I Science L: Summary and Criticism of Science’s Explanation for the Origin of Man

12 Mar

Cute Monkey

We have traveled a significant distance in attempting to understand Science’s explanation for the Origin of Man. Along the way we have had to stop and examine issues, like the meaning of “scientific consensus,” and we have found it to be a democracy; we have had to take an at least cursory visit to the dating methods used by science, leaving that place unsure of any dates earlier than he written record, or beyond 5,000 years; we have learned a bit about how scientists measure distance in space, and about the leaps of faith this science asks us to make about figures and estimates often differing by millions, if not billions or even trillion of years; we have examined how Science explains the Origin of Life, and seen it to be less convincing than established myths and legends; we have taken up “theory” itself and found it masquerading as science, and we have seen science peddle metaphysics as practical science; we have made important distinctions between practical and theoretical science, and between “micro” and “macro” Evolution; we have examined the fossil records that are supposed evidences of “Intermediate Men” and found them unimpressive; and last but among even other things, we have thereby examined much purported evidence but nevertheless been unable to identify any convincing proof for the Theory of Evolution. Now that, my dear readers, is  a sentence…

With the new evidence now at hand, soon the teaching of Evolution in public schools will be challenged, again. A coordinated effort that demands Macroevolutionists stand and justify their claims just might succeed in the Americas and Europe; the “Monkey Trials” were very close, a rematch, in homage to Bryan is certainly in order.

Let us also then, in fairness, state our shortcomings. We have not dug to any real depth into the bowels of many of these microscopic aspects of Evolution. We have taken the layman’s approach, in this instance holistic in theory and general outlook, but purposefully reductionist in method. We have examined primarily only images, and sometimes only images of images to draw our conclusions, and for this at any moment we should expect a swift Platonic kick to our backsides. We have not touched the fossils, looked at the measuring meters or protista, nor even worked the machines scientists use for dating or measuring distance. We have not been to these places where skulls were found, to “smell the air” of our supposed human descent first hand, nor have we sat in the command seat while we date the distance Andromeda is from us. We might not have all our information up to date, and we have been critical all the way through our explanations.

But in defense we only wanted one thing out of all of this, that being to understand Science’s Origin of Man. As compensation for my lack of mastery over the more intricate and specialized regions of the Big Bang and Evolution, I have tried to offer in exchange complete and full honesty in presentation, real sincerity of purpose, and to be unbiased throughout, as I will for anything undertaken by me on truthopia, the pursuit of Truth being the reason I write at all. I have not tried to make friends or enemies, have asked for criticism, and will stand corrected in the face of any verifiable  evidence, and thank my corrector for his or her concern, and lesson.


Having said all this, what is our conclusion? Is Evolution true? Is the Big Bang right?

Let’s start with the Bang, or Kaboom Theory. Before I begin, I want to confess that to my chagrin we have come all this way to have to admit that Science should not be in the business of searching for Origins at all, let alone of the Universe or of Man. A little thought is enough to realize that the search for Origins is a non-scientific enterprise, in that the search for Origins is more properly the realm of the metaphysicians and historians, as well as, on occasion, purely scientific theorists. As example of the latter, we could cite Benjamin Franklin, almost all his science successful, almost all his inventions beneficial, and clearly, one of the most complete men ever to exist on the planet…eccentricities included. Leonardo Da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, too, like Franklin, and even Thomas Davenport, who really invented the motor, were all, we could say, accidental scientists.

Like good teachers, good theorists are born and not made. Here are some of the greatest inventions given Man by science, and their inventors, creators, or discoverers:

1. Electricity: Ben Franklin, Renaissance Man

2. Motor: Thomas Davenport, Blacksmith

3. Steam-engine: Hero of Alexandria; Thomas Newcomen, Iron Worker, Preacher

4. Light Bulb: Frederick DeMoleyns, Humphry Davey, physician, chemist

5. Automobile (gas): Alphonse Beau De Rochas, Karl Benz, Gottlieb Daimler, all engineers.

6. Automobile (steam, basis for gas): Nicholas Joseph Cugnot, engineer. We ashould also make note that Da Vinci and Isaac Newton both drew up plans for a moving vehicle.

7. Airplane: Da Vinci; Wright brothers, journalists, bicycle shop owners; Richard Pearse, farmer; Alberto Santo Dumont, farmer.

8. Air Conditioning (modern): William Cullen, physician; Oliver Evans, wheel maker; Jacob Perkins, goldsmith; Willis Carrier, engineer ((practical scientist).

9. Farming Advances: Mostly farmers, such as John Deere, Cyrus McCormack, Thomas Jefferson, Renaissance Man; Catharine Greene wife of Nathaniel Greene; Edmund Quincy; Anna Baldwin, etc.

