Alas, this conversation has finally come full circle.

A while ago I told you that I knew where this conversation would lead and that was that it would lead to a debate over who we believe is telling the truth.

Well, here are are.

(1) Some will choose to believe creationists who believe that lying is a sin and that it could end you up in hell.

(2) Others will choose to believe evolutionists who have a financial interest in providing "evidence" for creation.

We'll each have to make that decision for ourselves.


I am convinced that the only reason people can continue to believe in evolution is that they simply cannot comprehend the massive amount of highly organized information that has to be arranged in order to come up with life.

To believe that mutations over a number of events (which is really what "time" represents—"time" is only used to confuse the issue in the minds of people who don't think this through) can form the human eye is, well, plain ridiculous. To think that these same mutations can form two symmetrical eyes used to provide stereoscopic vision is, well, there is just no word for it. I guess I'll borrow a Biblical word:

Blindness.

I may have an advantage as a person who used to design embedded systems and who understands the fragility and complexity of technology. But I certainly wish that people would not corrupt the wonderful process of science (which I love) by comingling it with lies and deceptions for profit and power.

Nevertheless, I never received a response to my statements about the roulette wheel, so I am reposting below:

If you play roulette, there is, let's say, a 50% chance that you'll hit red. The next time you play, the chance of hitting red does not increase. It stays exactly the same. This means that the chance that you'll hit red two times in a row diminishes by 75%.

When you consider the enormous amounts of highly-organized DNA that is different between humans and chimps (even if it is only 5%), and you consider the statistical probability that those DNA would organize into symmetrical representations performing all of the highly-detailed changes through the "natural" processes we know affect them, the chances of getting something other than a blob of nondescript cancer through chance is like playing red on a roulette wheel with 1 red and 1,000,000,000,000 black, and this is a very conservative figure. It does not matter how much time you add to the equation. This concept of "time" is added to confuse the issue to those who don't understand how this works.

To make this model more physical, consider the changes in the lengths of the bones in the fingers; they would all have to be changed, and the corresponding ligaments and tendons would have to change accordingly. The lubricative cartilage would also have to change correctly in proportion to each change in the bone. You also have to consider that the other side of the body would have to symmetrical in all of its changes to make a human. You then have to consider the ratio of harmful change as compared to beneficial, which bends the curve even further towards impossible.

When you really begin to consider all of the implications of these "small" changes, you find that it becomes statistically impossible for all of these changes to take place and therefore, chimps cannot change into humans no matter how much time you water the equation with. Again, time is added to confuse. The real analysis is the probability of the number of mutations and the ratio of beneficial to harmful. Properly understood, no person would play this kind of roulette.

As I always say, at the core, people don't believe in evolution because there is evidence or probability to support it. There is not (and what little there appears to be is based on outright deceptions). People believe in evolution because they do not want to believe the alternative: That a large, concerted effort is underway to promote evolutionary myths because those funding its promotion are profiting wildly from it.

It takes courage to swim against the human tendency to follow, but for the sake of science and intellectual integrity, I will.

Just a few things to think about.

Protein-folding mechanisms

The eye: Rods and cones, optic nerve, symmetry, stereoscopic vision

The respiratory system, lungs, oxygen transport and exchange, symmetry.

The lymphatic system, lymph nodes, waste exchange, lymphatic fluid chemistry

The structural system, symmetry, ligaments, cartilage, joints and sockets, composition, fluid flow through bones

The nervous system, chemical electrical systems, brain signaling to organs, positive and negative feedback systems, the brain itself, the brain signaling muscles and the precious and complex interaction involved

The digestive system, enzymes, nutrient absorption, peristaltic action

The glandular system, ph balancing, growth hormones, sugar regulation, positive and negative feedback systems, sleep regulation, sexual development and complex systems therein, the matching sexual development between genders,

The immune system, chemical signaling, regulation, knowledge of self and non-self

Toe nails and finger nails having symmetry and repetition.

Eye lashes, eye brows, the spinal cord, the heart, heart beat regulation, bone marrow, etc., etc.

Another huge consideration for evolutionists to ponder is why we don't see massive numbers of these very small changes in fossils. In fact, we should see millions of malformed fossils representing the "bad" mutations that even evolutionists admit will occur, but we don't see these either.

We simply see clear delineations between kinds.

Of course punctuated equilibrium attempted to explains this away, but this is simply so much more ridiculous that even evolutionists didn't want to be associated with that idea.

Evolutionists also have the population problem. If life has been on Earth for as long as they say it has, the math simply does not work to explain current populations.

There are some honest evolutionists that are also not blind however.

Prof. H. H. Newman, in his "Readings in Evolution," p. 57, says, "Reluctant as we may be to admit it, honesty compels the evolutionist to admit that there is no absolute proof of organic evolution." "If all the facts are in accord with it, and none are found that are incapable of being reconciled with it, a working hypothesis is said to have been advanced to a proven theory." Note this admission by a leading evolutionist.


The powers-that-be laugh at the masses for blindly accepting such nonsense that they churn out at the hands of frail and immoral (bribeable) men.


The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved in 50 Arguments


Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is a theory in denial.