Charles Darwin and the "theory of evolution"
Copyright � 2002 by The Fathers' Manifesto
Please distribute freely, all portions intact.
The Pentium CPU is a well known masterpiece of design
It's only one of thousands of lesser known designs which required the coordinated efforts of our most brilliant scientists and most advanced technologies and highest levels of government support to whom the design of the human genome is a trillion times more complex
"Evolution" is the childish notion that only by chance, and
with no intervention by God, and given enough time, the human genome would
"evolve" from the elements on its own--but Pentium CPUs would not
"We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by the whites, we can mould them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to install in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause." (Israel Cohen, A Racial Program For The 20th Century (1912) quoted by Congressman Abernathy, Congressional Record (1957), p. 8559)
Six tests that a "theory" isn't a theory:
Webster's New World Dictionary: theory, "a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree".
End of discussion. Nobody has ever verified speciation to any degree. All attempts to verify it have failed. The number of "intermediate" life forms of the transitions from one species to another would far outnumber the original species themselves--yet not one single bone has been found. This is not a "theory", by definition, and to teach that it is constitutes fraud.
It's impossible that many Americans could have read very much about Charles Darwin and his "theory of evolution", because anyone who takes five minutes to understand it, scientist or not, is struck by the childishness of his "scientific method". This is because Charles was not a scientist. He was not even a good student. He had flunked out of every school he ever attended. He was clearly a miserable mathematician. And his "theory" proves that he's not even a logical thinker, something an ordinary 8 year old boy notices right away. His entire "scientific" venture is based squarely on the following absurd, unproven and now discredited observation:
What a miserable supposition. What a limited understanding of probabilities and statistics this man possessed. This is not science. This is not based on solid math. This is a statement of a supposition which is irresponsibly presented as a "theory", which even Darwin himself questioned, and ultimately rejected. This is his entire proof that natural selection exists. Why would anyone accept his notion that an entire species can transform itself into another species simply "by thrusting out weaker ones"? He concludes that the only way that the South American rhea can so closely resemble an African ostrich is that they both "evolved" from another species. And from this, Darwinists and "evolutionists" make the giant leap that man evolved from monkeys!
There isn't a shred of evidence in the entire world that this ever happened, to any species, even to this very day. He didn't have a shred of evidence then, and we don't have a shred of evidence now, that both the rhea and the ostrich didn't start out at Day One exactly as they are today, and didn't "evolve", "wedge out", or "naturally select" one wit. It's sheer speculation sans any trace of scientific methodology to surmise that they "evolved" at all, much less had a common ancestor. It's completely reasonable to expect, makes more sense, and much more probable, that these two species both looked similar but different just because God made them exactly that way right from the beginning--yet this is not what is being taught to our children.
The notion that apes and/or monkeys mated with some other species to create Homo Sapiens is no more credible than the notion that dogs will some day mate with cats and "wedge out" rabbits, or that horses will mate with donkeys and create a mule which will "wedge out" coyotes. The fact that a mule, the offspring of a horse and a donkey, can't even itself reproduce is evidence of the strong natural barrier which has existed between species since Day One to prevent precisely the inter-species evolution (speciation) which Darwin theorized was violated in order to create Homo Sapiens.
Darwin's "theory" created such a strong expectation among today's "scientists" [read: anthropologists] that even now each and every one of their studies of DNA evidence are laced with references to "evolution" and "natural selection", while completely and totally omitting the most likely scenario of all: creation. This by itself discredits the entire scientific method.
Regardless of the religious beliefs of the scientists, they cannot claim that science should ignore the ONE hypothesis which has been accepted by mankind for four thousand years, while relying solely on the deductions of a looney tune like Darwin. Consider what this extreme anti-Christian bias accomplished! Even though it was widely reported in England in July 1997 that DNA studies proved the Neanderthal Man is not an ancestor of Homo Sapiens (which seriously discredited "evolution" and "natural selection" in one of the most likely scenarios in which they would have played a role if this "theory" is at all valid) no American media publication reported this until Scientific American did in August 1999--more than two years later. The Darwinists continued to just assume that Darwin was right, while they continued to ignore creation. It was not until March 2000, almost three years after the fact, that an American mainstream media publication finally reported that the Neanderthal Man came to a screeching halt 20-30,000 years ago, after a mere several hundred thousand years of existence. Twenty different articles reported that he co-existed but did not mate with Cro Magnon Man a mere 20-30,000 years ago, but not a single one of them suggested that this supported creation and not evolution. Instead, they fraudulently reported that there were only two scenarios--one that evolution occurred concurrently in different regions around the world (a completely irrational assertion), and the other that the mother of man was born in Africa several hundred thousand years ago and radiated to other countries from there. This sleight of hand enabled them to still assert that Neanderthal Man was genetically linked to Homo Sapiens four hundred thousand years ago.
There are no fossils to support this. There is no DNA evidence to support this. "Evolutionists" insist that we have bones of dinosaurs from 150 million years ago, and cartilage of sharks from 350 million years ago, and bones of monkeys from a million years ago, but ignore that not a single bone from man from a mere 100,000 years ago has been found, even though Homo Sapiens was one of the few species who buried his dead. We don't know that he "evolved" from something else at all. It's pure speculation which ignores the probability that Neanderthal Man was simply created 200,000 years ago, and became extinct 20-30,000 years ago. Period. Just like an Edsel. And not even these timeframes can be known with enough certainty to abandon all reason.