10. Other toys and goodies, by various, like phone, television, radio, x-ray machines, antibiotics, and so on.

It is as if, today, scientists want to be philosophers, and what’s worse, is that some of them think they are. Some scientists, and people who respect these scientists, their parrots, think that because you have a doctorate in Microbiology you therefore have Truth. I dare say, you have no Truth, not even about Microbiology. That somewhere there is a man with no degree, perhaps even no schooling, who has “just” a burning desire to know the Truth about tiny living things, who has come upon Truths higher that we today have achieved in billion-dollar enterprises. This, in a time, when you can pretty well buy any result you want, from any scientific study. Grants do not come with the answer of “yes, your product is dangerous,” or “no, we do not need this administration.” Ask for and try to find the actual details about the studies you hear so often mentioned, proving this or that, or disproving that or this. I do not mean the “published study” as in Science Magazine or Journal of the American Medical Association. I don’t want to see the summary, I want to see the experiments, the notes, the details about the subjects, the conditions of the study, the environment, the temperature in the room, and more. Try to find this information about the study of your choice. It is like accepting the election results, without asking to see the ballots.

Because they are not trained, as a matter of course, in Ethics, or Aesthetics, or Epistemology, or Metaphysics, or anything other than logic and the technicalities, and so language of their individual discipline (and hardly ever, the history of that discipline…), a scientist is not a philosopher by any means. He is, quite literally, a tool.

The Big Bang is the creation of certain famous scientific tools, a myth that can only be understood by those initiated into its cult. Star Wars nerds eschewing real work for a chance at video game-like peerings into the heavens and getting paid for a joystick in hand (how a propos) has become a position of status. Its sister cult is the Church of Evolution, as bastard a child as any in the annals of cross-breeding between angels and men or men and beasts. They are, Evolution and the Big Bang, alike cults, churches based on questionable foundations with no idea of the morality by which any true religion is defined. Rather than an alternative to Creation, Evolution provides only for negation of the other churches, and having no solid doctrine of its own, survives by dirty tactics, by trying to bully its way, Crusade-style, over every other religion in the World.



Fireworks, Big Bang, Artist’s Conception, whatever. The Big Bang as a theory is just as good as any theory, so let us make our own theory up right now just for shits-and-giggles, and call it the “Feeble Fizz Theory.” Whereas The Bang says all the Universe began by something outside of space and time which exploded into who knows what, forming first space, and so time, The Fizz says it all began with a weak, feeble fizzle, that is, there was no bang, on the contrary, there were made connections between things, for the first time. I’ll call it the “Fizz Effect,” which you can imagine this way: ever-existent (because of the Law of the Conservation of Matter) elementary particle A comes near to elementary particle B, and either a positive or negative electromagnetic current is established between them, causing either a union or a rejection. If particles A and B were compatible to a Form, that is, complementary to each other for united assembly of a given form in space, they combined, accompanied by an electrical “fizz”; and similarly, if they were not compatible, they “pushed each other away.” This gradual pushing and combining,  by a type of electro-magnetism, called “fizzings,” is repeated constantly, thereby coming to align and so form the existing Universe. This process continues to this day. We could go on, for volumes.

Now what is the difference between the Big Bang and the Feeble Fizz? Everything, and nothing. We could say “everything” in that they are opposites in explaining their creeds, but we could also say “nothing” in that they both put forth Theories equal in their claims to being “just” theory. The difference between a good theory and a bad theory is that the latter simply does not hold up to common sense, or conscience, or objective reasoning, or observation and experimentation. This is where the scientists are supposed to come in. As we have established that they are not as a rule philosophers (the theorist is today only rarely even the actually experimenter), this is the niche scientists hold. Their job, that is for what they are being paid, is not to put forth vacuous theory anyone can put forth, but rather to test those theories with the highest degrees of probability based on known entities, or create, invent, or discover things of practical use. Which theories receive priority should be determined by the possible benefit to mankind, the greatest good achievable for the effort and expenses involved. This is where we need men and women working who are unbiased and able to correctly report what they see. One sign of corruption, several signs of incompetence, it’s off to another field for you. This process of testing and verification, seriously, is what should elevate theory to the level of scientific fact.

It is no different with Evolution. Many alternatives have been put forth as to how man has changed over the years. We cannot dispute in good conscience that Man has changed. This “Microevolutionary” change is apparent. If “Evolution” mean only the tendency of a species to change due to environmental, hereditary, or other factors, it is to be understood as a good theory, albeit one over 2000 years old.

But this is not the real Evolution Cult, the one that has gained as many blind adherents as Horus during the reign of Horus. That a Man can come from an ape-like creature, or for that matter a starfish from a lobster, is an entirely different understanding of evolutionary change. This “macroevolutionary” change is not so apparent, and seems to fail, as we have seen, at every level of observation, let alone the only-necessary one that should disqualify it as a valid theory. Evolution claims to be both a fact and a theory, and at least this most important part of it is not. Darwin did not discover the Origin of Species as promised.

Again we can make up our own theory with as much claim to being science. Let us call our Theory “Devolution,” and using this make the hypothesis that Man has done the opposite of “evolve” and is in fact sliding into a backward motion. Rather than progress, Man regresses, the further time moves on. Once a strong, god-like creature not susceptible to disease and able to live hundreds of years, possessed of seven rather than five senses, possibly attaining in stature the height of houses, he has lost these qualities over time because of his constant quest to put himself on par with lower creatures. Due to these “lower” concentrations of the human energies, Man is, in fact, using his free will to become like those animals with which he makes pains to classify himself. Man is devolving.


Again, we must ask, which theory is more likely to be Truth? At the level of theory, they are the same, both Evolution and Devolution. What makes one Truth and one subjective opinion should come about by using those same truly scientific criteria we just cited for evaluating the Feeble Fizz and the Big Bang.


Evolution and the Big Bang alike cannot go beyond the level of theory, and at worst have the makings of bad science fiction, and could endanger the future of our race on this planet. We have already seen the effects of purposeless inquiries into atomic structure, and of tinkering around with biotics and antibiotics, for example. The pictures we see of dinosaurs and cave men, the crazy dates we are given regarding the age of the Earth and the Universe, the speculation regarding the macro and micro-spheres, the reconstructions that are more Artist Conception than simple assembly… none of these are convincing for either theory, and they tell us no story we can find a moral in, and answer to any important question. It is sterile thought producing nothing of human value.

Anyway, as proof of the Fizzle Fizz Theory I need but show you magnetism, and as a proof of Devolution I challenge any of you to read with comprehension Aristotle’s de Anima, or Agrippa’s works on Occultism, available in English on the internet for free, and then try Homer’s Iliad, and tell it to me by by rote because that’s how years ago that story was told…or for another proof of Devolution, they have some axes used by ancient gladiators still extant, go try to pick one up with one hand, then try to swing, stab, or otherwise wield it, as it would have been used.

Do an honest inquiry into history, and you will see that in the last 2000 years alone, we have regressed mentally and physically, and volumes could be written about Devolution. Only our toys have increased, and aside from an approximately baker’s dozen of inventions which have improved Man’s Life on Earth, “science” as understood today has been sterile, and often even detrimental to society.


We conclude that as a theory, then, Evolution has no even clay legs to stand on. As a fact, it is a lie. Proofs of Macroevolution such as the one by Theobald are even condescending. We would question whether “make observations” qualifies as a scientific enterprise by itself. In this article, Theobald claims to give (29?) proofs for this controversial type of, or macro, Evolution. Here to end this madness I will address all points he makes. Buckle in, and look forward to the fact that soon we will move on to what must be better explanations as to the Origin of Man.

1. “Argument from the Unity of All Life“: This wants to claim, essentially, that Macroevolution is proven because all Life has the same basic elements, and is driven by some sort of universal genetic code. I say “wants to claim” because this seems to come from a misunderstanding of the nature of Ubiquitous genes. If it would end at this point, anyway, we would have no problem with the statement, just not as any kind of proof for Evolution.

We living beings cannot help but to be made of the same elements, according to the Periodic Table only so many possible elements exist, and so we certainly must have micro-elements in common. Similarly, that all life has DNA code of some kind only proves the common vehicle. You can put a monkey and a man on the same train car, it doesn’t make them the same because they share the ride.

Theobald goes on with this example to cite “intermediate species” as proof of Macroevolution. First of all, such “species” do not and have never existed. Theobald accepts too nonchalantly the fossil evidence for both dinosaurs and hominids, and also these intermediary-species. As evidence he cites “reptile birds” by which he means for example birds with wings that have skeletons resembling the forelimbs of reptiles. And in a way they do, this is true. In the same way he points to “ape-humans,” “reptile-mammals,” “legged whales,” and “legged sea cows” of examples of these intermediary creatures. But this is a myth. Ape-humans, we have shown, never existed. The possibility of reptile-mammals, guided by the assumption that mammals gradually “evolved” out of reptiles, relies on the same bad logic as do the other two, namely, just because you see similarities doesn’t prove descent. Why would proving we are akin in some ways to the Oak tree prove Evolution?

That things like the jawbone of reptiles and mammals are similar proves nothing other than Nature’s tendency towards a certain common-purpose structure. That birds have what look like hands in their wings does not say whether the fingers receded into the developing wings, or the developing wings later left and, for the reptiles, became fingers. Perhaps for that wing and weight of the bird that is the best skeletal structure to have. Legged whales are not footed manatees at all, as he claims, but rather appear to me to be tapirs, or some other type of wild pig or other large-snouted animals. Here is what they found as “evidence,”  below, followed by an Artist’s Conception drawn from those bones, and then an actual tapir:




It is telling which “fossil” picture Theobald uses for his sample, knowing full well that all those other bones were not discovered. Calling a picture including the recreations a “fossil” is downright dishonest. Neither are there any “reptile-birds,” the archaeopteryx (a discovery of one feather originated this “species”…) are now known to be just birds, perhaps like chickens or actually dinosaurs. There are not and never were bird-lizards as there never were nor are ape-men.

2. “Evidence from past History“: Theobald really goes over the top in this argument from history, where he claims that rudiments and remnants of certain physical traits exist, and that they are proof of Macroevolution. He cites things like wings on ostriches and cassowaries, and uses several questionable photos in illustration, including one which says it is of a “hypocritical ostrich.” Here, his words themselves:

Figure 2.1.1. Vestigial structures of various organisms. From top to bottom: A. A hypocritical [?]ostrich with its wings extended. B. A blind cave salamander – look closely for the eyes buried underneath the skin. C. Astyanax mexicanus, the Mexican tetra, a blind cave fish” (ibid. my brackets).

But what can these “vestigial organs” really tell us, more specifically, why are they evidence of Evolution, and not the contrary? Is the hypothetical ostrich a creature that evolved into flying birds, or was the ostrich once a flying bird that lost its ability to fly? Perhaps the ostrich is a symbol of human stupidity: free to use his life to soar, content to stay terrestrial and poke his head into the sand, into scientific babble, or a bottle of booze whenever he can’t take the stress, ruining the sand, the science, and the booze in the process.

Theobald gives pictures as evidence for these vestigial organs, the existence of which organs we should not doubt. But again, these pictures are presumptive, and they are in no wise indicative of Evolution any more than, say, Devolution. A blind lizard with eyes beneath the skin…isn’t it simply an adaptation of a lizard to dark areas, vestigial eyes beneath? Or did this blind lizard evolve into a seeing one? Does he have behind the skin what was once an eye, or it rather what was later to become an eye? Devolution would say, perhaps, that this lizard is a living metaphor for how much a creature will let even its own senses go to rot, accept the “comfort” of any lightless, vermin-infested place, so long as the predicament affords it a full belly.

Regarding this blind, or we should rather say, blinded lizard, at the same time it evidences atrophied organs it evidences developing organs, nonetheless. Also among Theobald’s example pictures is a type of blind aquarium fish called a tetra with only vestigial eyes. His point is to show that Evolution is proven by the existence of these sorts of vestiges, and we argue, this cannot be the case. If all we need to do is display a freak show of mutations and unexplained biological abnormalities—most of which, I should add, are “rejected by science” —I could supply evidence plenty of horned skulls, alien skulls, photographs of men with horns, the internet is full of these some-real some-faked images. But what about giants, then, too:




2-headed lamb

pip and flip pinheads


giants india

No, I don’t think that displaying the exceptions is conducive to the advancement of science. Where Theobald would argue that these vestigial organs point to Macroevolution, I see no such logical transition, and counter that whether these organs are coming or going also provides a major difficulty for this “proof of Macroevolution.” With imagination, we can see any creature “descending” from any other. Again, classification problems do not prove Macroevolution. And neither does Theobald’s proof #2.

3. “Argument from Parahomology and Suboptimality“: Fancy way of saying that Theobald says Macroevolution can be proven by the fact that different creatures have similar-looking parts, even if these parts do not have the same function in the different creatures:

There are countless examples of parahomology in living and extinct species – the same bones in the same relative positions are used in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, pterosaur wings, whale and penguin flippers, horse legs, the digging forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs. All of these characters have similar structures that perform various different functions” (ibid.).

Countless? Sure, meaning as far as the human imagination can go, and we know how far, unfortunately, it can go. As we have said, why should Nature deviate from a successful model? What alternative to structure do we know about besides bone, cartilage, skin, tendons, nerves, etc? Should Nature opt for plastic? I could say, hell will say, that Theobald’s nose descended from that of a chicken, elephant, or duck, yes each in turn, and could draw you a nice diagram to show it. I mean, is it scientific to say that because we both have bones, that human beings therefore have rudimentary fish parts, or that fish have human parts? This “proof” is, nevertheless, merely a medley of the two prior proofs, logically speaking, and no better is the Evolutionary music for it.

