Science Versus Evolution P.6 - Twelve Bits of Science why Evolution is Masonic Cobblers

FromScience versus Evolution pamphlet page10
The following are a series of simple problems that the evolutionist has no answer for. Not only do these scientific arguments undermine the theory of evolution as popularised by Charles Darwin (a fact acknowledged by prominent evolutionists themselves), they show Darwin's theory to be unscientific and impossible when put under the spotlight of the laws of
Chemistry,
Biology, 

Physics &
Information Science.

The Oxygen Problem

For amino acids and nucleotides to have formed in a primordial 'soup' the atmosphere would have to be void of oxygen because oxygen would 'corrode' these essential building blocks for life. However if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone layer and the ultra violet radiation from the sun would have destroyed the amino acids and nucleotides. Michael Denton in his book, 'Evolution: A Theory In Crisis' comments: "What we have is a sort of catch 22 situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, the building blocks of life. But if we don't we have none either. " Michael Denton Evolution:A Theory In Crisis . Bethesda MD 1985 Adler and Adler p261 . This is not an emotional argument against Evolution theory, but a scientific one.

The Left Handed Problem

Proteins are made up of entirely left-handed amino acids. There are 20 amino acids found in living systems but only about 10% of these have been able to be produced in laboratory experiments designed to simulate the earth atmosphere as proposed by evolutionists. Out of the l0% that have been formed by `random chance' in a laboratory, there has been a mix of 50/50 right and left handed amino acids. Evolutionists have yet to explain how, by random chance, l00% left handed amino acids are found in living systems.

The Right Handed Problem

Whilst the best scientists with the best minds have been unable to produce 'by random chance' any nucleotides (long complex chains of nucleic acids) the building blocks of DNA and RNA the problem that would have to be faced even if this could be done, is that DNA and RNA are made up entirely of right handed nucleotides. If random chance could in some way construct a complex nucleotide chain, how is it possible that these randomly selected nucleotides would all be right handed?

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied,

will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and

dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has"

Malcolm Muggeridge, British journalist and philosopher.



The Law of Mass Action Problem
Proteins are long chains of left-handed amino acids that are built up by adding one amino acid at a time. If, as evolutionists claim, life arose by chance, then long chains of amino acids would have to defy chemical laws to randomly join together to form proteins. If you take one amino acid and chemically combine it with another amino acid you produce what is known as a dipeptide and a molecule of water. In the same way, if you have a molecule of water and a dipeptide,
the chemical reaction can go the other way to produce two amino acids. Evolution theory
suggests that life began in a 'primordial soup' made up primarily of water.

However, the law of mass action states that a reversible chemical reaction (a reaction that goes both ways), will never go in a direction that produces more of something that already exists in excess amounts. This means that amino acids, which would have to join together in long chains to form proteins, would have to defy this law of chemistry because every time they joined together they would produce another molecule of water which would already exist in abundance.

Exactly the same problem exists with nucleic acids that join together to form nucleotides, nucleotides being the building block of DNA and RNA. This fairly simple law of chemistry is yet further proof that the spontaneous generation of life from a primordial soup millions of years ago is science fiction, not science fact.

This fairly simple law of chemistry is yet further proof that the spontaneous generation of life from a primordial soup millions of years ago is science fiction, not science fact.


The Information Problem

Even if proteins and nucleotides could be formed by random chance, a potentially even bigger problem exists; information. You need intelligence to produce information. For example, a book consists of ink and pages. Even if the ink fell onto the pages and arranged itself by random chance into letters and words, it is still meaningless. Why? Because the only reason we can read it is because we know what the letter means. Each letter has a shape, which is meaningless unless there is a pre-agreed meaning for the shape. Suppose I were to invent a new alphabet with new letters. Now if I were to write you a poem it would just iook like scribble unless I had explained to you what the letters meant etc. In other words information such as contained in a letter, or on a strand of DNA, must come from an intelligent source. The code in the chromosomes within a cell is more complex and holds more information than all the computer programs ever written by man... combined! If typed out, it would fill enough books to fill the Grand Canyon 40 times! And yet all of this information is stored on less than two tablespoons of DNA – no man-made storage system comes close!

In an interview with Richard Dawkins for the documentary 'From a Frog to a Prince', he was asked "Can you give an example of a Genetic mutation or evolutionary process that can be seen to increase the information in the genome? Dawkins takes a long time to think, and then changes the subject. Why? There is no process (and it's obvious to anyone gifted with intelligence) from which new information can arise as a result of a mutation. A mutation is a loss of information, or a scrambling of existing information. From the word Christmas you can make a number of other words, but you will never be able to make the words Zebra, Xerox or Queen because the letters are simply not available.

