Darwinism is not so much a problem of origins, as of the origin of modern dementia, and here is the proof thereof!
The beginning is half the whole, says an old adage, and you agree with this every time you refuse to enter a movie halfway through, or to begin reading a novel at the middle. But are we always so logical? Our instinct tells us that we cannot prescind from the information available at the beginning, or from reasoning in sequential steps. Cause and effect sequences have to be revised for us to keep a firm grip on our logical processes. Take the example: Why can't we find a man as large as a whale? The obvious answer: Because there is no couple hefty enough to beget one whale sized tells the whole story.This type of direct relationship between cause, as sufficient cause, to all possible effects is the most elementary means available to all to discard idiocy from theories. Or at least it should be! But it isn't! And no better proof can be obtained of this anomaly than the success of Charles Darwin and his subservient mental clones, and their successful invasion and conquest of the scientific establishment.
Using the same commonsense capable of reducing whale's size to baby sized, we can always be certain of the difference between the possible and the impossible. We know only too well that it is as easy to take less from more as it is impossible to take more from less. The Theory of Evolution, however, demands the opposite. And not as a single happenstance but as a natural law, and in an unending flow of new living species always better than their ancestors, leaving us undecided as to what to admire more if the unrestricted optimism or the sheer folly, for greater optimism had never been seen, and a more monumental stupidity has never been thought! If you like to dream every night of putting ten dollars into your pockets to awaken with the gross national product as the fruits thereof, believe me you're not beating Darwin's optimism, or his idiocy.
And no matter how you wish to put it, how you wish to embellish, adorn it or reinvent it, it boils down to just that!
There is always logic and you can’t beat it. If you empty a pocket or a purse in order to put in ten dollars, you can’t bring out eleven dollars without creating a dollar out of nothing! Impossible! If it’s a savings account paying a dollar interest you are still taking out less than was put in, for what was put in to generate that extra dollar was not only ten dollars, but also the bank, the bank’s activities, the market, risk and time. A lot more than your savings plus a dollar was put in! No way for Darwinian Mechanics on that basis to be right, but rather worse as bankruptcies often add in cruel remembrances. When all’s considered even Central Banking humbled lies.
So Darwin had ideas! Did his ideas create all things? Or were ‘All Things’ he sought to structure, by some one else as structures made? The mechanism he sought to explain, who invented, created, and put to work such thing?
When you get down to Darwin, his crazy clones et al; you must depart from origins, to fantasize on mechanisms lacking a previous plan. For plans come from ideas, and whose idea was that? Mechanism unplanned, from no previous idea and from no previous mind? No matter how you embellish it, or how you wish to prove it, it all boils down to that!
So, what is all the fuss about?
ON FALLING FROM TREES: From Newtons apple, to Darwin’s rather brusque descent.
Two Britons, both to be remembered as connected by gravitational happenstance. The apple to honor Isaac, as often said: many apples have fallen on men’s heads but there was only one Newton! In relation to Darwin, since his "The Descent of Man" it has often been said lacking apples in his case, that the main suspect was he, for falling down squarely on his head!
Darwin’s case admits a better description using hallucinogenic drugs and mushrooms which were possibly not known in his time, but are better fitted to the way his observations were magnified out of proportion and then fitted into theory. For he awed for the commonplace, gaped at trivia, and exaggerated like mad.
Poor Darwin's substance.
He noticed variability within species! He observed offspring resembling parents not to be identical to them! He also noticed an inheritance factor in the offspring! He realized some individuals were better fitted for survival, and were better breeders! He observed what animal breeders did in selecting the desirable traits to better the desired qualities in each succeeding generation: scent in dogs, for example! He then transposed this artificial selection to nature to present his readers with nature having precisely the breeder’s savvy and good intentions to force in a few pages a natural selection! Due to nature not having gone to the breeders’ school—nor likely most of his readers— in order to tighten on the ‘natural adaptation and survival of the fittest’, nature could be considered to be as aggressive and unreliable as needed to force changes within the theory’s laxity! And then he simply introduced the biggest blunder conceivable, a blunder extant still in the minds of all his victims: he mistook transformation for evolution!
