The Evolution Irritation Site!

 

 

 

Conform! Or Evilutionary Inquisition might get you!

READ THIS!
Evolution hits the Jackpot time and again How science & statistics don't matter anymore when you really fervently believe in something!

Academic Peer Pressure Poor believers are forced to give up their faith or how others never got it in the first place!

Pocketbook Loyalties You cannot serve God & Mammon, nor Science falsely socalled! The real bottomline!

Stripes a total product of chance? Where are the missing link pre-striped ones?

The leaky theory is full of holes. Creation versus Evolution! Down to the fecal smelly nitty gritty.

A young Earth opposed to doddery Evilutionists
Youg Earth facts but never convincing enough for strict evolutionists. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still!

Because we SAY SO! Silly Semantics of Strict Evolutionists Prepositions, protheses, presumptions and plain preconceived ideas of strict Evolutionists!

A little god with a very strong will Evolution has a will & plan, as Marxism & its Dialectics! A plan without a planner?

Blind as a bat
Prof. Dr. Satan and Prof Dr. Sagan and all his other anointed cronies! None so blind as those who refuse to see.

Humanist Philosophy
 for a 1000 Years! Or longer? God is dead, they hope Ha!

Religious viewpoints Evolution & Atheism are not more scientific than the other 2 religions Theism and Agnosticism to explain origins!

The Evilution of Sex? Yes! SEX! Hilarious! Now this is a hot page!

The Supernatural has NO place for Evolution!

Contrary to what little Bankboy "Sir" Julien Huxley had to say, that "Evolution had no place for the Supernatural!" Well it is the other way around!

If Talk Origins Site left you intimidated DO NO Fear! The True Origins Site answers all their false skewed diatribe with much better scientific reasoning.

From Dark to Light.
ALl was dark, until light came, while our primates were still blind

From Chaos to Reason

From Blind to Seeing
how the fish wished for sight! And got it! .

From Inertia to Moving
First you is a rock, now you is a fish!

Landbased to Airborne
How the graviationals took to the sky by sheer wil power! What is willpower?

Gravitationbound to Up and away!
How rocks starting swinning, walking and flying! What will be next?

Just Coincidenses
Evolution has a sense of humor if it created these!

Space to Wiggle
believers

BAAAAAANG
Were you there when it blew? How an explosion finally resulted in a Pentium 4 computer chip!

Pre mordial Soup
Where did the soup come from.

ROCK & WATER
Lightning and perculating life! Your soul is just electricity!

ENERRRRRGY!!!!
Where did Energy come from! From Matter! Where did matter come from? From energy! The chicken or the egg?

No Rock, No nothing
What was before evolution? GOD?

Evolution creates Cute and Evil
How does Evolution make such cute "good animals and such evil looking bad ones, as if to warn us?

The WET MODUS
 Why should species have evolved from water? Just because it is mainly water? That is a belief, not proof!

Spirit to Matter. From NON Creators to Creationists
From Sufferers to Problem Solvers
From Pagans to God
In the Image of Whom or What?
Why is Evolution so Benign? Why does Evolution not randomly kill us all off?


THE PLATYPUS MONKEY WRENCH IN THE EVOLUTIONARY MACHINERY!

One possible way that the Platypus came about??

[links on this page are fast small pop ups!]

HOW PEER PRESSURE WINS THEM OVER LIKE FRUITFLIES!
Poor students! When you get to University, there is this unspoken consensus, that the weak will have to comform to, or they have no way of getting ahead academically, or even have a hard time graduating in the first place! Peer pressure often is much more important than scientificality! [Yes! A non-scientific word! Who the hell cares! YOU know what I mean! Like I said, It really is all a matter of semantics, where the guy with the most verbose jargon wins!]
One former believer in the Scriptures, even testifies that he had to repent or perish from the scientific consensus or "public opinion!" He admitted that he got in such an identity crisis, that he gave up the fight! SEE: "Creationist repents publicly!"

WESTERN "SCIENTIFIC" INSTITUTIONS CONTROLLED BY AN EVIL MERCANTILISTIC ELITE & PRIESTHOOD!

AN EVIL PRIESTHOOD IN SCIENCE
Presentation at the Summer Academy of the Schiller Institute in Oberwesel, Germany Aug. 18, by Lyndon LaRouche.

"So therefore, what we were talking about this afternoon, was the impact of an insane cult, deliberately imposed by a high priesthood, which is the worst kind of Babylonian priesthood. And you have, in the name of science, what is dominated by a priesthood called "peer review committees" and similar kinds of people, who run this operation. We know this. Jonathan [Tennenbaum] has had personal family experience with these creeps —Princeton University, Institute for Advanced Studies; Chicago University; Harvard, today; Yale University; University of Pennsylvania. All of these institutions are corrupt. But, they're not merely corrupt because they're wrong, and because they're bought. They're intentionally corrupt. They're dominated at the top by evil. And the only professors and scientists that survive, are the ones that submit to the evil.
Everything that they say is evil, and if you understand the axioms, and if you look at this from a Classical standpoint, it becomes perfectly clear. If you look at it from the standpoint of science in a Classical context, as I do, then it becomes even transparent.
The essential cult, in the name of science, today, is the Euclidean, or Cartesian cult. All of the things we've dealt with today, deal with that problem. The false assumption is, that man is an animal. Therefore, man's sensations are his knowledge; man's sense experience is his knowledge. The sense perception is a transparent window—sometimes dirty—through which the eyes, the senses, see the real world, as it is outside, as through a dirty glass window.
But, in point of fact, we know, scientifically, that we don't know what we see as what we see. What we experience in our senses—what the brain is told by the senses—is an impulse which reflects an experience of the sense-perception organisms, and other organisms which have the effect of sense perception. That's what the brain experiences. That's its experience of the outside world. In other words, the brain's experience of the outside world, lies entirely inside the skin of the individual, not outside. You don't know anything of the outside world through sense perception.
But with your brain, you can discover what's out there. What we discover and are able to prove, is how we can control these things, which determine our existence; and how we must interpret sense perception from the standpoint of mankind's ability to control the world to survive and prosper in it.
These discoveries we make, we call principles. In physics, they're called scientific principles. You find a contradiction. You find a hypothesis which would eliminate the contradiction, by introducing a new principle. You test the new principle by standards of experiment, for universal principles. Then you know, if you've tested it, you can share this by replicating the same experience in another person.
Discovery of a Principle
You explain to other people what the contradiction is. Induce them to experience the same contradiction, the same paradox. Help them, stimulate them, to discover the same hypothesis on their own. And maybe they make the wrong one. But then, go to the experiment, and say "Okay, we have two hypotheses. Now let's conduct a universal experiment (what Riemann called an einzigartisch, or unique, experiment). And let's see which hypothesis is right. Or if both are wrong."
Now you have two minds, or three or four minds, [which] have gone through this experience together, as in a classroom — any good, humanist classroom. They now know, here's what the questions are. Let's find the answer. What kind of a test can we construct, to outwit our senses, to discover what it really is, that causes this thing to happen the way it does? And how can we control this effect, which is occurring outside our skin?
This is what Plato calls the paradox of the cave. You do not know, through the senses, reality; you know the shadows cast on the wall of a dimly lit cave. And your job is, through the mind, to discover what the objects are, which you can't see, which cause these shadows. You learn how to control the shadows, and thus, you learn how to control existence.
Contrary to this, as we've discussed today, the pseudo-scientists, the empiricists (what you get in most of academia), say: "Start with mathematics, go to the blackboard, or go to the computer keyboard, punch in the numbers for a Euclidean-based matrix. Call that matrix mathematics, call it science." Nothing exists which does not agree with these assumptions, these Euclidean, or expanded Euclidean assumptions, about space-time matter. Nothing.
So, therefore, we have to start from the most primitive level of the isolated event and interpret the isolated event—or two events—interpret this from the standpoint of this matrix, this goldfish-bowl matrix. Explain everything from that. Anything that does not agree with that, we don't want to know about. It doesn't exist.
When, in point of fact, the struggle was—through all history of the development of European civilization—to develop a way of understanding the universe which did not depend on this so-called Euclidean space-time matrix. So, you don't start with the perfect circle. You don't start with the sphere. You don't try to measure the difference between the sphere and the circle. What you do is what was finally done by Riemann. You say, we will now discard, as Riemann said of the opening of his habilitation dissertation, we now expel from science all a priori axioms concerning space, time and matter. We throw them all out. No more non-Euclidean geometry and anti-Euclidean geometry, as this was defined by our dear friend Kästner.
What Kästner emphasized, which was the founding of anti-Euclidean geometry in his time, was that we do not go forward from Euclid, we go before Euclid. We do not try to add postulates to Euclidean geometry to make it work. What we do, is we reject Euclid. We go back to the beginning, before Euclid, and don't work any assumptions in, which you have not proven scientifically to exist. In other words, space does not exist except as you can prove it scientifically to exist. So, before you introduce the notion of extension in space, prove that space exists. Before you introduce time, prove that it exists. And I can prove—I have in some writings—that you cannot prove that pure and simple, absolute, time exists. Relative time exists, not absolute time. It depends upon how you define action. So, in that point, now, any principle you discover which is validated as a physical principle is a dimension of your mathematics.
So, don't try to find a mathematical explanation of an event—first of all, create the mathematics that corresponds to reality. That is your mathematics

Vernadsky's Non-Living, Living, and Cognitive
Now, let's take the very specific question, on this question of Vernadsky, on the question of life. By these standards of experiment it has been established—it was established first, in part, by Plato in his Dialogues; it was established, in the sense, implicitly, by the work of Pasteur and others, before him and after him. This was understood more clearly by Vernadsky, because he did the experimental work of looking from a geological standpoint, and from the standpoint of the work of Mendeleyev before him. He looked at this problem of living processes in the biosphere from that standpoint.
What he established, is the same thing that Plato warned us about, the same thing that Kepler warned us about: You do not think that life is a product of non-living, abiotic processes. So, you don't go to an abiotic universe to define life, because life, as Vernadsky defines this, has proven itself an efficient category of principle, independent of abiotic processes. It acts upon abiotic processes. It interacts with them, but it's existence is independent. Which means that life existed—if you want to say the universe had a beginning—then life existed as a separate principle from abiotic processes at the time the universe began. That's essentially the meaning of the first verse of the Gospel of John, "In the beginning."
Now, Vernadsky did something else, which is not adequate and not complete. But, he did recognize, on the same basis that he proved empirically that life is an independent principle, not subject to derivation from abiotic processes—he also showed on the same basis, though more weakly and less adequately, that the human cognitive powers, which are unique to the human species, and no other living being, are responsible for man's mastery of both the biosphere and the abiotic universe. He didn't understand it because he didn't understand and recognize the social process; that was number one. And, secondly, although he was attracted to the question of Reimannian geometry, he didn't understand it. But, if you include the notion of the categories of abiotic principles, the category of biotic principles (that is, living processes), the category, distinct from any other biotic processes, of cognitive processes: You have in the universe three distinct categories of universal processes, all of which must, of necessity, have existed in the universe as efficient powers, whenever the universe existed, from the beginning.
What you get from Vernadsky is a sense of the interaction of this. So, therefore, when you look at things from this standpoint, you are looking at the behavior of life—you're looking at the behavior of human cognitive processes. The minute you say, "Let's explain life processes from the standpoint of abiotic molecular biology," you are now classed as an idiot, or an ideologue, because, where is the principle of life, which was empirically demonstrated by the work of Vernadsky?
In respect to these processes, as Vernadsky uses the term [biosphere] ... the life process actually dominates the abiotic earth—that is, the earth has been transformed successively from what it was, as an abiotic earth, into an earth which has been transformed by living processes. Even the so-called former living matter, or matter which is created by living processes, like the oceans, the atmosphere, most of the [biosphere] down to three kilometers down, has been created, by life, of which the actually, actively, living part is a very small portion.

"WATCH OUT IF YOU DON'T AGREE!
Evolutionist Inquisition might get you!"
London's museum of natural history, which harbours many biological dissidents, issued a pamphlet for the public in connection with an exhibition it was mounting, The pamphlet included the phrase, 'If the theory of evolution is true . . .' This pamphlet has drawn heavy fire from Nature Magazine. 'Most scientists', Nature pronounced, 'would rather lose their right hand than begin a sentence with, "If the theory of evolution is true . . . " What purpose except confusion can be served by these weasel words?' Thereupon, a group of Museum Staff promptly put pen to paper -- with their right hands, one assumes, still in tact -- to the effect that evolution still remains a theory, not a doctrine, which scientists are free to replace with alternatives.
In a speech at the Museum defending that institution from its attackers, Sir Andrew Huxley (son of the late Sir Julian), president of the Royal Society, said that the attackers had 'a slight whiff of the heresy hunters'. 'In the beginning there was Darwin . . . ' -- and if Darwin was wrong, a thought that many scientist dare not contemplate; what are the alternatives? Commenting on Huxley's speech, The Daily Telegraph's science correspondent said, "The trouble is that, for all the molecular biology, Darwinian "natural selection" is just a theory, and furthermore it is a theory riddled with the most enormous holes and question marks.'
Niles Eldridge of the New York Museum of Natural History says: "The current theory is for the most part consensus, not proof.' It had been accepted 'largely because of the persuasiveness of a few highly - talented biologists.'

Dr David Gowart, Reader in Biochemistry at Guy's Hospital, London, and a member of the Biblical Creation Society, has this to say:

'I have been in a number of universities and colleges talking to students about creation and evolution. Many of them had never considered that there is an alternative to evolution. They are fascinated by the possibility of another interpretation of origin. I accept the creation account as given in the first chapters of Genesis. God is great and all powerful; He could have created the world in one day had He chosen to do so.'
You may have a reflex which switches to 'Laugh' whenever views like this are expressed. If this is the case you may well be respnding to your conditioning. Your conditioning seems to be telling you: everything opposed to the conventional wisdom is risible. (Even, apparently, when the conventional "wisdom" is full of holes, that It cannot keep afloat.)

Professor E.H. Andrews, Professor of Material science at Queen Mary College, London University said the following:
'It is possible to be wholly scientfic and at the same time to accept the opening chapters of Genesis as sober history. I think that what's required is that we recoginze that science has ts limitations. It can never ultimately account for origins. The evolutionist and the creationist agree upon this; neither would seek to explain the origin of matter and energy and time and space and the laws of science by science. Those things lie outside the realm of science. There always will be some things which transcend the ability of science to explain them. I really do think that people have been so brainwashed into believing that evolution is a proven fact rather than one possible interpretation of the facts (which is a very different matter), that they are extremely surprised to find a practising scientist who at least appears to be intelligent espousing the cause of the biblical account.'

Quotes are taken from "God's Wonderful World" by George Vandeman, Dr. D.T. Gish, Dr. Mart de Groot, head of the Armagh Observatory, Dr Jonathan Gallagher and Dr. John Walton, of the University of St. Andrews.

God Did Not Create Evil, Cold or Darkness
"LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes, sir."

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

" Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Ahh! THE BIBLE!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? "Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could... in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't." [No answer.]

"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

[No answer]

The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. "Let's start again, son."

"Is God good?"

"Er... Yes."

"Is Satan good?"

"No."

"Where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From... God..."

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience. "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"

"Yes."

"Who created evil?

[No answer]

"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness. All those terrible things - do they exist in this world? "

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"Who created them? "

[No answer]

The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!"The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Christian's face. In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't He, son?"

[No answer]

The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized.

"Tell me," he continues, "How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?" The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. "All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?"

[No answer]

"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?" Pause.

"Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers, "Is God good?"

[No answer]

"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do."

The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you seen Him? "

"No, sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir. I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelled your Jesus... in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"

[No answer]

"Answer me, please."

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"

"No, sir."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"...yes..."

"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling. "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?"

[The student doesn't answer]

"Sit down, please."

The Christian sits...Defeated(?).

Another Christian raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"

The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."

The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you if that's okay. Is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies, frowning. "There's heat."

"Is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No, sir, there isn't."

The professor's grin freezes.

The room suddenly goes very cold. The second Christian continues. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'.

We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 -- You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat.

We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy.

Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it." Silence. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.

"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?" "That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?"

"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes..."

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't.

If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester. "Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."

The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!""

"Sir, may I explain what I mean?"

The class is all ears.

"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.

"You are working on the premise of duality," the Christian explains; "that for example there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure.

Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.

Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it."

The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids you can buy, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"

"Of course there is, now look..."

"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Christian pauses.

"Isn't evil the absence of good?"

The professor's face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless.

The Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work God is accomplishing?

The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."

The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."

"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian replies. "Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you believethat we have evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?" The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.

"Professor. All previous attempts to explain how the process works have failed. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?"

"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.

"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"

"I believe in what is - that's observable science!"

"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face splits into a grin. "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. What you call "science" too is a premise which is flawed..."

"SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the professor splutters. The class is in uproar.

The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?" The professor wisely keeps silent.

The Christian looks around the room.*Sir, the basic law of physics says matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and yet you in spite of that believe in "spontaneous generation" of the entire physical universe! Spontaneous generation of vermin was disproved centuries ago.

Talk about straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel! Sir, biogenesis is "observable science" as you say--life has only been observed to come from other life of like kind--and yet you apparently still believe that that is exactly what happened--in spite of science--that life somehow came from non-life.

Young man, the professor began tersely, I believe that science will eventually....

"That science will eventually prove that matter can be created, that life can come from non-life" interrupted the young Christian? Sir, that's not science--that's Faith! What you believe is the exact opposite of "observable science"!Your faith is in what you are calling "science", my faith is in God who created "science".

Make no mistake, Professor, we're both operating from faith."

There follows a long pause as the Professor stares the young Christian down without a word.

"Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's mind?" The class breaks out in laughter. The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's mind... felt the professor's mind, touched or smelled the professor's mind?"

No one appears to have done so. The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's mind whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol and science, I DECLARE that the professor has no mind." The class is in chaos. The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for, and begins filling out a drop slip.

(source: unknown.)

1 Peter 3:14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear what they fear ; do not be frightened." 15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON DESIRE BECOME THEORY "WARRANTING" RESEARCH WHICH IS CALLED SCIENCE BY THOSE WHO WANT EVOLUTION TO BE SCIENCE INSTEAD OF A BELIEF!
[Editor remarks and quips in these clammers!] Quotes from, and quotations used by, a strict Evolutionist arguing Evolution to be science!

"Yet another ambiguity constantly crops up in our discussions of scientific theories. Are they hypotheses or facts? Can they be 'proved'? Do scientists have the right to say that they 'know' anything? While interviewing the scientists engaged in the controversies under investigation, I asked, 'Do you think that science is provisional, that scientists have to be willing to reexamine any view that they hold if necessary?' All the scientists whom I interviewed responded affirmatively. Later, I asked, 'Could evolutionary theory be false?' To this question I received three different answers. Most responded quite promptly that, no, it could not be false. Several opponents of the consensus then current, responded that not only could it be false but also it was false. A very few smiled and asked me to clarify my question. 'Yes, any scientific theory could be false in the abstract, but given the current state of knowledge, the basic axioms of evolutionary theory are likely to continue to stand up to investigation.'" (quote from Hull)

"Philosophers tend to object to such conceptual plasticity. [a nice euphemism for smuggling] So do scientists [he means evolutionists] -- when this plasticity works against them. Otherwise, they do not mind it at all. In fact, they get irritated when some pedant points it out."
"It is significant that, although it is often claimed that Darwinism [Evolution!] is unfalsifiable, many of the things Darwin said have in fact been falsified.[Yes! Proven wrong. But the error keeps going on under another guise, another hypothesis! Another dream, or rather nightmare!] Many of his assertions of fact have been revised or denied, many of his mechanisms rejected or modified even by his strongest supporters (eg, by Mayr, Gould, Lewontin, and Dawkins), and he would find it hard to recognise some versions of modern selection theory as his natural selection theory. This is exactly what a student of the history of science would expect. [Not if someone is hunting for a spurious holy grail, like Evilution!] [Blind] Science [which is no science] moves on, and if a theory doesn't, that is strong prima facie evidence it actually is a metaphysical belief."

-- Strict Evolutionist John WilkinsTHEORY IS NOT YET "SCIENCE" OR KNOWING!
A theory has no automatic acceptance of its own. A theory is only a claim of science to come perhaps! Yet it may never come! Theory is a seed and a concept, science is the substantiation in fact! Evolution is a network of assumptions and the few facts that they claim substantiate it, are as minute in comparison, as the chance of just life evolving by itself. (See first page!)
I can theorise that black people came from red indian ancestors, and might even find some "proofs" or "facts" in that direction; and even organise a lot of supporters and tax support from people who would like such a belief!. BUT most true scientists [and most people with common sense! who are just as knowledgable to judge this without having Prof. Dr. in front of their name] would reject my theory, if I didn't have some kind of substantial proof, and I mean substantial, to back up my claim. And it wouldn't be enough, that blacks have legs or a head like red indians, or that they look like each other, or even that blacks live in the same area as red indians, North America, or that they all speak English now, or that their children both play "cowboy and indian", or that a black actor plays an indian in a Hollywood movie! Such a theory cannot be called True Science, because there is nothing to back it up substantially! But if you DO want to believe it, because of some personal motivation, you can push your ideas, but please not with our tax money in public universities or propagate your views to our children in government schools, or even push your ideas in PRIVATE schools through hijacking of the honorary titles in the Scientific "elite" with financing of Mercantile interests pushing a Humanist Manifesto bulldozing other beliefs out of the minds and eyes of its followers with "scientific" violence of massive peerpressure! Such dogged insistence of stubborn tenaciousness is a religion! A belief! The way they defend their untenable theory, or rather attack the others, is fanaticism of the highest order, and believe it or not mainly perpetrated by Christian strict evolutionary scientists, defending their apostatic departing from the words of "their" Lord:

"As it was in the days of Noah!" and "From the beginning it was not so! He made them male and female"

They are saying "Jesus you're wrong! You are a strict Creationist! Because speciation HAS occurred! Fruitflies when separated a while and in contact with certain microbes do not mate with their former fruitfly species, and one form of speciation is when they do not mate, and all that baloney! You know what that is called? Wishful thinking, which makes you see things!"

Yes Creationism is a belief! It is Christian and Jewish and Muslim belief, and so is Evolution! It is a secular Humanist non-Biblical belief system, that believes that man is its own god or authority.

Evolutionary Theory tries to prove the whole of creation to be evolution.
Strict Evolutionists want to prove the whole, by a few instances it claims it can find. Like saying that all humanity is a result of ET cloning, by proving that some of us can get cloned in future years! That is a belief! (That some already hold, by the way!)
With a couple of fossils and assumptions about strata, a timeline, some fruitflies, similarities and a lot of theorising and guesswork, you only have a theory, not a body of knowledge that covers ALL of creation as Evolution. You cannot prove the diversity to come from one principle by a couple of its units. You would have to link all the factors to make the causality believable. Especially in such a diverse reality as Creation, where we have mammals, reptiles and birds, and then God throws in an egg laying mammal like the platypus, with a duck's bill and webbed feet! He sure is funny! He made that one, I'm sure, to really confuse them! Ha!

'Quote of Note'
About the fact that Religion & the Existence of a God outside of the material universe ARE scientific and rational!

"It is no longer advisable to categorize human religious experiences and scientific models that are associated with a supernatural higher intelligence as being somehow or other irrational in character. Indeed, if such experiences or creation-science models directly correlate to a literal Bible interpretation, then the assumption of irrationality can be scientifically proven to be false. (link leads to higher mathematics!)
Finally, since application of the basic tool used for modern scientific research has established that it is scientific to assume the existence of a supernatural higher intelligence, a properly constituted creation-science model that relies upon this assumption is not ``pseudoscience'' as has been claimed." (by the majority of weak, funds- & peer-pressured scientists that adhere to a religion of Secular Humanism!--A belief system that propagates the unproven theory that Man is basically good, in that he contains an undeveloped just and loving core, that has only been compromised by the imperfect and unjust and unloving surrounding environment. Note that the environment is a product of these same humans.
SEE: Secular Humanism)

