I suppose it would be easier for my detractors if I were to passively consent to endlessly repeat myself, isolating my side of the main argument only to very finite details of the Darwinist religion here-and-there, those minuscule items of data with which my opponents have more than a passing familiarity. Then, those tiny little shreds of insignificant points could be held up as straw men amidst the multitude of monolithic refutations I can present, have presented, and will continue to present. Those little nothing straw men could then be ceremonially burned in effigy for the satisfaction of the lemmings, and the spiritually immature Darwinist detractor could then leave the field feeling victorious and even, dare I say, a bit self-righteous.Pin It
Tag: Modern evolutionary synthesis
Darwinists scrambled for “engines” that would “drive” Darwinian evolution. This is admittedly an attempt to skew the odds to make their idiotic theory somewhat plausible by compensating for finite time and matter in the universe.
Even supposing the universe is 15 billion years old, that is a finite amount of seconds in which an infinite amount of changes must occur for Darwinism to be true. Even supposing the earth is 4 billion or so years old, a single cell has to assemble itself from dirt and rocks and such by an undirected, unguided, random process –and for that simple single cell to appear, a nearly infinite number of random occurrences must take place in order, without error. The best estimates put it at a greater than 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000th power chance.Pin It
Lamarckism, the notion of “inheritance of acquired characteristics” while utterly disproven over a century ago, continues today as the unstated philosophical basis of all Darwinian evolutionary biology. While admittedly lacking in either proof or reason, Lamarckism nevertheless excuses Darwinists from contemplating the possibility that nature espouses implications outside of Methodological Naturalism.Pin It