Archive for the ‘Darwinism’ Category

O melhor argumento para quando dizer que a Teoria da Evolução esta’ incompleta.

domingo, dezembro 2nd, 2018


At a science festival, Denis Alexander, an evolutionary biologist (and Christian, as it happens), answered the question about the difference between a scientific theory and a fact by saying that,…

” In science, a theory is something that explains a fact or set of facts. So for example (he said) it is a simple fact that organisms evolve from earlier organisms; and the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection explains how that evolution happens.”

But I do agree that, to the non-scientists among us, there doesn’t always feel to be a huge amount of difference between the two. Scientists, though, who are always looking to discover new details and new facts, need to be clear in their own minds that the search for knowledge is never 100% complete. The key, I guess, is to match the degree of confidence in a claim to the amount of evidence there is for the truth of it.


Ancestralidade Comum: Diferença entre a teoria evolutiva acadêmica e a teoria evolutiva da Matrix/DNA

segunda-feira, julho 2nd, 2018


Evidências da ancestralidade comum

Meu comentario enviado em 02 de julho/07/18 ( verificar se foi publicado)

Tens certeza disto? Ou continuas buscando e gosta das ideias de outros, como eu? Um ancestral comum pode ter existido, várias evidencias e a lógica racional aponta para esta solução. Mas como nunca foi mostrado, comprovado cientificamente, continua sendo uma teoria. Porem a logica racional nos leva a duvidar da teoria da biogênese tal como ela está hoje e a duvidar do mecanismo proposto pela teoria evolucionista de Darwin. Talvez o ancestral comum nunca tenha existido na superfície da Terra, como propõem os resultados dos meus modelos e cálculos teóricos.
Uma analogia pode embasar a minha teoria. Todos irmãos de uma família vem de um ancestral comum, que foi um casal de humanos. E o método natural pelo qual isso acontece e’ unicamente pela transmissão de DNA, de geradores a herdeiros.

Pois então quando surgiu a Vida neste planeta ela deve ter recebido do ancestral, algo como o DNA. Se ela veio do inorgânico, esse ancestral DNA deve ter sido inorgânico. Então quem foi o ancestral e o que e’ esse DNA inorgânico? Ora, justamente o que meus resultados estão a indicar: o building block desta galaxia onde a vida surgiu e portanto criada por ela e’ baseado num circuito sistêmico que pode ser representado como uma formula, e esta formula semeada na superfície da Terra dirigiu o período e processos da abiogêneses a reproduzir este ancestral astronomico. Por isso denominei a formula de Matrix/DNA. Mas não se irrite com essa ameaça `a teoria darwiniana, pois estou como vocês, sem provas ainda. E’ teoria logica contra teoria logica.

Porque Evolucao nao existe – Extenso e completo relatorio por criacionistas

domingo, fevereiro 25th, 2018


A teoria da Matrix/DNA tem sugerindo que a teoria da evolucao e’ mais correta do que a teoria religiosa da biblia, apesar de que a Matrix faz uma complete reformulacao da teoria da evolucao sugerindo que a teoria de Darwin e mesmo o modern darwininismo esta muito incompleto. Aqui vai um texto escrito por pastores criacionistas para mostrar o que pensam da evolucao. Bom sera ver os comentarios a seguir que sao um alerta contra a impressao causada pelo artigo.

E-bbok na Amazon:

Friday, February 7, 2014

The wasted career of Charles Darwin

 Update by Peter Cornswalled:

Pursuant to the wishes of my late brother, Alexander, his extensive body of writing will be published. This article is now available for your Kindle in both English and Spanish

The original author of this article has granted me permission to publish it, but has asked that his name not be connected to it, do to left leaning ideologies that have subsequently infected his thinking.

In the late 1800’s Charles Darwin introduced his now infamous book, The Origin of Species. This work introduced what is now known as Darwinian evolution. Evolution however was nothing new, “The Greeks believed in a form of evolution,” centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ. (Ham, 100) The Origin of Species was destined to change the course of history and cause the re-evaluation of Victorian morality. It would be said that the evolutionary model “Helped make atheism respectable.” (Ham, 85) The assumptions necessary to support the evolutionary model would weaken science and result in the bias of a scientist and not the facts determining the results of experiments and field research. It would compel Cesare Lombroso to form a criteria for the identification of the criminal element based upon physical characteristics such as the subject’s brow ridge and eye shape. Darwin’s model would be applied to the business world to justify ruthless business tactics and excuse, even glorify, maltreatment of the lower classes. It would penetrate the religious community and result in the formation of the theocratic evolutionists. Finally, it would allow society to remove God and his moral absolutes. This final result would cause the persecution of Christian values and beliefs and the formation of numerous misconceptions about Christianity. The resulting removal of moral absolutes would legitimize abortion and prompt so-called “mercy killings” and provide a new basis for racial prejudice. The Evolutionary model of origins would impact not only science, but criminology, business, religion, and basic morality.

When The Origin of Species was published in 1859, it was not the only incident of importance. Japan had unwillingly ended it’s self imposed isolation only five years earlier. A war between Great Britain and Persia Had been over for three years. France went to war against Austria, and won that war the same year. The construction of the Suez Canal began, and the first American oil wells were drilled. The American Civil War was a mere two years away. It was far from being an inactive period in world history.

To truly comprehend the consequences of the evolutionary model one must first see the misinformation and false trails that lead Darwin to construct this model of origins. Darwin’s education included study in the department of Theology at Cambridge University, from which he graduated in 1831. The dogma taught at this university included several erroneous interpretations of Biblical data and concepts contrary to both the Bible and science. One fallacy Darwin was taught as fact was the idea that the Genesis account of Creation stated that reproduction within the created types, or baramins, was comparable to “Pennies from a mint.” (Marsh, 136) This theory was discarded around 1400 AD., when the more accurate variation within created types was realized from both science and the Biblical record. Despite the dethroned status of this theory it was taught as fact to Darwin. Needless to say, he would find it to be inaccurate as he proceeded to examine the scientific data. Frank Marsh records the second fallacy in his paper, The Genesis Kinds in the Modern World. “At Cambridge, Darwin was also taught that all modern forms of plants and animals had been created and set down in the very pattern of geographical distribution in which we find them today. Actually there is no scriptural ground for this latter teaching.” (Marsh, 138) Not only does this concept find no support in scripture, but it is in direct opposition to the story of Noah’s flood. Darwin found nature to completely disprove the theories he had been taught at Cambridge regarding the origin of the Earth and thought the Bible disproven as well. This led him to conclude that life had arisen by natural processes without the aid of God. He then constructed a model of the most likely way this could of occurred, a model he recorded in The Origin of Species. The great tragedy of this is Darwin’s failure to examine the Bible for himself. Not until his declining years did he study the Bible he had thought disproven. Not until then did he realize the delusions that he had disproven were not in the Bible at all. For more information on Darwin’s later rejection of his own model see “Did Charles Darwin Become a Christian?” by John W. Klotz, and Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr. Volume 29, Number 2 of the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ in Bibliography) contains updated information.

