techsamatar
I put Books to the Test of Life
"We are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories... Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism." (Protocols Elders of Zion 2:2-3)
The Illuminati have long known that if you destroy belief in God, people will cease to fear God. They then become pawns of the Illuminati, willing to serve money instead of principle, and carry out iniquities from sexual misdeeds to even murder.
In the Illuminati propaganda arsenal, the greatest tool for destroying faith in God has been Darwin's theory of evolution. I know some say "I believe in evolution and God." Nonetheless, countless people have become atheists from being taught the theory as "fact" -
However, Darwinism cannot be challenged on morals alone. The public has been told evolution is "science," on a footing with physics and chemistry. Therefore Darwinism must be challenged on scientific grounds.
GENETIC CODE DERIVED FROM CHANCE?
Charles Darwin proposed that life originated from chance chemical processes eons ago, evolving from the first living cell. In Darwin's era, cells were considered simple, supporting the plausibility of this idea. However, advancements in understanding cellular complexity challenge this notion. Even a bacterial cell requires thousands of different proteins, each made up of hundreds of precisely ordered amino acids. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA's structure, estimated the improbability of obtaining just one protein by chance as one in 10 to the power of 260, an unimaginable number.
Cells also rely on a complex genetic code, surpassing the intricacy of codes like Windows 8. Despite the mathematical implausibility and lack of supporting evidence, the notion that life began from a chance arrangement of chemicals persists in educational curricula.
According to Darwinism, single cells gradually evolved into invertebrates, then successively into fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals through adaptation to environments. However, the discovery of genetics posed a challenge, as new organs require new genes, which simply moving into new environments doesn't provide.
To address this, modern evolutionists introduced the concept of random mutations as a source of new genes. Dr. Lee Spetner, however, discredits this idea, asserting that random mutations destroy genetic information rather than enhancing it. Even so-called "beneficial mutations" often result in functional losses.
The concept of transitional stages is also questioned, as the evolution from fish to land creatures would require numerous new features, posing a challenge given the rarity of chance mutations. The absence of evidence for transitional species in the living world leads to reliance on fossils, but these do not consistently support the transitions Darwin's theory requires.
Fossil interpretation has its challenges, illustrated by the Piltdown Man hoax and the misidentification of the coelacanth as a transitional form. Fossils primarily capture hard anatomy, while 99% of an animal's biology resides in soft anatomy, which is inaccessible through fossils, making them subject to subjective interpretations.
In conclusion, evolution differs from sciences like physics or chemistry, which involve repeatable, testable knowledge. Evolutionary claims often pertain to the past, making them challenging to test with the same authority as present-time phenomena. This raises questions about the scientific nature of evolutionary theories and their testability.
The Illuminati have long known that if you destroy belief in God, people will cease to fear God. They then become pawns of the Illuminati, willing to serve money instead of principle, and carry out iniquities from sexual misdeeds to even murder.
In the Illuminati propaganda arsenal, the greatest tool for destroying faith in God has been Darwin's theory of evolution. I know some say "I believe in evolution and God." Nonetheless, countless people have become atheists from being taught the theory as "fact" -
However, Darwinism cannot be challenged on morals alone. The public has been told evolution is "science," on a footing with physics and chemistry. Therefore Darwinism must be challenged on scientific grounds.
GENETIC CODE DERIVED FROM CHANCE?
Charles Darwin proposed that life originated from chance chemical processes eons ago, evolving from the first living cell. In Darwin's era, cells were considered simple, supporting the plausibility of this idea. However, advancements in understanding cellular complexity challenge this notion. Even a bacterial cell requires thousands of different proteins, each made up of hundreds of precisely ordered amino acids. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA's structure, estimated the improbability of obtaining just one protein by chance as one in 10 to the power of 260, an unimaginable number.
Cells also rely on a complex genetic code, surpassing the intricacy of codes like Windows 8. Despite the mathematical implausibility and lack of supporting evidence, the notion that life began from a chance arrangement of chemicals persists in educational curricula.
According to Darwinism, single cells gradually evolved into invertebrates, then successively into fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals through adaptation to environments. However, the discovery of genetics posed a challenge, as new organs require new genes, which simply moving into new environments doesn't provide.
To address this, modern evolutionists introduced the concept of random mutations as a source of new genes. Dr. Lee Spetner, however, discredits this idea, asserting that random mutations destroy genetic information rather than enhancing it. Even so-called "beneficial mutations" often result in functional losses.
The concept of transitional stages is also questioned, as the evolution from fish to land creatures would require numerous new features, posing a challenge given the rarity of chance mutations. The absence of evidence for transitional species in the living world leads to reliance on fossils, but these do not consistently support the transitions Darwin's theory requires.
Fossil interpretation has its challenges, illustrated by the Piltdown Man hoax and the misidentification of the coelacanth as a transitional form. Fossils primarily capture hard anatomy, while 99% of an animal's biology resides in soft anatomy, which is inaccessible through fossils, making them subject to subjective interpretations.
In conclusion, evolution differs from sciences like physics or chemistry, which involve repeatable, testable knowledge. Evolutionary claims often pertain to the past, making them challenging to test with the same authority as present-time phenomena. This raises questions about the scientific nature of evolutionary theories and their testability.