Our textbooks and mainstream media still say things like: "The first humans found in France, known as Homo Erectus, are believed to have lived around 950,000 B.C. They evolved ... to become Homo Sapiens." They are WRONG. They are dead WRONG. This is not mere anti-Christianity--this is anti-science. After 141 years of attempting to prove Darwin right and to discredit creation, these "scientists" are still speculating with nothing but jawbones in their hands which disprove evolution and support creation.
We don't even know for a fact that we are genetically linked to Cro Magnon Man who they claim existed a mere 22,000 years ago, and when our textbooks warn us "the Cro Magnon Man's physionomy differed only slightly from ours", it would be a good bet that when the DNA studies are complete, the jaws of our boneheaded bone hunters will drop to the floor yet again. The Edsel was "only slightly different" from a Galaxy--but it wasn't a Galaxy any more than Cro Magnon Man was a Homo Sapiens, and it had an even shorter life span. If Cro Magnon Man is not genetically linked to Homo Sapiens, then just maybe Homo Sapiens was God's ultimate creation on Day One, just as the Holy Bible outlines in Genesis. This would put Neanderthal and Cro Magnon Men in the prototype stage, rather than the production stage which Homo Sapiens are now fully engaged in.
There is just no time here for "natural selection" to wedge out any trait of apes or monkeys to create or "evolve into" Homo Sapiens. Even if it is possible for species to jump across such statistical boundaries, even if it is possible to transition from monkeys to apes to Negroids to Caucasoids in less than 100 million years, even if we found the "missing link" which was the cross between a man and a monkey (which must be a truly obscene looking creature), the nation's children should forever be shielded from the sheer stupidity of his above statement.
There is way too much evidence that "evolution/natural selection" never happened to just presume that it did.
"Evolutionists" believe that sharks have been around 350 million years, yet even over that putative period of time, we haven't a shred of evidence that the shark you last saw in the ocean isn't an identical copy of one which swam in that same ocean 150 million years ago. Even the fact that 27 of the 368 known species of sharks are now extinct doesn't change the probability one bit that a shark born 150 million years ago was identical to that species of shark today. 350 million years is possibly seventeen thousand times as long as we Homo Sapiens may have been on the planet, yet all of the trans-species leaps which even today's "scientists" claim that Homo Sapiens made in only 10,000 years would demand that the shark "naturally select" itself all the way from an amoebae, to a frog, to a shark, to a Wall Street broker, and back, seventeen thousand times over. These are impossible timeframes.
Where are all of the fossils of these intermediate steps between an amoebae and a shark? They don't exist in anyplace but our modern "scientists" imaginations, do they? There isn't a shred of evidence that the sharks that are now extinct weren't created in as short a period as it took for them to become extinct, or even much shorter.
Imagine how silly it would be if you were a "scientist" some million years in the future, digging up pieces of axles and hubcaps from cars and trucks, and presuming that, since they look similar, Ferraris "evolved into" Volkswagens, which "self selected" into Cadillac's, which "speciated" into trucks, which became trains. This is Darwin's "theory of evolution" applied to our own limited technological accomplishments. Imagine a future "scientist" in Italy finding a piece of a Ferrari collaborating with a "scientist" in Ohio finding a piece of Amtrak, and concluding that their genetic evidence shows that they had a common ancestor 400,000 years prior to the year 2,000. We know that most of these "species" were developed and manufactured between the years 1960 and 2000, so we can really see the fallacy in his "theory" from this perspective, because we know that the reason they look so similar is that they were DESIGNED that way. We know that the only thing that evolved here is the design concept, not that a Ferrari begat a Volkswagan which begat a Cadillac which begat a truck which begat a train. We know that the reason the Edsel met a more certain death than the Neanderthal Man is not that it didn't function properly: the problem with the Edsel (and possibly the Neanderthal Man?) was far worse than that--it became extinct in one year because it was an astoundingly unpopular design.
The fact that Edsels and Neanderthal Men came and went so quickly is proof enough that this could easily happen to Homo Sapiens, too. We certainly don't have an edge on the life expectancy market, especially when "evolutionists" speculate that the time it took dinosaurs to come and go is perhaps fifteen thousand times as long as we may have been around, and when completely developed and functional sharks were swimming around another 150 million years before that.
The genetic evidence places the 900 million Negroids of Africa in a category between almost all other races of the world, and the chimpanzee, just as current design criteria puts the Cadillac in a category between a Volkswagen and a Rolls Royce. We don't claim that Volkswagens evolved into Cadillacs, yet the "theory of evolution" ignores the bones and the DNA evidence and does just that.
To destroy Christianity, it was important for Talmudites to discredit creation. This awkward theory of evolution was the most expedient way to do that. It isn't that the "theory of evolution" has been disproved by DNA studies and shark fossils--it is that there isn't a scientist in the world who should have accepted this as science in the first place, not in education, not in the media, not in scientific journals. No matter how charming Charles Darwin might have been, these ramblings of a child in an adult body have no place in American education. The only explanation for why the American education system was so anxious to cram such disinformation down our children's throats, especially when creation of man by God is so widely accepted and far more respectful of "modern Homo Sapiens" [read: man] than having Koko the Gorilla as one of our founding fathers, is that it fits right into the Talmud's teaching that Christians "prefer sex with cows".
A study in deception: