Barely a week goes by that I don’t encounter some absolute drivel that exposes the absolutely un-scientific/Superstitious nature of the theory of Evolution.
Such is the scale of the delusion that I have decided to make an ongoing series of Blog posts dedicated to expose one by one the endless claims made by Evolutionists… in their vain attempts to explain the mechanisms by which they believe this ‘Blind Watchmaker’ operates.
By doing so I hope to propagate Faith in the literal Genesis record…esp its Principle of genetics… ‘Kind after its Kind’ as being 100% Scientifically reliable.
The Bible is not anti-reason, or Anti-science, but Anti-Folly and St Paul warns Christians to beware “Science falsely so called”. Why? Because Science poses itself to be an abiter of truth, and a means whereby we are supposed to be able to test the claims of various beliefs… and so via poor reasoning and a zeal to discredit the scriptures Pseudo-science has from the very beginning made claims that the Bible is at variance with scientific reality.
Thus it is essential that the Christian is not deceived by Bogus/ falce science into thinking the scriptures are unreliable, and full of Human invented myth… but are indeed trustworthy… Divine Truth.
Tonight I want to mention a typical example of the sort of tripe that gets swallowed by the average atheist in regards to their Blind Superstitious belief that evolution is true… I was listening to the Radio at work and a DJ was telling a story about how some Vegetarians had lobbied against a Meat eaters ad because they said it was demeaning to vegetarians. With the intension of slagging these Vegos the DJ proceeded to say that “Scientists” say that it was when ‘Apes’ moved away from their pure diet of vegitation towards *eating meat*, that this is what transformed them from Tree Dwelling simpletons into Human super beings that dominated the whole planet!
Now I used to be an evolutionist myself and once upon a time I would have had no problem accepting that claim as being valid. I would not have questioned it at any point… it would have appeared quite believable to me… esp because it eminated from Men in white Overcoats with heaps of University degrees!
To me that was the sane thing to believe… because a Scientist made the claim. It was the most Modern concept, and that to reject it in favour of archaic religion was the Hallmark of a Ludite.
What is miraculous is that somehow God was able to break though this strong delusion I was under and show me just how empty such claims are.
Let me here and now state *There is No science* behind this claim that changing diet from strict vegetation to an omnivorous diet has the power to genetically modify apes into human beings over the process of time. That is 100% conjecture! That claim is as vacuous, and as devoid of valid science as claiming Life originated here on earth via debris or alien visitation from space!
That is how wild it is. That is how whimsical it is!
This example is a typical scenario from which the whole theory of evolution is built!
Evolution is not Valid science. There is no Law of Evolution. It is a superstition dressed up in scientific jargon designed to deceive Humanity into dis-believing the truthfulness and reliability of Bible.
Its as simple as that.
Important Note: We live in an age of Pseudo-science. It is the new religion. Everything from Food to Children are Marketed to us via claims of the most up-to date scientific endorsement. Science has proven Meat, Coffee, eggs are Bad for you. Science has proven Meat, Coffee, Eggs are good for you! BLAR BLAR BLAR! Every Tosser whom gains a research grant discovers they were right! (No matter how ridiculous) Most People cannot distinguish what is legitimate from what is shameful and erroneous conjecture! Heed St Paul and “Beware science Falsely so called!”
(1Tim6vs20) Tim Wikiriwhi
12 thoughts on “Planet of the Apes…whateva. 1Tim6vs20”
Maybe the DJ got it wrong, did he quote an actual scientist who has done the research and published his findings in a peer reviewed Journal?
People cannot distinguish because information circulates globally, rising and setting with the sun in its own orbit of information. Information is not “knowing”. – Baudrillard
Knowledge is not for knowing. Knowledge is for “cutting”. – Foucault
The Dominating Discourse of science is obscuring, it is not informing us. – Archeology of Knowledge – Foucault
It seems to me that, given the number of species that have become extinct, it is not implausible to say that evolution has occurred. What is implausible is to say that Genesis was meant to be interpreted literally. It is a condensed version of a much broader ancient creation-tradition.
Check out “Genesis Revisited” by Zachariah Sitchin.
Do you PJ believe that the proposition that Apes evolved into Humanbeings via changing their diet to include the consumption of meat is a scientific fact?
And there is no need to doubt the littereal Nature of the book of Genesis either as it’s fundamental principles are Iron clad scientifically speaking. As I said, I will be looking at multitudes of individual claims made by evolutionists, and one by one expose how unscientific the whole theory is. Your claim above is another example! It is not scientific to say …”There are so many different species of creatures that have become extinct… that it is not implausible to say that evolution has occured..” That has zero scientific value. It reeks of sheer imagination. And it is very poor reasoning too …on so many levels … eg The Hectors and Maui Dolphins are on the verge of extiction today. When they all die off… there will be less Genes in the world… less species… not more thus this shows Zero evolutionary benifit. there will be less genepools available upon which ‘Evolution can function’! In fact it absolutely disproves evolution! Creatures either survive… or they become extinct! They do not evolve/ morph into new creatures. There will still be Dolphins about… and these dolphins wont be any less dolphin than the Maui or Hectors…. they will simply be dolphins…whom will give birth to more dolphins…. just as the book of Genesis states… ‘Kind after its Kind’ That is the Genetic Law. Mendels Law.
“Do you PJ believe that the proposition that Apes evolved into Humanbeings via changing their diet to include the consumption of meat is a scientific fact?”
No. That’s not fact; it’s not even theory, so far as I can tell; I had never heard that until reading this, and you are, of course somewhat biased, but I have never heard of speciation brought on by diet. It seems far fetched, and you have to wonder what evidence they have, if any.
“And there is no need to doubt the littereal Nature of the book of Genesis either as it’s fundamental principles are Iron clad scientifically speaking.”
Carbon dating suggests that the world is billions of years old. How does the literal interpretation of Genesis account for this?
“As I said, I will be looking at multitudes of individual claims made by evolutionists, and one by one expose how unscientific the whole theory is.”
In it’s current form, the theory is untenable. That’s not to say that species don’t come and go, however — it just means we don’t know how.
“Your claim above is another example! It is not scientific to say …”There are so many different species of creatures that have become extinct… that it is not implausible to say that evolution has occured..” That has zero scientific value. It reeks of sheer imagination. And it is very poor reasoning too …on so many levels … eg The Hectors and Maui Dolphins are on the verge of extiction today. When they all die off… there will be less Genes in the world… less species… not more thus this shows Zero evolutionary benifit. there will be less genepools available upon which ‘Evolution can function’! In fact it absolutely disproves evolution! Creatures either survive… or they become extinct!”
I’m having trouble envisioning a world in which men and dinosaurs coexisted. And why is it that certain species which are extinct bear such close resemblance to other species, which have not (e.g., the wooly mammoth and the elephant, or the sabre tooth tiger and the lion). There are not enough “missing links” to make Darwinism believable, but there are too many “links” to not suggest that something like evolution has occurred.
It’s ok to claim ignorance if there’s not enough information to be had on the subject. I do.
“They do not evolve/ morph into new creatures.”
They do adapt. This has been proven. Which shows that the genome is by no means set in stone.
You don’t have to embrace blind chance to entertain the idea that speciation may have occurred.
Pj. You are raising many questions which are of the sort I hope to answer in this series of blog posts.
I am glad we agree that this ‘Meat diet’ idea as the impetus to Human evolution from Apes is patently absurd, yet you ought not to be surprised some evolutionary theorists put it on the table. Evolution is nothing more than a series of such absurdities. An example that comes to mind is ‘The Aquatic Ape theory’ where by Man was theorized to have gained his upright posture via Apes whom loved to swim!
Just a few points to some of the issue you raise:
The Bible does not set a date for the creation of the world, and it also talks about different Epochs punctuated by cataclysms (more than one). Thus it is my belief that the Dinosaurs inhabited the Earth in an Pre-Adamite age prior to Genesis 1 (which is not the creation of the Planet, but a restoration) Thus I don’t believe that man shared the Earth with Tyrannosaurus Rex either, Yet the fact that sardines cohabitate an ocean populated with great white sharks just goes to show that It it not impossible for tiny critters to flourish while sharing a habitat with monsters.
When it comes to Carbon Dating, the results must always pass through ‘a filter’… they must run the gauntlet through the Biased minds of the zealous evolutionists who is always looking to prove there own ideas. This means dates that come back which conflict with their theories are automatically discounted as anomalies or ‘faulty’. Dating methods are highly suspect. Some are calibrated using fossils to date strata they are found in… this is a pure assumption that such and such a fossil is actually as old as they suppose. There is a circular reasoning here… fossils date the strata and strata dates the fossils. This is not just a paleontologist vice. Archaeologists are also constantly filtering/ fiddling the Carbon dating to suit their own theories. Just watch TV shows like ‘Time team’ and you will see how rabidly one eyed these ‘experts’ are in trying to prove their own pet theories.
Now for The Mammoths and Saber tooth.
Evolution claims New Genes somehow Materialize (which has never been witnessed). Extinction is the very opposite thing to evolution… it is a De-materialisation of Genes( and is commonly witnessed)
Mammoths are a type of Elephant. Saber tooth are a form of Cat. That there still exist Elephants and cats shows zero evolution. Evolution is the transmutation of Species such as Fish to Reptile, reptile to Mammal, etc… which requires New Genes to somehow write themselves into the gene pool, and this ‘Macro-Evolution *Never happens* . What has been deceptively labeled ‘micro evolution’ is nothing more than variations which are completely within the realms of the existing Gene pools of the species, thus dont require any new genes. I will be repeating much of this stuff in future posts yet lets go back to the Book of Genesis again and the Story of Adam and Eve.
The Bible claimed thousands of years ago that all mankind are one family. and that with the process of Time various groups of people separated themselves into isolated gene pools from which all the races of human beings are derived. From Pygmy to Nordic giant… we are all humans, and all outward traits that distinguish us as Asian, African, European, etc come about not by any new genes, but mere by the Dominant and recessive genes that were prevalent in each separate gene pool. Do you know that One human pair can have 2 billion different Children? That’s how broad a scope for genetic variation there is in just one couple! Yet all the healthy children will all be just as human as the parents, some may be sterile, some may have gross and even fatal deformities, yet even those will be human beings. No evolution occurs. This is all part of Mendel’s Law. he was lucky enough to use peas for his experiments as these have very few variables in comparison to Human chromosomes, and thus he was able to graph the traits easily and proved that the offspring contained predictable ratios of their mother and fathers genes, in dominant and recessive combinations. In his chart he shows how traits are derived and also that offspring are replications of their parents genes. No New Genes appear in his equations even though it is possible for different traits to appear in the offspring from the Parents eg if pairs of recessive genes appear in an offspring it may be Taller, or shorter, or blacker or whiter than both its parents were. There is zero evolution involved. The Christian no longer must rely on his faith that the Bible tells the truth about Adam and Eve. They are now absolutely Genetically proven scientific fact!
Thus the Mammoths could be the ‘Adam and Eve’ of all modern Elephants, or they could be a completely separate species… just as Apes are completely separate from Human beings… or Donkeys for that matter, and the same may be said with certainty about the Saber tooth’s.
I could go on but I think I have said enough for now.
Thank you PJ for taking the time to read and comment on my post and i hope you continue to do so, and please share our blog with your friends.
Abbeysbooks, I shall Google Foucault and sus him out.
Mark V. I googled ‘Meat eating apes evolved into Human beings’ and all sorts of stuff jumped out at me!
“Without meat, said Milton, it’s unlikely that proto humans could have secured enough energy and nutrition from the plants available in their African environment at that time to evolve into the active, sociable, intelligent creatures they became. Receding forests would have deprived them of the more nutritious leaves and fruits that forest-dwelling primates survive on, said Milton.”
Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley anthropologist specializing in diet
So to answer your question… The DJ had it right. This is the sort of BS that poses as science these days…. Faries wear Boots!
Well, actually, it looks like what they are saying is not that diet change drove genetic change, but that it allowed the specie to become dominant. That’s not so ridiculous. It’s still hardly what one might call “scientific fact,” but it’s not totally out in left field.
Arguing against the commonly accepted version of speciation with me isn’t really going to get you anywhere, because I acknowledge that the current ideas about it don’t make any sense. I embrace the “what.” I reject the “how.” I will read the case you present, but when it comes to the “how” on the emergence of species, I claim ignorance.
As for fish evolving into reptiles, well, we do have amphibians; and in general, most species are built more or less the same way, in terms of chemical composition, organ function, and structural form. This does not prove common ancestry, but it does suggest it.
I am also well aware that adaptation does not prove speciation. I understand that distinction. But it does prove that the DNA molecule is malleable.
Here’s what I suspect:
There is some “X” factor which accounts for how speciation occurs. When and if we discover this “X” factor, it will point to counter-entropic universal forces, which implies a Universal Intelligence. This, of course, is tantamount to Intelligent Design.
But I can’t prove that; it just seems to me to be what is most likely to be true.
I find it interesting that when this idea was put forward by a Radio DJ you were very skeptical about it and in fact could not believe such an Idea would actually be given any credibility within the scientific community, yet once I gave you the link which contained reference to that sacred cult ‘Berkeley’ and their ‘Experts’ Priests whom occupy the order of ‘Anthropology’ gave you their Pontifications from ‘on high’, you now think the very same idea is now ‘plausible’!
How did they Manage to swing you over to their faith? By presenting real science?
Not at all! All they did was give you a spiel that included words like ‘Energy’, and add in
things like ‘Professor Blar Blar discovered what he thinks are’ Proto-humans’ having ‘butchered’ Meat up to 2 million years ago…. Blar blar….
All of that hangs upon the most extreme interpretations upon virtually Zero evidence following a most strained and fanatical personal prejudice of vested interests…
Yet PJ their spiel was enough to get you to change your position… and continue to keep your blind faith in Evolution. Please don’t pretend there is any real science here. There is a blatant religious superstition.
As far as getting energy from plants, There are thousands of species which get plenty of energy from vegitation. For the life of me a cant see how this arguement can have any weight at all. I am sure that I will be able to find ‘Peer reveiw’ arguements that show it to be absolutly without substance.
I will be addressing the issue of genetic integrity shortly.
Let me also repeat that once upon a time I too would have accepted this type of Pseudo-Scientific arguement.
Not any more.
“I find it interesting that when this idea was put forward by a Radio DJ you were very skeptical about it and in fact could not believe such an Idea would actually be given any credibility within the scientific community, yet once I gave you the link which contained reference to that sacred cult ‘Berkeley’ and their ‘Experts’ Priests whom occupy the order of ‘Anthropology’ gave you their Pontifications from ‘on high’, you now think the very same idea is now ‘plausible’!
How did they Manage to swing you over to their faith? By presenting real science?
Not at all! All they did was give you a spiel that included words like ‘Energy’, and add in
things like ‘Professor Blar Blar discovered what he thinks are’ Proto-humans’ having ‘butchered’ Meat up to 2 million years ago…. Blar blar….”
LOL! If you knew me a little better, I highyl doubt that you would say this.
Well, I changed my opinion because, reading your article, I was under the impression that the idea being knocked was that a change in diet had a DIRECT effect on the genome; whereas the actual argument is that it has an INDIRECT effect on the genome (enabling one specie to become dominant).
Again, I don’t endorse this other idea, but it is less stupid.
“All of that hangs upon the most extreme interpretations upon virtually Zero evidence following a most strained and fanatical personal prejudice of vested interests…”
That may or may not be true. I’m not sure what evidence they have (if any). I’d be the first to tell you that the Cult of the Experts is not friendly to the truth.
“Yet PJ their spiel was enough to get you to change your position…”
No. It merely changed my opinion of THEIR position. I did not, and have not adopted it. I think it’s silly to say that we KNOW FOR CERTAIN how life came into being. Were you there? Did you see it happen? Can you make a logically necessary argument about it with indisputable premises? Then you don’t know. Period, end of story.
“and continue to keep your blind faith in Evolution.”
Strawman. I am not an Evolutionist (at least not in the commonly accepted sense of the term).
“Please don’t pretend there is any real science here. There is a blatant religious superstition.”
I agree that this is not hard science. I disagree that it is superstition.
“As far as getting energy from plants, There are thousands of species which get plenty of energy from vegitation.”
And they generally spend ALL of their time eating.
“For the life of me a cant see how this arguement can have any weight at all.”
It doesn’t. But as a hypothesis, it’s not implausible (other than the standard objections to the commonly accepted ideas about speciation).
“I am sure that I will be able to find ‘Peer reveiw’ arguements that show it to be absolutly without substance.”
“I will be addressing the issue of genetic integrity shortly.”
I look forward to it.
“Let me also repeat that once upon a time I too would have accepted this type of Pseudo-Scientific arguement.
Not any more.”
Are you afraid of offending me?