"What Mr. Darwin seems to have forgotten—he was immediately told—is that we, the English, are a nation of breeders of horses and dogs —and of such competence in the field as nobody has yet dared to question— despite our competence we have never yet seen a horse become more than a horse, or a dog become more than a dog".—The English press was denying transformism which Darwin had sneaked in as evolution!
But of course there is a natural selection! Of course there is a survival of the fittest! But there's no place for Darwin in this picture! When a cheetah attacks a Thompson gazelle at close to sixty miles an hour, and the lighter gazelle responds accelerating to close to fifty miles per hour, artfully dodging the heavier predator, and getting away many times, they are acting out these very principles; but in a way barely sufficient to keep in shape as any jogger knows only too well. Neither will the jogger find himself either suddenly— or eonly in far away descendants in long traditional practice— flying blue-streak away from kryptonite, nor will the cheetah acquire its wings! There is, and this must be emphasized, an enormous difference between true science always capable of proof and better sense, and the falsifiers of true science building tall-tales, and by rattling a few old fossil bones manage to devastate the human mind.
If you have begun to suspect that the idea behind it is to use the joyful strengths of optimism to demolish the sanity of our Christian civilization, congratulations, it's a bull's-eye! If, on the other hand you think you are discovering how easy it is to make dupes of the masses, you are too late for that! It was joyfully announced by Randolph Hearst circa 1900 when he said: "The truth said once is soon forgotten, but a lie repeated a hundred times becomes public opinion." And the best definition of the worst type of public opinion, the mind devastative public opinion is what they incessantly hammer in as "Evolution"... But fortunately there is the Genesis connection!In the same way black must contrast white to build meaningful grayscale, against the backdrop of the only contender: the most ridiculous, counter-logical and unscientific darwinian and post darwinian theory or evolution, Genesis was there to shine forth radiantly!
Enter "The Days of Creation": Days or eons?
Ecology is the epitome of complexity, built up with uncountable millions of living creatures engaged in uncountable checks and balances, yet they have a fundamental need of simultaneousness. Every prey-predator pair has to coexist in space and time for the predators to survive. It’s inescapable! Contrariwise to Darwinian madness denying limitations and restrictive origins, in order to postulate unplanned systems of uncharted complexity and everything fueled by senseless optimism, we must begin by getting a feel of the problem. Can we? Will we know where to begin?
A black box is a mental construct to reduce mind boggling problems to manageable proportions, basically to an input-output formulation. Our basic input will be pairs, prey-predator pairs. The moment we begin feeding our basic input we begin to get a feeling of what an excessively complex dynamic interactive system implies, specially when the interactive part enters the equation! To simplify, the basic parameters will be space, time and simultaneousness. But on introducing the first pair, let’s say cheetah-gazelle, we realize we cannot even calculate an optimal population without a better knowledge of the entourage which is there for much greater complexity! With each and every additional living creature complicating in uncharted ways the whole situation! A situation in which we do not even know which if any should be the first pair to enter our blackbox to output at every point a stable system! The key, however, is stability through interaction at each step of the process even if we don’t know the number of pairs per species, or the adequate order for their introduction! It is beyond our competence, but the keys for understanding are all there.
We face an equilibrium problem which minimized in complexity resembles an old mattress for which fixing one spring can lead to several other springing out of place. How can we go about it? Old mattresses do get fixed, but springs are few and species uncountable; springs are elementary, species exceedingly complex. If old mattresses were more complex nobody would ever even think of fixing them, as new mattresses offer the advantage of simultaneous placement of all their springs, pointing again, even for the simplest systems to the advantage of simultaneousness! Precisely the same requirement with which we began by saying: Every prey-predator pair has to coexist in space and time for the predators to survive. It’s inescapable! The other two problems: prey-predator ratio, and order of each prey-predator pair introduction can also be solved, most elegantly by simultaneousness! In other words: Take everything as is, and then, have it set up instantaneously! Given sufficient power as only God can have, elegance and project feasibility both fall directly to the side of The Days of Creation. Complete sets are ordered into being and put in place in a fuss-less manner! And our intermediate mental crutch, the black box imaginary construct can be happily discarded! But, will we be taken seriously on this point in a scientific discussion?
In scientific debate yes, and on two additional counts: Firstly, you only have to take a short Wikipedia tour of the Big-Bang to realize that not only nature was set up without having to fuss up to eons galore, but that the whole universe was created instantaneously!
Adding eons you put in NOTHING NEW! You merely admit a trade-off to cooling expansion (more space, less heat, and the logical consequences thereof).
Secondly, by analogy to all excessively complex dynamic interactive systems take the one most familiar to you, the almost instantaneous formation of the human baby. If you think nine months is incompatible to instantaneousness, just consider the explosive cell growth from two human cells to more than a trillion cells in nine months!
Better still, try to extend the precise time required from nine months to... as much as you desire in order to better admire the precision of Genesis in its days of Creation!... Only remember: the nine months are mere expansion to what was already potentially there in the instantaneous fusion between the ovum and the spermatozoid!
From the first paragraph above on whale sized creatures: What is not potentially there, at the inception, will never be. In other words my dear Darwinian clone, sorry, you’ll never become a kangaroo!
To wit, potential requires no setup time, only its realization through successive actualizations!
ASK THE CREATOR!
To seek God for a religious reason is commonplace. We have the Church, the Bible, and the doctors of the Church. We also have preachers, schools and universities. For the origins we have Genesis. Nobody thought of questioning Him directly; but He came to us with the answer as He always has... Maria Valtorta, Italian mystic translated to more than ten different languages transcribed Jesus Christ’s words on the subject as follows: "In relation to that grave error, which has caused so much damage, not only it’s impossible for a monkey to evolve into a man; but not even with all your technology can you reduce a man to a monkey. You may maim and degrade him, but no matter what you do a monkey you will not get, because the monkey has its own perfection!
This is the definitive statement on two counts: First, we have already seen the impossibility for any evolutionary theory succeeding on account that no mechanism—natural or otherwise—can create something out of nothing, or permit in any way to take out more than was put in.
Not for a single case, least of all on a regular, constant basis.
We were however leaving open a possibility to the opposite, to have a lesser creature derive from a superior one. The above statement closes out any such possibility on the basis of perfection. A distinct perfection. A closed perfection as corresponds to a distinct species.
Secondly: The above statement brings to our attention the perfection of each species as such. Perfection can’t be bettered or it wouldn’t be perfection! In other words: the perfection of each species lies in the unalterable fullness of each species.
It was bad enough to pretend a mechanism bringing into existence any enhancement implying something not potentially in its inception, but to demand the same mechanism to produce perfection in all cases? Well, there are straitjackets you know....
It's obvious that people at large would gain enormously by using their heads instead of depending on the Scientific Establishment (Scientific and Educational) which depends on 'political correctness' to obtain funds; thus enslaving objective truth to financial and political expediency, partisanship, and plain bigotry. In recent academic debate as in the case of tenure by Guillermo Gonzalez in The Chronicle of Higher Education, much is made of quote "Michael Behe’s argument for “irreducible complexity” is the best I’ve seen to blow macro-evolution completely out of the water".
The problem happens to be much simpler, and even more drastic, as you do not need irreducible complexity to find Evolution (as Transformism is nowadays called) totally flawed, but mere common sense logic --as here demonstrated-- to blow macro-evolution completely out of the water". In other words, not because a maximum cannot be fulfilled by theory, but because a minimum requirement (getting more out than you put in) can't be logically true. There is a world of difference between both approaches.
Much damage is mentioned as the result of preaching or accepting Evolution. And it is easy to see where the damage is made, and which results can be further expected. We can recognize the most serious assault on human reason, and an open imposition by political and financial power to impair thinking. Logical cause to effect is abolished, proportions loose all relevance, and unfounded optimism is presented as omnipotence. Everything good can be expected without effort or merit. Only rights and no duties rule for progress, and progress and blind optimism are one. The only needed force is sex, and singly exalted, responsibility for offspring can be better waylaid to natural selection. The laws of the jungle function optimally above human law. Bestiality can have no substitute in evolutionary thinking, if it got us here, evolutionists seem to say, why not only bestiality? Why not proclaim it king? The apocalyptic beast has been unleashed! And the extent to which it's been unleashed is almost unbelievable!
What follows is an example in a slightly dramatized fashion reprinted from my article in Hispanic Vista of May 7th 2007:Soon to be 70 years ago, on October 30 1938, Orson Welles (1915-1985) provoked a panic that astonishes man with man's gullibility in two opposite ways. Science fiction over the radio made millions believe an alien invasion was taking place, a few hours later smiles and even laughter had replaced panic. What if it had been real? has been the question often raised since. Or was it real?
Just 30 years later, by 1968, the effects of a real alien invasion were beginning to take hold of the minds of Americans; but panic neither flared, nor has it fully subsided.
If the worst harm conceivable from the October of 1938 invasion had been a germ of dementia of slow but certain reproduction, a splendid case could be built for that year’s panic being fully independent from Welles' radio program, and for that program being a mere coincidence with actual but hidden fact being intuited, a fact more deserving panic than anything since, including world war and nuclear weapons. How much is your personal sanity worth? How much is your family’s, your town’s, your country’s sanity worth? Let’s take a common issue to prove the point:
On the much peddled subject of abortion, would you agree to it if its victim had been you?
A single question can bring back simplicity and sanity to a subject no matter how abused and distorted.
If you agreed as a propounder you could be put to the test, to accept belated death immediately: here's the gun, shoot yourself!
The trick is simple, murderers aren’t suicides. They belong to different clubs.
But the example we’ll explore is not abortion, but its legalization. And its legalization as part of a more general program, and the way it’s so precisely portrayed in the Apocalypse.
The Book of Revelation has presented humanity with an exceptional character: The Beast.
Our enquiry is therefore simple: we shall compare human reason with the Beast’s in order to theorize what millions intuited in their panic: the landing of the germ of demential bestiality.
Abortion propounders have lobbied for:
- Turning a former crime into a modern right. No limits placed on trend. Human or beastly?
- A role reversal between victim and criminal: Turning a human individual in its fetal, defenseless stage, into a willful dangerous invader in order to justify the invader’s execution; and the murderess into a heroine defending femininity itself! Is this human reasoning, or beastly reasoning?
- Law, based on precedent, has thus settled for the guilt of victims and the innocence of murderers. A revolutionary change, but is it human? Beastliness gradually implanted, extended, ingrained by repetition into social dominance as public opinion by the mass media.
- An inversion of values between life and health, granting priority to health over life as long as it benefits criminals and death befalls to the innocent (abortion is thus set NOT as a criminal issue, but as a health issue, sufficient to enforce rule by the Beast). And incredibly set NOT for protecting the health of the victim, but the health of the assailant! Promoting even horror to the possibility of a criminal suffering, and not for any reason either, but precisely as a consequence of her criminal act! And not at a random moment, but at the precise moment she’s committing her crime! In other words: Turning a dissuasive into a promotion, instead of a brake an accelerator towards genocide! And in order to use this possible suffering to force death on the innocent without a hearing for they can’t be heard; and without previous trial as there is no possible way to bring charges against them! Quite beastly, I’d say, to request murderous abortion rights on the health issue of aborters!
- Where abortion has been legalized in case of rape, the one singled out for immediate execution is the individual in fetal stage, as if this individual had wilfully raped and thus entered the womb. That is as beastly as justice can get as penalties are penal law’s final reasoning, and the death penalty which should be imposed only upon the rapist, when imposed on the person in fetal stage singles him out to be the culprit as if he fathered himself. Many times the rapist is never caught, so the Beast’s justice is appeased by the execution of the only innocent one as if charged with rape and thus of fathering himself. You can’t get beastlier than that! Or can you?
- The greater the damage, the lesser the penalty? Penal law as a science is mainly charged with protecting irreplaceable values with penalties proportional to direct damage inflicted. Irreplaceable can only be countered by proportionately dissuasive, and the rule must be: “The greater the damage, the greater the dissuasive penalty imposed”. How can this rule be demolished? Through abortion rulings of course! We saw the first one above: Take it out of criminal law and reduce it to a health issue, as the irreplaceable value, remaining life expectancy, is much greater for the average fetus than for the average adult! One catch is taking it out of penal law without taking terrorism out with it! A terrorist, by definition, murders without caring for who gets it. This is the main point for terror: you don’t have to be bad, disliked, young, old, man, woman or child. You don’t have to step on anybody’s foot. The less guilty you are, the more convenient to provoke terror, as terror must be irrational. It’s just like abortion: a genius, history’s best baseball player, the most beautiful girl in town…Plus a few extras: What can hold back an aborter from further damage to herself and to others? How much love will remain in her heart after an, or a few, abortions? Do you believe it’s more unnatural to kill husband than son? What kind of women are we populating the country with through abortion? Terror? Terrorists?
- Time in reverse? Of course, don’t forget it is madness! If the average victim of murder were around 30, a penalty of several decades in jail, life imprisonment or death have been found reasonable for irreplaceable decades of life lost by the victim. Backwards or forwards in time? The question seems silly until abortion penalties are taken into consideration! Criminal penalties for abortion in the past two and a half centuries have been for short spans, as if the victim―with time in reverse― were always deprived but of a few months of life. Outright legalization of abortion or the many exceptions such as rape confirm this. Worse: with around six billion contraceptives humanity would be as gone as the dinosaurs. Can you do away with humanity without a single murder being committed? But putting time in reverse by sex, you can sell contraceptives amongst lollypops and aspirins!
- To confuse the size of the victim with the size of the crime? This sounds a little less mad!
- But it is time for terror! What are the cumulative effects of all this absurdities upon your mind, your town, your country?
- We still have to examine the way out of this maze of dementia as mismanaged through ‘public opinion’: The denial of the humanity of the unborn. THE ONLY PROBLEM LIES IN THE FACT THAT THIS ADDITIONAL PIECE OF DEMENTIA MUST BE ADDED, AS THIS IS THE SET OF ABORTION DEMENTIA! Like we did at the beginning, we’ll blast this can of pestilence with a single question: What were YOU in your mother’s womb, a frog’s egg? A donkey’s fetus or a human being? To deny the humanity of the unborn is the most demented element in the whole set of abortionist dementia! What a hideout for the rest in the SET of dementia!
In other words: the Beast is here with us, the Apocalypse has found its proof in our days!
Cleaning up and adding more
The slight dramatization above was OK to break monotony, but needless to say there was no germ of dementia landing in 1938. Real dementia as a plague landed with Charles Darwin’s birth on February 12th 1809, or, as some may prefer, with the publication of his ‘On the Origin of Species’ in 1859. Others, of course, would rather choose 1871 as the latest admissible date, due to publication of ‘The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex’; and would also correct me on the use of the word ‘germ’ ―which is more relevant to twentieth century paranoias― to put ‘demon’ in its place as more likely to explain the most dramatic downfall science ever suffered.
What can’t be doubted is the unforgettable accident suffered by science crashing head on into stupidity by Darwin’s auspices, nor the wreckage that remained to humble the once proud concept of science into ridicule. Take the following example: Eons as a hideout to justify impossible processes:
Time was brought in to fit Transformism into a theory contradicted by observable invariance. No one had ever seen dogs to sire more than dogs, or horses to become more than horses as
And much, much more: The man from St. Christopher
If Darwin has been the nemesis of science and will pass on to history as the father of another failed revolution, a demolisher promoted as a builder by a gang interested in creating a sect and dwelling in superstition, he did leave, as an irritant, the need for correction.
And the correction came in the first half of the twentieth century from a famous Swiss physicist, and its implications are much greater than originally imagined.
Just how probable or improbable was life itself? A living cell has two things to differentiate it from non living matter, structure and…Life!
Let there be only two different atoms per molecule instead of four, and let’s represent them by tiny black and white balls and let the experiment begin…
Building the apparatus:
The experiment begins:
- The bowl is thoroughly agitated.
- What were once cleanly white on one side and pure black on the other, is now, within the bowl, a uniform gray.
- By continuous agitation followed by replacement within the tube of all 2000 tiny balls, a total separation is expected to return all white to one side, all black to the other side till the dissymmetry of close to 0.5 returns to the original 1.0. The probability of separating them entirely again is given by:
0.489 X 10-600
But of course there can be no molecule with a dissymmetry of degree 1.0. Calculation then, is for a molecule of degree 0.9 with the number of constituent atoms being 2000. To simplify this problem considerably the atoms constituting this imaginary protein molecule are considered as being of two species only, whereas there is always a minimum of four: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen. Plus either cooper, iron or sulphur etc. The atomic weight of these atoms being supposed equal to 10—another simplification—the molecular weight is 20,000. A light protein molecule. The result:
2.02 X 10-321
It is even absurd to try to imagine such a small number, and we are speaking of a single oversimplified molecule to take its improbability to a minimum. Order, thus, of any sort must necessarily be sought in the only field left, that of Theology. And this is, of course, the most enlightened step human science could ever take; and as we will ascertain through each converging step, the only unavoidable one.
In order to give an idea of the extraordinary precision modern physics had achieved, Richard Feynman compared two numbers extant to the magnetic moment of the electron: 1.00115965221 as the experimental result; and 1.00115965246 predicted by theory. The difference of 0.00000000025 or 25 times ten raised to minus eleven, being equivalent on measuring the distance from
Take Michel Behe and compare his thesis ―a very sensible opinion― to Guye’s achievement. Guye’s stroke of genius permitted him to prove mathematically the impossibility of the MOST ELEMENTARY ORDER ARISING BY CHANCE. A French mathematician and biophysicist, Pierre Lecomte du Noüy more than 15 years later took up his work in a national Bestseller “Human Destiny”, and evolutionist Julian Huxley in 1953 published “Evolution in Action”. The improbability for a single protein molecule materially arising by natural means went up in orders of magnitude from 160 with Guye, to 321 for a protein molecule with a degree of dissymmetry of 0.9 calculated by Lecomte du Noüy, to Huxley’s odds: “The figure 1 with three million naughts after it: and that would take three large volumes of about 500 pages each, just to print!...No one would bet on anything so improbable happening; and yet it has happened.” p. 46. In other words, this is “objective scientific truth” unchallenged (though pathologically denied by Huxley). The problem lies as is immediately evident with ignorance so staggering as to pretend human understanding taking in 500 pages per volume, times 3 volumes, filled with zeros. The largest astronomical number I’ve seen in print is 1089 , that’s a 1 with 89 zeros corresponding to the number of atoms in the Universe. Taking the smaller Guye 160 orders of magnitude, we would see 1:1 certainty the size of the Universe diminished to a single atom with just 160-89 = 71 orders of reductive magnitude remaining. The same way an increase of one order of magnitude to 1090 would blow the whole Universe to ten times its size, leaving only 70 orders of reductive magnitude remaining means having to start reducing from a tenth of an atom on, for the remaining 70 orders of magnitude. Let’s get down to 50 remaining orders of magnitude, is there anything there left as a recognizable part of the material Universe? What meaning is there left to improbabilities beyond 100 orders of magnitude? Guye’s genius left us with an achievement on this point which, as an inheritance goes much further and is much greater than mere ID, but of course that is another matter to be explored further on. Suffice it to say for the moment that he gave us an idea of God beyond theology’s wildest dreams for science this side of Heaven.