The rest of his proofs may be summarized thus:  “Argument from Molecular and Protein Logic (et.seq.): Here is the “somewhat  technical” (ibid.) argument as Theobald explains it in logical terms. We will not stress again how these “technical  terms” are often just empty concepts supporting The Cult’s (I will use this term as synonymous with “believers in the Big Bang-Evolution Fantasy”…my apologies to the rock and roll band) agenda, or we should say, catechism. If I say it is rather “Nature Genes of Deific Cerebration” which are the fundamental building blocks of matter, or that Andromeda is 1502.7 Dorpechi Years away, would you be impressed, or even, would you consider the matters closed? Here, his argument “presented logically”:

(P1) Ubiquitous genes: There are certain genes that all living organisms have because they perform very basic life functions; these genes are called ubiquitous genes.

(P2) Ubiquitous genes are uncorrelated with species-specific phenotypes: Ubiquitous genes have no relationship with the specific functions of different species. For example, it doesn’t matter whether you are a bacterium, a human, a frog, a whale, a hummingbird, a slug, a fungus, or a sea anemone – you have these ubiquitous genes, and they all perform the same basic biological function no matter what you are.

(P3) Molecular sequences of ubiquitous genes are functionally redundant: Any given ubiquitous protein has an extremely large number of different functionally equivalent forms (i.e. protein sequences which can perform the same biochemical function).

(P4) Specific ubiquitous genes are unnecessary in any given species: Obviously, there is no a priori reason why every organism should have the same sequence or even similar sequences. No specific sequence is functionally necessary in any organism – all that is necessary is one of the large number of functionally equivalent forms of a given ubiquitous gene or protein.

(P5) Heredity correlates sequences, even in the absence of functional necessity: There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity.

(C) Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship” (ibid.).

Let me restate this logical progression.

1. All living things hold certain genes in common (P2)

2. These genes are called “Ubiquitous” and are functionally equivalent (P1, P4)

3. Ubiquitous genes can be sequenced (P3)

4. Heredity alone determines Ubiquitous gene sequencing (P5)

Conclusion: Similar sequencing indicates closer genealogical relationship.

These are quite a few premises to accept, and there are steps missing, namely those explicating what constitutes genealogical relationship. Premise 1 about “Ubiquitous genes” is itself debatable, and with modern medicine even dangerous. The fact is that there are relatively few of these, and in some circles many of them are considered quite differently as “unidentified” genes. We know little about genes, we do not know for example if a seemingly malevolent gene carries with it a code for genius. It is a mistake to assume some of these unknown genes as Ubiquitous when they might not be.

Having said this, we should have no problem accepting that there must be a gene, or something similar, for at least the “Life” that all living things have in common. Let us then accept premises 1 and 2 and move on to premise 3, which states that these genes can be sequenced, which means, broken down to their nucleotide bases, usually nitrogen, sugars, and phosphates. This too we should not argue with, although, again, the science is very young. Also, insofar as each individual represents its own genome sequence, we cannot discard the possibility that seemingly Ubiquitous genes have a purpose, if an at present unknown one, for that individual. If we strike out the gene thought to be 50% responsible for blindness, and eliminate it from our embryos, what else might we eliminate along with that gene? Do we know the interdependencies of the DNA and RNA particles one to another?

This leads to premise 4, that all Ubiquitous genes have the same function, which premise I have merged with premise 2. Whether Ubiquitous genes have the same function or not would depend on the sequencing of the Ubiquitous genes in discussion, the heredity factor, premise 5. The specific sequencing is what is important here, the house we build, not the bricks we use to build it; all brick houses are not created equal.

But the conclusion here is the biggest problem given these premises, namely the conclusion that the more similarly sequenced are the Ubiquitous genes of different species, the more related those species are. Cytochromes are a big part of these determinations, and so we should say something about what they are. These things are essential for all Life, every living creature has them, but the way it has it them—in protein content, structure, etc.—is different. Cytochromes do appear to be interchangeable from one species to the next (ibid.). They are symbolic of the Ubiquitous, as opposed to Undeciphered gene, and this is because they do not supply genetic traits so much as provide the avenues whereby species-specific genetic instructions or traits are carried out. It’s like taking a glass of water and pouring it into a bowl. You have changed the vessel, but the water is the same, although it will take on any transferable properties inside the bowl. Cytochromes are like the water.

There is no proof of Macroevolution here, but let us grant the conclusion because, well, I am getting tired of Evolution. If we accept all these arguments of our opponent, why would this be proof, on what grounds? Similar sequencing of Ubiquitous genes, if it does prove relation among creatures, proves only what we already know: that these creatures are alive and have the essentials for, indeed are, Life. We have proved at least half of the Jamaican saying, One Life, one Love. But still no proof of Macroevolution, and nothing at all about Love, which in this system, is a chemical reaction.