The flawed origin of the evolutionary model gives rise to difficulties. Anyone who attempts to account for the numerous flaws present in the model must realize that Darwin himself later recanted of his own accord. One must also realize these flaws are presented only in the highest levels of the current education system, and information on them is made available only to those who go to great lengths to find literature dealing with these flaws. This brings us to the first flaw of the model. Modern educators present the Evolutionary model as a proven fact, as a law of nature. This is both misleading and inaccurate. The two current models of the Earth’s origin are Creationism and Evolutionism, neither of which is directly subject to the scientific method. In order for something to become a “fact” or a “Law of nature” it must be subjected to the scientific method. This requires the formation of a hypothesis that is tested. As both origin models are belief systems about past events they cannot be tested, and thus can be neither proven or disproven. They are models, a system of beliefs from which predictions can be made and tested. These predictions can then be used to determine which model fits the observed data better. They are both models, not facts or laws.

Another one of the flaws involved in the evolutionary model entails the mechanism of evolution, the driving force behind this “onward and upward” process. Darwin originally attributed this function to use and disuse. The idea was simple, a man exercises, building up his muscles. These enlarged muscles would be passed on to that man’s children. The problem with this is easy to see in the light of modern genetics. No mater how much he could bench press, the man could not change his DNA. “Traits acquired by use and disuse just don’t affect heredity.” (Morris and Parker, 94) Those who still clung to this outmoded concept were subsequently dubbed Darwinists, and those who accepted the next proposed mechanism of evolution were called Neo-Darwinists. Under use and disuse natural selection served only to weed out the weak and maintain the status quo, the same position assigned natural selection since Creationists first described it fifty years before Darwin; use and disuse were relied upon to provide the upgrades.

The mechanism proposed by Neo-Darwinists upgraded natural selection to a more prominent role. Random mutations in the germ cells provided the raw material for evolution and natural selection chose the most beneficial ones. However this provides no true method of betterment. Random chance was the only way to produce an upgrade and provided the only material natural selection had to work with. The major flaw with this is the lack of time. Even the billions of years postulated by evolutionists is not enough time to evolve a Hydra, let alone a human being. This allowed the formation of the Post-Neo-Darwinists. This group accepts the basic arguments of the Neo-Darwinists with a few changes. Essentially, as this new group postulates, evolution is not the slow, painstaking process that was previously thought, but a rapid process taking place in isolated populations. The accelerated pace of this most recent development explains the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, and allows an age in accordance with Creationist’s research. Numerous Post-Neo-Darwinists are also young-earth evolutionists, individuals that accept Earth ages as young as 10,000 years, while supporting evolution. This level of fluctuation is sadly typical of proponents of the evolution model.

To further illustrate the negative effect of Darwin’s model on science witness the example of the Monera classification. In order for evolution to take place there must be an organism to evolve. One of the major problems of the evolution model is, and will remain, the origin of the first living organism. Such an organism must come from non-living mater, a process known as abiogenesis that was disproven by Louis Pasteur. In 1868 one of Darwin’s strongest supporters, Ernest Haeckel wrote a lengthy paper about organisms he classified under the family name Monera, these organisms were later reclassified as Protisa. The Monera classification was originally created to bridge the gap between living and non-living matter. In 1868 Thomas Henry Huxley wrote an extensive paper entitled On Some Organisms Living at Great Depths in the North Atlantic Ocean the paper was as long-winded as the title. These “Organisms” consisted of mud dredged from the bottom of the North Atlantic Ocean and preserved in alcohol. Huxley classified the protoplasm-like substance as two distinct species and declared them the “missing link” between living and non-living matter. This status for Huxley’s organisms continued to be accepted as the first solid proof of evolution until 1872, when a scientific expedition revealed the material Huxley and numerous supporters had hailed as living to be lifeless mud. The appearance of protoplasm had arisen from a chemical reaction that occurred when the dredged mud was placed in a strong alcohol solution. The gelatinous mass was a precipitate of lime. The first conclusive evidence of this was provided by J. Y. Buchanan and is recorded in volume 24 of the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 1876. (Rupke, 182) It does not take much knowledge or wisdom to see the incredible error that takes place when lime is mistaken for a living organism. The involvement of the evolutionary model can be clearly seen upon the examination of Huxley’s goals. He was nicknamed “Darwin’s Bulldog” because of the extreme methods he used when supporting the evolutionary model. The organisms described in Huxley’s paper was the end result of a long and torturous search for the missing link the Monera classification would of provided.

A more modern, and more disheartening example of the model’s influence on science can be seen in the hunt for the ancestor of man. Note Nebraska man, built from one solitary tooth. When the jawbone that fit the tooth was discovered, the jawbone and the tooth were revealed to of come from an extinct species of pig. (Gish, 187-188) Piltdown man was a hoax, there is no existing fossils of Peking man, and Nethanderal man was re-classified as fully human in the mid-1960’s. As J. Hawkes stated in volume 204 of Nature magazine, “It still comes as a shock to discover how often preconceived notions have affected the investigation of human origins.” (Gish, 189) Not only does it effect the “investigation of human origins” but all aspects of science, no matter if the harmful bias is admitted or if it is concealed. The integrity of the scientific community has also been weakened by the irrational assumptions made by scientists in support of the evolutionary model. Varves, for example, are generally used as a method of determining the ages of the rocks containing them. “A varve is generally defined as a sedimentary lamina or sequence of lamina deposited in a still body of water in one year’s time.” (Oard, 72) In other words, the layers of sediment that form at the bottom of a lake or pond. These layers are alternately light and dark in color. The light layer is supposedly put down in summer, and the dark layer in Winter. One set of layers equals one varve. The assumption made is that one varve has been put down in one year, and there are no gaps in the record. The error in this conjecture becomes apparent when we see examples of multiple varve deposition per year. 360 varves were deposited in a 160 year time span in Lake Walensee, Switzerland and 42 were deposited in a 30 year time span in a Norwegian Glacial lake. (Oard, 76) This is illustrative of the type of difficulties faced by this method. Floods, droughts, and temporary isolation of still bodies of water can also play havoc with varve chronology.

Another example of unreasonable assumptions made by evolutionists is the various methods of determining the age of rocks. The most common method is determining the ratio of parent atoms to daughter atoms in radioactive decay. “The use of radioactive decay as a basis for absolute age determination involves the premise that a parent element decays at a known rate, which remains constant, into a daughter element.” (Acrey, 73) Scientists also assume the sample contained no atoms of the daughter element at formation, or at least a known ratio of parent atoms to daughter atoms. The various methods of ratio measurement are generally identified by the elements measured. The Lead:Thorium and Lead:Uranium methods (Both Uranium and Thorium decay to form lead) are invalidated by “Selective uranium leaching by acid waters” and the fact that “Most radioactive minerals contained some lead when they formed.” (Acrey, 73) The Lead:Alpfa method is unreliable because “So many of the Earth’s minerals have unknown proportions of thorium and uranium.” (Acrey, 73) This pattern holds true for all the lead, uranium, Carbon-14, and Fluorine methods that exist today. It is worthy of note however that the Fluorine method is useful in determining the order in which fossils were deposited at individual sights. The Carbon-14 method is considered accurate to a maximum age of 10,000 years when used on organic material. This is a theoretical maximum that arises from the fact that the amount of Carbon-14 that would be present in older samples would be so minute that the test’s margin of error would exceed the remaining sample.

Efforts to support evolution have been the source of numerous problems. For example the theory of atavism. According to this theory “some individual animals, including humans, at times revert back to an earlier evolutionary type”. (Bergman, 33) This theory is known as the human atavism theory when applied to H. Sapiens. “A tragic example of the use of evolution by another field was its uncritical acceptance into the field of criminology.” because of its “tragic consequences for multi-thousands of persons.” (Bergman, 33) The human atavism theory was applied to criminology by Cesare Lombroso, the first person to apply science to the field of criminology. Lombroso was conducting an autopsy on a famous criminal when he decided the subject bore a striking resemblance to an ape. In 1878, two years after experimentation put the Monera fallacy to rest, he published an interesting theory in a book he entitled The Criminal Man. The theory was simple, Lombroso postulated that criminals were evolutionary throwbacks to the savage state. This concept would have been relatively harmless if it were not for the manner in which Lombroso had it implemented. He encouraged a modification of the legal system that would dispense punishment based not upon the severity of the crime, but the “advanced” or “primitive” status of the criminal. Lombroso’s theories were used to create the descriptions of the basic criminal type. An enlarged brow for example, or pointed as opposed to curved earlobes designated an individual as savage and unreliable. Lombroso proudly relates instances where his analysis and testimony determined the verdict of trials, and laments the instances in which he failed to make a difference. He wanted those who had no characteristics that could be traced to atavism to be spared punishment for crimes as severe as murder because of their innately good nature, while those who displayed evidence of being throwbacks should be disposed of for the most trivial offenses. In essence, Lombroso would have a “modern” man who murdered his wife fined and released; while a “primitive” man would be executed for shoplifting. This is not an exaggeration, this is the kind of reform Lombroso and his supporters wanted. The connection between physical and behavioral characteristics was central to Lombroso’s theories, yet this assumption was contradictory to basic genetics. The concept of atavism has since been discarded, as an atavism could occur only if the mutations that supposedly cause evolution replicated genetic data previously purged from the gene pool by natural selection, as there is not enough DNA to encode discarded traits. Such a mutation, were it to occur, would subsequently be classified as a harmful mutation, and not an atavism. Despite the demise of the atavism theory Lombroso’s concepts live on. Whenever one hears about “The criminal face” or a defense lawyer asks a jury if “That is the face of a murderer”, Lombroso, and his disproven concepts, are being glorified.

The theory of human atavism is not the only portion of evolutionary thought to escape the confines of science. “Application of the principal of ‘survival of the fittest’ to human affairs came to be known as social Darwinism.” (Davidheiser, 338) Essentially the poor were regarded as weak and deserving of death. This was also used as the justification for unfair and cruel business practices. The stronger businessman would have a job when it was over, and the unfit one would be unemployed. James J. Hill in an explanation of his motives said, “The fortunes of the railroad companies is determined by the law of survival of the fittest.” (Hofstadter, 45) Robert E. D. Clark was speaking of Social Darwinism when he said, “Evolution, in short, gave the doer of evil a respite from his conscience. The most unscrupulous behavior towards a competitor could now be rationalized; evil could be called good.” (Davidheiser, 339) Therein lies the true evil of Social Darwinism, not only did it excuse evil, but glorified it.

The application of pseudo-science had other repercussions in society. It provided a new excuse for racism. Terms such as “White man’s burden”, pan-Slavism, and pan-Germanism came into being, each one praising the superiority evolved status of the respective races. Pan-Germanism was used by Hitler to build support for his political agenda. It has been rumored that Hitler died claiming the Slavic peoples had proven themselves stronger in World War Two, nearly a century after Darwin published The Origin of Species. Evolution, and its removal of God was one of the major supports for Marx and Stalin in their removal of God from their communist nation. The final mockery of Social Darwinism was Darwin’s apparent rejection of it. Social Darwinists were further mortified by the embarrassment they caused to responsible scientists. (Davisheiser, 338 and 342)

The force with which evolution was touted as truth with the weight of men such as Lombroso and Huxley behind it soon forced the population to conclude that evolution was true, and blinded them to it’s status as an alternate interpretation of the existing data. This resulted in an attempt by religious leaders to mesh the science of God with the science of atheism, to conform to secular ideals. This is akin to mixing oil with water. As a result non-theistic Christians and theistic evolutionists developed from the Creationists. Non-theistic Christians reject the divinity of Christ and the existence of God, regarding the Bible as a quaint collection of advice. Jesus Christ is called a “good teacher”. The problem with this is Jesus claims to be God. A reading of the Gospels will reveal Jesus is one of three things. He is either a liar, a lunatic, or he is exactly who he claims to be. There are no other options. Theistic evolutionists attempt to blend evolution and the Bible by claiming God used evolution to Create the Earth, the first 11 chapters of Genesis are regarded as poetry. This group eventually finds itself unable to trust the Bible. The final group are the Creationists, of which the author is a member. We recognize that evolution is an attempt to explain the universe from an atheistic viewpoint. It is not “Religion vs. Science” as some would have us believe, but “The science of one religion vs. the science of another religion.” These definitions are independent of other denominational separations. All three groups are represented in each of the subdivisions that make up the Christian faith. Remember, evolution is the science of atheism, and atheism is a religion that denies the existence of God.

