The believed certainty that still needs to be taught with the word 'Theory' in front of it.
According to Albert G. Mackey's Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry, Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles, was the first to promulgate the concept of evolution:
"Dr. Erasmus Darwin (1731—1802) was the first man in England to suggest those ideas which later were to be embodied in the Darwinian Theory by his grandson, Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882), who wrote in 1859 Origin of Species."
- (Mackey 1873)
Erasmus Darwin was actually the founder of the Masonic Lunar Society.
Ian T.Taylor, the author of In The Minds Of Men : Darwin and The New World Order, claims the Lunar Society was active between 1764 and 1800 and its influence continued long afterward under the banner of the British Royal Society.
The Lunar Society, it's name attributed to how its members would meet monthly at the time of a full moon, consisted of influential members such as,
· John Wilkinson (Industrialist)
· James Watt (Inventor)
· Matthew Boulton (Manufacturer)
· Joseph Priestly (Chemist)
· Josiah Wedgwood (Pottery Business)
· Benjamin Franklin (US Founding Father)
These men were branded the "Merchants of Light"
"Before coming to Derby in 1788, Dr. [Erasmus] Darwin had been made a Mason in the famous Time Immemorial Lodge of Cannongate Kilwinning, No. 2, of Scotland. Sir Francis Darwin, one of the Doctor’s sons, was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge, No. 253, at Derby, in 1807 or 1808. His son Reginald was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge in 1804. The name of Charles Darwin does not appear on the rolls of the Lodge but it is very possible that he, like Francis, was a Mason."
- Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry
In 1794, Erasmus Darwin wrote a book called 'Zoonomia' where he expanded on his theory of evolution, the book was based on the Occult concept of 'Becoming', the gradual process of obtaining Godhood.
Even before then, John Locke, a prominent Freemason and member of the British Society, had taken from the Hindu idea of reincarnation and formulated his own idea's of evolution based upon it.
The British Royal Society accepted John's ideas and received the support of the male members of the Darwin family at the time.
Two century's later, this Occult concept of 'Becoming' evolved into Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species.
The British Royal Society acted as the headquarters for the propaganda, pushing The Theory Of Evolution on the unwitting public.
Given that the founding members of the Royal Society were Freemasons, whatever science they came up with would only be an extension of their Occult Doctrine.
W.L Wilmhurst, an English author and Freemason, published four books on English Freemasonry and submitted articles to The Occult Review magazine.
In his book, The meaning of Masonry, Wilmhurst reveals the world view, underpinning the new masonic science,
"This—the evolution of man into superman—was always the purpose of the ancient Mysteries, and the real purpose of modern Masonry is, not the social and charitable purposes to which so much attention is paid, but the expediting of the spiritual evolution of those who aspire to perfect their own nature and transform it into a more god-like quality. And this is a definite science, a royal art, which it is possible for each of us to put into practice; whilst to join the Craft for any other purpose than to study and pursue this science is to misunderstand its meaning."
He goes on to state on page 94 of the same book,
"an who has sprung from earth and developed through the lower kingdoms of nature to his present rational state, has yet to complete his evolution [Emphasis added] by becoming a god-like being and unifying his consciousness with the Omniscient—to promote which is and always has been the sole aim and purpose of all initiation."
This shows the idea behind evolution is man gradually evolving into enlightened godhood.
The evolutionary theory strongly relies on Spontaneous Generation, the idea that life could arise from non living matter, that life could come from chemicals by some kind of natural and undirected reaction.
"This great controversy ended in the mid-19th century with the experiments of Louis Pasteur, which seemed to dispose finally of the possibility of spontaneous generation. For almost a century afterward biologists proudly taught their students this history and the firm conclusion that spontaneous generation had been scientifically refuted and could not possibly occur. Does this mean that they accepted the alternative view, a supernatural creation of life? Not at all. They had no theory of the origin of life, and if pressed were likely to explain that questions involving such unique events as origins and endings have no place in science."
- Wald, G. 1954. The Origin of Life. Scientific American August: 44-53 [September 1958] article (check reference)
The idea that lifeless matter spontaneously generates life can also be found in an ancient Kabbalah concept called 'the Golem'
The late Isaac Bashevis Singer, who studied the Kabbalah extensively, explained: “'the golem' is based on faith, that dead matter is not really dead, but can he brought to life, what are the computers and robots of our time if not Golems ? The Talmud tells us of an interpreter by the name of Rava who formed a man by this mysterious power... We are living in an epoch of golem-making right now. The gap between science and magic is becoming narrower...
