said,

    Hey Steve, your continuation of “Evo-illusion” with “Evo-illusion of Man” is very telling of what some experts will do to promote their biased narrative of the missing link. The ways they produce an image of a hominid with only a tooth or maybe part of a cranium is so incredibly misleading that it borders on fraud. Equally, the narrative about the migration out of Africa is missing so many facts that it makes you wonder what these people really studied in school and what discipline their degrees are really in. It’s almost like “Don’t look over there, keep your focus on me.” It’s a good read Steve.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks for the great feedback Rich. When I began researching the chapter on migration, I was pretty sure they at least have that right. That man came out of Africa, then migrated throughout the world. But even that part of the story isn’t possible For me, writing the book created more questions than answers.

  17. albarrs said,

    Steve, I haven’t been to your Website for sometime. I am wondering if you are still maintaining it. I see your last reply was July 2, 2016 at 9:07 pm…

    Al Barrs e-mail

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I am still maintaining this site. But I have been very busy writing books on the subject. My third book just went to the publisher. It’s titled The DNA Delusion, a bit of a takeoff of Dawkins The God Delusion. The other two are Evo-illusion and The Evo-illusion of Man. Trailers are on page one if you are interested. And thanks for asking.

  18. Larry E. Marshall said,

    Steve, I’ve been reading your blog and I am very impressed. You state many of my views only a little bit more succinct. I have used several quotes from different pages of your blog on various postings on my blog (with proper annotation). What I am wondering, is further up your stated, you have not dealt with origins science much but I wonder if you have read “Replacing Darwin-the New Origin of Species” by Nathaniel T. Jeanson. I have had to read it twice to really begin to understand it, and now I am trying to study it and cross-reference it with some criticisms of it at various atheists’ websites. Some seem to be the typical attempts to discredit by not using any facts, although some seem to strike a point. I just wonder if you have read it or have any kind of comment for it. LEMarshall

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I haven’t read it but I will take a look. I am now finishing my third book, “The DNA Delusion” about, of course, the immense credit modern science has to give DNA for evolution to be valid. Dawkins wrote a book called “The God Delusion” about the mistaken notion that if he can disprove the existence of God, he is proving evolution. Of course, this is rubbish. Evolution should be able to stand on its own, scientifically, which it cannot do. So the attack on religion is a distraction. I am now reading a book called “Evolution 2.0”. Interesting that his entire mantra is that cells somehow have intelligence and that gene transfers, transformation, epigenesis, et al are the true driving force for evolution; not random copy errors. His big problem is that DNA and genes can only make proteins, not body parts. So his entire book collapses. Anyway, thanks for the visit. I will take a look at your blog.

      • Bible Research Tools said,

        Steve, you can read a rather lengthy response by Jeanson to a review of his book, here:


      • Bible Research Tools said,


        You are probably already aware of this, but Phillip Johnson claims Dawkins smuggles Intelligent Design into his examples. In other words, Dawkins cheats:

        Dan Ellenburg
        Former Dental Tech, Adak

        P.S. Great Site!

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Dawkins cheats like crazy. He’s a complete charlatan. Try reading this page if you want to see a real obvious cheat.And he knows he’s cheating. And fooling his readers.
        Were we in Adak together? It’s been so long ago for me. Didn’t we play chess?

      • Bible Research Tools said,

        Steve, I couldn’t get your link to work. Are you referring to this one?

        That really does say it all. Thanks for all your research.

        I have read many of Dawkins’ books (I have 17 in my library), and all told I am surprised any scientist believes a word he says. Perhaps they do not, but are afraid for their careers. The same for the charlatan, Ken Miller. The truth is not in them.

        I served as your Dental Tech in 68-69. I was new to the field, so you taught me everything I knew. I went to DT school after Adak, and then to Florida. After the Navy, I got an engineering degree with the G.I. Bill.

        If I recall correctly, you and your wife had your first child in Adak. I also recall you had a big, beautiful, friendly dog, and that you had a Canon camera that took stunning pictures. In fact, it was your pictures that got me interested in photography.

        I am sorta new to the evolution scam. As little as 5 or 6 years ago I believed every word evolutionists said. I didn’t know enough to doubt them, nor really thought about it.

        A friend turned me around when he explained how there was not a shred of evidence for evolution in the fossil record. Until that time, I thought all the evidence was found in the fossil record.

        From that point on, my philosophy has been “verity, then trust”, and thus far I have been able to verify nothing! It is all a big charade — a bunch of “just so” stories, disguised as science, and perpetuated by blatant censorship.

        I have a web site at:

        The “Media | Lectures and Interviews” menu option contains links to many videos on creationism and intelligent design.

        The friend I mentioned earlier developed a “wild” theory on extinction of dinosaurs, etc., that you may be interested in, at:

        Anyway, keep up the good work.


      • stevebee92653 said,

        Gad. It’s so great to hear from you. How did you get to this site? Isn’t it hard to believe Adak was 50 years ago? That base is closed now. There is an interesting vid on what Adak is like now on YouTube. Tami is turning 50 next April. I had a son a couple of years later. (Doug) He is a radiologist in Visalia. Sounds like you were fooled by evo like I was. I was an avid fan until I walked into the Field Museum in 2001, so excited to see all of the new fossils that would show evo without a doubt. And there were none. Which was a catalyst for all of this stuff, and my books. The more you dig, and the more you look, you get the biggest scientific sham in world history. The link I sent you to is page 42 on this blog. My email address is If you send me your address I would love to send you my books. If you want to see what my Adak baby looks like now, I’m on Facebook.

      • Bible Research Tools said,

        Steve, I was not aware the start time would be chopped off. The segment about Dawkins’ smuggling ID into his solutions begins at 29:03.

        Dan Ellenburg

      • Bible Research Tools said,

        Wow! I really made a mess! My apologies. The video link above defaulted to the first video in the playlist. It should be the 4th.

        This is the raw video link, stripped from the playlist. The segment begins at 29:03


      • Bible Research Tools said,


        I am continuously looking for new insight into the evolution scam, and I literally “stumbled” across your site. When I saw your name on Amazon, I told my wife that I worked for a “Stephen Thomas Blume” in Adak about a half-century ago. I realized it was you when I read your “About me” page. Small world!

        It is great to hear you and your family are doing well; and, yes, we played chess, but I seem to recall you routinely beat me, so let’s change the subject. LOL!

        I read page 42, and it appears you quoted from Asimov’s book, “Only a Trillion”; but you were being much too generous to our mathematically-challenged evolutionism friends. Your recalculated number is more in line with Asimov’s. On page 46, Asimov wrote:

        “Using both tables and equations, the number of combinations possible in hemoglobin can be computed. The answer turns out to be 4 x 10^619. . . Let’s agree to call 4 x 10^619 the ‘hemoglobin number'”

        On page 50, he summarizes the magnitude of that number:

        “… let’s be unfailingly generous. Let’s suppose that every hemoglobin molecule that ever possibly existed on Earth is just a little different from every other. It would then be only necessary for our giant computing machine to find any one of 10^50 possibilities. The chances of finding any one of those in three hundred billion years with 10^50 units each turning out a billion answers a second is still only 1 out of 10^390.”

        That is a tough nut to crack!

        Speaking of generous, 300 billion years for the life of our sun is a bit larger than Sagan’s estimate of 10 to 20 billion years (but it is, however, much smaller than the biblical estimate of “for ever” – Psalm 72:17, 78:69, 89:34-37, 104:5; Eccl 1:4; Rev 22:1-2).

        I’ll post more from Asimov on page 42, later today.


      • stevebee92653 said,

        I missed this one. I am supposed to get an email when I get a comment on evo-illusion. But on this one I didn’t. So sometimes a few days go by before I can answer. I remember we were so hooked on our chess wars that we drove Higley crazy. We were battling chess when you were supposed to be doing Higley’s stuff. We were all lucky not to be in Vietnam getting our ass shot at. I remember you being a very fun guy to work with.

        All of Asimov’s numbers work if amino acid molecules have an affinity for each other. Which they don’t. But that doesn’t matter, since the numbers are all so absurd. Seriously discussing 10^190 is a joke on the suckers who believe that nonsense, like I did.

  19. Richard Grod said,

    May the “Strong Force” be with you Steve ……….

  20. Giordano Klar said,

    Steve, I wonder if you’ve ever challenged a neo-Darwinian true believer with this question:

    Let’s say that one day you decide to take evolution into your own hands. You decide to evolve a pack of dogs into whales through Intelligent Selection instead of Natural Selection. Let’s say that you can live for as long as it takes to accomplish this feat. How many millions of years do you think it would take you to selectively breed a pack of dogs into a whale species? Do you think you could do it faster than it supposedly took Pakicetus to evolve into modern whales? You have the advantage of INTELLIGENT selection, so you should be able to do it faster, right?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Wow. What an excellent point. Directed and guided by intelligence, it could never happen. To make your point even more interesting, use the greatest scientists in the world instead of “you”. It would make no difference. Thanks for the comment. I’ll have to add this one to my blog.

      • Giordano Klar said,

        Exactly. It doesn’t matter who does the intelligent selecting — scientist or layman. They would have to sit around and wait for a random code copying error (mutation) to produce a feature that might conceivably be a precursor to a waterproof skin, or a pectoral fin, or a blowhole, etc.

        It’s a great thought experiment. Any honest scientist should realize that it’s never going to happen.

        Humans have been breeding dogs for thousands of years. Have they produced a single feature that could conceivably be intelligently selected for that would be a precursor to full-blown whale features? No, none that I can think of.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        I added your comment to my whale evolution page (19) Thanks

  21. Jürgen Ziegler said,

    In your video-clip ( you mentioned a paper. I couldn’t found the source. Please provide the paper you referred to in the video clip. Thanks! Best regards, Juergen Ziegler (Austria)

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Paper: Evolution and Development of Teeth

      J Anat. 2001 Jul-Aug; 199(Pt 1-2): 153–159.doi: 10.1046/j.1469-7580.2001.19910153.x. PMCID: PMC1594990
      Anatomical Society of Great Britain and Ireland


      This paper concludes: “Simplistically, THE EVOLUTION OF TEETH IS BELIEVED TO HAVE OCCURRED by one of two different mechanisms: (1) TEETH EVOLVED INDEPENDENTLY FROM JAWS from pharyngeal denticles, similar to those found in many extant species such as zebra fish (Smith & Coates, 1998, 2001); (2) TEETH EVOLVED AT THE SAME TIME AS, OR AFTER, JAWS by internalisation of skin denticles (dermal armour) similar to those found on modernday sharks (Reif 1982, reviewed by Smith & Coates, 2001).”

      (So we can conclude from this highly scientific article that teeth either evolved before, during, or after the formation of the jaws. Astounding! Before, during, or after! How can you miss with guesses like this? I’ll take heads AND tails. This information will give you an idea of what Melanie and Paul really know about the evolution of teeth.)

      Most likely this one.

  22. Hanafi Rad said,

    Hi. Only the first book is in kindle (and I bought it and read it years ago in Google Play Books). I would like to read the two other books but there is no kindle option when I click the amazon link.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Both of my latest books are available on Amazon Kindle. Just google Amazon Kindle and go to The DNA Delusion or Evo-illusion of Man. If you have any trouble, let me know.

      • ecokindness said,

        G’Day Steve, love your thought process!
        I was driving today and started to think about a human that gets embarrassed or blushes with a red face…
        …now with what purpose does this trait evolve …and only in humans??

  23. ecokindness said,

    Also, if everything is random and naturally selected for the ultimate benefit of each species why did every animal/organism mutate to get old and die? That seems a very terminating outcome for all species? …the evolution pinnacle is ultimate extinction and has no benefit to any species!

    • Steve Blume said,

      These are great observations. There are so many, evolution should have collapsed so long ago. It shouldn’t have made it out of the 19th century. Thanks for the comments.

  24. Bryce H. Showell said,

    I was reading the tik talik page which I agree with so far but how is the neck explained?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      What do you need to have explained about the neck?

  25. Bob Farnam said,

    Hey Steve, you say that you believe in a supreme intelligence. You state that you don’t know what form that intelligence takes and that we are light years away from ever finding out. In other words,you believe in some sort of intelligent creative force, but are not religious.

    Do you ever worry that this intelligent creative force may be evil or malicious or have some other negative qualities. With all the problems in the world, rape, murder, slavery, etc, it is evident that this intelligent force has a sick sense of humor. How do you reconcile these kind of thoughts and sleep peacefully at night?

    • LXX Researcher said,

      Bob Farnam, you wrote, “Do you ever worry that this intelligent creative force may be evil or malicious or have some other negative qualities. With all the problems in the world, rape, murder, slavery, etc, it is evident that this intelligent force has a sick sense of humor. How do you reconcile these kind of thoughts and sleep peacefully at night?”

      This much we know: atheists who believe there is no higher power than themselves, such as Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot, are the most dangerous people on earth. Those are typically evolutionists, as well. Those who believe in the Biblical God are the least dangerous, and most conducive to create safe neighborhoods and societies.


    • stevebee92653 said,

      I sleep great. I can’t do a thing about the status of the world and nature. Only I do wish it were 20% nicer.

  26. white1948bob said,

    Please take the time to check out The Urantia Book by going to, selecting “read” and then paper 65, “The Overcontrol of Evolution”.

    So much of the stuff you’re discussing on this site could be given a new viewpoint by reading this paper 65.
    Thank you; Bob White.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks for the recommendation. I’ll take a look. I pretty much stay away from religion on this site. Pure science is my game.

      • white1948bob said,

        I can understand keeping away from religious stuff, with all the subjectivity, so if you can use the scientific approach for the study of biological processes like wound healing, and cancerous cell growth and how the human body’s immune system works, please show how you do this.
        The Life Force of living stuff like blood plasma, DNA, RNA, intercellular actions leading up to cell division, why cell division happens, has yet to be scientifically explained.
        How can there be “living” chemicals that communicate cell to cell?
        Advances in the scientific knowledge of how these things work would be of great advantage in advancing the studies in genetic engineering and gene splicing, not to mention the rest of the medical scientific community in the furtherance of human disease treatment.
        The whole spectrum of plant and animal biology would be open to the discoveries made in these areas.
        The new discoveries of substances for wound healing, pain relief, genetic manipulation, etc can only be found by scientists and the scientific approach to knowledge.
        Leave the wishful thinking and prayers to the religious groups, but don’t discount the placebo effect of medical treatment.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You just reviewed my book DNA Delusion. That’s exactly what it discusses. How do all of the biochemicals in our cells swim around like conscious beings. How do they know where to go, and what their functions are? Why does that go away as soon as cells die. I also discuss and ask, how do blood clotting cells know when there is an injury? They go racing around the bloodstream, and as soon as they have a job to do, they KNOW. They know exactly where they are needed, and what they need to do. How does that work? Are they conscious beings? Also what entity guides embryonic differentiation? It sure isn’t DNA. The choices are… zero. There are no choices. There are so many unanswered questions. We aren’t close to figuring this stuff out. The more we learn, the more there is to learn. And the farther we are from figuring out origins. Thanks for your interesting comment.

      • white1948bob said,

        It was more than just a comment. It was an invitation to read the Urantia Book and seriously consider the contents and the possibilities of it being actually true.

  27. Mildred Martin said,

    Hi Stephen
    Please email me at
    You may want to critique a reply on one of your posts by an evo believer on ape and human sculls. It is under one of my comments and I’m not sure if you’ll see it. I don’t want this guy to follow me asking you so I’m trying to reach you otherwise and then I’ll give you the link
    Thank you!
    Lowell Martin

Leave a Reply to stevebee92653 Cancel reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s