The so called Science of Evolution ' Is anything but Science ! (Page 3)

theHating: Blackie
(Edited by theHating)
1 year ago Report
Super Esquire
Super Esquire: Hating, we already discussed this--darwin's fault.
1 year ago Report
theHating: Sucks
(Edited by theHating)
1 year ago Report
Blackshoes: The truth will remain true! No matter how many times you deceive WC into deleting my forum!
Hate You fear truth! You fear anything that doesn't agree with your assumption and religion of Evolutionary belief s

You'll see soon enough
(Edited by Blackshoes)
1 year ago Report
theHating: Monkey
(Edited by theHating)
1 year ago Report
Blackshoes: That 's fact Jack !

"Darwin Admits Theoretical Limitation of Evolution

“I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” (from a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor, cited in Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, N.C. Gillespie, p.2)

These words are either ignored or buried by those who have invested their lives in Darwinian Theory. When Creationists or Intelligent Design theorists make the accusation that the Theory of Evolution is a pseudo-science and that it is not based upon the principles of the scientific method, we are called religious fanatics or worse.

When the Theory of Evolution is carefully scrutinized, the questions that arise are so devastating that no real criticism can be allowed. We find that the scientific community today is so invested in the naturalistic and materialistic worldview of Darwin, that any and all evidence that questions this Darwinian worldview are suppressed.

Anyone who thinks that this is not true, that somehow those who ascribe to calling themselves “scientists” are somehow righteous and are held to a higher standard of truth are sorely mistaken. It has been the history of science that any challenge to the status quo or the accepted consensus is somehow invalid.

A perfect example of this is what happened to Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (July 1, 1818 - August 13, 1865). He was a Hungarian physician called the "savior of mothers" who discovered, by 1847 that the incidence of puerperal fever could be drastically cut by use of hand washing standards in obstetrical clinics. Even though Semmelweis had a large influence on Joseph Lister, the Father of modern antiseptic surgery, the work and writings of Semmelweiss were ridiculed by his contemporaries for decades.

In 1861, Semmelweis finally published his discovery in the book "Die Ätiologie, der Begriff und die Prophylaxis des Kindbettfiebers" (German for "The Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever" ) of which Semmelweis sent copies to medical societies and also to leading obstetricians in Germany, France, and England. A number of unfavorable foreign reviews of the book prompted Semmelweis to lash out against his critics in series of open letters written in 1861-1862, which did little to advance his ideas. At a conference of German physicians and natural scientists, most of the speakers rejected his doctrine.

In 1856, Semmelweis' successful results at the clinic of the University of Pest were announced in the Viennese Medical Weekly (Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift). The editor remarked sarcastically that it was time people stopped being misled about the theory of chlorine washings.. This is sometimes translated into English as "it was time to stop the nonsense of hand washing with chlorine."

In July of 1865, Dr. Semmelweis suffered what we characterized as a nervous breakdown. Much of this could be directly attributed to the rejection of his seminal work in the area of antiseptic practices and disease prevention. He had theorized what would become the “Germ Theory” decades before that same theory would replace the status quo of the Miasma Theory or the theory of bad air producing disease.

Today a grand hoax is being perpetrated on our society. It is come in the form of a theory that is derived from a book entitled The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. A man who by his own admission was honest enough to write the following concerning his own Theory of Evolution, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
(Edited by Blackshoes)
1 year ago Report
G R E A s E
(Post deleted by Blackshoes 1 year ago)
Blackshoes: So you say
(Edited by Blackshoes)
1 year ago Report
Blackshoes: It's unbelievable that anyone could be so easily swayed by the fairytale of abiogenesis. No matter how much they try to make the impossible plausible it remains impossible!

Serious; how can any reasonable, logical, intelligent Man or Woman '. Believe this kind of complexity could have magically come about by chance, and imagined prosses plus eons of unknown amounts of time within an imaginary primordial ocean without any evidence whatsoever!

Note that every one of the symbiotic relationships within a cell would have to happen simultaneously! Evolutionist makes believe that life is so easily obtained and simple that all we have do is fill a jar with a few amino acids and poof life will develop

(Edited by Blackshoes)
1 year ago Report
Angry Beaver
Angry Beaver: Hating, allegedly you are going to hell and Bobbi and zeff are in a gay relationship

"Blackshoes: The rules are simple! Always agree with my delusions!! Only a simpleton wouldn't be able to understand.

on ya bro!
(Edited by Angry Beaver)
1 year ago Report
Blackshoes: More accusation form troll thinking himself. A little less than Ape or bacteria.
Grow up
(Edited by Blackshoes)
1 year ago Report
Blackshoes: "Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong.
The body and soul of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates between the old species and the new.
The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the "evolutionary tree" have many laughable flaws. One of the best examples of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable to his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is useless? The Theory of Evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species, not the weakest. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage. This is the opposite of natural selection. According to natural selection, the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny.
We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing, so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.
The theory of "natural selection" is the basis and foundation for the Theory of Evolution. The existence of birds literally destroys the theory of natural selection, sending the Theory of Evolution crashing like Tweety Bird below. The rest of this page stomps and grinds into dust the failed Theory of Evolution.

Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
Evolutionists say birds grew hollow bones for less weight in order to fly. How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing? The idea that birds or anything else has million-generation evolutionary plans is childish. The evolutionary concept of growing a wing over millions of generations violates the very foundation of evolution, natural selection.
Birds aren't the only species that proves the theory of natural selection to be wrong. The problem can be found in all species in one way or another. Take fish for example. We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beach where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite a multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story. The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe air on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water. One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard. If you believe this evolutionary nonsense, you need psychiatric help.
Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period. The fossil record (petrified bones found in the ground as at the Dinosaur National Park in Jensen, Utah, USA) shows no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs? They do not not exist, because the dinosaurs did not evolve.
Books published by evolutionists have shown the giant Cetiosaurus dinosaur with the long neck extending upright eating from the treetops. They claimed natural selection was the reason Cetiosaurus had a long neck. This gave them an advantage in reaching fodder that other species could not reach. One day during the assembly of a skeleton for a museum display someone noticed the neck vertebrae were such that the neck could not be lifted higher than stretched horizontally in front of them. The natural selection theory was proven to be a big lie. The Cetiosaurus dinosaur was an undergrowth eater. The long neck actually placed the Cetiosaurus at a disadvantage in his environment, just the opposite from the natural Theory of Natural Selection. Evolutionists will now claim the animal evolved a long neck because he had the advantage of eating from bushes on the other side of the river. This is typical of the stupid logic of an evolutionist.

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong.
The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic, and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar-looking species and claim they evolved one from another. The human "family tree" is an example of this flawed theory. Petrified skulls and bones exist from hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes, elephants or the Platypus. The pictures are placed in all of the textbooks that evolutionists use to teach kids this nonsense. The pictures are simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.
Close to the Missing Link -- Oldest Human Ancestor Discovered.
Why do they claim the above discovery is "close to the mission link." The answer is simple. Look at the picture. It is a monkey. A monkey species that has become extinct. Lot of species have become extinct. Thousands of species have become extinct. It is obviously not similar to a human. Look at the feet with the big toe spread away from the smaller toes exactly like a modern chimpanzee, not like people. A newly discovered extinct species does not prove a "missing link" has been found. Don't let them brainwash you with this nonsense.
Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species. Evolutionists try to form these individual species into a link according to similar major features such as wings or four legs, but this simply proves the Theory of Evolution to be a fraud. Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct, but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong.
The presence of individual species actually proves they were not developed by an evolutionary process. If evolution were true, all plants, animals, and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical, because they would not be separate species. All life forms would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing, and every animal, insect, and plant would be different. The cheetah above proves evolution does not exist. All species are locked solidly within their DNA code.
Evolutionists are going ape over "Ape-Girl."
The fossilized bones of a new animal have been found in Ethiopia near the site where "Lucy" was discovered many years ago. By the way, Lucy was a monkey, not an early humanoid. The number of bones of the Ape-girl skeleton are unique because Lucy had only a few head fragments. This find gives us a lot of information about the animal because major parts of the skeleton were unearthed (assuming these are all from the same animal). It has teeth in the jaw and is said to also have unerupted teeth still within the jaw. The evolutionists call the animal a "human-like" female child about three years of age and an "individual." This is not a "human-like" fossil. It is an "ape-like" fossil because it was an ape. Duh!
The evolutionists call the animal a "transitional species" and a human ancestor even though it has a head exactly like a modern-day ape. The jaw is thrust forward and the forehead pushed back and slanted. The true appearance is more easily seen from side picture below.
Ape-girl also has arms "that dangled down to just above the knees. It also had gorilla-like shoulder blades which suggest it could have been skilled at swinging through trees." It looks like an ape. It has a head like an ape. It has arms like an ape. It has shoulder blades like an ape. It is obviously an ape, not a human, pre-human or humanoid. Evolutionists simply will not accept the obvious. This animal is simply a young ape. Its size is as would be expected for a young modern-day ape.
Scientists call these ape-like features "evolutionary baggage." In other words, these scientists are discrediting their own evolutionary theory of "natural selection." They are calling the ape-like features unnecessary "baggage." The theory of natural selection is not supposed to have unnecessary baggage, remember?
The age of this fossilized animal is also very much in doubt. Scientists many years ago claimed a tooth found was Nebraska Man, a pre-human fossil millions of years old. They determined the age of the tooth. The scientists had sculptured an entire ape-like skeleton from information they found in one tooth. These lies were exposed when real scientists found the tooth to be from a modern-day pig.
'Lucy's baby' found in Ethiopia - BBC News - September 21, 2006.