Earlier on I mentioned that “Evolution helped make atheism respectable.” (Ham, 85) This is an accurate statement. Not only did it make evolution respectable, but it made theism detestable. The separation of Church and state, originally intended to prevent the government from regulating religion, has since been twisted to ban the teaching of the Christian values upon which this nation was founded. The founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves. Biblical values are not tolerated, they are despised and ridiculed. The Church has come under fire for refusing to permit gays to become ministers, despite the fact that the Bible strictly forbids homosexuality. “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” Leviticus 18:22. Chapter 20, verse 18 of the same book orders all homosexuals be put to death! Remember, in the early days of the government, when the founding fathers were still alive, and for decades after their deaths, the supreme court cited the Bible as a precedent in court decisions! The debasement of the Bible was the direct result of the evolutionary model of origins. Once people believed there was no God, the Bible lost its authority. When the Bible lost its authority, the moral absolutes it contains lost relevance. The removal of Christianity and the values it represents from schools has resulted in entire generations growing up knowing nothing about Christianity. This has resulted in the formation of numerous misconceptions about the Christian faith. Not only does the school system arrogantly, and inaccurately proclaim the Bible disproven, but has reduced the Christian to a “goody two shoes” trying to earn salvation. Christians do not earn salvation. No amount of good works can save a human soul. “For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.” Romans 3:23. Salvation is a gift from God. We are saved by grace, not our actions. It is not what you do, but what you believe.

There have of course been repercussions in the secular society. The removal of God and his moral absolutes has resulted in an increase in numerous social ills. Evolution regards humans as nothing more that animals, and as we kill an unwanted animal, and put suffering animals to death, why not do the same to humans? If there is no Creation to be the pinnacle of, then we are not the pinnacle of God’s Creation. This has resulted in the debasement of human life. Life is no longer considered sacred by society, and this has resulted in two great evils, abortion and assisted suicide. Before Darwin the only moral issue that arose when someone considered an abortion was what the Bible says. The Bible makes it very clear that a fetus is not potential life or a non-viable tissue mass, but a living human being with a soul. “If the fetus is human life, that trumps any argument you can make about the individual rights of the mother.” (Limbaugh, 55) Once the status of the fetus was up for grabs, the result of the rejection of Biblical law, such asinine arguments as “freedom of privacy” were used to allow this wholesale slaughter to take place. The same thought processes apply to those with painful illnesses. If we are no more than animals, and we put animals to sleep, then why not put people to sleep? Jack Kevorkian, AKA “Jack the Dripper” (Limbaugh, 60), has applied this logic to humanity. It may be against the values of the majority, but it is in perfect harmony with the evolutionary model. Another result of Darwin’s coup has been a new foundation for racism. Before Darwin those intent upon discrimination read questionable justification into Biblical text. After Darwin the claim was made that whites were the most evolved race and all others were seen as inferior, lower on the evolutionary scale. It was Lombroso’s discrimination all over again, and was strongly influenced by Social Darwinism. Non-whites are now described as lower life forms, not yet evolved to the point of being fully human. The problem with this logic is, if we are all animals anyway, how can we say that one group is more evolved then the other? Moreover, what special treatment does being human earn us in the animal world? The implications of such logic are staggering.

Evolution, the most influential concept in the modern world truly has influenced us far beyond the realm of science. Darwin’s atheistic model of origins has had serious repercussions. The methods used to guess the age of the Earth, and the very formation of the model itself display the negative effect it has had on science. Lombroso and his work show the damage the model has done to criminology. The fruits of Social Darwinism were truly bitter, including communism, nazism, and monstrous business tactics. Religion has been ridiculed and defamed by the misconceptions its isolation has produced. Abortion is evidence of the feel-good attitudes spawned by Darwin’s model, and Dr. Death displays the disregard with which human life is held. Finally, Darwin has produced a new basis for racial hatred.

To all those who still think Darwin’s great coup has been a force for good, there is one final quote: “Well, if you are a product of chance, your brain is a product of chance. Therefore, the thought patterns that determine your logic are also the products of chance. If your logic is the result of chance processes, you can’t be sure it evolved properly. You can’t trust your own logic.” (Ham, 26) Remember, one of the most basic tenants of evolution is that all life it the product of chance.


Acrey, D. O. Problems in Absolute Age Determination. Creation Research Society Books. Kansas City. 1990

Bergman, Jerry. The Biological Theory of Atavism: A History and Evaluation. CRSQ. June 1992, vol.29 No. 1 Pages 33-44.

Darwin, Charles. The Darwin Reader. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. 1956

Farb, Peter. Humankind. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston Mass. 1978

Farrington, Benjamin. What Darwin Really Said. Schocken Books, New York. 1982

Gish, Duane T. Ph.D. Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record. Master Books, El Cajon. 1985

God. The Holy Bible. Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis MO. 1984

Ham, Ken The Lie: Evolution. Master Books, El Cajon CA. 1987

Hardin, Garrett. Science, Conflict, and Society. W. H. Freeman and Co. San Francisco. 1969

Hofstadter, Richard. Social Darwinism in American Thought. George Braziller inc. 1969

Klotz, John W. and Rusch, Wilbert H. Sr. Did Charles Darwin Become a Christian? Creation Research Society Books, Norcross. 1988.

Lammerts, Walter E. Scientific Studies in Special Creation. Creation Research Society Quarterly Books. Kansas City. 1990

Limbaugh, Rush. The Way Things Ought to Be. Pocket Books, New York. 1992

Marsh, Frank Lewis. The Genesis Kinds in the Modern World. Creation Research Society Books. Kansas City. 1990

Morris, Henry M. and Parker, Gary E.. What is Creation Science? Master Books, El Cajon, CA. 1987

Newman, Robert C. The Darwin Conversion Story. CRSQ. September 1992, vol.29 No. 2 Pages 70-72

Oard, Michael J. Varves-The First “Absolute” Chronology. CRSQ. September 1992, vol.29 No. 2 Pages 72-80

Roth, Charles E. The Most Dangerous Animal in the World. Addison Press, Reading Mass. 1971

Rupke, N. A. A Summary of the Monera Fallacy. Creation Research Society Books. Kansas City. 1990

von Fange, Erich A. Ph.D. Genesis and the Dinosaur. Living World Services, Syracuse, IN. 1990

Webster, Noah LL.D. New Concise Webster’s Dictionary. Unisystems Inc. New York. 1984

Zimmerman, Paul A. The Spontaneous Generation of Life. Creation Research Society Books. Kansas City. 1990


Corny’s biggest fan said…
good post but one thing…

where’s the continued venom about Distorted View and TIm Henson ?

me thinks you’d get more exposure by taking on DV again

C.B. Walker said…
“Evolution helped make atheism respectable”?

This is just my opinion, but I believe that most Christians would respect a “saved” child molester more than a harmless atheist. Atheists seem have very little respect in general, and in my experience, touting evolution hurts that even more. Wouldn’t evolution make God more respectable? The notion that He set events in motion billions of years ago, in such a way as to achieve the universe as it is now, is beyond incredible. To simply “create” the final product would be like playing a video game with all of the cheat codes on hand.

Aside from that, the evolution versus creation debate just seems to distract us from a bigger problem anyway—government schools. Everybody who pays property tax funds the government school system. Creationists dislike evolution because they would rather not fund the teaching of evolution and vice versa. As a creationist, you should not be forced to fund a system that would teach your children evolution. Just as someone without children should not be forced to pay for another’s child’s education.

Anonymous said…
Wow, I can not believe how well he completely disproved evolution using science based in the 1800’s and without listing a reference written in the last 10 years. That quite a feat sir. I tip my white cone hat to you.

lolcornswalled said…
I just lost brain cells!!!!! T-T!!!! Reading this made me feel mental! I…I…I can’t even say anything!!! Except, ZOMG! It’s C.B.! Keep at it bud! “I’m a mummy! Raar!” -C.B. Walker

ObesityKing said…
Darwin’s career was NOT a wasted one. Contributing possibly the most important scientific ideas ever deduced does NOT make the origin of species INFAMOUS.
Darwin did NOT recount his claims.
Science is NOT a belief system, and the theory of evolution is NOT about EARTH’S origin!
Building up muscles to pass to your offspring is NOT darwinian evolution, that is LAMARCKIAN and is known by science to be ridiculous.
Punctuated equilibrium occurs ALONGSIDE phyletic gradualism over BILLIONS of years.
What creationist research?
Atavisms have NOT been discarded
HITLER!?!? We are not talking about biology anymore?
Abortion has NOTHING to do with evolution
Darwin did NOT produce a new basis for racism
Evolution is NOT an ‘onward and upward process’
Evolution is NOT about chance
40KEndgame said…
Why did Darwin waste his career? I could see evolution being God’s method of creating every living thing, since the big bang seems to coincide with God saying “Let there be light!”. God may not experience the same speed of which time flows as we do. His 7 days could be our 13.7 billion years. 

Peter Cornswalled said…
The Wasted Career of Charles Darwin is now available for your Kindle in both English and Spanish

O que é o fenômeno natural que denominamos “evolução” e qual sua diferença com a Teoria Darwinista da Evolução

quarta-feira, janeiro 3rd, 2018

Sistemas naturais se auto-reciclam ( como os astronômicos) ou se reproduzem, como os biológicos. Enfim, podemos dizer que nos dois casos, se reproduzem. Nos eventos de reproduções podem ocorrer mutações, por erros, ou pela inserção de partículas estranhas, etc. Algumas destas mutações tornam o reproduzido mais fraco que o reprodutor, o que vai ameaçar sua capacidade de deixar descendentes, e sua linhagem pode desaparecer. Outras mutações ( principalmente com a intromissão de elementos estranhos, que podem inclusive vir de outros sistemas e talvez, mais complexos) podem tornar o reproduzido mais adaptável ou mais forte que o reprodutor, e portanto que toda a geração anterior de sua especie, e este pode deixar mais descendentes robustos. Nesse segundo caso vemos surgir de dentro da linhagem evolutiva do sistema, um novo grau de complexidade, que nunca existiu antes. Isto vai de acordo com uma suspeita bem elaborada de que no Universo, os sistemas tem se transformado desde o mais simples ao cada vez mais complexo. E este processo do simples tornar-se mais complexo é o que denominamos de “evolução”.

Podemos então definitivamente inserir nos cânones científicos que a evolução, de acordo com a definição acima, é um fato real, comprovado, portanto cientifico?

Acho que ainda não. Na verdade não temos captado os tais elementos estranhos se inserindo durante a transcrição genética ou mesmo durante a embriogênese. Penso que somos tendenciosos a fortalecer esta hipótese porque apenas ela encontramos para explicar a segunda hipótese – a de que no Universo as coisas simples estavam no inicio e vem se tornando cada vez mais complexas. Pois esta segunda hipótese também é apenas isso, uma hipótese, já que não podemos por o Universo sobre a bancada do laboratorio e ver essas origens na simplicidade.

Mas existe um argumento que coloca essa hipótese na porta de entrada dos postulados científicos. Trata-se de um fato real, observado e comprovado onde vemos esse aumento de simplicidade para complexidade ocorrendo: a própria embriogênese. Então isso demonstra que a não só a Natureza é capaz de fazer acontecer este processo do simples ao complexo como demonstra que ela realmente o faz. Ja não se trata da necessidade de por o Universo sobre a bancada, podemos observar a embriogênese, a hipótese pode aqui ser comprovada, existe o processo do simples para o complexo, a este processo damos o nome de “evolução” e então, neste tratamento puramente humano dos conceitos e da natureza, a evolução de fato existe.

Quanto ao trabalho de Darwin e seus prosseguimentos posteriores, como a moderna Nova Síntese ou neo-Darwinismo, trata-se de uma teoria, mas não de uma teoria sobre a existência da evolução, nos não precisamos dela para ver que a evolução existe. Trata-se de uma teoria sobre como ocorre o processo da evolução biológica, este sim, é um processo de 3 bilhões de anos que portanto não podemos observar, e portanto não podemos ainda afirmar como ele ocorre, cientificamente. Na embriogênese existe um elemento invisível a olho nu – o código genético, ou DNA – que esta produzindo a passagem do simples ao complexo, porem no evento da história biológica não podemos ver um elemento produzindo-a. Darwin sugere que esse elemento é composto de três variáveis naturais ( VSI = Variação,selecao natural e hereditariedade), o qual substituiria a nível da vida em geral o que o código genético faz na embriogênese individual) Nesse sentido o darwinismo é uma teoria. Não a evolução.

A Matrix/DNA sugere outra teoria, ou seja, ela mantem as três variáveis de Darwin porem acrescenta mais 4 variáveis, e por fim, a formula teórica de um sistema natural no qual existem as sete variáveis compiladas num só elemento. Como o Darwinismo, ela também ainda é uma teoria sobre o fenômeno natural definido por nos como “evolução”.

Video: Irreducivel Complexidade versus Evolucao da Agulha Molecular versus Heranca da Evolucao Cosmologica

quarta-feira, outubro 4th, 2017


Este artigo comecou aqui:

e revelou-se de grande importancia para divulfdgacao da Matrix/DNA devido a grande polemica e o corolario de sites se abindo para o tema, o que noss fara’ proceder a uma pesquisa intense nestes sites, sempre tentando publicar a versapo da matricx. Outro link que se segue e’: , e

Michael Behe e o Misterio das Maquinas Moleculares

At this link ( ) is solved how the bacterial flagellum was built:
1) By “previous” design, but, not intelligent design, in the way that mother giraffe does not apply intelligence for building a new baby giraffe. The process applied for building the bacterial flagellum was pure natural genetics which is an evolutionary product from a mechanism that emerged with the Big Bang. So, the ultimate answer (if it is or don’t intelligent design, randomness or other thing), is unknown.
2) The bacterial flagellum is really irreducible complexity to anything existed before at Earth surface. But it is reducible ( all its parts) to the building blocks of galaxies, like this Milk Way (see the astronomic model at the website), which is the real last non-biological ancestor (LUCA). The way a galaxy rotates creating the spiral arms contains a kind of motor that is the same configuration of bacterial flagellum. So, there is irreducible complexity in relation to Earth, but there is no irreducible complexity in relation to natural astronomic systems;
3) We need to understand that the stupid matter of this lost planet did not invented – first time in the universe –  these complex things like genetic code, human beings, consciousness, etc. But, the Matrix/DNA Theory, working with the approach of systemic and not reductionist or mystical thoughts, re-wrote the Universal History from today to the origins of this world, finding that everything complex here had a long evolutionary history that began with a few information that can be seen at any natural light wave. So, the effect (our perceived world) is entirely explained but, the cause escapes from us because the source is beyond and before the Big Bang, then, as we can’t advancing beyond the last material frontier, what is or who is, is it intelligent or not,… the source still is merely humans conjectures.

Diferenças no trabalho entre Darwin e o autor da Matrix/DNA Theory

segunda-feira, setembro 11th, 2017


Tem pessoas adiantando que estou me comparando a Darwin. Entao copio abaixo uma resposta que enviei a um destes criticos ( e a registro aqui porque com certeza tereii que envia-la a outros mais):
There are differences:
1) We both applied comparative anatomy, but, he applied the reductive method, working details, I applied systemic method, searching the division, location and relationships among systems, starting with the whole biosphere as unique system and calculated the reverse of evolution, arriving to a point. Then the point pointed out to the solar system, so, from the point I went to the whole Universe, applying now comparative anatomy and reverse mechanisms of evolution between living and non-living systems (atoms and astronomic systems): Here I discovered the mechanisms of cosmological evolution and that these mechanisms continuing to driven biological evolution. Darwin did not perceive it. So, I re-calculated evolution applying the Darwinian mechanisms plus the cosmological mechanisms. The final results explained all gaps in Darwinian theory.
2) The idea of evolution was existing before Darwin’s travel to the field, at the tropics. He went to confirm the idea. The idea about an evolutionary link between cosmological evolution and biological evolution, and the idea that those non-biological systems linked evolutionary to biological system must be formed by the same biological formula (an ancestor of DNA); the idea that the building blocks of galactic systems has expressed or not the seven properties of life; and the final idea that in fact, there is no evolution, but, merely, a universal process of reproduction of the thing that triggered the Big Bang… these ideas were nowhere at my time, never existed before, and till now I am the unique human being with these ideas and formulas, models, supporting them. plus 1.600 evidences enrolled at my website and lots more at home, and hundred of previous predictions from 30 years ago confirmed by data obtained by official Science. Neither I had these ideas before going to the field, it was the pure nature never touched by human beings that suggested them. My unique idea before was that the first cell system was the first complete and real living thing, systems only comes from prior systems, less evolved or not, biological or not, and nobody in any time has searched a system when searching the cause of life’s origins. I went searching such system that, probable, was inside the primordial soup.
3) Darwin worked limited to the planet Earth and stood in the field 4 years: he discovered micro-evolution, 3,5 billion years old, because biological evolution is micro: I stood in the field 7 years, putting all time the whole universe on the table when drawing and calculating my models, i worked with universal macro-evolution which is 13,8 billion years old;
4) There are ideas that you suspects it is real, you work hard on it, sometimes given your life for it, you build a new theory, but, reality approves one idea and not approve others. Biological evolution is approved already, Darwin was lucky. Universal evolution still is not approved and can be debunked ( I am almost convinced that it will not, but, not sure yet), I will lose. Still I will leave my contribution: nobody will do the same mistake again.

Argumento a Favor da Matrix/DNA: Darwinismo e’ super-simplificacao

terça-feira, julho 25th, 2017


varios argumentos uteis neste debate, defendidos por GravityBoy:

You are yet again oversimplifying the process. What you are describing is a basic chemical process, chemicals react and more chemicals are created. Dr Stephen Meyer has demolished the RNA world view in Signature in the Cell and in later rebuttals of criticism. Enzymes are billions of order of magnitude away from a 2 meter long information chain containing 3 billion bits of information wound and packed in just the right way within a membrane that allows just the right material back and forth and has micro-machines literally doing jobs based on information they find. It looks like a designed factory. One tiny cell contains ALL the information and tools needed to build a human body. Yet these cells are supposedly blind to the greater whole. Every hair, every tiny vein, the temperature control system, blood pressure system, bodily auto-pilot systems, the eye, the nervous system, breathing, eating, waste systems, the incredible totality. All of it in one cell. It is more vastly complex than anything man-made and yet if you saw a man-made object like a Jumbo Jet you would never for a second think it was produced by random forces. Like I said I’m not arguing for God, especially the one of the Bible – I’m arguing that the simple view of evolution doesn’t work either.

Evolucao: Porque evolucao e’ fato e teoria, ao mesmo tempo

domingo, outubro 16th, 2016


” …we already know with 100% certainty that evolution occurs.

The “how” part is very likely to become better understood in the future, we’re still theorising “how” evolution works and how certain traits get dumped while others get developed, but the question on “does evolution occur” is a done deal.

Vejam Como esta se Levantando a maior Religião de Todos os Tempos por Crenças como “A Evolução é Inteligente” Passando no Peer-Review e Dominando Universidades

domingo, julho 10th, 2016


Estamos tendo oportunidade de assistir ao vivo como surge uma das grandes religiões. Agora a novidade e` que, tal como no caso das outras anteriores, os protagonistas que estão criando a religião estão inconscientes do que estão fazendo, mas ao contrario dos outros que desejavam erigir uma religião, estes agora são notórios combatentes de todas as religiões e qualquer pensamento mistico.