I have counted 5 proofs, if anyone finds more in that article, do let me know.

Let us then give 5 proofs in return that Macroevolution (Evolution from now on)  is a fantasy, and we will do it just in application to the Origin of Man.

1. There is no objective proof of Evolution. If human beings are in transition, there should be existing some members of the transitional group. We have yet to capture Bigfoot, and if we did, we would ask “where did everybody else go?” We have no transitional forms, we have the same frogs with sometimes  fins and sometimes legs, as we have had for ages. We have intricate cocoons spun so that a creeping creature can become a flying one, a transformation so dramatic the insect could conceivably wall itself up and later come out as just about anything, and not surprise me a bit. We have no creatures that are half reptilian and half mammal, or part mollusk and part crab. We have animals we have long considered extinct still alive, in fact the coelacanth was once thought to have died out 65 million years ago, and you could catch one today, this single event casting more serious doubt on our methods of dating and our whole chronology. We have traits of extinct creatures still carried on in surviving related species, and we have the weakest of creatures, like earthworms. continuing to survive.

2. There is no objective proof of Evolution. As we have seen, the fossil record indicates either chimps or humans.  We have not even one complete legitimate fossil skeleton or even skull of an intermediate human. We have no feet at all, and pieces of everything else. That is it, and that is not proof. The whole question about the possibilities of fossils speaks against Evolution:

if remains must be preserved in a flash,

in ice or amber or lava or ash,

then we should have at least some entire bodies. That we do not implicates even the science about the fossilization process.

3. There is no objective proof of Evolution. As we covered at some length. radiometric dating, geological column-strata, Varve analysis, are all inadequate dating methods for what we do find regarding ancient fossils. The World is likely far younger than Science supposes.

4. There is no objective proof of Evolution. Why did only some animals decide to become humans? Why didn’t all animals become the Fittest Animal? Does Evolution assume all creatures are “evolving” in the same direction? Where is the evidence of this, the almost-human contemporary ape? What is the goal, if not strength, or intelligence, or longevity?

5. There is no objective proof for Evolution. If Evolution is true, unrelated species and even genera should be able to interbreed, if the parts fit. There is no reliable evidence that this has ever happened. Especially accepting the theory that so much DNA is of the Ubiquitous type, why do the different species remain unable to inter-breed, seeing as heredity is the prime organizer or genetic material?

And so let me do as my opponent has done, and close with our conclusions the same way, and restate that Evolution does not explain the Origin of Man, that Evolution is in fact The Cult of today, that Evolution is a religion in everything but morality, can be falsified. You can prove us wrong, by finding clear fossil evidence of the probable descent of one single species throughout the ages. That is, if you want to say mammals came from reptiles, and humans came from mammals, just show us a series of skeletons displaying clearly the gradual change of one animal into another different one. It is not enough to show 1 or 2 mammals with characteristics shared by a reptile. Show us the middle degrees, if you can even tell which is a reptile and which a mammal, from any fossil. Furthermore, provide us a dating system better than written history, which you have not yet done.

Here is my argument that the Big Bang and Evolution are Cults:

(P1) A system of belief which relies on faith alone, with no inherent morality, is a cult.

(P2) A system of belief relying on faith alone with which spreads its dogma, without any, or with only highly questionable proofs of that dogma, is a cult.

(P3) A system which rewards believers and punishes unbelievers, is a religion; when this is done without fair judgment, this religion is a cult.

(P4) A system which has its beliefs taught to schoolchildren to the exclusion, in fact scorn of alternatives, is a cult.

(P5) Evolution is a system of beliefs which relies on faith alone, which spreads its dogma using at best marginal proofs, it punishes scholars who do not agree by refusing them ear (and publication…), and it is taught to public schoolchildren without alternative.

(Conclusion) Evolution is a Cult, a bad religion, without morality, or even good stories to tell.

So, we are done with the scientific explanation for the Origin of Man. It has helped us little, other than to be able to state confidently that Evolution is one bad theory, a grand illusion, a hoax, a brainwashing of mass proportions, an enigma unquestionably believed by those of The Cult. Evolution and its sister the Big Bang are related Cults, The Cult of our day, relying on lies and intimidations, put forth by their priests the scientists, and their mouthpieces, their evangelicals and missionaries, the parrots of the babble known as teachers, writers, and collaborators, those who call themselves “educated” by virtue of their commitment to uncertainty.

Here, some photos to think about, and next time, we head into Religion, which I hear, has some better ideas as to the Origin of Man. But don’t check your skepticism at the door. The search for Objective Truth demands we retain it, regardless of whether or not we are in Rome.












Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

11 responses to “I Science L: Summary and Criticism of Science’s Explanation for the Origin of Man

  1. Fatcat

    November 21, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    “The Cult’s (I will use this term as synonymous with “believers in the Big Bang-Evolution Fantasy”…my apologies to the rock and roll band) agenda, or we should say, catechism. ”

    When you get into remarks like this, name calling, it is kind of discouraging. I’d rather see the evidence presented without your personal bias, which I realize is very difficult to do. Thanks for the site. It’s interesting.

  2. URSheep

    November 21, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    I see no name calling here although I am not against it as a rule. Point is it’s hogwash, and for me, it’s calling a spade a spade.

  3. Wolf

    January 7, 2013 at 9:07 pm

    Hi there – Interesting post but I believe you have confused the Uncertainty Principle with the Observer Effect.
    Uncertainty does not state anything about changing a process via observation – it says that you can either know postion or velocity & spin but not both
    Or quoting: “which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously”

  4. Lugal-Cain

    January 8, 2013 at 8:20 am

    Thanks for taking the time to write, but I know what the technically stated “Uncertainty Principle” is and frankly don’t know what you’re referring to here. Fact is I have made the claim that micro-particles could be influenced by human observation,and some evidence seems to support this claim, but I don’t know what you’re referring to here. I’ve even scanned the page for the words and can’ find them.

    I am curious though, that of all the controversial statements I made in that post, why is it that this a) is a concern to you, or even b) spurned you to write a post. Something else you really want to say?

  5. google

    April 12, 2013 at 11:58 pm

    Where can I view the bones of the giant depicted in the illustration called “giant skeleton chart”? If the one on the far right exists, it should be in a museum somewhere. Anyone can make an animated chart. Why not make one with a 200 ft. giant? If they don’t exist in a museum somewhere, they don’t exist. The horns are fake, the eyes are fake,the sculptures and paintings are made by humans, and there are natural mutations in genetics that lead to all the abnormalities listed. People who don’t understand evolution like to criticize it instead of picking-up a book about it and trying to understand it. Try Dawkins’ “The Greatest Show On Earth” and then “The God Delusion”. I guess all the marsupials just walked out of Noah’s Ark (Turkey) and followed each other to Australia (and swam en masse across the ocean….Koalas can’t swim, and neither can kangaroos!) And they left no bones behind on that journey!

  6. google

    April 13, 2013 at 12:09 am

    What is your theory? God?? Who made God? At least science relies upon evidence that can be observed. That evidence is then challenged and peer-reviewed ad nauseum until nobody can disprove it with other observable facts. That challenging usually leads to more discoveries, and science progresses. Religion never progresses. That old set of books, written by anonymous people well after the events happened, who knew very little about anything is all you have to propose. That’s not evidence, it’s fictional literature. Why not include some fairies and unicorns in this great debunking of evolution? Post your alternative theory with evidence!

  7. Truthopia

    April 13, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    Thanks for reading, maybe.

    “What is your theory? God?? Who made God?”

    My theory? About what? What’s your question? Who made the point the big bang exploded from? It was always there? Well then there you go. What is your theory? Dawkins? Who made Dawkins?

    “At least science relies upon evidence that can be observed”

    Practical science does, yes. Thank goodness for that. Theoretical science, however, could be any whack job space junkie ET Star Trek theory with an artist’s conception to illustrate it.

    Read some more and then understand I know every argument against God, you don’t have to parrot them to me. The main point is, you science people really have no theory, just a body of opinions peer-reviewed (LOL) and accepted as the “predominant theory.” You can’t even prove the sun is hot. You just like to believe you can.

    P.S. One issue at a time.

  8. Truthopia

    April 13, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    You are mistaken again, Google. I am sharing with you my thoughts and feelings on these subjects, trying the best I can to be objective. The arguments you give here I once gave myself, if you read more of what I’ve written here you would know that. I’m not some bleary-eyed God-crazed fundamentalist, as you know (if you read) I happen to think ALL religions, per se, are wrong, inadequate, or incomplete. Religion is Man’s attempt to live according to God’s wishes, meaning what is conducive to the true “progress” and, indeed, the real “Evolution” you claim as an end in itself.

    By the way, I just show these pictures for you to think about, don’t think i find them all authentic. But if you search the internet a bit, you will see that many of these things DO exist, for you to, oh see for yourself. You would prefer faked archaeological finds, impossible timetables, and made-up concepts, maybe?

    Dawkins? LOL Dawkins. I see you’ve fallen for that weasely little self-hype machine’s ignorance. I’m sorry for that, maybe it’s the power his meme has on you.

    SO anyway, tell me what you really have against God. Don’t play parrot with me, or ever assume you know what I do not.