- (Hoffman, P. 115, 2001)
"Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons. If you find this hard to believe, just have a close look at Charles Darwin's classic work, first published in 1859, usually known as Origin of the Species. Actually, the full title is more ominous: Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of the Favored Races. As Darwin himself states very clearly, the essential idea for this theory came from Thomas Malthus."
- EIR Journalist, Jonathan Tennenbaum, September 7, 2001 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Thomas Malthus being a Eugenics enthusiast, authored a document called,
"An Essay on The Principle of Population", where he concluded that society should adopt policies that prevent the human population from growing larger than the food supply can withhold, however, his proposed solution to such a problem is rather shocking,
"It is an evident truth that, whatever may be the rate of increase in the means of subsistence, the increase of population must be limited by it, at least after the food has once been divided into the smallest shares that will support life. All the children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this level, must necessarily perish"
He continues,
"Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations.*12 But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. If by these and similar means the annual mortality were increased from 1 in 36 or 40, to 1 in 18 or 20, we might probably every one of us marry at the age of puberty, and yet few be absolutely starved."
Genocide, aimed at the lower classes, he continues,
"As a previous step even to any considerable alteration in the present system, which would contract or stop the increase of the relief to be given, it appears to me that we are bound in justice and honour formally to disclaim the right of the poor to support. To this end, I should propose a regulation to be made, declaring, that no child born from any marriage, taking place after the expiration of a year from the date of the law, and no illegitimate child born two years from the same date, should ever be entitled to parish assistance. And to give a more general knowledge of this law, and to enforce it more strongly on the minds of the lower classes of people, the clergyman of each parish should, after the publication of banns, read a short address, stating the strong obligation on every man to support his own children; the impropriety, and even immorality, of marrying without a prospect of being able to do this; the evils which had resulted to the poor themselves from the attempt which had been made to assist by public institutions in a duty which ought to be exclusively appropriated to parents; and the absolute necessity which had at length appeared of abandoning all such institutions, on account of their producing effects totally opposite to those which were intended."
(IV.VIII.4/5, An essay on the principle of population, Malthus)
Though Darwin’s 'survival of the fittest' implication within his theory, has given birth to the idea of Eugenics, trying to artificially speed up the upwards course evolutionists believe us to be on.
Surprisingly enough, it was Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, who popularized the idea of Eugenics in his book, "Hereditary genius", in which he advocated a system of selective breeding for purposes of 'more suitable races or strains of blood.'
Galton defined eugenics as “the science of improving stock" and Darwin himself followed the idea in hopes of achieving a Genetic superiority within his own bloodline, choosing to marry the youngest granddaughter of his maternal father.
Researcher Ian Taylor reveals the results of this inbreeding project,
"Darwins idea of inbreeding to produce superior stock can be seen to be a complete disaster in the case of his own ten children. Of the ten, one girl, Mary, died shortly after birth; another girl, Anne, died at the age of ten years; his eldest daughter, Henrietta, had a serious and prolonged breakdown at fifteen in 1859. Three of his six sons suffered such frequent illness that Darwin regarded them as semi-invalids, while his last son, Charles Jr., was born mentally retarded and died in 1858, nineteen months after birth." - (Taylor, p. 127, 1999)
Inbreeding, in actual fact, leeds to speedier destruction of the genetic code rather than evolution, due to Biological mutations.
Eugenics continued to be promoted within the scientific community and in 1901, the statistics department of London’s University College became the headquarters for the Eugenics education society.
Motivated by Galton’s vision of a future ruled by genetically engineered elite, the Eugenics society grew into a successful political movement and would eventually inspire Hitlers Holocaust.
So lets get down to some basic science,
Darwins Theory, basically explained:
According to the theory of evolution, the first living cells were thought to come into being in what is often referred to as the "primordial soup" and this process can be referred to as abiogenesis. This early sea was thought to contain a soup of chemicals that formed themselves into simple single celled organisms.
Life began in the ocean, billions of years ago, when the right chemicals came together, within the right circumstances to form our single-celled ancestors by chance.
These creatures then went on to evolve into multi-cellular animals.
Micro organisms - Invertebrates - Fish - Amphibians - Reptiles - Mammals - Apes - People.
So how does a Cell come about by chance ? and what are the odds of such an event happening ?
A single Cell is actually, astronomically more complex than anything that comes to mind, There are thousands of Proteins within just one cell.
The odds of getting a single protein by chance, in the 'ancient ocean' is one to ten, to the power of two hundred and sixty..
Mathematicians estimate anything with odds greater than one tenth to the power of fifty is impossible, therefore a SINGLE protein appearing by chance is a scientific impossibility, let alone the thousands a cell would need.
Carl Sagan wrote: “The information content of a simple cell has been established as around 1012 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica” - [Sag97] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p43.].
So, this first cell made by chance, (an impossibility), would need the ability to absorb nutrients, expel waste and would have to develop and perfect the process of cellular reproduction within one lifetime, else you would never get a second cell.
A single Cell or strand of DNA are far too complex for the theory of evolution to be any more than a misguided idea.
Science is based on observations, and no one has ever observed chemicals assembling themselves into working functional cellular parts.
Genetics
An animal cannot give birth to a different species of animal due to having a different genetic makeup, even so, a man cannot be born with a certain colour of hair unless he has the correct genes. within his bloodline?
Darwin was not aware of Genetics when he published his book, and when supporters of his theory heard of it they realised they needed to explain both how the anatomical features came about from evolution and how the new genes came about, as if we came from a fish, a fishes gene pool is radically different from a humans gene pool and even the idea of Genetics completely disproved the Darwinian theory.
The response to this argument was to blame random mutations..
So these mutations are thought to be the building block of evolutionary chains, the idea behind this being that a fish mutated an arm and this was evolutionary efficient so it was kept and then the descendants of this freak of nature also grew the same deformity and further down the line more mutations causing more limbs.
Mutations are rare, but not impossible, however, there has never been a mutation that added information, all studied mutations have been found to reduce genetic information, they destroy, not add.
Mutations have only been found to be destructive and cause four thousand other genetic disorders in humans such as down syndrome or haemophilia.
Describing mutations as being the building blocks of evolution is to accuse someone with down syndrome of being further evolved than the average man.
[Unfortunately, a lack of knowledge and research forms an ignorant man, self assured by his untested beliefs, fed to him at a young age.]
In truth, if we had evolved through mutations we would not look as we do, to rely on deformities to create a man is what some call Frankenstein science, our body parts would not be symmetrical to say the least.
Darwin also claimed there would be an 'unguessably great' number of intermediate species whereas we have found not one.
Through observation, no species of bacteria has ever evolved into even another form of bacteria, yet it is proposed that bacteria happened to morph from a microorganism to an invertebrate (animals with backbones) then into a vertebrate such as a Fish, then to an amphibian, reptile, then mammal, then ape, then person.
You cannot change any type of animal to another, by any means..
DNA is like a complicated computer program, yet far more advanced, so if you don't think that the codes for a supercomputer came about by chance, neither did our genetic code.
"You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of the species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas." - Charles Darwin, 1858, in a letter to a colleague regarding the concluding chapters of his Origin of Species. As quoted in 'John Lofton's Journal', The Washington Times, 8 February 1984
"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants."
- (1980 Assembly Week address: Professor Whitten, Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia, as quoted in The Quote Book)
"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November 1981
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
― Werner Heisenberg
In the story of life's origin, naturalists tell us various chemicals collected in ponds and self-assembled into amino acids. (The building blocks of proteins or cell material). In time these acids further self-assembled into proteins, then cells - they say. Now think about this, the leap from an element to protein, then protein to cell is quite a task in itself. This is no different than saying we have aluminium, copper and steel etc., and sprang forth a 747! That’s a small statement about a very big thing when speaking of life coming from chemistry! Evolutionists assert the Prokaryote cell on the right did so. Fact is, this creature has the same number of working parts as the jetliner! One of the proponents of this theory was Dr. Dean Kenyon, outlined in his popular book, Biochemical Predestination. In It, Dr. Kenyon asserted that the valences of chemical compounds could have self-attracted into organized structures ending in a cell. This concept seemed to have saved the idea of mindless self-assembly as required by evolution, but was later disproved.
Note that Kenyon abandoned his theory and later became a strong promoter of Intelligent Design. He determined that if evolution was true it required DNA evolving in parallel synchronization with cell operation, an impossibility without intelligence.
The DNA sequence strand, with it's coding equivalent of over 2 GigaBit of data in humans!
When more powerful microscopes became available in the 1960's, an amazing finding was made; the discovery of the DNA coding strand by Dr. Francis Crick. This strand of highly organized chemical units contained the coded technical instructions to build life on a chemical tape, directing the operation and work of the cell. This finding revolutionized man's understanding of life's complexity. The DNA triple base "life code" uses the same language in all living things, from amoeba to man, and is seen to be exactly the same since life first formed. This stasis of the code and mechanism is a challenge to the concept of evolution, a theory that tout's the ability to change life forms quite prolifically! One should consider the contradiction of absolute stasis in cell operation compared the suggested amazing power of evolution, which claims that from a single cell all life forms on Earth were derived. Does DNA point to a common Super-Intelligence or better support the accidental probability of evolution?