Uma religião começa animada pela curiosidade humana elevada quando existe um motivador desesperante devido a uma interrupção na ambição humana de progresso, material e intelectual. os objetos e eventos do ambiente estão escapando ao controle porque ha’ falhas no conhecimento de causas e características destes eventos e objetos, e estas falhas começam a sugerir a existência de algo sobrenatural influenciando-os. O próximo passo é identificar objetos conhecidos como imagens porem, dota-los de poderes mágicos. E assim foram criados o Deus Sol, o Deus Touro, o Deus Dragão, o Deus Homem Barbudo, etc.

Agora três destes objetos ainda desconhecidos – os genes, a evolução e o vácuo total – estão adquirindo personalidade inteligente e estão sendo adornados com poderes mágicos. Nao vou aqui me alongar no assunto dos genes, pois quem leu os livros do Papa dos Ateus, Richard Dawkins, como o  “Gene Egoísta” sabe o que é personalizar com intenções humanas inteligentes um mero montículo disforme de átomos. Mas depois que o Projeto Genoma mostrou a Craig Venter que individualmente os genes são indefiníveis porque os resultados do conjunto deles e’que realmente causam uma doença, etc., escapando da desesperada necessidade de controle deles e consumindo bilhões de dólares, o reconhecimento de que falta conhecimento dos genes a nível material deve seguir o segundo passo, que é adorna-los de poderes mágicos. Tambem não vou me alongar no assunto do vácuo total, pois todos os que leram o livro “Do Nada veio Tudo” do Papa dos Cosmólogos, Lawrence Krauss, já perceberam que o Nada foi dotado de poderes mágicos. Vou aqui mencionar como anda o processo sobre a “evolução” devido mais um artigo publicado demonstrando mais um passo na direcao desta religião.

O artigo foi primeiro publicado pela universidade no intuito de vangloriar o sucesso de seus professores

Is evolution more intelligent than we thought?

O qual provem de um ^paper^ ( não preciso dizer aqui que a religião não admite que se aplique a ela o sistema do peer review, como deveria ser aplicado)

How Can Evolution Learn?

  Richard A. Watson , Eörs Szathmáry

Resumindo muito, os pesquisadores uniram duas teorias – a teoria Darwinista da evolução mais as teorias da aprendizagem – e conseguiram uma mais eficiente explicação do porque e como a evolução consegue produzir efeitos e arquiteturas fantásticas que nos parecem produtos de um inteligente planejador. Unificando a teoria da evolução ( a qual mostra – segundo a crença desta teoria – que mutações ao acaso e seleção são suficientes para prover incrementada adaptação) com teorias da aprendizagem ( a qual mostra como incrementadas adaptações são suficientes para um sistema exibir inteligentes comportamentos), esta pesquisa diz o pesquisador – mostra que é possível para a evolução exibir alguns dos mesmos inteligentes comportamentos como sistemas aprendizes ( incluindo redes neurais)…

Professor Watson diz > “A Teoria da Evolução de Darwin descreve o processo diretor, mas a teoria da aprendizagem não é apenas outra maneira de explicar apenas o que Darwin já disse para nos. Ela expande o que nos pensamos sobre o que a evolução é capaz de fazer. Ela mostra que a seleção natural é suficiente para produzir características de inteligente solucionadora de problemas. Por exemplo, uma especial característica da inteligencia é a habilidade de antecipar comportamentos que podem levar a benefícios no futuro. Convencionalmente – continua o professor – evolução, sendo dependente de variações ao acaso, tem sido considerada “cega ou ao menos, míope”, incapaz de exibir tal antecipação. Mas mostrando que sistemas evolutivos podem aprender de experiencias passadas significa que a evolução tem o potencial para antecipar o que e~ para adaptar a futuros meio-ambientes da mesma maneira que sistemas aprendizes fazem”…

Professor Richard Watson

Richard Watson, Parece mas não é mais um daqueles pares de mórmons que levam as boas novas de sua religião aos quatro cantos do mundo. Watson é o novo sacerdote das universidades modernas.

Estas palavras, de acordo com a super-naturalista visão de mundo que encontrei na selva, são de um absurdo total. Próprio de quem esta’ perdendo o controle das suas faculdades mentais devido estar sucumbindo ao germe de uma nova religião.

Para começar, evolução é um nome criado por humanos para nomear um conceito abstrato que não tem representação palpável e visível no nosso mundo sensorial. Peixes se transformam em lagartos que se transformam em mamíferos… isto é a coisa concreta, palpável ( mesmo assim, não muito). O que se vê de real são transformações atras de transformações e uma sequencia indo do mais simples para o mais complexo. Para se resumir estas palavras descritivas todas criou-se um nome, evolução, e isto é o que evolução é. Houve aplicação de inteligencia na transformação de peixes para lagartos? Claro que não. Ah… mas quando você começa a mentalizar com insistência um nome bonito, na moda, apesar de abstrato de tal maneira que esse nome passa a ocupar sua mente, você começa a projetar nele uma personalidade quase humana, e de repente você esta não apenas vendo o nome como visão real, você esta inclusive vendo a visão ser inteligente. Agora que você transpôs uma entidade sobrenatural sobre o processo da transformação de peixes em lagartos, mas como você não pode dizer que a transformação em si foi inteligente porque serias expulso do meio acadêmico como um criacionista acreditando em outra velha religião, em intelligent design, você se salva colocando o “inteligente” sobre o nome abstrato. Não foi assim que se inventou Thor e depois o colocou como produtor de raios e trovoes ?

Não existe evolução, como uma coisa de per se. O que existem são micro-ciclos evolutivos dentro de um grande processo de reprodução universal. E para ilustrar isto me permitam recorrer a uma historiazinha, a qual gostaria que chegasse aos ouvidos destes misticos.

