In fact it is a repeat of an article posted numerous times.
Evolution is possibly the grandest social deception ever devised. I cannot express how amazed I am that anyone—anyone at all—believes this ridiculous and completely illogical idea.
* Virtually ALL genetic mutations are harmful and destructive, not beneficial. This alone should give thinking persons an idea about how incredibly unlikely—virtually impossible—evolution really is.
From "doing my homework" on genetics, the vast majority of mutations that remain in the population are neutral. Do you have quotes from geneticists saying otherwise?
What percentage is "virtually all"? Since they are "harmful and destructive", wouldn't they be removed from the population rather quickly and not really have a hand in causing the potential evolution of that population?
Let's try an example of the problem you believe will stop evolution in its tracks.
There is a population of organisms consisting of 50 million individuals. Let's say that there are 5,000,000 new individuals born each year to that population and 5,000,000 individuals die. There are 10,000 mutations among those new individuals. Over a span of 10 years, all but 2 of those mutations are harmful. 1 of the 2 is neutral and the other is beneficial. How long would it take for the beneficial mutation to spread to 90% of the population?
* The theory of evolution contradicts the established second law of thermodynamics.
Exactly how does evolution contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
* If evolution is true, we would have found a myriad of transitional forms by now.
Paleontologists claim that they have found transitional forms. Could you point out a particular one and show how it could not possibly be a transitional?
This would probably require you to define what a transitional form should look like so that we can clearly see that the paleontologists are incorrect in their assessment of the fossils they claim are transitional forms.
* Common sense completely refutes that evolution could occur, even in the most fundamental stages.
Could you go over this in detail? My common sense tells me that if things change a little bit each generation, then we would see a lot of change in 1000 or 10,000 generations. If I take one step toward California each minute, eventually I will reach California. Common sense.
The real reason for the promotion of evolution is to create a social climate for the centralization of power and the promotion of certain, otherwise, unethical activities. For these morally deplete power brokers, evolution solves all kinds of problems. It legitimizes:
* Killing weak and "undesirables" like unborn children or elderly persons (natural selection [survival of the fittest])
What part of Darwin's theory advocates abortion and euthanasia?
Is it your contention that inappropriate or horrific application of a scientific theory, automatically invalidates that theory? Since E=mc^2 was used to kill thousands at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is the conversion of mass to energy now unscientific and a conspiracy? Is chemistry now incorrect because gunpowder and chlorine gas have killed millions?
Is Christ's teaching incorrect because some believers used His Great Commission as a reason to torture people into professing belief?
Your argument in this regard makes no sense.
* Genetic engineering (If nature is a series of errors, we can certainly do better. However, if nature is by intelligent design, we better not mess with it.)
You don't think we should breed organisms for particular traits? Basically, if a farmer tries to breed horses for speed or strength, isn't that farmer spitting into God's face by believing that the original horse design wasn't good enough?
Does this mean that dogs are an unnatural organism?
* Immunization (Again, they promote the idea that natural methods are not enough since they are the product of a series of "errors". Intelligent design says we can solve these issues with existing "natural" technology, like enhancing the immune system via diet and supplementation.)
What dietary supplement prevents whooping cough? How about smallpox? Mumps? Diphtheria? Polio?
Why is it that in an industrialized nation like Sweden, where the cleanliness and nutrition are as good or better than the US, did whooping cough, Diphtheria and Polio increase when parents decided to stop immunizing their children?
Immunization is using the body's
natural ability to combat disease. Weak or dead versions of a disease are used to get the immune system to gear up and be ready to combat that disease. Have you even heard the phrase "as smooth as a milk maid's skin"? Do you know why milkmaids consistently had that smooth skin?
* Democracy (rule—or government—of man. Hey, if there is no "Intelligent Designer", who else is going to rule or set the standard of morality?)
* Communism & socialism (Same)
I guess that leaves dictatorship or anarchy. Which one would you prefer?
A simple mind conducting a little research would find that nearly all of the mass media in the United States (and most other industrialized nations) are owned by a handful of God-hating elitists with no morals and no accountability, and it is these who so actively promote the evolution theory.
Sounds like this is just up your alley.
Please provide evidence that the owners of Time magazine are God haters and have no morals. If you don't have evidence about Time magazine in particular, any evidence that the "research" of your "mind" can provide on any other mass media owners will do.
