Page 1 of 22 12345678911 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 321

Thread: The Evolution Myth

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    591

    The Evolution Myth

    The 'theory of evolution' (so-called) is a fairy story for adults. It is actually contradicted by many discoveries of science. But it's still pushed by ignorant people and is still taught on television. The best scientists in the world are not 'evolutionists' but they almost never get a fair hearing.

  2. #2
    Commodore con Forza Andrew Roussak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Karlsruhe, Germany
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Newman View Post
    The 'theory of evolution' (so-called) is a fairy story for adults. It is actually contradicted by many discoveries of science. But it's still pushed by ignorant people and is still taught on television. The best scientists in the world are not 'evolutionists' but they almost never get a fair hearing.
    Hello and congrats to your views, Robert!

    Glad to read it posted in such a simple and understandable form ( which means I do agree ))
    "Once you have tasted flight, you will ever walk with your eyes turned skywards; for there you have been, and there you long to return." - Leonardo Da Vinci


    www.andrew-roussak.com

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    591
    Hi there Andrew !

    Yes, some years ago I wrote a big book about it. (Unpublished, of course - LOL). The evolution argument is nonsense. But many people don't even know what they mean by 'evolution'. It's nothing but philosophical nonsense.

    Regards

    Robert

  4. #4
    Commodore con Forza Andrew Roussak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Karlsruhe, Germany
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Newman View Post
    Hi there Andrew !

    Yes, some years ago I wrote a big book about it. (Unpublished, of course - LOL). The evolution argument is nonsense. But many people don't even know what they mean by 'evolution'. It's nothing but philosophical nonsense.

    Regards

    Robert
    Is there any link to your book - have you published it online?
    "Once you have tasted flight, you will ever walk with your eyes turned skywards; for there you have been, and there you long to return." - Leonardo Da Vinci


    www.andrew-roussak.com

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    591
    Andrew,

    Hopefully, I can discuss it here with people who wish to disagree. Maybe that's best.

    The evolutionist believes new species are emerging all the time from existing species. (You know the story). This is contradicted by the actual findings of science. But, needless to say, the 'evolutionist' cannot even define the term 'evolution'. Nor can he ever define what he means by 'species'. In such a subjective world anything can be used as 'evidence'. And has been. The propagandists of evolution theory were the biggest critics of the modern science of genetics because it completely uproots their fairy stories.

    So, yes, I'm happy to discuss this issue in any depth with anyone.

    Best wishes

  6. #6
    Captain of Water Music C5Says's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    464
    To add to pro-creation, here is a great resource:
    http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/EV/
    C5 Says | Global Recycled Products |
    What's On My Mind | Ciphers, Crypts And Codes
    At MIMF, May All Get Lasting Entertainment

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    591
    Hi there C5,

    Yes, there are many good resources these days. You know of course creation is an act of faith. We can't scientifically prove creation has occurred. But the evolutionist is different. He claims he can scientifically 'prove' that species have evolved - from other species. He knows creationism is an act of faith. But this fact leaves the whole of science very open and exposed to 'evolutionary views' because they claim their evolutionary views are scientifically more valid than any criticism. They say there is no viable alternative in science to their views. In point of fact, the entire evidence from many sciences (and there's lots of different kinds of hard evidence) indicates we have in living nature today the same (identical) species that have always existed in nature ever since the fossil record was formed. These existing, of course, in various forms. Arguments in favour of the permanence of all species in nature are not very well known - even by creationists - but they are the correct answer to evolution theory. In the same way we have today in nature the same chemical elements that existed at the time when the Earth was made. Neither less nor more.

    Now, such a view is contradicted by general belief that many once existing species are now extinct. This is not actually true. It's also contradicted by general belief that, for example, dinosaurs are clear examples of 'extinct species'. In fact, 'dinosaurs' were mutational forms of populations of species still existing in nature today. They did not 'evolve' from anywhere. They have no 'evolutionary ancestry'. They were short-lived mutational forms of still existing species. Not typical of lifeforms at any time. They were forms which came in to existence in specific locations which were exposed to dangerous environments. Not typical forms. But dinosaurs are portrayed falsely as 'evidence of evolution'.

    The whole subject is very interesting and perhaps we can discuss these different views here on the forum so everyone can form their own judgement fairly, from available and actual evidence. You know of course most of the greatest achievements in science have been made down the ages by men and women who believed in the accuracy and reliability of the biblical account.

    Very best wishes

    Robert
    Last edited by Robert Newman; Dec-22-2008 at 16:39.

  8. #8
    Commodore con Forza
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    544
    So both sides a "matters of faith". Which means neither side can be "proven".

    This one is going to go on forever, and neither side is ever going to give up. So it may all amount to wheel-spinning.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    591
    Hi there Dll927,

    No, not really. We can and should examine the actual facts of the case. The creationist view is unashamedly based on faith and nobody says that creation can be scientifically proved. Obviously faith is not under examination. What IS under examination are the claims of evolutionists themselves on the history of life, these in the light of the actual findings of scientists. Seems a fair question, doesn't it ?

    The evolutionist insists he is being honest. He claims the findings of science are entirely on his side. He is allowed to teach his evolutionary views in schools and colleges worldwide (often without criticism) because, he says, the discoveries of science support his views. But this is grossly inaccurate. In point of fact evolutionary views are definitely NOT supported by the discoveries of science. As we will see.

    But where are the evolutionists to defend their theory ? If one volunteers to defend their views here I will happily present the other, non-evolutionary case. Readers can judge for themselves. Seems fair enough, yes ? The clock's already ticking. LOL !

  10. #10
    Lieutenant Commander, Concertmaster drummergirlamie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    144

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by drummergirlamie View Post

    LOL !

    Yes, that's not very far from what evolutionists really believe and teach. It's ridiculous, of course.

    1. Science tells us only life brings forth life. The evolutionist flatly disagrees. And yet science, real science, clearly demonstrates this fact without exception.

    2. The myth of evolution began in pagan antiquity. The ancient Greeks believed life came first from river mud. From inanimate matter. During the Middle Ages that idea was revived. So it was widely believed an empty barrel would be invaded by mice, etc. That the mice suddenly appeared, spontaneously, from nowhere. This nonsense was finally disproved by science. By a great 19th century non-evolutionist scientist. Louis Pasteur. Today we know that only life can bring forth life. Period.

    3. The 'evolutionist' tells us 'species have evolved from other, earlier species'. But if you closely read what Darwin, Lamarck and others wrote they avoided giving any definition of what 'species' actually are. They repeatedly duck this issue. In fact they taught that species can be virtually anything they want them to be ! A flower existing in different forms in two different places can be described as a different species from another, even if, in fact, they are merely two different varieties of the same species ! This happens all the time in evolutionary publications. A fossil in one part of the world is described as a 'previously unknown species' when, in fact, it is merely a different form, a local variety, of a still existing and already known species.

    4. The earliest research on species was conducted almost entirely by people who did not believe in 'evolution'. Men such as John Ray, Linnaeus and others were first to classify species. They attempted to define a species as -

    'a specific living organism which brings forth only according to its own kind'.

    (Which is almost precisely what the bible teaches of 'every seed bringing forth after its own kind').

    To be fair, this species definition is not completely perfect. (Few definitions are). But it was good enough for science up until the arrival of modern genetics.

    It became clear by about 1900 that the infamous theory of evolution (being taught in universities worldwide) was seriously wrong. In that year 3 different scientists working in different countries all published evidence independently of each other that species were remarkably stable units in living nature. This new science was eventually called 'genetics'. It showed by clear proofs that species are essentially permanent members of living nature. And, although a given species can undergo different bodily changes ('morphological changes') from region to region in response to different environments and living conditions they remain the very same species. These facts are so important they are laws of genetics. So much for the 'evolution of new species' !

    This new science of 'genetics' was based on the great earlier research of the non-evolutionary researcher Grigor Mendel. And it was hated from the beginning, by Darwinists, Lamarckians, Lysenko and other sorts of evolutionists - so much that it was officially banned from being taught in the USSR. The biggest critics of modern genetics were evolutionists themselves.

    5. The idea the fossil record 'proves evolution' is simply untrue. It does nothing of the kind. Did you ever see an evolutionary book on the (supposed) evolutionary history of the plant kingdom ? They don't exist. In fact the study of fossil plants (palaeontology) shows entire classes of plants appear first in the fossil record as fully formed species. Ferns, oak trees, and countless other plants suddenly appear in the fossil record. That's not 'evolution', is it. So students are not shown such facts. The highly selective proofs of Darwinian teachers is amazing.

    The fossils that cause most controversy - human fossils - are always shown out of their true context. For example, some of the most famous human fossils of 'man's ancestors' were found side by side by anatomically 'modern' human fossils which go unmentioned ! For example, at Shanidar in Iraq 'Neanderthal' fossils were found in the 20th century, side by side with modern human fossils. (The modern fossils went without mention in many textbooks). The same is true of 'Neanderthal' fossils found in Israel at Mount Carmel and in many, many, other places. In fact, the earliest graveyards of civilizations such as those of Sumeria, Egypt and other places such as Crete show a high proportion of the skulls of human remains being remarkably like those of 'Neanderthals', these next to skulls from humans that are virtually the same as modern man. The famous 'Lucy' fossil from Africa was found next to the remains of anatomically modern humans. These too go without reference in Darwinian literature.

    It is very clear today that many populations of the ancient world (especially those living in lowland areas) were genetically affected by hazardous environments associated with the last global episode of mountain formation. (For many of the great mountain chains of the modern world were formed only very recently. This is known by the sorts of fossils found there at altitudes). The populations of these lower areas seem to have been massively affected by these hazardous environments. The results were mutational forms. These living at the same time as other populations who were less affected. The results in human terms were 'Neanderthals'.