If you dont believe in Evolution, why don't you stand UP for what you believe?
Why just sit there like a bump on a log in class- or collegehall, while the higher magicians of the erroneous theory, with great swelling words of Man's wisdom, make merchandise of peoples' souls, through this thick deception.
If you saw someone eat poison, wouldn't you jerk and scream, "WATCH OUT!" Unless you were some sadistic pervert, which this Earth seems to bring forth more and more nowadays. But if you are a sensible, feeling human being, like people from better days of yore, well, why don't you do something about it?
Peer pressure? Popularity? Afraid to be made a fool of? Sorry, that just doesn't cut the cake! By our words we will be justified and by our words we will be condemned, or by the lack of them?
Come on, if you even read these pages, and with a good shot of the Spirit of truth itself, you could run circles around these masters of deception. True, perhaps not by diving into the shit with them, attacking all the false little theories et al., but by boldly denying the whole shitty smelly soup!
You can easily dethrone them philosophically, theoratically, religiously, for yes indeed, they are a religion, and a false one at that! And they will try to weasel out of that position, but they can't, if you study up on it!
Don't let them have the entire field, just because they're supported by the Media and the blessing of the small commercial elite of an oligarchie of goldbarons, in whose plans for World take over and control they devised, designed, and sponsored this false theory and network of lies, by planting the main culprits in the scientific world, and through big funding of the evolutionary heady heads, they put in position in the first place!
That is another good angle to get at them, to tear them down from their selfmade ivory towers, especially because they are so proud of being "fair and truthful and honest or scientific, etc" Well ask them why only their side, their views, their books, their research, is so heavily funded. Why do they think that the media, all the TV channels, Hollywood, the Press, the newspapers, and all the magazines in the world, are so unfairly biased FOR them, instead of being just and fair?
Show them how the media were hijacked by the mercantile monsters that bought them up and out, and how they planted Editors in chief, and control their journalists through blemishes of their past, skeletons in their cupboards, as they as a rule, never hire any others, who are clean. And if they are clean, they will set up traps of prositutes etc. to trap them and get them on film or video, so they can be manipulated!
Student stand up! Professor stand up! Scholar stand up! Journalist stand up! Do not be a mercantile whore! Stand up for truth and fairness and equity. If you don't do it, who will?
Father Niemoeller, we all remember right! Well, this is your time, your day and age! Look in history at all the men who stood up against the grain, against the Zeitgeist of their epoch, against the corruption of their day! Sure, a lot of them got it in the neck for it! Making websites like this is also not without a risk to get a bullet in the back or head one day, but WOW man what a way to go!
Stand up! Don't be a yellow livered, spineless, little lying weasel. Join the real Greats from history, and make a name for truth, instead of for yourself! Join the halls of lovers and fighters for Truth. You will loath yourself in Eternity, when you stay within the slime of compromisers of generations. You will be highly disappointed in yourself, as I was, when I had a dream as a young student, standing up for Christ in my Marxist controlled University, and I never did! I made amends later though!
Come on man! Be a man! Let them hear from you! Perhaps you don't win every debate, but at least they will remember that there was somebody who faced the mainstream willi niliies, one day! So be bold, like Jesus, Peter an Paul, and the prophets of old! This is your day!
You want to make a dent in this Endtime, or do you just want to make a career, and get your degree in false science, while the world is going to Hell anyway! What good is a career and your degree gonna do you when the towers fall, and the Third World War hits, when Bush gets the rest of the world under financial arm twisting to join him and his masters in their design to cause a "Clash of Civilisations" to make the world safe from democracy and human rights and freedom of religion, huh?
Let's burn brightly. Even one candle gives a heaven of a lot of light when it's so very dark! And burning the candle at both ends may look ridiculous, but it sure lights up the landscape! Come on get off your spiritual ass, and be a salmon that fights against the stream, going upstream, up the mountain of real accomplishment!
I will laud and applaude you! To Hell with all the compromisers! Well, even there, there is hope of universal reconciliation some distant day! But look at the time lost, the effort wasted, was it really worth it? Come on boy! Come on girl! Come on man! Come on woman! Come on teacher, come on lecturer, come on Professor, come on University head, come on Mentor! Don't be a coward! It is about time that you stood up!

VISIT OUR

Beyond the Stars webring
BEYOND THE STARS HOMEPAGE

VISIT OUR NEXT SITE:

A HEAVENLY PARADISE

E-mail us at Beyond7stars@yahoo.com
All artwork on this page gotten from Public Domain, except "back to the garden" "Ark" and "Golden Pyramid" pics and "logo", © Copyrighted 1999-2001 by Beyond the Stars Productions. If anyone owns the public domain pictures please contact us with proof and we shall replace them, or give credit where credit is due! Site Copyrights © 2000-2001 Beyond the Stars Productions, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. SEE ALSO: Further Copyrights Notice