Dismantling Darwinism

Decisions Magazine ^ | August 2003 | by Jim Dailey

[I got the rope]

Hey Patrick. Have you been here yet?

A2 is on a roll.

[PatrickHenry]

It was a fascinating scientifically based show and, after watching it, the whole idea of evolution to explain life and the diversity of species seems laughable.

Found it. Some dispute whether it's "scientifically based." It's called Unlocking the Mystery of Life. You may want to check out Who Promotes Unlocking the Mystery of Life?.

[PatrickHenry]

Hey Patrick. Have you been here yet?

I glanced at it. I'll let Aric have that one for himself.

[_Jim]

Dismantling Darwinism

'Creationists' attempt to put God back in a box; denying the that *the order* we find in THE UNIVERSE and the INTERACTION of MATTER was intelliegntly designed.

'Creationists': Denying (apparently) the existance of electrons, protrons, neutrons et al, and how that reflects 'up the chain' on *all* life-forms.

[ThirstyMan]

Johnson: Does the evidence of science really show that Darwin's force of natural selection is so powerful that nature can do its own creating and that there is no need for God? That's the philosophical doctrine the Darwinists propose,

Batrachian:I do think that the theory of evolution adequately explains the origins of species. The questions posed in the piece are irrelevent to the discussion because no alternative answer is given other than that "God did it", which is not a scientifically defensible answer.

Darwinian theory explains the change via adaptation of a species to environmental conditions, i.e., survival based on preferred information selected which is already contained in the genetic code. This area isn't really in dispute is it?

I have some real problems with the Darwinian explanation as pertains to life's origin though. Material explanations for the existance of life always leave me unsatisfied. They are simply inadequate explanations based on highly improbable options. Science cannot substitute where there is an obvious need for God.

Material explanations end up being boring and flat. How can a materialists insist upon answering a question that is beyond material analysis, life itself? They end up using far-fetched scientific jargon to place their faith in the mathematically impossible. It's the best option for some but a poor and weak substitute, if you ask me.

[PatrickHenry]

I have some real problems with the Darwinian explanation as pertains to life's origin though.

The biggest problem is that there is no such thing. Evolution happens only after life exists. Darwin never attempted to explain how life originated. It's still an open question.

[tbird5]

Darwin's theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with an "explanation for the origin of life."


I agree with what you have written. It was the liberal establishment during the late "50s and early '60s that took his theory and hijacked it to serve their agenda.

[ThirstyMan]

Darwin never attempted to explain how life originated. It's still an open question.

That makes sense. The whole puzzle can't be explained by looking at who's eating who and seeing who's left. Ha! my own analysis of natural selection.

[_Jim]

Frequently asked questions about the Flat Earth paradigm and related phenomena.

1. What is the Earth's shape?

The Earth is flat. It is shaped in the form of a pentagon, and thus has five corners.

2. What is the "middle corner"?

If one was to draw a line from each corner to the centre of the opposing side of the Earth, the line would intersect in the middle of the Flat Earth. This place is known as the Middle Corner.

3. Hey, wait a minute, that is not a real corner...

So? The equator of the spherical earthers is an imaginary line as well. Does this mean that their model does not have a northern and a southern hemisphere? You cannot count in imaginary numbers, but does that mean that they do not exist?

4. What about the northern and southern hemisphere?

Globularist rot. This implies the Earth being a SPHERE, which it is not. The Earth has, however, an Inner and Outer Ring.

5. What is Platygæanism?

Platygæanism is the scientific hypothesis which holds that the Earth is flat or planar in topology.

5. Does the "middle corner" prove that 5=6?

Yes.

6. How are continents located on the Flat Earth.

Generally, the "southernmost" continents are on the outside, whereas the "northern" ones are on the inside.

7. Does this mean that the Middle Corner is at the North Pole?

Not necessarily. It may be anywhere in the northern part of the Earth.

8. What is, then, at the south pole?

The Edge of the World. It is surrounded, at least in places, by a huge mountain range.

9. Where are the corners of the Earth?

Opinion is still divided on this issue. Conventional wisdom places the five corners at the following locations:

• Corner 1: the northernmost extent of Lake Mikhayl in Tunguska, Siberia
• Corner 2: Greenland or Iceland (Ultima Thule); though some researchers place it at Brimstone Head, on Fogo Island, Newfoundland, Canada.
• Corner 3: Easter Island.
• Corner 4: Uncertain; possibly Hokkaido (Japan), Lhasa (Nepal), or a desolate location in Outer Mongolia.
• Corner 5: Somewhere near the south of Tasmania or New Zealand, though some researchers have suggested somewhere in the vicinity of the South Pacific island of Ponape.

9. How long is the edge of the Earth?

The edge of the Earth is infinitely long.

10. Does this mean that the Earth has infinite area?

No, no more than England does. See Benoit Mandelbrot for more information.

11. Does this fit in with the Hollow Earth theory?

Yes. Beneath the Earth, or hanging off the edges, is a land populated by either green-skinned women or Nazis. All those claiming to have seen this have misinterpreted it to fit in with the spurious and false Spherical Earth theory.

12. Did H. P. Lovecraft know about the Flat Earth?

Yes. Read At the Mountains of Madness. The choice of the South Pole by the Old Ones makes more sense with the Flat Earth Theory.

13. What about gravity?

Gravity is a lie invented by the purveyors of the inherently false spherical Earth theory. The theory of gravity has never been proven. There is no gravity, only inertia. The Earth moves through space like a giant elevator. We do not fall off because we are kept down by inertia. The Earth has inertia.
There is a school of thought which states, however, that the Earth does not move through space, but rather that it rests on the back of a giant turtle, and that what we call gravity is, in fact, the turtle's animal magnetism.

14. What about photographs of the Earth from the moon?

Most of these are fake. It is well known that the "moon landing" was faked. The film of what is claimed to be the moon was taken in the desert in the US state of Arizona.
There exist some genuine photographs from high altitudes, which appear to the untrained eye to show a spherical Earth. The reason for this effect is that the Earth's atmosphere becomes denser the further one ascends, after thinning out at about 5 miles. This causes light to be refracted more at high altitudes, giving the appearance of a spherical Earth.
The reason the atmosphere becomes denser is the increased pressure. If not for this extreme pressure, the sun, and all stars, would not be able to hold together but would gradually dissipate in accordance with the gas laws, and Brownian motion (see any basic school physics text). Further proof that there is atmosphere all the way between the earth and the sun, moon, etc, is that heat from the sun warms the earth. Heat cannot travel through a vacuum, as anyone who has ever used a vacuum flask knows. Real astronauts would need pressure suits to protect them from the incredibly high pressures they would encounter.

15. How does the Earth move through space?

There are two schools of thought: one which states that the Earth is constantly moving in a straight line, and the other which states that the Earth is moving in a toroidal shape. There is a popular opinion which states that the Earth does not move as such, but rather that space moves around the Earth.

16. Can ships be 'lost' at the edge of the Earth?

Yes, at least in places where there are no mountains preventing this from occurring. The edge of the Earth is, in places a tremendous waterfall, and anything going over the edge will disappear into the aether. This can also happen to aircraft which fly off the edge.

17. If large amounts of water disappear off the edge, where does all the water come from?

This is an argument for the theory that the Earth has a toroidal orbit. In a toroidal orbit, all the water which disappears off the edges falls back to Earth as rain when the Earth revolves about its orbit. This also means that the inhabitants of ships and aircraft lost in space will, in some occasions, return to Earth.

18. Does this explain Fortean phenomena, such as frog-falls?

Perhaps. One is tempted to believe that the frogs, fish and other beings are somehow expelled into space off the edge of the Earth. However, this conflicts with the long-established Mad Fishmonger theory, which states that showers of fish are the work of a deranged fishmonger and his cohorts. (See The Schrodinger's Cat Trilogy by Robert Anton Wilson for more details.)

19. What is the "Springfield Effect"?

The Springfield Effect is the name given to the phenomenon by which every place named Springfield is hard-linked in hyperspace to every other place of this name. In other words, there is only one place named Springfield, but it is "linked" to various locations in the world.

20. Does Idaho exist

No. The existence of Idaho is a lie, fabricated by a conspiracy of cartographers, as is England (see question 10).

21. What about North Dakota?

That doesn't exist either.

22. Any other places which are believed to exist but really don't?

Yes, Australia. And then there are the cryptogeographica, places such as Kadath, Carcosa, Hobbiton, Narnia, Hy-Brasil, Hell and such whose existence has not been satisfactorily proven.

This FAQ was compiled by Lee Harvey Oswald Smith, KSC EMF, Chairperson dei gratia, Flat Earth Society, with the assistance of members of the Society and independent researchers; last updated: 43 Cfn 3163

[ThirstyMan]

It was the liberal establishment during the late "50s and early '60s that took his theory and hijacked it to serve their agenda.

That makes sense too. I saw a Nova special that attempted to reduce all life's origin to material explanations that were supposed to satisfy the scientific mind. It was pure hogwash. Yet it was allowed to pass for science because it didn't use any non-material answers. Undeclared was their attempt to solve a non-material question with material answers. That's my frustration!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the heads up!

[ThirstyMan]

Dude! what was that? why are you spamming our thread?

[PatrickHenry]

Undeclared was their attempt to solve a non-material question with material answers. That's my frustration!

It's an inherent limitation of science. They can only deal with things that are observable, quantifiable, testable. So when doing science, spiritual phenomena are off the table. If you can figure out what kind of lab equipment would enable scientists to work with spiritual issues, they'd leap at the chance. But they're stuck with doing only what their methods permit. You gotta admit, however, that over the last several generations, science has made some progress. But they'll never have any spiritual answers.

[ThirstyMan]

You gotta admit, however, that over the last several generations, science has made some progress. But they'll never have any spiritual answers.

I think the literature that Johnson and Behe put out is aimed at highlighting the inappropriate use of science. As a spiritual being I get confused by the misuse of science by those who hijack it for their own purposes....asking of it questions it cannot properly answer.
And yes, good science has been and always will be a great and delightful window to the future.

[Aric2000]

Just a little old, staying aloof in this thread placemarker for me.

[_Jim]

what was that? why are you spamming our thread?

I think the 'creationists' are needed to study the facts surrounding the controversy about the 'flat earth' concept, too, I mean, which one of them has conclusively determined that the earth is:

a) NOT flat and

b) NOT the center of the universe?

[_Jim]

Q: Through your books and lectures, you've become known as someone who has worked hard to bring together different factions of the creationist movement.

"I know it's been hard, denying the apparent reality of chemical reactions in the body; in cellular and digestive processes, denying that man and animals both apparently *seem* to possess parallel if not identical biological and reproductive processes, but, deny it I must..."

So the "man's *not* a monkey" crowd continues to 'box' God in and deny that reality which is before their very faces every day; the remarkable and diverse world that almighty God actually created ...

[Aric2000]

The more I read your posts, the more I like the way your mind works.

[ThirstyMan]

(If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)

OK, you say you want to stay aloof, but let me challenge you with something. I know about god in the gaps. It's a legitimate gripe...but is putting science in all the gaps any different? That too is a legitimate gripe!

[Natural Law]

Why is it so hard to believe that God would have created a mechanism to permit his creations to adapt to the highly dynamic environment he placed them in? Just because we can explain a part of the process doesn't make it any less miraculous.

Furthermore, just because a rewrite of a rewrite of a rewrite of an oral tradition says it took seven "days" doesn't make it so.