    So the 'Neanderthals' were NOT ancestors of modern man. They were actually his contemporaries. And were later integrated in to modern populations, so that 'Neanderthals' as a form virtually disappeared, this within the span of human recorded history.

    Darwin was wrong. Man did not evolve from 'primitive' and now extinct species. He was in fact contemporary with all of his supposed 'ancestors'.

    Anyway there's lots more that could be said. This is just a brief description of how false 'evolution theory' is and how highly selective its teachers have always been. The evidence from science shows evolution theory (so-called) is moonshine.


    Regards
    Last edited by Robert Newman; Dec-29-2008 at 13:46.

  12. #12
    Commodore con Forza Andrew Roussak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Karlsruhe, Germany
    Posts
    614
    Hi Robert!!

    Was a very interesting reading!

    Can you PLEASE give me a link to/ or shortly explain what had Louis Paster done to disprove the statement that the life can not arise from dead chemicals? Can you name me the work/ speech/ experiment of him, to which you refer? Wikipedia does not mention it directly ( or I simply fail to see it ).

    I really need it - thank you,
    Andrew
    "Once you have tasted flight, you will ever walk with your eyes turned skywards; for there you have been, and there you long to return." - Leonardo Da Vinci


    www.andrew-roussak.com

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    591
    Thanks Andrew,

    In the natural sciences the term ‘abiogenesis‘ is described as the study of how life on Earth (supposedly) began from inanimate matter. Since this assumption is a core foundation of evolutionary thinking few academics (and even fewer students) question whether it is actually correct. Or at least, whether it has any support from science. The actual discoveries of science are plain enough - life only comes from life.

    You ask about Louis Pasteur’s work in this field. It happened in 1862. Here’s one description of it -

    http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:Oz_E2lmBrk4J:bcs.whfreeman.com/thelifewire/content/chp03/0302003.html+abiogenesis+louis+pasteur&hl=en&ct=cl nk&cd=2&gl=uk

    And here’s another -

    ‘’ It was due chiefly to Louis Pasteur that the occurrence of abiogenesis in the microscopic world was disproved as much as its occurrence in the macroscopic world. If organic matter were first sterilized and then prevented from contamination from without, putrefaction did not occur, and the matter remained free from microbes. The nature of sterilization, and the difficulties in securing it, as well as the extreme delicacy of the manipulations necessary, made it possible for a very long time to be doubtful as to the application of the phrase omne vivum ex vivo to the microscopic world, and there still remain a few belated supporters of abiogenesis. Subjection to the temperature of boiling water for, say, half an hour seemed an efficient mode of sterilization, until it was discovered that the spores of bacteria are so involved in heat-resisting membranes, that only prolonged exposure to dry, baking heat can be recognized as an efficient process of sterilization. Moreover, the presence of bacteria, or their spores, is so universal that only extreme precautions guard against a re-infection of the sterilized material. It was thus concluded definitely that all known living organisms arise only from pre-existing living organisms ‘’

    http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:ZWlCd4odNOAJ:www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Aristotle/Abiogenesis.html+abiogenesis+louis+pasteur&hl=en&c t=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk

    But the myth of life first emerging somehow from a ‘chemical soup’ of some kind still remains and is still widely taught. It has no actual evidence in its support other than the dogma that it ‘must’ have happened. Well, that's fine if evolution theory requires 'faith' in evolution and if evolution (so-called) is a sort of faith. But it's simply not science and should not be taught as science. The evidence entirely supports the view that life and only life brings forth life.

    Regards

    Robert
    Last edited by Robert Newman; Dec-30-2008 at 19:08.

  14. #14
    Commodore con Forza Andrew Roussak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Karlsruhe, Germany
    Posts
    614
    Thank you Robert!

    Was fast and effective!! You have really helped me.

    All the best,
    Andrew
    "Once you have tasted flight, you will ever walk with your eyes turned skywards; for there you have been, and there you long to return." - Leonardo Da Vinci


    www.andrew-roussak.com

  15. #15
    Vice Admiral Virtuoso methodistgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Madisonville,Ky.42431
    Posts
    4,409
    I had a book at one time called Evolution vs. Creation and in this book
    was a picture of a footprint where a trilobite was stepped on. Which
    goes to show that we were here even during that time. In the book
    of Job it mentions the behemoth which is a dinosaur that was alive in
    Job's day. That should tell you something.
    judy tooley

Page 1 of 22 12345678911 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Controversial book
    By Sybarite in forum Open Debate Forum
    Replies: 100
    Last Post: Jan-05-2011, 23:25
  2. Evolution or revolt?
    By Knight in forum Classical Music Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Nov-12-2007, 14:11

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •