Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Islam, the State, the cult of Gay and Queer, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, 'Science', Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion....a nice variety for the human-hater, amoral, anti-rationalist to choose from. It is so much fun mocking them isn't it ?
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
The cult of evolution. Walking fish. Flying lizards. Shrews turning into Mozart. More science exists in Lord of the Rings, than in the sci-fi fantasy of Darwinism. The problems with Evolution are legion and fill encyclopedias of science. Ferrell's handbook [part 1, part 2] is indisputably full of science and detail sure to offend the true Darwin cult follower with his theology of random chance; and his gods of time and mutations.
Evolution is rhetoric, dogma, lies and non-science, all funded by the state, which in good statist fashion, has every incentive to wipe out opposing centres of opposition to its own cult of power. Billions pour into 'research' to support the unscientific and disproven idea that molecules became Michaelangelo and protozoa formed by chance into penguins.
Evolutionists rely on time. Time can do anything is their mantra. This is absurd of course. Time might or might not have an impact. 50 million years ago – supposedly - bats arrived on the scene. Their DNA has not changed since then. Neither has the shark's in 300 million years; or the great ape in 37 or so million years. What is the current great ape evolving into ? Evolutionists have no answer.
If the earth was really 4.6 billion years old, it likely would have stopped spinning and rotating by now. Basic physics would indicate that outcome. But the long-earth-age theory is also suspect for a variety of reasons, including the magic of carbon dating. Carbon 14 isotope testing is relatively new [80 years or so in use]; and has a myriad of problems. What is the rate of decay ? Does that change over time? Are there secondary sources of carbon that creep into samples ? Why does the dating of one object by 2 or more carbon-dating labs give back such wild variations in time ? As Ferrell states:
“..troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted.”—*R.E. Lee, “Radiocarbon, Ages in Error,” in Anthropological Journal of Canada, March 3, 1981, p. 9.”
“Mortar from Oxford Castle in England was dated by radiocarbon as 7370 years old, yet the castle itself was only built 785 years ago (E.A. von Fange, “Time Upside Down,“ quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly, November 1974, p. 18).”
“Wood was cut out of living, growing trees. Although only a few days dead, it was dated as having existed 10,000 years ago (*B. Huber, “Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions,” in Physiology of Forest Trees, ed. by *K.V. Thimann, 1958).”
[note: Sequoias are the longest living tree and the oldest of these is 4.000 years old.]
“Prior to about 1600 B.C., radiodating tends to go wild. Something happened back then that threw the clock off.” [climate catastrophe, flood ?]
Is it sensible to belong to a cult which believes that a primeval 'soup' created life ? Perhaps this warm 'pond' was near Chuckie Darwin's house and the 'tree of life' ?
“If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes. In fact, no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence that there never was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted but a brief moment.”—*J. Brooks and *G. Shaw, Origins and Development of Living Systems (1973), p. 360.
“...hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.”—*Richard E. Dickerson, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” Scientific American, September 1978, p. 75.”
“...hundreds of thousands of amino acids had to miraculously make themselves out of raw seawater devoid of any life. But the amino acids would separate and break up immediately and not remain in existence long enough to figure out how to form themselves into the complex patterns of DNA and protein. The problem here is that, as soon as the chemical reaction that made the amino acids occurred, the excess water would have had to immediately be removed.”
“..formation of amino acids, protein, DNA, enzymes, and all the rest needed to form the first living creature, had to occur within an extremely short amount of time! It would all have had to occur within far less than a single generation or even half-hour. It would have had to occur within a single moment!”
The complexity of the single cell, indeed of the human body, makes one fact clear; it is all or nothing. Either you have every single complexity readily available and working; or the cell or the organism, cannot be formed. It is that simple.
“...evolution could not possibly occur, even over a period of billions of years, given the complexities of DNA, protein, the cell, enzymes, and other factors.”
Consider the impossibility of a soup making such complex code and molecules:
“If one glycine molecule was formed, it would have to hunt through 10x29 other molecules in the ocean before finding another glycine to link up with! This would be equivalent to finding one person in a crowd that is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than all the people on earth!”
“Chlorophyll, itself, is very complicated and never exists outside of the plant, just as DNA and ten thousands of other chemical structures never exist outside plants and/or animals. If they are not found outside, how did they ever get inside? In many plants, the tiny disks containing chlorophyll move about within plant cells and adjust for different light and heat conditions. When the sunlight is too strong, the little disks turn edgewise. On an overcast day, they lie as parallel to the sky as they can in order to take in the most light. They have brains?”
“(1) There are 20 essential amino acids. (2) There are 300 amino acids in a specialized sequence in each medium protein. (3) There are billions upon billions of possible combinations! (4) The right combination from among the 20 amino acids would have to be brought together in the right sequence—in order to make one useable protein properly. (5) In addition to this, the ultra-complicated DNA strands would have to be formed, along with complex enzymes, and more and more, and still more.”
Evolution explains none of the above. Not one single experiment, observation, or replicable scientific process has been done to satisfy the above constraints and complexity in development. Nothing. Yet evolution is science proven by mutations and time ? Mutations kill, they don't add genetic material. See Hiroshima as an example:
“Eden [MIT scientist] then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells). Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, Eden pointed out, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism! For more on the Wistar Institute, read the following book: *Paul Moorhead and *Martin Kaplan (eds.), Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5.”
Cults do not express science. There is precious little that the evolutionists can point to as being scientific in their theory. It is all cant and dogma funded and fuelled by tax money. Schools might as well teach that Alice in Wonderland is science and fact.