This is not just another problem with spontaneous generation as proposed by evolutionists, it is the end of the road... unless of course evolution is not science but a religion. "Religion: noun – a belief held to with ardour and faith"

The Fossil Problem
Fossils are often put forward as 'evidence' of evolution and also 'proof' that the earth is billions of years old; in fact, they are one of the strongest evidences against these two assumptions. Fossils do not show any evidence for evolution at all; a fact well recognised by Darwin himself. In his book 'The

Origin of the Species' Charles Darwin said: "But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have exited, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"  (page 163). Darwin added: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be argued against the theory of evolution" (Page 323).

Stephen J Gould, a Harvard University geologist, in an article called "Evolutions Erratic Pace" published in `Natural History Vol. 5' May 1977 concludes that the well-known evolution tree, found in almost all school biology textbooks, that draws on supposed 'evidence' from the fossil record is in reality made up by 'inference' not evidence. In other words, because there is no fossil evidence, they have just guessed, or to be more precise, made it up! He comments: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record, persists as the trade secret of palaeontology".... ibid.

What he is saying is that geologists and palaeontologists know no evidence for intermediate forms (i.e. one creature changing into another) exists in the fossil record, but they prefer to keep it quiet! He continues: "We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favourite account of 'evolution by natural selection' we view our data as so bad, that we never see the
very process that we profess to study".   ibid.

Fossils do not show any transitional forms but rather variation within

kinds – exactly in accord with the Bible.

One such example of this can be seen with the supposed evolution of

the horse: "The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a

gradual sequence of changes from four-toed, fox-sized creatures, living

nearly 50 million years ago, to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown" . Boyce Rensberger

In addition to this, there is a problem in regard to the misconception of the way fossils are actually formed. Evolutionary propaganda has led many to believe the fossils are somehow proof of millions of years etc.

The reasoning goes like this: a particular fossil must be x number of millions of years old because it is found in a certain rock layer. We know that the rock layer is that old because we find fossils in it that are x number of million years old! This is circular reasoning, bad 'science', extremely misleading and dishonest.

Charles Darwin said: "But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have exited, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" 

J. E. O'Rourke, in the 'American Journal of Science' notes: "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks" 1976 vol276. 51
Larry Azar in'Bioscience'asks the question: "Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other that geology is documented by evolution? Isn't this a circular argument?" "Biologists Help!"vol28. Nov1978pp714
Fossils are almost always formed rapidly by sudden death, burial and extreme pressure being applied to the creature or life form in question. This implies some sort of upheaval or catastrophe (such as the worldwide flood described in the Bible). Very seldom (if ever) will a creature just die and get fossilised, because unless it is covered rapidly it would simply decay or get scavenged by other creatures.
There are many examples of fossils that were obviously buried suddenly, including ones where one creature is in the middle of eating another.

In a radio interview on BBC Radio One (`Steve Wright in the afternoon' 27th September 2004), Alan Titchmarsh (best known from the 'Ground Force' gardening program) was commenting on his most recent documentary series that looks at the geographical and geological history of the British Isles. In the interview he stated that there are marine fossils on the top of Mount Snowdon in Wales, and went on to say that they are there as a result of glaciers.

It is incredible that an intelligent man can take, without questioning, an explanation like this. Glaciers move slowly. There is no way a slow moving glacier could pick up a fish, push it to the top of a mountain and then bury it quickly! Glaciers may well have covered much of the British Isles but this cannot explain how marine fossils can end up at the top of a mountain. So how else did they get there? Again, the rational answer would point to a worldwide flood where everything was violently turned upside down and mud and silt would have been deposited

at random, combined with the massive upheaval of the land during and following the flood (as recorded in the

Bible and corroborated by over 270 flood legends and ancient accounts
in almost all cultures around the world). This would also explain the many
geological features like the Grand Canyon in America that have been
formed by huge quantities of water flowing through them eroding the
softer materials and leaving the harder rock.

Fossils do not show any transitional forms but rather variation within
kinds – exactly in accord with the Bible.