Evolutions operation depends completely on mutations, or random mistakes entering the genes, causing change. After these changes occur either good or bad, natural selection isolates the good traits and the life form moves forward. If this is true the DNA and cell mechanism should have changed along with it, it has not. This means that the codes for all the different life forms on earth were introduced at some critical point in the past. Biologists often refer to this as the Cambrian explosion.
If we open the Bible it would be defined as Creation.
The worst diseases doctors treat today are caused by genetic mutations. Nearly 4,000 diseases are caused by mutations in DNA.
So in truth, mutations are a poor way to create new forms of life.
A Prokaryote bacteria is considered the first single-cell animal, claimed to have been found among the oldest known rocks on Earth. However, when closely studied with electron computer imaging we find this tiny creature amazingly complex, made with many millions of molecules operating in perfect order, like the 747!
"The genetic material (DNA) in most bacteria contains some 4.7 million base pairs. Stretched out, this molecule would be about 1,000 times longer than the bacterium itself".
The DNA is just the software, what about all the other systems that work, read, duplicate (The DNA of bacteria alone replicate error-free at an amazing rate 30,000 "letters" per minute) and assemble in the cell!
In other words, these tiny animals are far from "simple". They may be said to be less complicated as their companions the Eukaryotes (mentioned later), which are far more complex in comparison.
As we can see, dead chemicals becoming life are a big deal, and explaining this gap away with a few drawings and words is entirely over-simplistic. We also must realise that cell’s only have DNA reading capacity, not information writing capacity like your computer has.
In Charles Darwin’s day, the general understanding of biologic change was that characteristics could be inherited--that is, if an animal acquired a physical characteristic during its lifetime, it could pass those characteristic on to its progeny. This of course was proved false years later.
The e. coli has 11 coils and turn at several hundreds of RPM. Some species turn @100,000 rpm, so a motor equipped with 10 coils would equal 1,000,000 proton pulses per minute! These motors also have a torque sensor and feedback loop to instruct the creature to run at differing speeds and direction like forward and backward, not bad for a 'simple' single cell! In fact, the Prokaryotes mentioned actually live inside you now, they are classed as e. coli!
Dr. Berg's, research is outstanding and well written, but may we stop for a moment and look at your origin claims here? Let’s ask two questions regarding this statement;
If the development was mindless and accidental, we with minds should be able to unravel this "marvel", or better yet, construct one of our own, but we can't.
The question must be asked, by what process did this tiny little motor develop in Billions of years? Naturalists place Prokaryotes at about 3.5 billion years old, so how can these fully formed creatures have taken "billions of years" to "hone?", the first "simple" life forms? What were the steps this multi-billion year "honing" process and where is the evidence supporting such a process?
It's simple, evolutionists claim Prokaryotes are simple and as such must be primitive. These "simple" creatures have nearly the same number of parts as a 747 (about six million, but that includes the screws and rivet’s!), which like the aircraft, work together perfectly.
Further, these cell's do things the '47' cannot do - like multiply. And by the way, they both have motors, the MO-1 version has three more than the Boeing model! (See formation section below)
B-2 Stealth Bomber on the left, 747 on the right..
The Replication Barrier
For decades evolutionists have used over-simplifications to explain these gaps;
A) Chemical soup to "simple" life forms - (like single cell Prokaryote bacteria with motors!)
B) Prokaryote bacteria (RH) to Eukaryote cells (LH), (Eukaryotes are the cells that form multi-celled life, which include all animals and even people).
Evolutionists must logically link the above single celled life forms in succession to explain how evolution accounts for all life on earth, right?
A natural place to start is the multiplication process of each type of these two cells. Looking at the two, one can see a load of differences. Prokaryote's employ a process known as "Binary Fission" to multiply (LH image). This is where the DNA (in loops) and other structures are imaged into two identical sets, each pulling back to the opposite extremities of the cell in the division process.
Soon after, the cell forms a squeeze point in the middle, (conveniently opposite the end with the flagella motor!) and then pull into two identical units, the new "sister" now forming into adulthood. The proton motor is assembling in the new half, the sequence only taking minutes!
So how does the supposed next common ancestor from Prokaryote, the Eukaryote, multiply? By a radically different and unrelated process called "Mitosis". (RH image) These two methods are distinct and unique, even the most imaginative theorists have difficulty connecting their processes. They tell us with enough time, accidents and the notion of common ancestry in your mind, its thinkable. No, it’s not thinkable! Think about all the differences and complexities involved, none of which may be duplicated by man. One must apply reason and really look at what’s involved scientifically.
Quoting from Cooper, GM. The Cell: A Molecular Approach.;"
As you can see, Darwinism takes more faith than any religion.
According to Albert G. Mackey's Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry, Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles, was the first to promulgate the concept of evolution:
"Dr. Erasmus Darwin (1731—1802) was the first man in England to suggest those ideas which later were to be embodied in the Darwinian Theory by his grandson, Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882), who wrote in 1859 Origin of Species."
- (Mackey 1873)
Erasmus Darwin was actually the founder of the Masonic Lunar Society.
Ian T.Taylor, the author of In The Minds Of Men : Darwin and The New World Order, claims the Lunar Society was active between 1764 and 1800 and its influence continued long afterward under the banner of the British Royal Society.
The Lunar Society, it's name attributed to how its members would meet monthly at the time of a full moon, consisted of influential members such as,
· John Wilkinson (Industrialist)
· James Watt (Inventor)
· Matthew Boulton (Manufacturer)
· Joseph Priestly (Chemist)
· Josiah Wedgwood (Pottery Business)
· Benjamin Franklin (US Founding Father)
These men were branded the "Merchants of Light"
"Before coming to Derby in 1788, Dr. [Erasmus] Darwin had been made a Mason in the famous Time Immemorial Lodge of Cannongate Kilwinning, No. 2, of Scotland. Sir Francis Darwin, one of the Doctor’s sons, was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge, No. 253, at Derby, in 1807 or 1808. His son Reginald was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge in 1804. The name of Charles Darwin does not appear on the rolls of the Lodge but it is very possible that he, like Francis, was a Mason."
- Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry
In 1794, Erasmus Darwin wrote a book called 'Zoonomia' where he expanded on his theory of evolution, the book was based on the Occult concept of 'Becoming', the gradual process of obtaining Godhood.
Even before then, John Locke, a prominent Freemason and member of the British Society, had taken from the Hindu idea of reincarnation and formulated his own idea's of evolution based upon it.
The British Royal Society accepted John's ideas and received the support of the male members of the Darwin family at the time.
Two century's later, this Occult concept of 'Becoming' evolved into Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species.
The British Royal Society acted as the headquarters for the propaganda, pushing The Theory Of Evolution on the unwitting public.
Given that the founding members of the Royal Society were Freemasons, whatever science they came up with would only be an extension of their Occult Doctrine.
W.L Wilmhurst, an English author and Freemason, published four books on English Freemasonry and submitted articles to The Occult Review magazine.
In his book, The meaning of Masonry, Wilmhurst reveals the world view, underpinning the new masonic science,
"This—the evolution of man into superman—was always the purpose of the ancient Mysteries, and the real purpose of modern Masonry is, not the social and charitable purposes to which so much attention is paid, but the expediting of the spiritual evolution of those who aspire to perfect their own nature and transform it into a more god-like quality. And this is a definite science, a royal art, which it is possible for each of us to put into practice; whilst to join the Craft for any other purpose than to study and pursue this science is to misunderstand its meaning."
He goes on to state on page 94 of the same book,
"an who has sprung from earth and developed through the lower kingdoms of nature to his present rational state, has yet to complete his evolution [Emphasis added] by becoming a god-like being and unifying his consciousness with the Omniscient—to promote which is and always has been the sole aim and purpose of all initiation."
This shows the idea behind evolution is man gradually evolving into enlightened godhood.
The evolutionary theory strongly relies on Spontaneous Generation, the idea that life could arise from non living matter, that life could come from chemicals by some kind of natural and undirected reaction.
"This great controversy ended in the mid-19th century with the experiments of Louis Pasteur, which seemed to dispose finally of the possibility of spontaneous generation. For almost a century afterward biologists proudly taught their students this history and the firm conclusion that spontaneous generation had been scientifically refuted and could not possibly occur. Does this mean that they accepted the alternative view, a supernatural creation of life? Not at all. They had no theory of the origin of life, and if pressed were likely to explain that questions involving such unique events as origins and endings have no place in science."
- Wald, G. 1954. The Origin of Life. Scientific American August: 44-53 [September 1958] article (check reference)
The idea that lifeless matter spontaneously generates life can also be found in an ancient Kabbalah concept called 'the Golem'
The late Isaac Bashevis Singer, who studied the Kabbalah extensively, explained: “'the golem' is based on faith, that dead matter is not really dead, but can he brought to life, what are the computers and robots of our time if not Golems ? The Talmud tells us of an interpreter by the name of Rava who formed a man by this mysterious power... We are living in an epoch of golem-making right now. The gap between science and magic is becoming narrower...
- (Hoffman, P. 115, 2001)
"Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons. If you find this hard to believe, just have a close look at Charles Darwin's classic work, first published in 1859, usually known as Origin of the Species. Actually, the full title is more ominous: Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of the Favored Races. As Darwin himself states very clearly, the essential idea for this theory came from Thomas Malthus."
- EIR Journalist, Jonathan Tennenbaum, September 7, 2001 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Thomas Malthus being a Eugenics enthusiast, authored a document called,
"An Essay on The Principle of Population", where he concluded that society should adopt policies that prevent the human population from growing larger than the food supply can withhold, however, his proposed solution to such a problem is rather shocking,
"It is an evident truth that, whatever may be the rate of increase in the means of subsistence, the increase of population must be limited by it, at least after the food has once been divided into the smallest shares that will support life. All the children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this level, must necessarily perish"
He continues,
"Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations.*12 But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. If by these and similar means the annual mortality were increased from 1 in 36 or 40, to 1 in 18 or 20, we might probably every one of us marry at the age of puberty, and yet few be absolutely starved."
Genocide, aimed at the lower classes, he continues,
"As a previous step even to any considerable alteration in the present system, which would contract or stop the increase of the relief to be given, it appears to me that we are bound in justice and honour formally to disclaim the right of the poor to support. To this end, I should propose a regulation to be made, declaring, that no child born from any marriage, taking place after the expiration of a year from the date of the law, and no illegitimate child born two years from the same date, should ever be entitled to parish assistance. And to give a more general knowledge of this law, and to enforce it more strongly on the minds of the lower classes of people, the clergyman of each parish should, after the publication of banns, read a short address, stating the strong obligation on every man to support his own children; the impropriety, and even immorality, of marrying without a prospect of being able to do this; the evils which had resulted to the poor themselves from the attempt which had been made to assist by public institutions in a duty which ought to be exclusively appropriated to parents; and the absolute necessity which had at length appeared of abandoning all such institutions, on account of their producing effects totally opposite to those which were intended."
(IV.VIII.4/5, An essay on the principle of population, Malthus)
Though Darwin’s 'survival of the fittest' implication within his theory, has given birth to the idea of Eugenics, trying to artificially speed up the upwards course evolutionists believe us to be on.
Surprisingly enough, it was Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, who popularized the idea of Eugenics in his book, "Hereditary genius", in which he advocated a system of selective breeding for purposes of 'more suitable races or strains of blood.'
Galton defined eugenics as “the science of improving stock" and Darwin himself followed the idea in hopes of achieving a Genetic superiority within his own bloodline, choosing to marry the youngest granddaughter of his maternal father.
Researcher Ian Taylor reveals the results of this inbreeding project,
"Darwins idea of inbreeding to produce superior stock can be seen to be a complete disaster in the case of his own ten children. Of the ten, one girl, Mary, died shortly after birth; another girl, Anne, died at the age of ten years; his eldest daughter, Henrietta, had a serious and prolonged breakdown at fifteen in 1859. Three of his six sons suffered such frequent illness that Darwin regarded them as semi-invalids, while his last son, Charles Jr., was born mentally retarded and died in 1858, nineteen months after birth." - (Taylor, p. 127, 1999)
Inbreeding, in actual fact, leeds to speedier destruction of the genetic code rather than evolution, due to Biological mutations.
Eugenics continued to be promoted within the scientific community and in 1901, the statistics department of London’s University College became the headquarters for the Eugenics education society.
Motivated by Galton’s vision of a future ruled by genetically engineered elite, the Eugenics society grew into a successful political movement and would eventually inspire Hitlers Holocaust.
So lets get down to some basic science,
Darwins Theory, basically explained:
According to the theory of evolution, the first living cells were thought to come into being in what is often referred to as the "primordial soup" and this process can be referred to as abiogenesis. This early sea was thought to contain a soup of chemicals that formed themselves into simple single celled organisms.
Life began in the ocean, billions of years ago, when the right chemicals came together, within the right circumstances to form our single-celled ancestors by chance.
These creatures then went on to evolve into multi-cellular animals.
Micro organisms - Invertebrates - Fish - Amphibians - Reptiles - Mammals - Apes - People.
So how does a Cell come about by chance ? and what are the odds of such an event happening ?
A single Cell is actually, astronomically more complex than anything that comes to mind, There are thousands of Proteins within just one cell.
The odds of getting a single protein by chance, in the 'ancient ocean' is one to ten, to the power of two hundred and sixty..
Mathematicians estimate anything with odds greater than one tenth to the power of fifty is impossible, therefore a SINGLE protein appearing by chance is a scientific impossibility, let alone the thousands a cell would need.
Carl Sagan wrote: “The information content of a simple cell has been established as around 1012 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica” - [Sag97] [Donald E. Johnson: Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability (A Call to Scientific Integrity), Booksurge Publishing 2009, p43.].
So, this first cell made by chance, (an impossibility), would need the ability to absorb nutrients, expel waste and would have to develop and perfect the process of cellular reproduction within one lifetime, else you would never get a second cell.
A single Cell or strand of DNA are far too complex for the theory of evolution to be any more than a misguided idea.
Science is based on observations, and no one has ever observed chemicals assembling themselves into working functional cellular parts.
Genetics
An animal cannot give birth to a different species of animal due to having a different genetic makeup, even so, a man cannot be born with a certain colour of hair unless he has the correct genes. within his bloodline?
Darwin was not aware of Genetics when he published his book, and when supporters of his theory heard of it they realised they needed to explain both how the anatomical features came about from evolution and how the new genes came about, as if we came from a fish, a fishes gene pool is radically different from a humans gene pool and even the idea of Genetics completely disproved the Darwinian theory.
The response to this argument was to blame random mutations..
So these mutations are thought to be the building block of evolutionary chains, the idea behind this being that a fish mutated an arm and this was evolutionary efficient so it was kept and then the descendants of this freak of nature also grew the same deformity and further down the line more mutations causing more limbs.
Mutations are rare, but not impossible, however, there has never been a mutation that added information, all studied mutations have been found to reduce genetic information, they destroy, not add.
Mutations have only been found to be destructive and cause four thousand other genetic disorders in humans such as down syndrome or haemophilia.
Describing mutations as being the building blocks of evolution is to accuse someone with down syndrome of being further evolved than the average man.
[Unfortunately, a lack of knowledge and research forms an ignorant man, self assured by his untested beliefs, fed to him at a young age.]
In truth, if we had evolved through mutations we would not look as we do, to rely on deformities to create a man is what some call Frankenstein science, our body parts would not be symmetrical to say the least.
Darwin also claimed there would be an 'unguessably great' number of intermediate species whereas we have found not one.
Through observation, no species of bacteria has ever evolved into even another form of bacteria, yet it is proposed that bacteria happened to morph from a microorganism to an invertebrate (animals with backbones) then into a vertebrate such as a Fish, then to an amphibian, reptile, then mammal, then ape, then person.
You cannot change any type of animal to another, by any means..
DNA is like a complicated computer program, yet far more advanced, so if you don't think that the codes for a supercomputer came about by chance, neither did our genetic code.
"You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of the species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas." - Charles Darwin, 1858, in a letter to a colleague regarding the concluding chapters of his Origin of Species. As quoted in 'John Lofton's Journal', The Washington Times, 8 February 1984
"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants."
- (1980 Assembly Week address: Professor Whitten, Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia, as quoted in The Quote Book)
"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November 1981
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
― Werner Heisenberg
In the story of life's origin, naturalists tell us various chemicals collected in ponds and self-assembled into amino acids. (The building blocks of proteins or cell material). In time these acids further self-assembled into proteins, then cells - they say. Now think about this, the leap from an element to protein, then protein to cell is quite a task in itself. This is no different than saying we have aluminium, copper and steel etc., and sprang forth a 747! That’s a small statement about a very big thing when speaking of life coming from chemistry! Evolutionists assert the Prokaryote cell on the right did so. Fact is, this creature has the same number of working parts as the jetliner! One of the proponents of this theory was Dr. Dean Kenyon, outlined in his popular book, Biochemical Predestination. In It, Dr. Kenyon asserted that the valences of chemical compounds could have self-attracted into organized structures ending in a cell. This concept seemed to have saved the idea of mindless self-assembly as required by evolution, but was later disproved.
Note that Kenyon abandoned his theory and later became a strong promoter of Intelligent Design. He determined that if evolution was true it required DNA evolving in parallel synchronization with cell operation, an impossibility without intelligence.
The DNA sequence strand, with it's coding equivalent of over 2 GigaBit of data in humans!
When more powerful microscopes became available in the 1960's, an amazing finding was made; the discovery of the DNA coding strand by Dr. Francis Crick. This strand of highly organized chemical units contained the coded technical instructions to build life on a chemical tape, directing the operation and work of the cell. This finding revolutionized man's understanding of life's complexity. The DNA triple base "life code" uses the same language in all living things, from amoeba to man, and is seen to be exactly the same since life first formed. This stasis of the code and mechanism is a challenge to the concept of evolution, a theory that tout's the ability to change life forms quite prolifically! One should consider the contradiction of absolute stasis in cell operation compared the suggested amazing power of evolution, which claims that from a single cell all life forms on Earth were derived. Does DNA point to a common Super-Intelligence or better support the accidental probability of evolution?
Evolutions operation depends completely on mutations, or random mistakes entering the genes, causing change. After these changes occur either good or bad, natural selection isolates the good traits and the life form moves forward. If this is true the DNA and cell mechanism should have changed along with it, it has not. This means that the codes for all the different life forms on earth were introduced at some critical point in the past. Biologists often refer to this as the Cambrian explosion.
If we open the Bible it would be defined as Creation.
The worst diseases doctors treat today are caused by genetic mutations. Nearly 4,000 diseases are caused by mutations in DNA.
So in truth, mutations are a poor way to create new forms of life.
A Prokaryote bacteria is considered the first single-cell animal, claimed to have been found among the oldest known rocks on Earth. However, when closely studied with electron computer imaging we find this tiny creature amazingly complex, made with many millions of molecules operating in perfect order, like the 747!
"The genetic material (DNA) in most bacteria contains some 4.7 million base pairs. Stretched out, this molecule would be about 1,000 times longer than the bacterium itself".
The DNA is just the software, what about all the other systems that work, read, duplicate (The DNA of bacteria alone replicate error-free at an amazing rate 30,000 "letters" per minute) and assemble in the cell!
In other words, these tiny animals are far from "simple". They may be said to be less complicated as their companions the Eukaryotes (mentioned later), which are far more complex in comparison.
As we can see, dead chemicals becoming life are a big deal, and explaining this gap away with a few drawings and words is entirely over-simplistic. We also must realise that cell’s only have DNA reading capacity, not information writing capacity like your computer has.
In Charles Darwin’s day, the general understanding of biologic change was that characteristics could be inherited--that is, if an animal acquired a physical characteristic during its lifetime, it could pass those characteristic on to its progeny. This of course was proved false years later.
The e. coli has 11 coils and turn at several hundreds of RPM. Some species turn @100,000 rpm, so a motor equipped with 10 coils would equal 1,000,000 proton pulses per minute! These motors also have a torque sensor and feedback loop to instruct the creature to run at differing speeds and direction like forward and backward, not bad for a 'simple' single cell! In fact, the Prokaryotes mentioned actually live inside you now, they are classed as e. coli!
Dr. Berg's, research is outstanding and well written, but may we stop for a moment and look at your origin claims here? Let’s ask two questions regarding this statement;
- Science has not yet unravelled the mystery of this tiny isolated part of this "simple" creature, so how can one attribute such complexity to mindless, self-producing evolution?
If the development was mindless and accidental, we with minds should be able to unravel this "marvel", or better yet, construct one of our own, but we can't.
- This said, an age-range is suggested for this complex motor, "honed to perfection" by "Billions of years of evolution.", but no examples are provided nor cited.
The question must be asked, by what process did this tiny little motor develop in Billions of years? Naturalists place Prokaryotes at about 3.5 billion years old, so how can these fully formed creatures have taken "billions of years" to "hone?", the first "simple" life forms? What were the steps this multi-billion year "honing" process and where is the evidence supporting such a process?
It's simple, evolutionists claim Prokaryotes are simple and as such must be primitive. These "simple" creatures have nearly the same number of parts as a 747 (about six million, but that includes the screws and rivet’s!), which like the aircraft, work together perfectly.
Further, these cell's do things the '47' cannot do - like multiply. And by the way, they both have motors, the MO-1 version has three more than the Boeing model! (See formation section below)
B-2 Stealth Bomber on the left, 747 on the right..
The Replication Barrier
For decades evolutionists have used over-simplifications to explain these gaps;
A) Chemical soup to "simple" life forms - (like single cell Prokaryote bacteria with motors!)
B) Prokaryote bacteria (RH) to Eukaryote cells (LH), (Eukaryotes are the cells that form multi-celled life, which include all animals and even people).
Evolutionists must logically link the above single celled life forms in succession to explain how evolution accounts for all life on earth, right?
A natural place to start is the multiplication process of each type of these two cells. Looking at the two, one can see a load of differences. Prokaryote's employ a process known as "Binary Fission" to multiply (LH image). This is where the DNA (in loops) and other structures are imaged into two identical sets, each pulling back to the opposite extremities of the cell in the division process.
Soon after, the cell forms a squeeze point in the middle, (conveniently opposite the end with the flagella motor!) and then pull into two identical units, the new "sister" now forming into adulthood. The proton motor is assembling in the new half, the sequence only taking minutes!
So how does the supposed next common ancestor from Prokaryote, the Eukaryote, multiply? By a radically different and unrelated process called "Mitosis". (RH image) These two methods are distinct and unique, even the most imaginative theorists have difficulty connecting their processes. They tell us with enough time, accidents and the notion of common ancestry in your mind, its thinkable. No, it’s not thinkable! Think about all the differences and complexities involved, none of which may be duplicated by man. One must apply reason and really look at what’s involved scientifically.
Quoting from Cooper, GM. The Cell: A Molecular Approach.;"
As you can see, Darwinism takes more faith than any religion.