Certa vez existia um microbio nadador tao pequeno que morava dentro de um ovulo não fecundado. Chamava-se Ernesto e era inteligente, já tinha até fabricado umas lunetas, etc. A vida ia calma para o Ernesto sempre nadando naquele imenso oceano amniótico até que um dia… tudo mudou. Apareceu no centro do oceano uma nave alienígena. Ele esperou impaciente as portas da nave se abrirem para ver a cara dos alienígenas, porem, de repente a nave explodiu, num espalhafatoso big bang, e os alienígenas saíram a nadar. ( Estes caras devem ser portugueses pois não sabem fazer portas e para saírem precisam explodir o carro – pensou Ernesto, mas na verdade ele não sabia que o que tinha visto era o mero romper repentino da membrana de um espermatozoide). E cada alienígena que tinha a forma de sereio agarrou uma das sereias do lugar e começou um grande baile. Quando acordou no dia seguinte sereios e sereias tinham desaparecido e no lugar havia uma bolota disforme. A bolota continuou crescendo, depois tomou a forma de um sapinho, de um peixe, de uma lagartixa, de um feto e no fim de uma forma que Ernesto nunca tinha visto. E num belo dia a nova forma se foi, deixando Ernesto a pensar com seus botoes. “Acabei de assistir a uma historia, a qual vou chamar de Evolução”. Mas intrigado Ernesto tudo fez para tambem sair daquele lugar que não tinha mais seu doce oceano e quando chegou num lugar novo, la viu a forma  que tinha visto evoluir, e junto com inúmeras outras formas da mesma especie, e que dominavam um planeta para os quais estavam perfeitamente adaptados. E Ernesto pensou. “Caramba! Todo aquele trabalho, aquelas sucessivas transformações, tinham uma meta final, um plano inteligente, que era o de fazer uma criatura fantastica adaptada a um mundo fantástico que a esperava no futuro! Então a Evolução era inteligente e não apenas isso, podia prever o futuro!”

Meu Deus do Céu, eu não sei se tu existe, mas de qualquer forma, pare o mundo que eu quero descer!

Estes misticos modernos o são porque não conhecem aquele que foi nosso criador e dentro de cujo ventre ainda estamos sendo forjados. A foto do bicho esta’ no meu website, mas o ilusionismo da’ valor as imagens visionarias e não vê mais as imagens reais. Se eu conseguisse pô-los numa sala de aula e começasse a descrever um novo mundo no quadro negro, é certo que em poucos minutos iriam saindo um por um da sala, pois aquilo lhes seria insuportável. Como foi para o clero cristão quando um Copérnico os chamou e começou a dizer que não era a Terra o centro do mundo, etc. Ou da outra vez quando Darwin os chamou e começou a dizer que Deus não esteve aqui criando formas uma a uma. Não quiseram e não puderam ouvir, claro, passaram a vida creditando numa mentira, sobre essa mentira estava alicerçada seus privilégios como status social, etc. O desmascaramento dessa mentira seria suas ruínas.

Ao sair da sala algum poderia sair rindo ( toda vez que eu explicava alguma tecnologia da civilização para os índios, eles se riam a vontade, eu não entendia o porque, mas depois aprendi que é a reação instintiva espontânea a qualquer ameaça perturbadora que ainda esteja `a distancia).  Rindo e dizendo algo como. “Ora, nos temos 200 anos trabalhando com afinco em cima de um fenômeno natural super-complexo e você vem agora nos fazer perder empo descrevendo um mero processo de embriogênese:  E você quer dizer que isto é evolução! Não tem nada a ver. Evolução se da’ em termos de populações e não em termos individuais como ocorre com um feto na embriogênese.”

Se eu tivesse tempo imediatamente pediria: “Ok, então por favor me mostre o fato cientifico observado da evolução sobre populações ou algum outro evento no Cosmos que seja semelhante a teoria da evolução por populações que vocês elaboraram.

Não tem. Pela logica ela existe, eles devem estarem certo falando que houve um processo evolucionário baseado na transmissão de genes mutados entre gerações de populações, mas este processo nunca sera’ um fato cientifico comprovado porque, se na teoria todas as transformações começaram por uma mutação ao acaso, e acasos são impossíveis de se repetirem em laboratórios – pois se algum dia alguém repetir um acaso ele deixara’ de se-lo e se entendera’ que ele sempre foi uma lei – … Mas não é nisto que esta errando feio. Mutações por acaso devem ocorrer a todo instante, o processo de transcrição do DNA é muito complexo e depende de todas as demais condições inalteráveis, mas quando ocorre uma mutação por acaso, se a Evolução pudesse falar ela diria: ” Ora, seja bem vinda, você me poupou um bocado de trabalho. Podes ficar porque de qualquer maneira eu iria ter de faze-la mesmo…” Ou então: ” Você nada tem a fazer aqui, vieste bagunçar o meu projeto? Estas descartada para sempre!”

O motivo do erro é outro, muito mais complexo. Eles separaram a Historia Universal em dois blocos – a Evolução Cosmológica e a Evolução Biológica – sem nenhum elo evolucionário entre os blocos, e este abismo criado só pode ser preenchido com a mistica. Para se explicar a existência do segundo bloco da Historia, com suas origens da vida, é preciso inventar um deus magico, e este se chamou Deus Acaso Absoluto, produtor das mutações ao acaso, milagrosas.

O Universo é uma especie de ovo cósmico, as galaxias são as células de uma placenta, e dentro deste Universo esta ocorrendo um processo de reprodução genética daquilo ou daquele que carrega este ovo cósmico no ventre. Este universal macro-processo de reprodução é um fractal que vai se dividindo em fractais menores, ou seja, micro-ciclos deste processo, do qual a evolução biológica, a evolução de nove meses de uma embriogênese são meros fractais, mas como tais se dão pelo mesmo processo universal. Por isso, temos que observar e prestar atenção na projeção deste processo universal que esta aqui, na frente de nossos olhos, para tentar-mos entender o que esta ocorrendo a nível universal. Por isso a historinha do Ernesto. Uma historia que tem sangue nas veias de sua racionalidade, mas rejeitada porque as mentes em fase religiosa só apreciam os contos mágicos de fadas.

A evolução é inteligente! So faltava essa… Assim resolvem um mistério que estavam tentando entender: como a evolução cega pode produzir algo tao fantástico como um corpo humano?!

Ora, quem fez meu corpo foi o DNA dos meus pais sem que tivessem aplicado qualquer naco de inteligencia para me fazerem, tudo ocorreu naturalmente. Meus pais nunca vieram me dizer que para me fazer contrataram uma arquiteta inteligente chamada Evolução.

Criacionismo: O inútil Trabalho de Charles Darwin

quarta-feira, julho 6th, 2016


Traduzir o texto aqui.

The wasted career of Charles Darwin

Tem interessantes argumentos como:

“Well, if you are a product of chance, your brain is a product of chance. Therefore, the thought patterns that determine your logic are also the products of chance. If your logic is the result of chance processes, you can’t be sure it evolved properly. You can’t trust your own logic.” (Ham, 26)

E nos comentários, outra joia:

The notion that God set events in motion billions of years ago, in such a way as to achieve the universe as it is now, is beyond incredible. To simply “create” the final product would be like playing a video game with all of the cheat codes on hand.