There are examples of fossilised trees standing upright through different layers of rock strata, thus clearly demonstrating that all of those particular rock layers were deposited at the same time.
`Recent laboratory experiments have demonstrated that many layers are laid down together, building up crab­wise. Thus fossils in lower strata could have been buried after those in higherstrata. Studies of volcanic explosions show that hundreds of feet of stratified sediment can be laid down all at once' – Dr David Rosevear www.csm.org.uk

Clearly, geologists need a new theory, or perhaps a return to the Biblical explanations that give answers that do not contradict science or observation.


"Evolution is unproved and unprovable"
Sir Arthur Keith (who wrote the forward to the 100th edition of Origin of the Species)




The Survival  Of The Fittest Problem
One of the backbones of evolution theory is the notion of survival of the fittest, only the strong survive etc. However when you actually stop to consider the implications, this is one of the strongest rebuttals to evolution theory possible. Take for example a reptile evolving into a bird. In order for this change to take place, the reptile's front legs have got to become wings with feathers. As this supposed change takes place the reptile reaches a point where its front legs are not now really legs impeding its ability to run away from predators, but they are not yet wings so it can't fly away either.
 Nor could it hunt very successfully as its claws would by now have given way to its prototype wing structure. What has happened is that it has become less fit and less able to defend itself hence it
would not survive. This same problem exists with every proposed transitional form; rather than becoming stronger, it would actually become less able and weaker as it hits the intermediate stage where it is neither one thing nor another. Survival of the fittest is a reality, the strong and most able, that are suited to their environments must stand the best chance of survival. This is strong evidence of Design, and another major problem for evolutionists.


The Mutation Problem
Another vital component in the theory of evolution is the idea that mutations were the mechanism by which one life form changed into another. In many senses the problem is the same as with the 'Survival of the fittest problem" because almost all mutations are harmful to the creature or life form concerned, thus reducing its life expectancy rather than improving it or allowing it to change. However, what evolutionists suggest is that a series of 'beneficial' mutations occurred that allowed the creature to change.
What often is not told is that for every one 'beneficial' mutation that occurs, there would be l0,000 mutations that at best are neutral, but many of which would be lethal! Given the number of mutations required to change one creature into another the odds are clearly stacked against it. Also, a mutation is actually a loss of genetic information, but evolution would require an increase in the genetic information if a life form is to become 'more advanced' (see "The Information Problem"). These two problems combined don't just make evolution unlikely, but according to the science of Information Theory, show that it is absolutely impossible!

Furthermore, how could any creature choose the mutation it needed?

For example, let's assume a reptile  could change into a bird - for that we also have to assume it was able to change from warm blooded to cold blooded, change its entire respiratory system, and change its skeletal structure - how could that reptile choose that its front legs became feathers? Why would this mutation not randomly occur on the rear legs? How could any creature guide the random unguided mutations necessary? Why would the mutation affect both sides of the body in exactly the same way?
"Many experiments have been performed on fruit flies (Drosophila), where poisons and radiation induced mutations. The problem is that they are always harmful. PBS 2 showed an extra pair of wings on a fly, but failed to mention that they were a hindrance to flying because there are no accompanying muscles. Both these flies would be eliminated by natural selection" 36 - Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D
As already noted, from the letters in the word 'Christmas' you can make a number of other words, but you will never make the words Xerox, Zebra or Queen because the letters are not there to choose from. So it is with mutations.


A mutation is a loss or scrambling of existing information - It cannot create new information


The Entropy Problem:
All but one of the sciences acknowledges the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, also known as the
Entropy Law. This law basically states that in a closed system, all spontaneous processes lead to a decrease in order and a loss of information. In other words, things go from order to disorder. We can observe this every time we tidy the house or garage! Have you ever not bothered to tidy the garage for a month and at the end of the month found it tidier than it was at the start? The same is true in the universe around us, everything is going from order to disorder.

That is, unless you are a 'state-trained' biologist. For our education system, from schools to the top universities, disregard this basic law because unless they do, their theories of 'The Big-Bang' and the `spontaneous generation of life' have to be abandoned.
The suggestion that all this order - the Sun being exactly the right size and distance from the Earth, the Moon being exactly the right size and distance from the Earth in relation to the Sun, the exact balance of chemicals in our atmosphere, the incredible symmetry in living things, - the list could go on and on - the suggestion that all this order came about as a result of an explosion - which can only create disorder - defies every scientific
law and discovery we know.

It has been said that the theory of spontaneous generation of life on earth is equivalent to the idea of a tornado blowing through a scrap yard and producing a Boeing 747 from the scrap parts! No one would believe that this could happen; it's about time that people were told the truth that evolution can't happen either!







We discover there is another nail in the evolutionary coffin in that the human race is suffering from `genetic entropy'. In his book "Genetic Entropy", Dr J.C. Sanford states: "One of the most astounding recent findings- in the world of genetics is that the human mutation rate (just within our reproductive cells) is at least 100 nucleotide substitutions (misspellings) per person per generation... When an earlier study revealed that the human mutation rate might be as high as 30, the highly distinguished author of that study concluded that surf a number would have profound implications for evolutionary theory... But the actual number is now known
to be 100-300!" Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, Sanford,Dr,J.C.,p34, ISBN 978-0-9816316-0-8
Dr Sanford concludes: "By now we should clearly see that the Primary Axiom [i.e. the theory of evolution] is not "inherently true", nor is it "obvious" to all reasonable parties, and so it is very clear that it should be rejected as an axiom*. Moreover, what is left, the Primary Hypothesis" (mutation/selection can create and maintain genomes), is actually found to be without any support! In fact, multiple lines of evidence indicate that the "Primary Hypothesis is clearly false and must be rejected." 38
~- Axiom — Definition: a generally accepted proposition or principle, sanctioned by experience: Collins.
Evolution is anti-science and anti-God


The Great Debate : the science versus evolution magazine spends a page and a half on the famous Great Debate at Oxford on June 30th1860 between Thomas Henry Huxley (Darwin's ideological tame bulldog) and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce. Huxley's famous argument revolved around infinite time being given 6 monkeys with 6 typewriters and by random keystrokes alone to be able to produce all of Shakespeare's works, and the 23rd Psalm etc. This foxed Wilberforce. But for reasons discussed already....as fast as amino acids may join a long chain,  an existing amino acid would break off. Monkeys trying to simply type "Evolution" would find the first E breaking off....and just never get to that one word.   

The Laws of Probability Problem
From a mathematical basis, a possibility of less than one in 10⁵⁰ is considered absurd or miraculous (that's one chance in l0 with 50 zeros after it or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
Sir Fred Hoyle, the British astronomer, calculated the probability of the origin of life being the result of random chance, by just looking at the possibility that the basic enzymes of life could have come about by random chance alone. He concluded that it would be approximately one chance in 10 with 40,000 zeros after it! (yes, that's forty thousand zeros!). In other words, it couldn't happen - ever! By way of comparison, there are estimated to be 'just' 1 x l0 ⁸⁰ atoms in our universe. Hoyle states: "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is 10^40,000. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. If the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."

Sir Fred Hoyle said: "The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong... It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave(Bishop) William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner"

Again, we should note that Hoyle's probability was based on just the proteins necessary for a single cell organism. He did not bother including the DNA / RNA / cell walls etc, etc in his calculation; all of which would have to evolve simultaneously for the cell to function at all.

Harold Morroitz of Yale University in 1968 calculated that the chance of life evolving on earth is 1 chance in 10^{100,000,000,000} (that's one chance in 10 with l00 billion zeros after it!). So by mathematical definition, all emotion aside, the theory of Evolution is absurd.

Of course, the above calculations, as ridiculous as they are, are still dependant on an environment in which the supposed generation of life could have occurred. Michael Denton in his book 'Evolution, a Theory in Crisis' wrote: "Considering the way the pre biotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life, as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realise that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence. It is purely theoretical." Michael Denton -  Evolution: A Theory in Crisis 1985

In other words there is no evidence that there was ever a prehistoric 'soup' from which life could have originated in the first place. Now that's not something they tell you in school!

Hint to evolutionists: question what you have been told, chances are, it wasn't true.

Harold Morroitz of Yale University in 1968 calculated that the chance of life evolving on earth is 1 chance in 10^{100,000,000,000} (that's one chance in 10 with l00 billion zeros after it!). So by mathematical definition, all emotion aside, the theory of Evolution is absurd.


The Chicken & The Eggs Problem

In the scientific arguments we have looked at, we have shown how, for evolution to occur, miracles would have to take place, i.e. things that cannot occur naturally. Thus an evolutionist has to have considerable faith.

However, even if all of the required steps for evolution could take place, there is still an unanswerable conundrum. Which came first, Proteins or DNA? To understand how to form DNA, the information system for all life, we have to understand how Proteins are made, because DNA is made of Proteins. To understand this we need to go down to the microscopic world of the cell.

Within the cell there is the Nucleus, which is surrounded by small pours (holes) that allow access to and from the Nucleus (these pours are made up Of 50-100 Proteins) and act as 24 hours security guards protecting the Nucleus and the DNA molecule (Chromosome) contained within it.

Within the Nucleus a molecular machine starts to unzip the tightly would DNA molecule, and then a 2nd machine starts to make an exact copy of the DNA, much like a photocopy. This copy is called the RNA, and once the copy is complete the DNA is `zipped' back up again.

What staggers the mind is that this unzipping, copying, and re-zipping process (called Transcription), is equivalent to having two lengths of fishing line, 125 miles long, stored inside a football; unzipped, copied

and then restored on spools at 3 x the speed of

an airplane propeller – all without tangling!

Once the RNA chain is complete, it leaves the Nucleus through the pores – which somehow know what to allow in and out! The (messenger) RNA chain then heads (instinctively!) to another molecular machine called the Ribosome (also made of proteins) where a process known as 'Translation' begins.
"A strong case, then, can be made that the cell has turned out to be a lot more complicated than Darwin or his contemporaries imagined. Not only did they vastly underestimate the complexity of the cell, but it's probably vastly more complex even than we imagine today".evolutionnews.org

While the mRNA chain is en route,

yet more machines (transfer RNA) are already starting to bring Amino Acids along,in the correct order. Inside the Ribosome a molecular assembly line starts to build a long complex chain of Amino Acids, each with a lock and key arrangement so only the correct Amino Acid can be added in the correct sequence.

When the chain is complete (and a

simple chain can be around 1500

Amino Acids long), the chain

leaves the Ribosome and heads to

another molecular machine (made up of Proteins!) to be folded into precisely the right way to form the protein. Chemical reactions should naturally cause the chain to fold in on itself as a result of attracting and repelling forces; however, 'chaperone' proteins assist in preventing our chain from folding into a useless blob. Instead they help mould it in to the correct shape. (See 'The Law of Mass Action Problem'). The time it would take for a small, 100 amino acid chain to 'randomly' fold into all the possible permutations, eventually 'hitting upon exactly the right one' (which is what would be required for evolution) is estimated to be 10⁸⁷ seconds. To put this into perspective, there are 'only' 10¹⁶ seconds in a 16 Billion year old universe! And thus we have formed our Protein, made with the assistance of... er... well, Proteins!

Dr Vij Sodera comments: "In fact, the whole process is far more complicated than this, and involves a large number of other associated molecules and enzymes without which the rate of formation of peptide bonds would be very slow. However, the ribosome protein-making factory can speed up reactions a million, or even a million million times. In a typical mammalian cell, more than one million peptide [Amino Acid] bonds are formed each second" Vij Sodera- One Small Speck to Man- The Evolution Myth

So, you need Proteins to make DNA, and DNA to make Proteins.
Sorry Mr Darwin, by your own admission, your theory absolutely breaks down, The show's over!
"if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight

modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case"
Charles Darwin

The population problem
The evolutionary scientists who believe that man existed for over a million years have an almost insurmountable problem. Using the assumption of forty-three years for an average human generation, the population growth over a million years would produce 23,256 consecutive generations. We calculate the expected population by starting with one couple one million years ago and using the same assumptions of a forty-three-year generation and 2.5 children per family... the evolutionary theory of a million years of growth would produce trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions of people that should be alive today on our planet, To put this in perspective, this number is vastly greater than the total number of atoms in our vast universe.
If mankind had lived on earth for a million years, we would all be standing on enormously high mountains of bones from the trillions of skeletons of those who had died in past generations. However, despite the tremendous archaeological and scientific investigation in the last two centuries, the scientists have not found a fraction of the trillions of skeletons predicted by the theory of evolutionary scientists. Article taken from T lie Signature of God, Grant R. Jeffery
Think of a problem and double it!

Evolution = IMPOSSIBLE  x 2
When the idea of life arising spontaneously is considered, one fundamental question is often overlooked. Was it male or female?
Supposing to start with it was asexual and able to reproduce itself, at what point did it separate into a male or female? Supposing it was a male what would it have done? It would obviously need a female to reproduce. However, in order to play out this little scenario, let's believe 'another impossible thing' for a moment, and assume that time and chance had evolved one of each, a male and female, at the same time.
From the point of this separation, every random mutation;ranged the male would also have to happen to the female. The supposed mutations which are meant to have caused Mr Lizard to change its front legs into wings, must also have happened to
Mrs Lizard exactly the same, by random chance, at the same time' This is like two people rolling two dice simultaneously and always getting the same numbers, only far less likely! In addition to this, they would both have to evolve sexual organs that would be compatible with each another, and at the same time; (Mrs Lizard would not have been able to wait around for 150 years while Mr Lizard got the right mutations!), and also hope that Mr Lizard didn't move east while Mrs Lizard moved west, or they would have never got together to produce Lizard Jnr.
The following article from Ray Comfort's 'The Evidence Bible' raises some other interesting questions:

If every creature "evolved" with no Creator, there would be numerous problems. Take for instance the first bird. Was it male or female? Let's say it was male. How did it produce offspring without a mate? If a female also evolved, why did it evolve with differing reproductive organs? Did it evolve by chance, or did It evolve because it knew that it was needed by the male of the species? How did it know what needed to be evolved if its brain hadn't yet evolved? Did the bird breathe? Did it breathe before it evolved lungs? How did it do this? Why did it evolve lungs if it was happily surviving without them? Did the bird have a mouth? How did it eat before it evolved a mouth? Where did the mouth send the food before the stomach evolved? How did the bird have energy if it didn't eat (because it didn't yet have a mouth)? How did the bird see what there was to eat before its eyes evolved? Evolution is intellectual suicide. It is an embarrassment. Enough said.

Four times less likely than impossible!
If this isn't convincing enough,

various Scientists have recently concluded that due to the immense variety in living systems, one cell would not have been sufficient to provide the genetic information that would be required. It has therefore been postulated that at least four separate cells would be required.

This means that for all of the rebuttals that have been presented here, you have to multiply each problem by a factor of four as each cell would have to follow its own unique evolutionary path!

Evolution is, without question, like a house built on the sand, and the tide is coming in!

Evolution is, without question, like a house built on the sand, and the tide is coming in!

Lets Let Science Speak
"The basic principle of scientific enquiry is to test an hypothesis against all the evidence. If an hypothesis fails in a number of significant aspects it is likely that the hypothesis is invalid. Now, starting from only simple chemicals, if it can be shown that chemical laws and biological constraints will not allow the evolution of any number of biological systems, organs, and structures, nor allow the conversion of one creature into a quite different creature (for example, a dinosaur into a bird), then we must face the inescapable conclusion that: no matter how much time you give it; no matter with what energy you supply it; no matter what your interpretation is of fossils or of their supposed dates; no matter how much you dislike the thought of it; no matter if you have no alternative working model to present in its place; and no matter what else... the evolution of one type of creature into a different type of creature did not occur, and cannot and will not occur under any circumstances...
ever."  Dr Vii Sodera (fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh) from his book "One small Speck to Man - the evolution myth" www.onesmalispeck.com 


"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever."  Dr. T.N. Tahmisian




"We have reviewed compelling evidence that, even when ignoring deleterious mutations, mutation/selection cannot create a single gene within the human evolutionary timescale. When deleterious mutations are factored back in, we see that mutations/selection cannot create a single gene, ever. This is overwhelming evidence against the Primary Axiom [theory of evolution]. In my opinion this constitutes what is essentially a formal proof that the Primary Axiom is false. "  Dr J.C. Sanford "Genetic Entropy &The Mystery of the Genome"


"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete. The foundation-less, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long-deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep rooted in the hearts of man"  Dr Albert Fleischmann, Biologist, University of Erlangen


"What is the mystery of the genome? Its very existence is its mystery. Information and complexity which surpass human understanding are programmed into a space smaller that an invisible speck of dust. Mutation/ selection cannot even begin to explain this. It should be very clear that our genome could not have arisen spontaneously. The only reasonable alternative to a spontaneous genome is a designed genome. Isn't that an awesome mystery - one worthy of our contemplation?  Dr J.C. Sanford "Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome"


"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."  Sir Isaac Newton

KMOO Rollout Has Been Success!

FOLLOWING THE SUCCESS OF THE INITIAL KMOO ROLLOUTS INTERNATIONALLY, BUT PARTICULARLY HERE IN EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES, FURTHER KMOO PROGRAMMES ARE BEING DRAFTED FOR THE FIELDS OF INSURANCE ,BANKING,MORTGAGE LENDING , ARMY RECRUITMENT,EDUCATION ,RELIGION AND POLITICAL REFORM.

This week leaders from both the United Nations and the European Community were celebrating the success of the initial rollouts of the KMOO programme in marriage, childcare, finance and religion. Although KMOO is virtually unknown in its abbreviated form in the wider world, leaders have been designing and shaping programmes for decades according to a worldwide KMOO philosophy.

KMOO is simply an abbreviation of Keep My Options Open.It is a philosophy that has been found to be entirely in keeping with the modern understanding of our evolution as human beings. It takes its basis from the survival of the fittest and is completely at odds with the older traditionalist and non-secular view of religion.

One of the most well-known applications of KMOO has been in the field of human relationships. Usually referred to as "living together", KMOO marriage has been found to be the most pragmatic answer to instructing large numbers of people in preparation for marriage and building family units.

In former times, the largely religious view was felt to be far too demanding , both in its frameworks which required more complex understandings of largely discarded philosophies such as fidelity, and love which considers the partner's wishes above his or her own. With population numbers and population densities increasing, the long and complicated explanations of such matters are now considered by most, as unwieldy and at worst as impractical in a world where the average attention span of most humans is 12 minutes 30 seconds.Possibly less straight after watching XFactor.

The greatest successes have been the changeover in education where KMOO has been applied. By encouraging sexual experimentation with numbers of partners by focussing more on the mechanics of contraception, the previous poor use of time management whereby elders and supervisers would try and prevent the young from too serious involvement with each other too soon in life, has now been discarded in favour of leaving them to get on with it, thus leaving the older generation more hours to go about their own concerns.

KMOO has its detractors however. Craig Little of Pro Family Management, a traditionalist social education hub in the UK, has brought up the issue of the UK having the largest teen pregnancy figures in Europe. KMOO enforcers , in reply have called for thicker, more durable condoms.

Craig Little recently also brought up the question of longterm psychological problems caused by partners breaking their relationships whenever small to medium problems emerged while co-habiting in KMOO marriages. The international KMOO thinktank have collected data on these matters, and while their psychologists have observed an increase in the levels of depression, often hidden under layers of displacement behaviour, with professional help most return to relative normality in 20- 30 years. This , they believe is a small price to pay rather than the high financial cost of providing some kind of secular alternative education to get over the complicated concepts formerly taught at no cost by churchmen in earlier centuries in their sermons.

KMOO behaviour, it is insisted has led to very "colourful and varied" existences as mixed parents and mixed siblings learn to appreciate and blend with their new extended families. This has also led, they point out, to the proliferation of Theme Parks and Macdonalds outlets, where the doting single parent can take his or her children on the one day per week they may see their offspring. Children largely learn to adapt to their new conditions and are well able to bury their hurts for the 20 or 30 years necessary to function as relatively normal, but medicated individuals in the modern workplace.

Kaye Volkhardt of the Traditional Marriage Bureau challenges the KMOO vision of relationships when she says"Partners who live together know only a kind of "present commitment". They have never known the joy of abandonment of any other agenda to a lifelong mutual commitment to another being. They miss out on knowing that their partner has made a firm bottomline decision to be with them and them alone."

KMOO specialists dismiss this as an ostrich view of life, which denies that the world has moved on into a fuller understanding of "survival of the fittest", and "getting on at the expense of the other".

KMOO Childcare

Perhaps the greatest success in KMOO development has been the implementation of laws in the field of Childcare. In later years this has indeed concerned greater provision of child care, but since the 1960's KMOO childcare has usually used the more abstract word "abortion". This involves the careful implementation of a parent's choice to benignly end a child's life. KMOO experts have found it far less emotive and effective to use medical vocabulary like foetus and termination.

This gives great freedom to the parent and greatly adds to a KMOO enjoyment of life.

Craig Little has long opposed abortion and asks healthcare providers if anyone has considered the rights of the unborn child? He doubts whether the use of medical words has any effect for the unborn child, whose rights are diminished in the same way whether emotive terms such as killed or impersonal words such as foetus or termination are used. Either way, its life is stopped.

Again KMOO proponents see only a success story, since neither the parent nor the state have any ongoing costs to find, the parent can continue to be in full time work, supplying more tax payments to further develop KMOO political advances. It is a win-win situation that would be extremely expensive and troubling to reverse, and would in turn in no way conform to the tenets of "survival of the fittest" and Darwin.

In the last few years the KMOO philosophy of religion has been so succesfully implemented in schools, that its fundamental tenets are now being applied to high finance and politics. And nothing has been found to work better in both when moving from bull to bear markets, from highrolling investment to market crashes.

It enables both high bankers, industrial heads and politicians to keep their powerbase when ordinarily in the weaker models of centuries past, they would have lost their power, and most probably their lives.This is one of the great strengths in KMOO development; learning how to create a smokescreen of such brilliant intensity that everyone is afraid to identify such fundamental questions as responsibility which so threatened stability in historical settings. By removing this base and worthless principle and instituting the far more Darwinian "power for power's sake" , groups of individuals are better able to leverage exit strategies that are ultimately more appealing than simply "losing one's head" for the sake of any cause. So high bankers, industrial heads and political groups keep in power longer,while their power vehicle may change completely. This , it has been found by KMOO educators, has been a much more encouraging carrot for school leavers and university graduates who seek to learn from KMOO successes and follow on in their train.

What was it about rolling the KMOO philosophy of religious education into schools that acted as such a stimulus to these other areas? Leon Schmitten of EU council Affairs explains, " The old model of unity based on any solid foundation such as "truth" , say, was found to be unworkable in such a large field of opposing opinions. By creating a climate where everybody's tenets of faith are continually presented in unmanageable quantities , everybody's minds are so overworked that it better suits our framework of "Keeping All the Options Open" continually, so no one is embarrassed by ever having to nail his decision to one particular mast. This keeps every party happy that their side is being discussed openly and freely, without having to undergo the frictions that deciding for one route or one course was ultimately the correct way." Leon said this policy had been found to work in such a stupendous way in teaching RE in schools.

Charles Gridlock of CTS (Christianity Today in Schools) disagrees. "Presenting Christianity as in any way equal to other religions is false for these reasons, whether a person wishes to ultimately follow its tenets.

Firstly no other religion has laid itself bare when it comes to prophesying the end from the beginning. From declaring x hundred details about what the Messiah would be like, down to how things will wind up on Earth. No other religion has been that stupid, or accurate, depending on your belief.

Secondly no other religion has been stupid enough to declare "another agent" other than man himself for his salvation. All other religions construct their own hoops through which a man may leap. And many versions of Christianity have stooped back down to this model rather than accept their own core original beliefs".

KMOO maintain that while these things may be so, their method has galvanised a lot more disparate groupings together into one manoeverable mass, than has ever been acheived by getting people to believe a certain way.

Charles counters with another problem as he sees it. "The Bible maintains that its method, which it self-titles as folly, is to be disseminated through what it calls "the folly of preaching". By removing access to this, disallowing it in another words, Christianity has declined in schools to the level of one of many historical teachings that fly in the face of the popularly-assumed superior Darwinian model of understanding."

"And the problem is..?" ask KMOO representatives Richard Dawkins,Brian Eno and Philip Pullman.

"The problem is no schoolboy or girl in this day and age is once encountering Christianity properly during the whole of their school life."replies Gridlock"They only hear vague and disputable ideas about Christianity third hand."

"Exactly" , say KMOO. "This removes choice, and this is what we ultimately stand for. Our ideas which stand for the "survival of the fittest" have indeed been shown to be the only ones fit for survival."

On the back of 40-50 years of stupendous success, KMOO are now proposing rolling out new forms of KMOO contracts in areas such as banking, mortgage-lending and army recruitment.

The Head of KMOO policy in the UK , Mr.Lionel Greyshade, explains.

"The old forms of commitment such as marriage have been shown to be too unworkable, so we will be initially rolling out "Present Day" commitment forms in fields like house buying. The lender will pick a house and simply say "I'd like to live in it until such time as it doesn't suit me any longer and then move on instantly to another dwelling. "The loan institution will take back the lion's share of the property that the borrower has spent several years paying for, in the manner of a divorce or partnership breakdown, and the house buyer will then move off virtually penniless to another property."

"Isn't that virtually the same as property rental?" we asked.

"Similar, but its got a better KMOO title...Present Day commitment mortgages. Sounds current and more up to date."

Army Generals, faced with recruitment problems are now considering KMOO as their only hope. Present Day Army contracts are being developed this year which fully tally with KMOO objectives.

"I promise to join the army and serve it as long as it suits me.Should I feel at a later date that it is asking too much from me, namely my life, I will move on to another job or unemployment."

KMOO were finally asked whether they thought that in the long term their tenets of faith were largely unworkable? What matters in life, is what matters now, was the reply.

author's rights reserved:Chris Welch May 2009

(In true Iggy style, can I just state that this has been a spoof. I do not hold to this belief system nor recommend it. )