RSS Output
French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

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 


Cult of Darwin - Recent Articles

Darwin's religion: how would an organ 'evolve' slowly over millions of years?

Biologically impossible. So what science supports evolution?

Bookmark and Share


According to Darwin’s cult everything just ‘evolves’.  The word ‘evolve’ is meaningless.  Usually it is associated with slow improvements over time.  But how?  Chance, stuff happens, we-don’t-know-but-it did are the usual answers whilst invoking the God of ‘Natural Selection’, another meaningless term.  Selecting what from which options?  Who selects?  Is it nature- based?  Why such a wide variety within a species – big, thin, slow, fat, smart, stupid – seems that the God of selection is rather inaccurate?  Does it mean survival?  Survival of what exactly?  The fastest, luckiest, slowest, strongest, most immoral?  The cult of Darwin is suffused with meaningless terms.


What are the conditional statements applied to ‘naturally select’ from the God of selection?  Who selected sloths and fish without eyes for example against what criteria?  Why don’t I have wings (surely that would impress the females and lead to my preference in sexual selection)?  Why don’t wolves or large cats talk, surely that is a competitive advantage when hunting?  Why are snakes akin to legless reptiles, losing leg function is surely a sign of devolution not evolution? 


A huge problem for Darwin’s cult is organ complexity.  The cult maintains that all organs form by single cells, ‘evolving’ over ‘time’, into tissues and these tissues than form the organ.  Such a process has never been observed in reality.  If you can’t observe a process, any related theory is not science, but conjecture looking for proof.  Does it really make sense that a heart would ‘evolve’?  How would organs ‘evolve’ through a selecting process over time?  Half a heart, a quarter of an arm, one-third of an ear?  What use are they? How would such incredible complexity as the eye, which needs a nervous system connection to the brain (more complexity) ‘evolve’, ‘slowly’, over ‘millions or billions’ of years?  Is half an eye a credible story?


Did blood, blood vessels, glucose, cell mitochondira likewise ‘evolve’ at the same rate as the heart?  What came first the blood or heart?  No heart, what is the use of blood?  No blood what is the use of the heart?  Darwinists have no answer.  The obvious response is that all must be present or the system fails, the organism will die.


Deep fossils also belie the ‘evolution’ story since they show fully developed organs similar to present-day organs.  Where is the evolution?  If you read any story about a ‘discovery’ in ‘deep time’ of a preserved fossil (70 millions etc), the evolutionists always proclaim surprise that soft tissue can survive so long. Their heads would explode if they admitted the reality of what they were looking at is not millions of years old. 


Consider sexual selection a major issue for the cult of Darwin.  X, Y chromosomes and related genetic material must all be present.  It is all or nothing. How would that system ‘evolve’ over ‘millions of years’?


"life must simultaneously have both systems of cell division to reproduce sexually. Otherwise it could not reproduce, which would end that gene line. Thus, functional mitosis must not mutate in the somatic cell line, but mitosis genes must mutate into meiosis in the gonadic cell line in order to evolve. The organism cannot reproduce until it has a fully functional meiosis system. Mitosis and meiosis or very different. Mitosis is a glorified straight forward copy machine. In contrast, meiosis is a functional ‘creator’ that produces the potential for the enormous variety of individuals, as seen everywhere in most all forms of life today – including humans."


The cult of Darwin has no explanation for the appearance, at the same time, of both processes necessary for cell division to allow for procreation.  If both types of cells don’t exist, the species is extinct.  Period.

Zimmer and Emlen have authored a popular pro-Evolution text-book and fully admit it cannot happen by ‘chance’ or through the Holy Spirit of ‘deep time’ (p. 320):  “Given the functional uniqueness of sexual reproduction at even the most primitive level, what we will see over and over throughout this book is that such an assumed gradual process could not, in actual scientific fact, have happened.”

Why would a stomach ‘evolve’?  How would a hand slowly develop over millions of years?  The genetic processes are unaccounted for, along with utility.  Why would half a hand be a naturally selected advantage?  Where in nature has that process been observed, or did it stop, or does it take so long that it cannot be observed, and is it reasonable to believe that such a process would actually ‘survive’ in its entirety for millions of years to produce the organ?  How would that work exactly?

With Darwin’s cult (or religion), there is precious little real science.  The conclusion is already made – ‘we are right, it is true, we evolved!’, but the details, the logic, the science, the facts, the observations, the common-sense do not support such a conclusion.  One can therefore conclude that without facts, Darwin’s cult is not a science, but largely a fiction, promoted for other reasons, which have nothing to do with science. 

Natural Selection is the Atheist God

Atheists are very religious. Virgin births, magic, random chance.....

Bookmark and Share



Interesting that ‘Science’ has a very hard time proving is Evolutionary Philosophy and Religion.

Why would a fish ‘naturally select’ to become an amphibian, and how would the amphibian using ‘competitive advantage’ know to become a reptile?  Who would they mate with, and how did the complexity and inter-related dependent nature of their systems, their organs, ‘mutate’, in such a way that they did not die, but were able to keep on living whilst disadvantage (half a leg, half a wing, half a fin)? 

If the Pakicetus wolf did become a Blue Whale (or similar), why don’t we see such movements toward meta-morphosis today, however small, slight and slow they may be?  Has anyone ever seen a Bear or a Wolf ‘naturally select’ to become aquatic?  If not, where is the evidence that this happened? Surely observational evidence is needed to support hand-waving philosophy?  Or is the philosophy just a religious incantation perhaps?

Apes to Humans would involve billions of letters of DNA (software) changes.  It is impossible.  How does software change by itself?  How do systems, organs, and all aspects of the creature change in unison so they don’t falter and die?  I have never seen a software program code itself or improve itself by chance.  Mutations are software bugs.  They destroy the system.  Is ‘natural selection’ now a programmer as well as a philosophical belief?

The evolution from quadrupedal to bipedal walking requires many major anatomical changes. Some of the many morphological alterations to the human skeleton that are required include major changes to both the arrangement and size of the bones of the foot, changes in the hip size and shape, the knee size, the leg length, and both the shape and orientation of the vertebral column. Even the ribcage must be altered. 

Even Evolutionary Philosophers understand that ‘Natural Selection’ does not mean anything.  It is just a ‘vacuous’ buzzword.

And, indeed, over-estimation of the explanatory power of natural selection may be why Darwin’s contemporary, the geologist Charles Lyell, accused him of “deifying” the theory. A century later, in 1971, Lila Gatlin, a biochemist and mathematical biologist who figured centrally in developing the conception of life as an “information processing system”, could summarize contemporary usage by saying, “the words ‘natural selection’ play a role in the vocabulary of the evolutionary biologist similar to the word ‘God’ in ordinary language” (quoted in Oyama 2000a, p. 31). Such is the power of logical constructions over the human mind.

Information systems don’t self-create, self-code, self-manage, self-design, nor self-mutate.  Sorry.  Darwin who did not perform one single experiment to support his theory that microbes became mechanics, invokes God-like powers for ‘natural selection’: “(natural selection is) daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good”.  What does that even mean besides inane philosophical gibberish?  Who then is ‘natural selection’ and how does he ‘scrutinise’ all activities daily, choosing and forming?

Or is ‘natural selection’ simply the Atheist God?


Evolution's absurdity is revealed when you look at DNA

4-dimensional software code and operating systems do not arise by chaos.

Bookmark and Share




The human body contains 1 Trillion cells, 300.000 different proteins, some 2-10 million total proteins, billions of transactions a day, and replaces billions of cells each day. The human system is the most complex operating system and set of software applications in the universe. Nothing compares. In fact human-created operating systems such as Windows or Linux, are architectural backwards, or literally the opposite of our body's operating system. One would expect that better operating systems in the future, will use the genome as their template.


Imagine if someone, an evolution-true believer for example, stated that, the world's most comprehensive e-Commerce and software-as-a-service implementation, with millions of lines of code, built on 1000s of servers hosted in data centres across the world, with such complexity as load-balancing, caching, security and notifications, simply arose from a 2 page html web template, whose code 'mutated' into java, java script and html 5, all due to competitive advantage, striving and survival-of-the-fittest. This is stupid and you would not believe the person. Amazon is designed, built, maintained, monitored, enhanced and improved by human intelligence.


What then of your own body? Is it reasonable and scientific to believe that the human body, which is infinitely more complicated than, simply appeared due to random chance, chaos and mutations which only degrade software ?


The human DNA software operating system is 4-D. Would human 4-D software appear magically from single cell cyanobacteria 'evolving' into the screaming mad climate 'professor' ? This assertion is insane and probably at some level deeply psychopathic.


Human software contains instruction sets – just like a computer operating system. Genes or functions are turned on and off across the genome by 'transcription' or functional sets within the genome. These bind to the DNA around the genes and allows the functionality to be turned on or off. However, we don't know what instantiates the transcriptors. How would an operating set of instructions, which generates software or DNA action, arise by random chaos ?


Evolutionists have usually focused on trying to find patterns in this process, focusing on the DNA sequences and the binding with certain transcription factors. There is no set pattern however. DNA binding is quite tissue specific and highly regulated within the operating system. No one understands how the transcriptors interact with DNA or how they interact with different parts of the DNA structure.


Current research has added to the mystery by identifying 2 activities which influence how DNA is read by transcription factors: 1) the sequence of the DNA and 2) the shape of the DNA as it is being read. Since DNA is now thought to be 4-dimensional [not 3], this second factor is indeed a puzzle. But few ponder the reality of what they are investigating. How would a 4D encoded software system, 'evolve' by chance, from cyanobacteria to you ? Even cyanobacteria's genome is infinitely more complicated than previously hypothesized by Darwinists. Is it scientific and reasonable to adjure that operating systems arose from nothing, or dead matter, and then assumed a 4 D shape whose intricacy we do not understand ?


Stating the above as science, is more dogmatic than rational.


Zhou, T., et al. 2015. Quantitative modeling of transcription factor binding specificities using DNA shape. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (15): 4654–4659.

Rohs, R., et al. 2009. The role of DNA shape in protein-DNA recognition. Nature. 461 (7268): 1248–1253.

Tomkins, J. 2014. Duons: Parallel Gene Code Defies EvolutionCreation Science Update. Posted on January 6, 2014, accessed April 14, 2015.

Tomkins, J. 2014. Dual-Gene Codes Defy Evolution...AgainCreation Science Update. Posted on September 12, 2014, accessed April 14, 2015.