"The 3.3-million-year-old fossilised remains of a human-like child have been unearthed in Ethiopia's Dikika region. The find consists of the whole skull, the entire torso, and important parts of the upper and lower limbs. CT scans reveal unerupted teeth still in the jaw, a detail that makes scientists think the individual may have been about three years old when she died."
"Remarkably, some quite delicate bones not normally preserved in the fossilisation process are also present, such as the hyoid, or tongue, bone. The hyoid bone reflects how the voice box is built and perhaps what sounds a species can produce. Judging by how well it was preserved, the skeleton may have come from a body that was quickly buried by sediment in a flood, the researchers said. "In my opinion, afarensis is a very good transitional species for what was before four million years ago and what came after three million years," Dr Alemseged told BBC science correspondent Pallab Ghosh. "In my opinion, afarensis is a very good transitional species for what was before four million years ago and what came after three million years," Dr Alemseged told BBC science correspondent Pallab Ghosh. "[The species had] a mixture of ape-like and human-like features. This puts afarensis in a special position to play a pivotal role in the story of what we are and where we come from.""
Climbing ability
"This early ancestor possessed primitive teeth and a small brain but it stood upright and walked on two feet. There is considerable argument about whether the Dikika girl could also climb trees like an ape. This climbing ability would require anatomical equipment like long arms, and the "Lucy" species had arms that dangled down to just above the knees. It also had gorilla-like shoulder blades which suggest it could have been skilled at swinging through trees. But the question is whether such features indicate climbing ability or are just "evolutionary baggage"."
Evolution is in trouble. The growth of biological knowledge is producing scientific facts that contradict the evolutionary theory, not confirm it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology." The fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary theory, which claims there once existed a series of successive forms leading to the present-day organism. The theory states that infinitesimal changes within each generation evolve into a new species, but the scientific fact remains. They don't. Fossils prove the sudden emergence of a new species out of nowhere, complete with characteristics unknown in any other species. The fossil record has no intermediate or transitional forms. This is popularly known as the "missing link" problem, and it exists in all species. The missing link problem is getting worse, not better, with the discovery of more fossils. The missing links are not being discovered, which proves they never existed. Darwin assumed transitional forms would be discovered in the fossil record over time, but that has not been the case. The fossil record, or lack thereof, is a major embarrassment to evolutionists. The fossil record is a serious rebuke of the Theory of Evolution. New species literally explode onto the scene out of nowhere. New fossil discoveries continue to prove evolution to be wrong.
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton.
Michael Denton says,
"Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin."
A reader of the Michael Denton's book says,
"Denton a Molecular Biologist removes all of the supports (if there ever were any) from Darwin's theory of macro-evolution (continuity of life). Denton blasts all of the previous arguments made by the pro-evolutionists showing that there is essentially no support of macro-evolution in the fossil record. He also, clearly demonstrates that there is no support coming from his specialty molecular biology. In the end the only sound explanation he can make is that life is profoundly discontinuous."
Harvard Professor Gould claims that evolution occurs in spurts, not gradually. This theory attempts to explain the lack of continuity in the fossil record. However, this theory is more troublesome than the gradual change theory. Large jumps or spurts in the fossil record don't prove evolution at all. In fact, they disprove evolution. The theory that evolution can occur in spurts, because the fossil record shows it did not occur gradually, is a wild stretch of the imagination. Species have some characteristics similar to other species, but similarity doesn't prove any evolutionary link whatsoever. There are more than missing links in biology. There are entire missing chains in 100% of the branches of the false evolutionary tree.
Many species are dependant upon another species for their coexistence. Hummingbirds and flowers are a good example. The flower would not be pollinated and would become extinct without the bird. They are said to have coevolved together. That is a stretch of the imagination without any basis in science. There are hundreds of these examples that cannot be explained by evolutionists.
Charles Darwin had concern about his theory of natural selection. He knew that a failure to find the missing transitional links would seriously cripple his theory of evolution, but he was hopeful the missing links would be found some day. Well, guess what. He died not finding them. Evolutionists have never found the missing links. Each time they announce finding one it is later proven to be false. The Coelacanth fish was touted to be a transitional form with half-formed legs and primitive lungs, ready to transition onto land. This myth was exploded in December, 1938 when a live Coelacanth was caught in a fisherman's net off the eastern coast of South Africa. It is now known that the natives of the Comoro Islands had been catching and eating the fish for years. It did not have half-formed legs or primitive lungs. It was simply a regular fish that people thought was extinct. Click the picture to see an enlargement. Evolutionist claimed the 350 million-year-old Coelacanth evolved into animals with legs, feet, and lungs. That was a lie. We now see that the fish recently caught is exactly like the 350 million-year-old fossil. It did not evolve at all. The Coelacanth is a star witness against the false theory of evolution. After 350 million years the fish still doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Fisherman catches 'living fossil' - BBC News - August 1, 2007.
"The 1.3m-long (4.3ft), 50kg (110lb) coelacanth is only the second ever to have been captured in Asia and has been described as a "significant find". An autopsy and genetic tests are now being carried out to determine more about the specimen. Coelacanths provide researchers with a window into the past; their fossil record dates back 350 million years."
The Archaeopteryx fossil was herald by evolutionists as a significant transitional missing link. The fossil was discovered in a limestone quarry in southern Germany in 1861 and has been debated ever since. The dinosaur creature appears to be a reptile with bird characteristics of wings and feathers. It had the skeleton of a small dinosaur with a tail, fingers with claws on the leading edge of the wing, and teeth in the jaws.
The owners of the property discovered six fossils of which only two had feathers. This inconsistency smells of fraud from the beginning. Upon close examination the feathers appear to be identical to modern chicken feathers. Click the picture to see an enlargement.
The Archaeopteryx fossils with feathers have now been declared forgeries by scientists. "Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement" according to Dr. Walt Brown's book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page148.
This is simply another forgery by evolutionists in a desperate attempt to prove Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Evolutionists can lie and commit fraud without blinking an eye. This example would not have proven evolution even if the feathers had not been forgeries. Finding a few species with characteristics similar to two other species does not prove a link. There should be millions or billions of transitional links if evolution were true, not simply a few.
Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth. Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and molding them into complex theories. They modify fossil evidence in an attempt to support their false theories. Cheat, cheat, cheat. Lie, lie, lie.
The Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus), with its duck bill and webbed feet, is a unique Australian animal. It and the two species of echidna are the only monotremes or egg-laying mammals to be found on earth. The marsupials (mammals with pouches, e.g. kangaroos) and eutherians (placental mammals that give birth to well-developed young, e.g. humans) both give birth to live young. The monotremes have lower body temperatures than other mammals and have legs which extend out, then vertically below them. These features, together with their egg-laying ability, are more like that of a lizard than a mammal. Platypus are readily identified by their streamlined body, webbed feet, broad tail, and characteristic muzzle or bill which is soft and pliable. The Platypus males have spurs on their hind feet that deliver a poisonous venom like a snake. A Platypus sting is powerful enough to make people sick and kill a dog. Click the picture to see an enlargement.
The Platypus of Australia has characteristics of many species but certainly is not the missing link to all of them. In fact, it is not a link to any of them. The Platypus has made a joke and a mockery of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and his unproven theory of natural selection.
April 6. 2006 - Tiktaalik is the latest fossil gap evolutionary fraud.

Scientists fraudulently claim a newly-discovered fish is the second bridge fossil gap between sea and land creatures. The scientists have apparently forgotten that the first fossil gap, Archaeopteryx, shown above was also a fraud. Tiktaalik therefore becomes fossil gap fraud number 2. Click the picture to see an enlargement.
"Called "Tiktaalik" by scientists, the fish lived in shallow, swampy waters. Most remarkably, the creature, which was less than 3 feet long, had the body of a fish but the jaws, ribs, and limb-like fins seen in the earliest land mammals." The claim that the stubby little fossil fins are "limb-like" is a real hoot. The fish doesn't even have fins as large as expected for its size. The scientists are claiming the fish walked around on the ground out of water and breathed air. This is pure make-believe speculation. No evidence exists that the fish is anything more than just another species.
The excitement about the Tiktaalik fossil is puzzling. Modern-day seals have fins and waddle around on the ground. Modern-day catfish have fins and walk around on the ground. Catfish can live out of water for a long time. Tiktaalik does not provide any support for evolution.
Test: If you believe the nonsense that Tiktaalik is a fossil gap species, you are brainwashed.
Evolutionists are now claiming that a dolphin captured with two little extra fins near the tail is proof that dolphins evolved from four-footed animals related to the dog. Click the picture to see an enlargement.
Dolphin with four-wheel drive stuns the scientists - November 5, 2006.
"Experts believe that the dolphin's ancestor was a dog-like creature which roamed the earth many millions of years ago. And now the extraordinary discovery of a bottlenosed dolphin with an extra set of flippers has provided living proof of the theory. At first glance it looks like any other of its kind. But closer inspection reveals a rogue set of rear fins. Each the size of a human hand, the fins are thought to be the remains of a pair of hind legs, adding to evidence that dolphins once walked on all fours."
This is nonsense, folks. First, evolutionists tell us that land animals evolved from sea creatures. Now they are trying a new approach, claiming sea creatures evolved from land animals. Dog are still dogs, but they claim that some of the dogs long ago evolved into dolphins. These "scientists" claim the dolphin evolved from the dog while the rest of the dogs didn't evolved into anything. They simply remained dogs.
These "scientists" are not scientists. No scientific evidence exists for these evolutionary theories. This article is an attempt to brainwash the naive. Don't be fooled by these claims. Evolutionists typically use words like "may have evolved" or ""probably evolved" because they lack scientific proof. The truth is obvious here.
God created many species of dolphins. This is simply one species that is very rare.
The Fossil Record is Clear

Click the image to see full scale.
One Day in the Past
There Were Trilobites

Click the image to see 1/10 scale.
The Next Day

Scientific Fact No. 3 - Missing Inferior Evolutionary Branches.
The Theory of Evolution states that minute improvements in an individual within a species increases the likelihood of survival of the offspring. These small steps of improvement continue for countless years until the individuals are changed to such a large extent that a new species has appeared. This progression is an uninterrupted branch of the "evolutionary tree." These lines of progression can be seen in any biology text book for many species, including mankind. They almost look believable, but they are a lie.
The siblings of an individual on the uninterrupted branch may fail to develop the minute improvement and may even suffer from an inferior evolutionary change. Each of these individuals represents a new branch on the tree that is moving away from the uninterrupted branch. Let us say we have 100,000 coexisting individuals in a species such as a horse. Only a few of these individuals will begin new branches that will eventually become a new species such as a Zebra. The other 99,999 individuals may each begin a neutral or inferior branch that may continue for millions of years but will eventually stop, because the last individual on the branch fails to produce an offspring. The odds that the branch will stop producing offspring is increased when the minute evolutionary changes are inferior. The theory of survival of the fittest or natural selection also works in reverse to produce death to the branch where the changes are inferior. The branch stops. This part of the tree is dead.
We see in Scientific Fact No. 2 above that the missing intermediary individuals in the branch of the evolutionary tree present a serious problem for the Theory of Evolution. One superior individual of the 100,000 is missing, but now we have an even more serious defect in the theory. Where are the 99,999 inferior branches? Yikes! How could 99,999 branches go missing?
Actually, the fossil record shows that everything is missing. No individuals of the species existed. None. Most layers of the earth's crust are completely devoid of all life, but then a layer will appear that is teaming with an absolute abundance of separate species, each containing millions of individuals.
This hypothesis of the "missing inferior evolutionary branches" was developed and posted here by the author, Kent R. Rieske, on March 21, 2008. Thousands of biology professors at universities around the world, including Darwin, have completely missed this serious deficiency in the fossil record, because they have only been searching for the superior evolutionary branches, not the inferior branches. Where are the fossils of horses with weak bones that fractured early in life and thereby prevented an offspring from continuing the branch? They don't exist, but they should if the Theory of Evolution were true. In fact, the fossil record should be full of dead branches. It is not. The fossil record simply shows individual species that have become extinct.

Scientific Fact No. 4 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong.
Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water, causing several molecules to combine in a random way, which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals. The Theory of Evolution claims that organic life was created from inorganic matter. That is impossible. The top scientists in the world with unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into a single organic living cell.
The smallest living cell has the complexity of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet airplane. The components of the smallest living cell have the obvious arrangement showing intelligent design, just as the Boeing 747 did not appear from random parts stacked near each other in a junk yard. The minimal cell contains more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.
The smallest single-cell creature has millions of atoms forming millions of molecules that must each be arranged in an exact pattern to provide the required functions. The cell has an energy-producing system, a protective housing, a security system to let molecules into and out of the housing, a reproductive system, and a central control system. This complexity required an intelligent design. It is much too complex to happen by chance.
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton page 263.
The odds that the correct proteins could somehow come together in a functional configuration to make a living cell are so high that it will never happen. The thought that anything can be accomplished by chance given enough time is a myth and a lie. Some people foolishly believe that anything can be accomplished given enough time. That concept is false.
Life Itself: Exploring the Realm of the Living Cell
Darwin’s Black Box by Michael J. Behe.
A reader of Dr. Michael Behe's book says,
"In "Darwin's Black Box," Dr. Behe addresses but one issue - whether evolutionary theory can adequately explain the "enormous complexity" found within the living cell. He concludes that intelligent design alone can explain such "irreducible complexity." While others have argued the value of the biological issues involved, the perspective of a philosopher would be how Behe approaches the concept of finality in nature, a finality which he insists bespeaks intelligent design."
"Behe's arguments rest on "extrinsic" finality. The classic example is William Paley's famous watch, whose parts are clearly put together and directed to an end outside their individual natures by an intelligent agent. According to Behe, if intracellular mechanisms exist that cannot be explained in terms of stepwise mutations, this shows the need for an extrinsic agent, an intelligent designer assembling the cell's discrete parts for a common goal. This argument is similar to, but clearly distinct from, the "intrinsic" finality central to Thomas Aquinas' famous Fifth Way. Intrinsic finality differs in that the end is achieved from within a thing's nature and by its own powers. Aquinas claims that natural bodies act always, or nearly always, to attain the same ends. For example, physical masses obey universal gravitational tendencies that did not evolve, but are simply a cosmic "given." Read in context, Aquinas identifies a single intelligent being who is the God of tradition as governing all natural agents' intrinsic tendencies toward ends, thus establishing the universal regulations of nature which underlie all scientific laws. Since biological evolution itself presupposes the basic physical and chemical laws governed by intrinsic finality, Aquinas entirely escapes the criticisms lodged against extrinsic finality as employed in 'Darwin's Black Box.'"
Charles Darwin made a sketch in his notebook in about July 1837 that has come to be known as the Tree of Life. Darwin developed the Tree of Life theory, claiming that some species were lower in the branches of the tree and evolved into the upper branches. He selected species that looked similar to each other and placed them together, like placing the zebra below the horse.
Charles Darwin knew nothing about DNA, the true scientific key to life. He had no concept whatsoever regarding the complexity of DNA. Life did not originate by the accidental sticking together of a few molecules as Darwin taught. Darwin did not know that the key to a person's identity (DNA) is locked solid in every cell of the body. The DNA does not change because of external adaptation to the environment as taught by Darwin and still falsely taught in universities by biology professors. DNA changes only when an egg and sperm are joined to form a new DNA with chromosomes coming from the male and female donors. The DNA of the baby is strictly controlled by the parents' chromosomes. It cannot be changed by external environmental influences either. The DNA of all life forms, including plants and trees, absolutely destroys Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Environmental influence does not change the DNA in plants, animals or humans. Any scientist with a lick of brains that have not been brainwashed knows that everything Darwin wrote is pure nonsense.
Scientists have now solidly proven that 80% of the life forms in Darwin's Tree of Life have DNA much different from the adjacent lower DNA and could not have evolved from the predecessor. Some animals have DNA sequences that are identical to sequences in plant DNA, but they obviously could not be related according to the Theory of Evolution. Even brainwashed evolutionists admit that the cheetah did not evolve from a mushroom.
The reason why some animal DNA have sequences identical to those of plant DNA is known by those who accept scientific truth. The two DNA had one thing in common. They were both perfectly designed by the same Almighty God, the Creator. This is analogous to things that are designed and created by people. The rear-end differential in a Ford F-750 dump truck is sequentially the same as the read-end differential in a Ford Mustang sports car. They share identical mechanical engineering concepts because they were both designed by the same company. The dump truck simply has parts that are necessarily made larger to handle the higher loads and torques.
Intelligent Design can be Seen in the Smallest Bacteria and the Largest Galaxy
The scientific study of complex biological structures has made enormous strides in revealing Intelligent design in nature. One example is the motor and propeller propulsion system, called a bacterial flagellum, found in many bacteria, including the common E. coli. The propulsion system of the bacteria has 40 moving parts made from protein molecules, including a motor, rotor, stator, drive shaft, bushings, universal joint, and flexible propeller. The motor is powered by ions and can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm. It can reverse direction in only 1/4 of a revolution and has an automatic feedback control mechanism. The size is 1/100,000 of an inch (1/4,000 mm) in width, much too small to see with the human eye. One cannot deny the obvious conclusion that this system has an Intelligent Designer. The evolutionists pray for an explanation to save the collapse of Darwinism. Creationism has become the true science, and Darwinism has degenerated into a a false religion, the worship of "father time."
Molecular Motors in Bacterium - University of Michigan.
"The ATP Synthase motor has the classic stator and rotor structure familiar in man-made motors. It spans a cellular membrane which admits protons (H+) one at a time. For each proton, the motor turns once, adding a phosphate to adenosine di-phosphate and converting it to adenosine tri-phosphate, the universal fuel source of cells."
Molecular Motor in Algae Cells Work Together - Science Daily - February 25, 2009.

Scientific Fact No. 5 - Human Egg and Sperm Prove Evolution is Wrong.
The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The human female like other mammals has XX sex chromosomes, and the male has XY sex chromosomes. The female egg contains the X-chromosome, and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a female or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a male. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent genetic change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.
Human pride prevents people from admitting they are wrong for their belief in Charles Darwin's evolutionary myth.
The male sperm are created very differently from the female egg. The sperm are created in the testes of a male on a daily basis. This short time period between the creation of the sperm and conception within the female precludes any possibility that the male can be a part of the evolutionary process. A harsh winter, or some other environmental condition does not affect the testes in any way that would alter the chromosomes in the sperm. Therefore, the male could not possibly contribute to evolutionary change caused by the environment. This fact applies to humans as well as all other mammals. There are no ways possible whereby environmental adaptation could occur through the male part of the chromosome. Neither is there any scientific evidence that environmental experiences change the genetic code within the sperm. Males cannot be a part of the evolutionary process for these reasons. These scientific facts prove evolution of the human species caused by environmental adaptation or any other reason is impossible.

Scientific Fact No. 6 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong.
The scientific fact that DNA replication, including a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process, proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is, any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
Chromosomes, Chromatin, DNA Replication and Repair
"Replication also contains built-in error checking. The frequency of errors is about 1 per 100 million bonds (1 x 10-8). Over the entire human genome, that works out to roughly 30 errors every single time the genome replicates. BUT! There are really only around three errors per replication because of DNA repair. If a repair enzyme finds a mistake, it can fix it, and it can tell which strand is wrong because it can tell which strand is the newly synthesized strand by at the extent of cytosine methylation. As DNAs exist in cells, many of the cytosines have a methyl group added to them by enzymes called methylases. A new DNA will have relatively few methylated cytosines because it has not been around long enough to have picked up that many methyl groups."
"Without DNA repair there can be some major problems. Xeroderma pigmentosum is a serious ailment caused by mutations in the gene for DNA repair. People with xp develop many skin tumors and other problems because of the number of errors in their DNA."
Mutation, Mutagens, and DNA Repair Outline
Mutations (DNA replication errors) are the result of DNA that is replicated with damage that passes on to the offspring. Mutations are very rare because of DNA checking and repair. However, one in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule can result in a mutation (error). The mutation changes are random, unpredictable errors that cause crippling diseases, loss of function and the destruction of the host person or animal. Mutations destroy the species. They do not improve the species. Mutations never lead to a new species as falsely claimed by evolutionists.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Evolutionists believe in the mutation theory for the origin of the many species. They believe the "time god" does this by messing-up. Tick - tock -tick - tock - the "time god" makes mistake after mistake after mistake until VOILA -- we have a hummingbird that can fly backwards. They claim that multiple mutation mistakes eventually led to humans with color vision that can focus at different lengths and two eyes that are coordinated by the brain in order to judge distances. The mutation theory is nonsense, folks. If you believe the mutation theory check yourself into a mental health clinic someplace. Tell them you have schizophrenia because you live in a make-believe world.
Evolutionists, even doctors of biology, believe the mutation nonsense, but they have a hissy fit at the thought that nuclear radiation could possibly cause a mutation. They start nutty, false rumors that three-eyed frogs are being found near a nuclear power plant. If the mutation theory were true they should be overjoyed at the thought that nuclear radiation could possibly create a three-eyed frog by mutation. They should go around radiating everything in sight in order to speed up the evolution of a new species. Evolutionists should irradiate themselves. Perhaps they would grow a brain by mutation.

Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong.
The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics, which has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. The Theory of Evolution is contrary to proven scientific truth.
The universe is slowing down to a lower state, not higher. The genes of plants, insects, animals, and humans are continually becoming defective, not improving. Species are becoming extinct, not evolving. Order will always move naturally toward disorder or chaos, unless changed by an intelligent being.
Quoting from the book, Evolution and Human Destiny, by Kohler, "One of the most fundamental maxims of the physical sciences is the trend toward greater randomness - the fact that, on the average, things will get into disorder rather than into order if left to themselves. This is essentially the statement that is embodied in the Second Law of Thermodynamics." This scientific law actually refutes and contradicts the Theory of Evolution in its entirety. The whole universe is not getting better and more specialized. It is running down. It is wearing out as predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Scientific Fact No. 8 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong.
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. 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. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.
When your dog is going to have a litter, don't worry that she will have a litter of monkeys or cats. She will always have a litter of puppies. The fact that she will have puppies was determined when her chromosomes joined with her mate's chromosomes at conception. You see, a dog has only 22 chromosomes, whereas a monkey has 54 and cats have 38. Half of the total number of chromosomes are contained in the female reproductive cells and half are contained in the male, so the exact total number is brought together in the offspring.
Humans have 46 chromosomes. This chromosome count is a steady factor. This determines what is called the "fixity of species" because the chromosome count doesn't vary. People always give birth to people. Dogs always give birth to dogs, etc. The genes can produce variety within the species but cannot result in a different species. Genes allow for people to be short, tall, fat, thin, blond, brunette, etc., but they are still all human beings. The chromosomes make crossing of the species an un-crossable barrier. This certainly would hinder any evolution. Dogs cannot breed with cats. This fact stops evolution dead in its tracks.
Sometimes two species are close enough to crossbreed, but the offspring are usually sterile. This is the case when horses and donkeys crossbreed. A male donkey (jackass) and a female horse (mare) will produce a mule. Farmers often preferred mules as work animals prior to the development of the farm tractor. A hinny is the offspring of a female donkey (jenny) and a male horse (stallion). The hinny and mule usually cannot produce offspring. These animals show that evolution is not possible."
1 year ago Report
theHating: Penis
(Edited by theHating)
1 year ago Report
Blackshoes: Modern-day pre-Cambrian organism are everywhere today all over your hands ..Have you never heard Of Bacteria

Odd: Bacteria is still Bacteria after over 3 billion years according to Evolutionary predictions ', yet they haven't evolved at all?? Hmm. Go figure

Discoveries have shown there are many fossils in the Precambrian. In Australia, these ‘oldest’ fossils are remarkably diverse, abundant and well preserved.
For example, algae fossils (stromatolites) are very widespread in rocks dated as Precambrian.
Microscopic fossils and traces of fossils are found throughout Australian Precambrian rocks, and new finds of fossil soft-bodied animals are regularly being made. In the USA, Canada, Mexico, China, Russia, Africa, and India the story is the same. Furthermore, many Precambrian rocks that do not contain recognizable fossils nonetheless contain fossil remains usually in the form of graphite. Such graphite rocks are common in Australian Precambrian rocks.
(Edited by Blackshoes)
1 year ago Report
Blackshoes: "If the earth is billions of years old where's the topsoil?

Scientists point out 'topsoil forms at the rate of about 1 inch per 500 years ' so, there should be approximately 1 million of inches of topsoil in the layers of The Grand Canyon if the Grand Canyon is 550 million years old.

But there isn't any topsoil in the layers of The Grand Canyon.

If the dirt that should be there had eroded then the sand would have eroded along with it.

This link is to the US Geologic site. The Federal Government posts this information for us to read and review and it shows that there is no dirt in 6,000 feet of sediment.

How did 20 layers of sand, shale, limestone, hundreds of feet thick, end up on top of each other (The Grand Canyon) without some dirt in the layers.

Each layer is hundreds of feet thick and does not appear to contain material from the other layers.

145 feet Chinle Fm.
468 feet Moenkopi Fm.
281 feet Kaibab Limestone
291 feet Towoweap Fm.
500 feet Coconino Sandstone
427 feet Hermit Shale
135 feet Esplanade Sandstone
343 feet Wescogame Fm.
229 feet Manakacha Fm.
145 feet Watahomigi Fm.
343 feet Surprise Canyon Fm.
583 feet Redwall Limestone
145 feet Temple Butte Fm.
458 feet Muav Limestone
572 feet Bright Angel Shale
270 feet Tapeats Sandstone
177 feet Kwagunt Fm.
229 feet Galeros Fm.
177 feet Nankoweap Fm.
291 feet Unkar Group

Were the layers in The Grand Canyon deposited over millions of years or . . . in a flood . . . that hardened into rock."
1 year ago Report
Angry Beaver
Angry Beaver: It's magic! Penn and Teller made it disappear........
When are you and zeff tying the knot bobbi?
(Edited by Angry Beaver)
1 year ago Report
Super Esquire
Super Esquire: They say a lie travels around the world before the truth has a chance to get its boots on. But the truth has now gotten its boots on (e.g. through Blackshoes' marvelous postings)
1 year ago Report
Blackshoes: LOL the facts are there for anyone to see ! What you consider true is dependent on whether you can see beyond bias and use enough intelligent and reasons to judge what the evidence states !
Blackshoes is just here to tell the truth, learn ,have fun, and make friends within WC ! So/as to kill and waste time in my last years here on Earth
(Edited by Blackshoes)
1 year ago Report
theHating: Talk about complex molecular biology if you suck balls
(Edited by theHating)
1 year ago Report
Blackshoes: Complex Molecules and Organs

Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are so incredibly complex that claims they evolved are absurd. Furthermore, those claims lack experimental support (a).

a. “There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems.” Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 179.

“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.” Behe, pp. 186–187.
There is no reason to believe that mutations or any natural process could ever produce any new organs—especially those as complex as the eye (b), the ear, or the brain (c).

b. “While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real-time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (ms) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of [1985] Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.” John K. Stevens, “Reverse Engineering the Brain,” Byte, April 1985, p. 287.

“The retina processes information much more than anyone has ever imagined, sending a dozen different movies to the brain.” Frank Werblin and Botond Roska, “The Movies in Our Eyes,” Scientific American, Vol. 296, April 2007, p. 73.

“Was the eye contrived without skill in opticks [optics], and the ear without knowledge of sounds?” Isaac Newton, Opticks (England: 1704; reprint, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931), pp. 369–370.

“Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?” Wernher von Braun (probably the rocket scientist most responsible for the United States’ success in placing men on the Moon) from a letter written by Dr. Wernher von Braun and read to the California State Board of Education by Dr. John Ford on 14 September 1972.

“What random process could possibly explain the simultaneous evolution of the eye’s optical system, the nervous conductors of the optical signals from the eye to the brain, and the optical nerve center in the brain itself where the incoming light impulses are converted to an image the conscious mind can comprehend?” Wernher von Braun, foreword to From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo by Harold Hill (Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International, 1976), p. xi.

b. “The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer’s ‘Melancholia’ is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.” [emphasis in original] Grassé, p. 104.

“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.” Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296.

Although Robert Jastrow generally accepts Darwinian evolution, he acknowledges that:

“It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors.” Robert Jastrow, “Evolution: Selection for Perfection,” Science Digest December 1981, p. 87.

b. Many leading scientists have commented on the staggering complexity of the human eye. What some do not appreciate is how many diverse types of eyes there are, each of which adds to the problem for evolution.

One of the strangest is a multiple-lensed, compound eye found in fossilized worms! [See Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-Bodied Biota,” Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717.]

Another type of eye belonged to some trilobites, a thumb-size, extinct, sea-bottom creature. Evolutionists claim that they were very early forms of life. Trilobite eyes had compound lenses, sophisticated designs for eliminating image distortion (spherical aberration). Only the best cameras and telescopes contain compound lenses. Some trilobite eyes contained 280 lenses, allowing vision in all directions, day and night. [See Richard Fortey and Brian Chatterton, “A Devonian Trilobite with an Eyeshade,” Science, Vol. 301, 19 September 2003, p. 1689.] Trilobite eyes “represent an all-time feat of function optimization.” [Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites, 2nd edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 29–74.] Shawver described trilobite eyes as having “the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature.” [Lisa J. Shawver, “Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution,” Science News, Vol. 105, 2 February 1974, p. 72.] Gould admitted that “The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later arthropods.... I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.” [Stephen Jay Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment,” Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 22–23.]

The brittlestar, an animal similar to a 5-arm starfish, has, as part of its skeleton, thousands of eyes, each smaller than the diameter of a human hair. Each eye consists of a calcium carbonate crystal that acts as a compound lens and precisely focuses light on a bundle of nerves. If an arm is lost, a new arm regenerates along with its array of eyes mounted on the upper-back side of the arm. While evolutionists had considered these animals primitive, Sambles admits that “Once again we find that nature foreshadowed our technical developments.” Roy Sambles, “Armed for Light Sensing,” Nature, Vol. 412, 23 August 2001, p. 783. The capabilities of these light-focusing lenses exceed today’s technology.

c. “To my mind the human brain is the most marvelous and mysterious object in the whole universe and no geologic period seems too long to allow for its natural evolution.” Henry Fairfield Osborn, an influential evolutionist speaking to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in December 1929, as told by Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention (New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1987), p. 57. [Even greater capabilities of the brain have been discovered since 1929. Undoubtedly, more remain.]

“And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe.” Isaac Asimov, “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Smithsonian, August 1970, p. 10.

Asimov forgot that the brain, and presumably most of its details, is coded by only a fraction of an individual’s DNA. Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that DNA is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter known in the universe.

The human brain is frequently likened to a supercomputer. In most respects the brain greatly exceeds any computer’s capabilities. Speed is one area where the computer beats the brain—at least in some ways. For example, few of us can quickly multiply 0.0239 times 854.95. This task is called a floating point operation, because the decimal point “floats” until we (or a computer) decide where to place it. The number of floating point operations per second (FLOPS) is a measure of a computer’s speed. As of this writing, an IBM computer can achieve 3,000 trillion FLOPS (3 petaFLOPS). One challenge is to prevent these superfast computers from overheating. Too much electrically generated heat is dissipated in too small a volume.

Our brains operate at petaFLOPS speeds—without overheating. One knowledgeable observer on these ultrafast computers commented:

“The human brain itself serves, in some sense, as a proof of concept [that cool petaFLOPS machines are possible]. Its dense network of neurons apparently operates at a petaFLOPS or higher level. Yet the whole device fits in a 1 liter box and uses only about 10 watts of power. That’s a hard act to follow.” Ivars Peterson, “PetaCrunchers: Setting a Course toward Ultrafast Supercomputing,” Science News, Vol. 147, 15 April 1995, p. 235.

Also, the 1,400 cubic centimeter (3 pound) human brain is more than three times larger than that of a chimpanzee, and when adjusted for body weight and size, larger than that of any other animal. How, then, could the brain have evolved? Why haven’t more animals evolved large, “petaFLOP” brains?

1 year ago Report
Blackshoes: Communism is the Fruit of Evolution

Karl Marx wanted to dedicate his Das Kaptita1 to Darwin. Marx believed that Darwin’s book contained the basic view of “class struggle in History.” He read Darwin while in prison in December of 1860. “Defending Darwin is nothing new for socialists. The socialist movement recognized Darwinism as an important element in its general world outlook right from the start. When Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859, Karl Marx wrote a letter to Frederick Engels in which he said, ‘… this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.’

Conner, Cliff, “Evolution vs. Creationism: In Defense of Scientific Thinking,” International Socialist Review (Monthly Magazine Supplement to the Militant) (November 1980)

Joseph Stalin carried out the bloodiest massacres in world history by ordering the execution of 20 million people. He believed adamantly that the teaching of evolution would turn one against God and once God was removed, the people would be committed to the state. Pro-Stalin propaganda published in Moscow in 1940 illustrates this:

“I’ll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,’ Joseph [Stalin] said. “`What book is that?’ I enquired. “`Darwin. You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me” E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing house, 1940), pp. 8-12.

Every time a connection is made between Darwin and communism, the secular world cries foul. They become indignant that someone has dared to make this connection. The same protest is made when the Theory of Evolution is associated with the Holocaust. Even though the connections between these two groups, the purges of communism and the final solution of fascism are irrefutable, evolution scientists and secular humanist professors refuse to admit this connection publicly and the protest vehemently any time this connection is made
1 year ago Report
1 year ago Report
(Post deleted by Blackshoes 1 year ago)
1 year ago Report
Angry Beaver
Angry Beaver: You're welcome

Bobbi. u and zeff done it yet?
Man love, so sweet
(Edited by Angry Beaver)
1 year ago Report