  9. M

    October 8, 2015 at 3:46 pm

    I can prove the theory of evolution with a single microbial experiment. Spread some wildtype E. coli on a couple of culture plates, add a dose of ampicillin to one plate, grow both overnight at 37 deg C. The next morning your non-ampicillin plate will have several hundred colonies, while your ampicillin plate may have 3 or 4. Why? Because the ampicillin killed off all of the E. coli except those that were resistant to ampicillin (i.e. selected for ampicillin resistance), so that now the E. coli population on the ampicillin plate has become genetically distinct from the original population (on the non-ampicillin). In short, the population on the ampicillin plate has EVOLVED into an ampicillin-resistant population. This is exactly the same process that has lead from the most simple single-celled organisms to all complex multicellular life (like humans, for example) over geological time scales. I have personally done this experiment. I have seen the results with my own eyes. I KNOW that EVOLUTION IS A FACT. So I’m sorry, but you’re not going to convince me otherwise with a bunch of bogus, pseduo-scientific claims and convoluted, circular arguments. I’m sorry that the universe does not conform to your little fairy tale, but there is an extremely large body of very compelling and reproducible evidence (which you obviously do not understand in the least) that indicates that YOU ARE WRONG. That’s never going to change, no matter how much you want it to, so you better just start dealing with it.

  10. Truthopia

    October 8, 2015 at 5:15 pm

    M – What you are citing with your simple experiment is evidence for microevolution, or the transformation of a species nevertheless still the same species, kind of like you with a suntan, or becoming vegetarian. You haven’t with it shown me a new genus, or even species – the only importance of any new idea of “evolution”. If you were to show me a dog that used to eat meat, that forced otherwise, became “transformed” into a canine that can eat dog food, would you call that evidence of a new species? By your logic that’s your idea of evolution?

    I am glad you bring it up, because this bad reasoning is very common with those, purportedly otherwise “brilliant”, Evolutionists struggling to provide evidence for their claims and, manifestly, the object of their faith

    This idea of microevolution, as opposed to macroevolution, is as old as Aristotle and surely Lamarck, I have written here about this. Understand the difference. You won’t get any argument out of me against the fact that all species change over time (microevolution), as this has been well-established for thousands of years, as any farmer or animal husbandry person can still tell you, some who can’t even read. Do expect an argument from me if you therefore try to claim that new genera, or even species, can or ever did arise in this way, the essential claim of macroevolution, or Evolution capitalized, the fame of Darwin but also DeVries and Malthus, for instance. Darwin just had connections.

    So, all you’ve proven is that you have faith in the popular “learning” you’ve apparently bought without questioning. You’ve yet to provide any “evidence” for Evolution proper that I can see, and I have seen your argument, or some variant of it, in many places. Also, just to nip your future similar attempts in the bud, you types have a problem understanding what a “species” is in the classic sense, Maybe you better work on how Evolution can bring about new Genera instead, since you have so deformed the idea of separate species. Simply put, if they can breed together they are of the same genus, not necessarily species, witness tiger and lion offspring for instance. They are of same genus, and this is why they can interbreed at all.

    Similarly, what you claim to know with certainty does not, with all your shouting, exceed what I now know with certainty, which is that you sound like just another person of faith, meaning no matter what evidence exists against your god of the object of your faith (Evolution…), you will continue to believe in the myth as if it is truth, because of the strength of this faith.

    This is no surprise, given that in the absence of any religion or established ethical/moral code of culture, the mind will substitute its faith elsewhere. You types therefore get upset when this “god” of yours is challenged. I dare say, over half of you would still cling to this silly idea if Darwin himself renounced it, such is the necessity of this faith for you.

    To be blunt, your faith is, in fact, an absurd theoretical attempt at explaining the diversity of nature and mankind that fails on numerous levels. You can no more prove Evolution than even Evidence it, and you especially don’t do it here, I almost laughed but then, I almost cried.

    Don’t feel badly about it though, none of the prophets of your god, the ones who can’t pick up a hammer, with fancy titles, cushy jobs in academia, and book deals, can prove it either. In fact, Evolution has gone through so many reworkings since Darwin that to say it is the same theory, and by extension, that Darwin was at least once partly right, would be an outright lie. That’s the beauty of your Evolution god, the Pragmatic One. If you find you are wrong, you just change the theory to accommodate it, which is to me theoretical and epistemological Dirty Pool

    Try reading some of my sources, and all of what I’ve written. I would love to see Darwin’s idea of Evolution (the science) work to explain the Origin Of Species. Unfortunately it has not and still does does not, and relies on nothing more than implied authority for its claims.

    Continue reading, by all means. But really watch the movie before you criticize it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: