STEALING AN EMPIRE

the great cosmographic myth of time and origins

1
 Copyright © 2011 by Gilbert Carper

All rights reserved

Dedicated to the class on Science and Religion

Which started me on this quest but not on their path

2
 INTRODUCTION

“STEALING AN EMPIRE: the Great Cosmographic Myth of Time and Origins”

follows the shifting paradigms threatening our constitutional liberties in America. How

could totalitarianism be the wave of the future as our nation was founded on the

Protestant beliefs of its founding fathers and on the Christianity of its early settlers?

Principles of justice and liberty instilled into our nation’s unique beginnings are being

hunted down and attacked as destructive and subversive to the very inheritance they

founded. This ruthless attack on the Christian foundations of our nation is nothing less

than treason. The enemy is evolution draped in the intransigent cloak of atheism.

What are evolution’s philosophical and political ambitions as revealed by its now

substantial history? Its ambitions are emboldened in the taking down of nations who

were once free and advanced in their cultures. Such a place was Germany preceding

Hitler’s arrival with his revolutionary and savage dictum of evolutionary terrorism, “the

survival of the fittest” which claim to destiny destroyed nearly the whole of Europe.

On arguments of law, history proves how processes and events evolve and come

to fruition as a domineering totalitarianism. Evolution’s killer instincts revealed in its

primeval slogan “the survival of the fittest” is among the most vicious and deadly

ideologies ever expounded in the course of human history as demonstrated by its

3
holocaust museums, its archives of frauds, fakes and deceptions, well documented and

available to everyone’s scrutiny.

Like many projects which grow beyond an author’s original expectations, this

manuscript grew into a full length book, critiquing and satirizing the evolutionary

stance taken in major, well-known books and magazine articles, including sources on the

internet, purported discoveries, claims and law suits against and competing interests

with Intelligent Design and Creationism, events which now require a different analysis

of the 1st Amendment. Major players in the saga of evolutionary apologetics and

defenders, are not spared.

Considerable quoted material is referenced from both sides of the argument to

determine their validity, and the conclusions, analysis and convictions arrived at.

In the chapter dedicated to the testimony delivered in the Dover, Pennsylvania

Monkey Trial as argued by evolutionist Mr. Miller and his cohorts and legal team of the

ACLU, I show their testimony was faulty, fraudulent and misrepresentative, illogical, or

did not support a scientific method of reasoning and proper definitions of science and

gave a false testimony of history.

Proceeding the Index and the list of secondary resources, is a photocopy of the

New England Journal of Medicine article I suggest should be read before proceeding

with the particular chapter dealing with that article. That article was the direct

provocation which lead to the writing of this manuscript.

Intelligent Design as referenced in this work refers only to the evidence of design

in nature which infers a designer. There are philosophical variations and extensions on

this theme, but they are not being referred to specifically and are used interchangeably.

4
Self-portrait drawn by author in his mid-teens

5
 CONTENTS

THE GROWING BODY OF EVIDENCE PP. 8

RADIOMETERIC DATING, GEOLOGICAL TIME AND

GLOBAL CLIMATE PP. 31

CATASTROPHISM PP. 105

PALEOCURRENTS AND PARACONFORMITIES PP. 118

HONESTY IS A KEY ISSUE IN ANY DEBATE PP. 123

PALEONTOLOGY & DINOSAUR DNA PP.143

MITOCHONDRIAL EVE PP. 157

BACKTO HONSTY PP. 169

CRITQUE OF FRANK COLLINS’ BOOK: “THE LANGUAGE OF GOD” PP. 176

CRITIQUING ORIGINS PP.252

FAITH IS ATTESTED TO IN THE NEW ENGLAND

JOURNAL OF MEDICIAN PP.271

WHO WAS DARWIN & HOW THIS AFFECTS FREEDOM? PP.278

THE MONKEY TRIALS THAT HAVE MADE A MONKEY OUT OF THE

UNITED STATES PP.304

SMITHSONIAN “WHAT DARWIN DIDN’T KNOW” PP.310

SIGNATURE IN THE CELL: A SEMINAL WORK SUPPORTING DESIGN PP.327

CRAIG VENTER & INTELLIGENT DESIGN PP.336

THE DOVER, PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL PP.348

MORE REVEALED ABOUT DARWIN AND DARWINIAN HISTORY PP.416

6
IS THE WALL OF SEPERATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE

UNCONSTITUTIONAL? PP.431

IS THERE A CONSPIRACY TO DESTROY FREEDOM IN AMERICA PP.547

INDEX PP.580

7
 THE GROWING BODY OF EVIDENCE

April 1, 2008. Little has changed over the past century and a half. Today’s lies are

the continuation of the old ones. They have not become more factual by their constant

retelling, but they have become more fanatical over time. A cat and a lie each have nine lives,

but a lie has a longer life than a cat, because a lie is much harder to kill. It seems a lie is

more convincing than a truth if a lie is construed to resemble a fact. However, faith in a

falsehood never sanctifies error. Scientists are often in error but seldom in doubt.

Every purported humanoid missing link as claimed by evolution, once hailed as

incontrovertible evidence of man’s evolution has turned up missing some vital link between

man and his purported distant ancestors and has been discredited by discoveries they were an

extinct form of knuckle walking ape which ambulated on all fours, according to mathematical

bone structures and could not have been ancestors of humans, or have been discredited in

their ancestry by other anomalies that don’t fit the Evolutionary tale. Examples of distinctive

human as opposed to non-human ape-like features: the inner ear structures of humans and

apes are different, enabling man to walk upright and restricting the balance of apes to walking

on all fours. An ape has four hands and no feet, whereas humans have a parabolic jaw as

opposed to the U shaped mandible of the apes. Cranial cavities allow much larger brains in

8
humans than in apes, etc. Numerous dissimilarities like digestive tracks and other transitory

functional features once decay has taken place, rarely or never show up in fossils. These are

only a few of the numerous factors which repudiate the evolutionary origin of human life.

Lucy the world’s most famous purported evolutionary link, was cleverly contrived in one

photo I saw as having human feet, but whose feet where they as apes do not posses feet

whereas humans do. The question becomes, was Lucy an ape or was she concocted by a

foregone conclusion and reckless imagination as human-like? If a shoe doesn’t fit, don’t try

to wear it. Depictions lie as cleverly as words are deceitful at times. Is a picture worth a

thousand words if they are a thousand lies? It turned out she didn’t have human feet at all. I

know the resources available to artists, because I was acclaimed a genius in art in my mid-

teens and recently a friend remarked that one of my paintings I did some years ago should be

hung next to the Mona Lisa. I was taken back by his unexpected candor as I rarely paint, but

I am professional enough when I paint that occasional portrait to know anything can be drawn

or imagined and illustrated to look like a photo! And with modern computers, one can do

reconstructive facial surgery with photo-shop ─ although the computer didn’t reproduce the

following section of one of my paintings very well. The reproduction left out most of the

delicate coloring and detail.

9
 False color and contrast exposure from 35mm print of oil painting by author from his scanner

The only requirement when representing claims in science is that missing components

don’t have to be depicted accurately or as missing if the artists depiction fits the

interpretation, or the mind set of the perpetrator. Lucy’s picture showing her as possessing

human feet was solely soaring, fever-driven imagination and not actual data or an actual

skeletal find. Human feet were subsequently added to the illustration to make the skeleton

look more human like. It was nothing more than an imaginary and cleverly contrived artifice.

Eventually, Leakey admitted that his very elusive Lucy, the name he gave to his discovery,

was likely to have been an extinct type of Orangutan.

The only exception to the quest for real man maybe Neanderthal man, all bronze and

brain, who had an embarrassingly, if you are an evolutionist, 200cc greater brain capacity than

10
modern evolutionists who average only about 1200-1500 cc’s as opposed to Neanderthal’s

1700 cc brain cage as if man’s thoughts could have ever been be caged up inside his skull. In

which case, the evidence suggest a Neanderthal was just another, perhaps, smarter human?

Likely Neanderthal man was just another misunderstood genius who knew a whole lot more

than we think he should have known about anything. Could it be that modern man,

ourselves, are in a declining line of descent from a superior species of Neanderthals in a

declining line of descent from some other superior human who possessed even greater

intellect (there were only eight specimens from the flood) and Paleolithic man who may have

possessed superior eyesight than modern man and could see rather than feel his way around

the caverns where he left paintings of mammoths and other creatures on prehistoric walls?

In many of the caverns where these works of art are found “’There are no traces of big fires to

light the galleries by, no blackening smoke or soot stains on the roof…’ How could drawings,

carvings… deep in dark, cold tunnels under ground be accomplished without much light?

The facts do not add up… Could the artists in these caves possibly have had better eyesight

than modern man?... Perhaps with some an infrared capability?” A similar discrepancy

without soot on the ceilings of crypts has been noted involving paintings inside of ancient

Egyptian crypts. Jack Cuoz, a dentist, in his book Buried Alive makes these; and other

inferences to various studies, as well as those by Alexander Marshak of Harvard University

on Paleolithic ‘Portable art’ (art created to be carried from place to place). In Marshak’s

book entitled: Roots of Civilization, a detailed bone carving displays a clear representation of

a serpent. “The bony scene was presented by the author in its unrolled form, as if it were on a

scroll. The upside down serpent appears poised to take a bit out of the lower half of the

man’s right leg.” A dimly remembered representation of a scene from Genesis 3:15?

11
 “Much of Marshak’s studies had to be conducted under a microscope to properly

visualize the inscriptions and drawings…. There is one big question that now arises: How

could the ancient artists see with their eyes what we can not see today without

magnification?” In Fiji, some of “the natives have better than 20-20 vision.” Quoted from

Steve Arlington, who worked for Jacques Cousteau.

Jack Cuozzo tells of other discoveries about Neanderthal skulls and other ancient

skeletal oddities. In comparing several specimens, he writes: “Notice that what may have

been a very wide tympanomastoid fissure like Engis 11 had is now obliterated by a wedge of

bone in Moustier (placed in the tympanomastoid fissure of the skill) (figure 39). This would

have been diagnostic of a slow development of the skull, a feature which I believe all

Neanderthal children showed (unless tampered with). I do not know who did this, but I

suspect that perhaps when this skull fell into communist hands, since atheism was the official

position of the state, a bone got stuck into the tympanomastoid fissure so that it didn’t look

quite so immature and slow developing and biblical.”

In a gist, Dr. Cuozzo exposes a cover up of an immature feature in a Neanderthal

child, which could equate with slower childhood maturity rates with potentially longer life

spans in adult Neanderthals and later sexual maturity than in modern humans? If you want to

12
know more about what he is discussing, you will have to acquire his controversial book. Dr.

Cuozzo relates “The first is figure 30 the “Le Moustier (skull) in the glass case of the Museum

fur Vor-und Fruhgeschichte in the West section of Berlin. It is very ape-like. Then look at

figure 31, my radiograph of the front, top, and back of the cranium. It is not ape-like at all.

Examine figure 32… The lower jaw in this slide is 30mm out of the socket… This allowed

the upper jaw to be pushed forward 30 mm presenting a very ape like appearance. This would

be a dislocated jaw in any oral surgeon’s office. How can a dislocated jaw be passed off as

evidence for evolution? With everyone convinced evolution is true, anything is possible.”

Another observation I thought very tantalizing was his following description of

another Neanderthal skull, he goes on to state: “The last figure (40) in this ear section is a

view of the right boney ear opening of La Ferrassie so you may see the French didn’t hide the

adult tympanomastoid fissure ─ but something else is seen here, too. It is an accessory

external ear opening. We are going to have to think about this one for a while. It’s the only

one I’ve ever seen in Neanderthals.” 3D stereo hearing? Dr. Cuozzo supports all of his

findings with careful notes and photographs. Do these revelations make you curious as to

what is going on? The beginning solution to your new thrust for knowledge is only going to

be quenched if you read his book. And this may only start you on new quests. I am not even

going to give you the page number of where I found these passages, or you might never look

them up to check out what I have stated.

There are no evolutionary missing links of any species living or extinct, which can be

unequivocally proven beyond even a shallow of a doubt. Evolution’s missing links are still

missing with the affidavit of over one hundred and fifty years of fruitless research at

enormous expense of billions of dollars in spite of the discovery of literally millions of

13
fossilized specimens and not one of them has turned out to be a missing link! That is

scandalous if you are trying to prove the existence of what the evidence substantiates never

existed. There should be not only tens of thousands of missing links, but hundreds of

thousands if evolution were a demonstrable fact instead of a mere half dozen or less

controversial specimens which are probably best defined as a separate kingdom or phylum or

as fakes! This situation alone is stunning! If you are told evolution has been proven, you

have just been lied to. The situation has become so desperately critical for evolutionists,

preemptive humanoid fossil discoveries should be discounted as probable fakes, given the

proclivity of so many researchers to label fakes as legitimate discoveries. Some people think

lying is permissible to prove something.

With the regrettable number of recorded paleoanthropology frauds over the last

century and a-half, and the disputable nature of almost all vary rare evidence, and the

incongruity to science which some of the widely acclaimed evolutionary specimens are placed

away under lock and key to prevent any further investigation, cloaks any such purported

discoveries with obvious suspicions that the information would not hold up to a scientific

review or legal investigation. Why would scientists hide a sacred icon if it is an

uncontestable ancestor in an uncontestable line of descent? Evidence secreted away in vaults

closed to any further scientific scrutiny can not be the truth. It is presumptively inferred so

strongly in law that the release of the information would be so damaging and embarrassing to

the spoliators’ theory that its release would not be favorable to their position. “This

suggestion is so strong, forensically speaking, that it is a rule of presumptive inference in

courts of law. The spoliator then bears the burden of proof to show otherwise.” Locking up

the evidence is a frequent complaint. “The entire chronology (of the Bristlecone Pine) is the

14
work of one laboratory, the director of which [C.W. Ferguson, now dead] has refused to allow

critical study of the raw data.” In the fossil world, in view of the context of history, the

reliability of any discovery should be tested and studied exhaustedly over time before it can

take on the imagined sanctity of fact. However, if scientists report a discovery which

contradicts their own accepted beliefs, there has usually been no undue influence of an

agenda; rest assured they are mostly likely telling the truth!

Do scientists believe they are committing Fraud? Apparently not claims Caltech’s

David Goodstein in his new book On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front Lines

of Science. (Princeton University Press, 2010). “They almost always believe they are

injecting a truth into the scientific record.” In his investigations, Goodstein found three risk

factors present in nearly all cases of scientific fraud. The perpetrators, he writes “1. Where

under career pressure; 2. Knew, or thought they knew, what the answer to the problems they

were considering would turn out to be if they went to all the trouble of doing the work

properly, and 3. Were working in a field where individual experiments are not expected to be

precisely reproducible.” And I can think of several other risk factors which tie in with these:

4. A researcher has to come up with a specific ideological answer whether the evidence

supports it or not (Similar to 1). And 5. A researcher comes up with only a partial answer,

but extrapolates that as being as if a determination was confirmable by available data. (A

misconstruction compatible with 2). And 6. The researcher doesn’t agree philosophically

with, or refuses to believe his or her findings, and resultantly, reinterprets or discards it.

These problems are essentially and fundamentally, the subject of this book. After this

chapter, in situations where it appears these conditions likely hold true, and they are not

specifically mentioned or are only implicit, the incident will be: Tagged: Fraud Check. p.14.

15
Only one of these factors is necessary to fulfill this requirement.

Discredited humanoid Missing Links, discredited by evolutionists themselves, include

the following, etc: (not a complete list):

1. Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax in 1953, but it took 40 years to uncover the

fraud! For 40 years Piltdown man was a leading claim for the proof of evolution in the

textbooks of the time. “In 1953, *Kenneth Oakley (British Museum geologist), Joseph

Weiner (Oxford University anthropologist), and Le Gros Clark (anatomy professor at Oxford)

managed to get their hands on the Piltdown skull and jaw ─ and proved it to be a total

forgery. The newly developed fluorine test revealed the bones to be quite recent. Additional

research showed the bones had been stained with bichromate, to make them appear aged.

Drillings into the bone produced shavings instead of ancient powder. The canine tooth was

found to have been filed and stained. Weiner published a book about the Piltdown forgery in

1955. (*William L. Straus, Jr., “The great Piltdown Hoax, Science, February 26, 1954.

*Robert Silverberg, “Scientists and Scoundrels: A Book of Hoaxes, 1965.” There are

scoundrels in science? Heaven forbid, science could be so vulnerable to frauds as to profane

the holy grail of the scientific method! But alas! there are numerous scoundrels in science

like bank robbers of the public trust! Corruption breeds like rats and mice. Choose your lie

and stick to it, promoting it at every opportunity with conviction-like fervor with every once

of strength you possess and get other people to use their energies to promote it with the same

commitment and vigor. You will eventually get some fool to believe it is a sacred truth and

with others of like duplicity, you will eventually be able to establish a preponderance of the

evidence as supporting your claim that it was actually a truth all along! This is the non-

scientific method as practiced by scoundrels of evolutionary conviction.

16
 2. Nebraska Man’s tooth turned out to be that of an extinct pig (Catagonus Wagneri)

whose living relatives are found in Paraguay. However, this did not prevent the publication

of a picture of a human likeness from being made up from this single tooth, and the complete

likeness of a female was published around the world. “Grafton Smith, one of those involved

in publicizing Nebraska Man, was knighted for his efforts in making known this fabulous

find.” The rewards for fraud can be world-wide fame and the acclaim that you must have

been a genius until your fraud is discovered and becomes a scandal, and everyone thinks you

were an idiot for doing it. But tampering with the evidence is one of the most effective, and

perhaps, the only way of spreading the evolutionary gospel.

3. Ramapithecus. “’Ramapithecus is ideally structured to be an ancestor of hominids.

If he isn’t, we don’t have anything else that is.’” (Italics supplied) Time Magazine (Nov.7,

1977)

Then in 1977, a full Jaw (mandible) was discovered. The jaw was u-shaped like those

of the apes, not parabolical like those of humans.

“Zilman and Lowenstein attempted to explain the reason for the earlier thinking of

most of the world’s most prominent paleoanthropologists: ‘Ramapithecus walking upright has

been reconstructed only from jaws and teeth. In 1961, an ancestral human was badly wanted.

The prince’s ape latched onto position by his teeth and has been hanging on ever since, his

legitimacy sanctified by millions of textbooks and Time-Life volumes on human evolution.’”

4. Other debunked fossils include: Tuang Child, Lucy, Homo habilis; OH24, KNM-

ER 1813, OH62, Turkana Boy etc.; all suffering a similar fate of disclaimer.

5. Neanderthal man has an intriguing and legitimate history as a probable human:

A. Some scientific endeavors can exude the suspense of a science fiction Novel. In Jack

17
Cuozzo’s book “Buried Alive” which I have already quoted from: He relates that at the close

of World War II, he was invited to examine actual Neanderthal skull’s and brought along his

portable X-ray machine. His research got him into serious trouble almost from the start.

Unfortunately, he noted there was a bullet hole in one particular Neanderthal skull he was

allowed to examine, but the officially published photograph, had been transposed from a

positive to a negative print of the radiograph and the bullet hole had been erased.

B.

18
 The preceding photographs show the bullet hole in the Broken Hill

Neanderthal skull. Jack Cuozzo discusses this find in great detail in Chapter 16: subtitled

“TWO BULLET HOLES AND A DISEASE.” He notes: there is another hole in the back

part of the bottom (occipital bone) of the skull, well inside the neck area where no

trepanning [one of the oldest operations performed by man on the skull] during life is

possible”! For his fidelity to science, a spy showed up to become his secretary, and the

secret police chased him and his family out of France and this intrigue may have led to the

murder of a colleague. Had Dr. Cuozzo unearthed the evidence of a politically motivated

murder of a modern Neanderthal, perpetrated by a schizophrenic, modern day

Evolutionary Inquisition of science? It reads like the cover-up of a modern day murder

mystery with the added suspense of tracking down and terrorizing the culprits of this

discovery. It is an intriguing work. I purchased mine through the internet.

C. Another Neanderthal skeleton uncovered in Poland was wearing chain armor. The

combined evidence of these two different remains is that Neanderthals lived in an age which

had either guns or armor, and therefore are not as ancient of an artifact of a breed of alleged

humanoids so much as they maybe a nearly extinct, or an extinct race of present day man

possibly eliminated by the Nazi terrorists during the Second World War? Lawrence Tisdall.

Perhaps, the Neanderthal with that telling bullet hole in his skull was a victim along with the

Jews of Hitler’s racial purges?

D. “Neanderthals shared the same emotions of grief and loss as does modern man.” Such

a possibility thrusts shocking profanities upon the sacred idols of evolution by claiming our

ancestors were not intellectually our inferiors. But they couldn’t have held a funeral as their

humanity wasn’t advanced enough to feel real bereavement and sing a dirge or stay in tune.

19
“Four adults buried in the Shanidar Cave in the Middle East, had flowers placed on them.”

This very human activity has had to make the evolutionists extremely unhappy and sour faced

in a show of Neanderthal disappointment.

E. There are several other possibilities to Neanderthal’s peculiar skeletal structures: The

human face grows exponentially throughout one’s lifetime, and computerized age sequences

of Neanderthal skulls suggest they were very old people who lived to about three hundred

years of age and beyond. Jack Cuozzo.

F. Neanderthals suffered from chronic diseases. Causes of Neanderthal skeletal

structures could be from a recipients lack of vitamin B, vitamin D leading to rickets, or

arthritis which can cause a buildup of bone structures such as around eyebrows and rickets

leading to vertically elongated eye sockets. Could this be why the few Neanderthal infant

skeletal remains, do not have the bony structures around the eyes sockets as do the adults?

G. Neanderthals are simply another form of modern equivalents, another race in the line

of humans when dressed up would be nearly indistinguishable from any of the rest of us.

Could our paranoia be provoked as they could be hovering all around us and we might never

be aware they were there. Sounds spooky doesn’t it, unless she was your devoted

grandmother or he was your beloved grandfather? I knew someone who had this sort of

paranoia. She feared all sorts of things which weren’t so. She often possessed a stronger

belief in her allusions than she did in the real things.

H. In one area, Neanderthal remains were dug up, with Cro-Magnon remains (modern

humans who lived in caves) buried above them, with a third level of Neanderthal skeletal

remains on top of Cro-Magnon layers. Other words, Neanderthals came first, later followed

by modern humans and after that, Neanderthals returned, illustrating both types co-existed.

20
Laurence Tisdall

I. I wonder if they ever shook hands and said a kind word or two, and one complained

she had an infectious smile, and I caught her cold as well?

J. One can probably deduce that the more recent scientific consensus has accepted

Neanderthals were a separate linage of the human race which likely became cross-bread and

primarily extinct with traces occasionally genetically expressed with occasional modern

examples.

Some very well-known scientists have actually suggested the line of human decent is

far from clear. For example, in 1990, Richard Leakey himself said that ‘If pressed about

man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark.

To date, there has been nothing found to purport as a transitional specie to man, including

Lucy…. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an

abrupt arrival of man (Italics supplied) rather than a gradual process of evolving.” Mary

Leakey also said much the same thing during an Associated Press Interview on December 10,

1996, just three months prior to her death at the age of 83. Although Leakey was convinced

man had evolved from ape-like ancestors, she was equally convinced that scientists will never

be able to prove a particular scenario of human evolution. She said in the interview, “All

these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that’s a lot of nonsense.’”

Seanpit@gmail.com. Sean covers the topic in more complete detail. Authors additional note:

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil disguised as the evolutionary tree of life has

died and should be chopped down and burned with gleeful celebration. We should raise a

toast to those who have worked so hard and diligently to bring down their own collapsing

theory!

21
 But in March, 2005, the world received another grand slam without the dunk; and the

evolutionary tree was literally resurrected, an unforgivable religious word, replanting would

be too slow, re-grafted, maybe, at the stump ─ its fruit and leaves made up of the supposedly

evolutionary fruits and nuts of naturalism, by Alan Boyle, Science Editor for MSNBC on a

website article entitled: HUMAN EVOLUTION AT THE CROSSROADS. Mr. Boyle was

apparently unaware that he had taken the wrong turn at the crossroads. Here is what he said:

Italics added: “Scientists say (Is Mr. Boyle the vocalist of anonymity, or are we talking about

real scientists?) the fossil record shows that humans are a part of an evolutionary family tree

that includes more than a dozen humanlike species.” I thought until now the evolutionary tree

was as good as dead and gone forever.

I read this website on January 4, 2008, which means it must be considered up to date

in January 2008. My question: Is Mr. Boyle 10 years in studious advance of the Leakeys, or

light years behind? This is a very serious question full of far-reaching implications I am sure

Mr. Boyle wouldn’t like and wasn’t expecting. No new evidence is presented by him and no

attempt is made to produce any supporting evidence in his article. And which of those alleged

experts or scientists would like to step forward and debate with the personages of the likes of

the Leakey’s and others allegedly guilty of crimes against evolution, and argue that the

Leakeys had no idea of what they were talking about when interviewed. To produce the

antagonists for the debate, might require on the part of one of the parties a resurrection, a

profane, God forbid idea as far as the other side would be concerned. But, since one side

wouldn’t be able to make it to the appointment, and wouldn’t appreciate the obnoxiousness of

a resurrection, I think we could reconstruct the likely outcome. Mrs. Leakey would preempt

any further argument by stating conclusively like the end of the world had just come, that:

22
“All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that’s a lot of nonsense”! I don’t

want to waste any more of my time arguing with you! She’s resting now. Don’t bother her

by trying to wake her up, for goodness sake!

Lucy among many other fossil claims, has been an embarrassing, evolutionary flop.

In the mean time, and the times can be very mean, the Leakeys are busy making fossils of

themselves to be misinterpreted or misconstrued as missing links by some disorientated

paleontologist several thousand years from now. In fact, the facts are already becoming

disorientated from the truth. Mr. Boyle is not alone in misrepresenting the facts! On

November 11, 2009, at 8 P.M., Nova aired a program over public television on man’s alleged

ancient ancestors. Nova showed a number of filmed interviews of the Leakeys while they

were still alive. What Nova didn’t inform the public of however, was that the Leakeys had

largely repudiated their earlier assessment of their own discoveries! Since these apologies

where recorded on the international news press, their admissions can not be denied! Since

Nova failed to inform the public of these later confessions by the Leakeys, Nova committed

fraud by making it appear the Leakeys still held, while they were alive, to their earlier

assumptions. Nor is fact affirmed by the constant hypothetical language which made up the

entire fabric of Nova’s story and animations. Computerized animations of unknown events

makes them appear more real, however, making them appear real does not in any way make

them factual as the representation of the unprovable and improvable as fact is not intended to

be taken primarily as symbolical language and representations, but rather as historical facts

though assumed. Hypothetical language predominated through out the program’s entirety,

disproving its factualness as facts can not be proven by hypothetical contentions! Constant

underlying illusions suggest something deeper is going on, like hallucination, or out right

23
lying to construct a story of radical fabrications. There is a fundamental disparity when you

represent illusions publicly as fact and not as an illusion. There was little or no evidence

presented which could have been empirically proven and constitute a single page, or a volume

of fact. They did not, and could not have had any correlating millions of years of historical

written or documented evidence to back up their claims. And almost every assumption can be

logically disputed!

Senior Curator/ Geologist at the Field Museum.

Confession Concerning Transitional Fossils

“…we are now 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has

been greatly expanded… ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition

than we had in Darwin’s time. (Dr. David Raup 1979)

Near Absence of Human Fossils

Lyall Watson

Science Digest May, 1982 p. 44

“The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more

scientists than specimens. [This could suggest there are few real scientists ] The remarkable

thing is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed with

room to spare inside a single coffin!” That evolutionary Christmas tree [Heaven forbid!] is in

dire want of decorations!

24
 If that coffin is now filled with no room to spare, all the examples can still be held

inside this single Coffin. And all the examples are stone dead? No one can ask them a thing.

This sounds like the funeral of a dismal science, the eulogy of a wasted scientific endeavor

and of all the knowledge that might have been attained and was lost by science losing its way.

The Species Question

David Kitts admits absence of transitions.

Evolution 28: 467, 1974

“Despite the bright promise that paleotology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it

has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the

presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between

species and paleotology does not provide them.” There are 100,000,000 fossils in museums

around the world and not one transitional form which can be pointed to without staging a

fantastic fraud of misrepresentation turning the claim of transitional forms into one of the

greatest hoaxes in all of human history!!

Stephen Jay Gould admitted:

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record is the trade secret of

paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at their tips and

nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”

I would disagree: what is not supported by evidence is not reasonable by assumption!

“The fossil record suggests a reduction in the basic types of both plants and animals

since the lower Phanerozoic. In fact, Stephen J. Gould pointed out that significantly more

25
basic types of animals existed in the Cambrian deposits then in the present. “More basic

themes appear lower in the column, but more variation on fewer themes predominate in the

higher regions. Because of extinctions, fewer basic anatomical plans survive higher in the

column, while we would expect that evolution would gradually produce more as time

progressed,’ which, of course, it has not.”

Evolution demands intermediate forms must exist between species, but the fossil

record does not provide them. Even Charles Darwin admitted to this discrepancy in his 1859

Origin of Species: “[I]n proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous

scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formally existed on earth, be

truly enormous. Then why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such

immediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely gradually organic chain; and

this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my

theory.” Such a fallacy of contradictory logic should be termed ‘spuriously abject speculation

against the evidence.’ Evolution demands thousands, tens of thousands of missing links, not

just a handful of disputable forms to prove Darwin’s hypothesis. But the evidence in support

of Darwin’s disputable premise exists nowhere in the earth. Over 150 years of a constant

search for intermediate links has turned up absolutely nothing. Such an exhaustive and total

absence of evidence is a fundamental, scientific reprimand! Yet believers will defend the

faith as though they were defending very life and limb. This leaves only one possibility:

Fanaticism is a fixation on the certainty of the unlikeliest and of the uncertainty of the most

likely.

The evolutionary tree had replaced the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil and

money as the root of all evil. But a disastrous bolt of lightening struck down this second tree

26
and cooked up all the spoiled meat in its canopy! Unfortunate, it re-sprouted with a

vengeance. However, Mrs. Leakey testified to the United Press: “All these trees of life with

their branches of our ancestors, that’s a lot of nonsense.” So the forest was chopped down to

make place for progress.

There is nothing more fanatical than to persist in an obvious delusion in conflict with

the facts. But most evolutionists do not lack in talent to carry such a delusion to its ultimate

extreme. Not being able to prove their claim for over one hundred and fifty years with the

whole weight of scientific endeavor actively behind their quest, and instead, finding growing

evidence against them with the tens of millions of fossils which have been discovered, is not a

forum for overconfidence and even less for a blundering assertion. The lack of a fact proves

another fact. It is a waste of time to argue with someone who believes his own lies more than

he does the massive weight of the evidence against him.

Failing to find evidence in the fossil record, evolutionists have looked for traces of

human evolution in the genes, “claiming that 98% of the DNA of chimps and humans is the

same.” The October 2008, National Geographic claims “We know that the human and chimp

sequences are 98.7 percent the same, and Neanderthals are much closer to us than chimps.”

“ [T]he reality is that for most of the sequence, there’s no difference between Neanderthals

and modern humans.” “The differences ─ less than a half percent.” It is now known there is

between 1-3% difference between each of us. So are we more closely related to a

Neanderthal than to each other? In later chapters it will become evident that claimed genetic

similarities between humans and apes supports a common ancestry is an unwarranted illusion

and deliberately disregards the evidence. Notwithstanding, their present conclusion:

Neanderthals are more closely related to us than are the apes, and the rational conclusion: that

27
we are more closely related to the apes than to each other? Obviously, something in science’s

conclusion was irrational or uninformed? The National Geographic believes Neanderthals

were humans with red hair and light skin, according to a particular gene recovered, and that

Neanderthals could cross-bred with modern humans.” Were they spying into someone’s

bedroom? Obviously, without the excited couples, this will never be proven. This familial

assumption is significant because humans and apes are unable to cross-bred. Did the

researchers recover enough genetic material to complete a map of the Neanderthal genome

and make such unsupportable assumptions? That is the implication but it is not the fact? Is

such a discovery even possible given the great age attached to such specimens and the known

deterioration rate of delicate biological materials taken from cadavers? Our current scientific

knowledge is often vague and limited, and our answer obscured inside of fossilized bones, for

instance: at 100 degrees C, adenine found in DNA, RNA, and ADP and guanine found in

DNA have chemical half-lives of only about one year; uracil contained in the RNA has a half-

life of twelve years; and cytosine found in the DNA has a half-life of just nineteen days. The

presence of rarely preserved proteins can indicate certain other predecessor chemical

processes, but it is impossible to establish anything near a complete genome from such sparse

and inadequate data. In most remains a few decades old, not enough genetic material, or no

genetic material is recoverable to make a specific identification. More about this topic in the

Chapter on Paleontology, which deals with the survivability of fragile genetic material and

whether a complete sequence could be found and what all this means to dating techniques and

is enough actually known about such rare material to tell scientists all the extenuating factors

and the relevant questions which could be asked? It seems as though only a partial sequence

was likely recovered ─ only a few gene sequences at best? Perhaps, evolutionists believe ape

28
and human genetic sequences are 98% the same. Particularly, if you cherry pick only for

similar appearing gene sequences? At present, the human genome has not been fully

mapped, so a complete comparison between humans and apes without further investigation is

as yet and may remain improvable. Later we will find out there is a lot more to this tricky

little detail than we are currently being told. But when publishing results, how much is

contributable to what scientists really don’t know, or to machine error or pushing estimates or

rational to very incredible and imaginary extremes, or what are an experimenter’s biases

while twisting assumptions like mummifying shrouds around facts, especially if everyone

uses the widely distributed but imperfect brand of the (Whip Lash) gene sequencing machine,

or if logical but profoundly incorrect conclusions are drawn? And what factors constitutes

or contributes to real differences instead of seeming genetic similarities between fundamental

types such as a fly and a man, or a man and a chimp, can not be securely addressed, as

certainly is entirely unknown and lies undiscovered? These secrets are still hidden away, still

kept from the spoiler. There is a lot more to the story, and no one knows as much as they

think or pretend they know and generalities are used when specifics are unknown, and

specifics are used when trying with difficulty to focus vague generalities. Thinking you know

something when unwittingly it is wrong, does not add but subtracts from collective

knowledge! You may never know enough to find a definitive answer in either direction.

But is this one human? The Neanderthal skull with a bullet hole looks like a victim of

ethnic cleansing? A situation which both sides can get something out of. They both created

ethnic cleansing and race relations as a necessary way to get along. In a perfect world, there

would not be any concern about anyone’s race at all.

This National Geographic article tells a detailed and extravagant tale of Neanderthal

29
life, and although it is possible to extract very limited amounts of information from fossils, the

substance and body of the article has weaved into it enough fantasy to preserve a delusion of

less than certain events as an extreme deciphering of a very limited source of rare facts.

The National Geographic admits to such in the next to the last paragraph: “The larger

point may be that the demise of Neanderthals is not a sprawling yet coherent

paleoanthropological novel: rather, it is a collection of related, but unique, short [science

fiction] stories of extinction.”

A highly visionary interpretation is the major point in almost all retellings, as there is

very little information, or almost none to go on. This leads to an attempt to sensationalize.

The National Geographic is an Evolutionary taxidermist’s horror text. Resultantly, if

Neanderthals were a race of humans, then evolutionists are still out searching at a loss for

their missing link. When using an evolutionary cookbook, make an entree of herbs, and spice

with potatoes, because the facts are few and far, and not in between.

“A watermelon is 98% water.

“A cloud is 98% water, but both are quite different”! Source: A Trinity Broadcasting

program on Evolution which Interviewed Geneticists.

RADIOMETRIC DATING & GEOLOGICAL TIME

For questions concerning the inaccuracy of dating methods refer to “Radioisotopes

30
and the Age of the Earth,” first and/or second edition, or ask for the layman’s translation.

Fission track dating and pleiochroic haloes argue for accelerated decay and instantaneous

creation. Decaying radioactive particles in solid rock produce spherical zones, or halos of

damage to the surrounding crystal structure. A speck of radioactive element such as

Uranium-238, for an example, will leave a sphere or halo of discoloration of characteristic

different radius for each element it produces in its decay chain to lead-206. Viewed in cross

section with a microscope, these spheres appear as rings called radio-halos. Some of the

intermediate decay products, or elements ─ such as the polonium isotopes ─ have very sort

half-lives. They decay rapidly in just three minutes. Curiously, rings formed by polonium

decay are often found embedded in crystals without the parent or the expected uranium halos.

The polonium has to get into the rock before the rock solidifies, but it could not have derived

from a precursory or parent uranium speck in the solid rock, otherwise there would be a

uranium halo. Either the polonium was not derived from uranium, or there have been radical

changes in decay rates in the past. Whatever process was responsible for the halos could be a

key also to understanding radiometric dating. Robert Gentry. My comment: Foregoing all

the numerous theories, disputes, speculations and assumptions, what science and scientists are

not telling us, dating methods have little to do with real time and are classic examples of

unbridled and fallacious assumptions. (More will be discussed about this in the chapter on

recent discoveries in Paleontology). An example of time assumptions: when a single sample

yields various ages of a million to a billion and a half years as has been demonstrated by

various radiometric techniques used on the same specimen, or wide-spread contradictions

employing the same radiometric technique, do such incongruities illustrate any relationship to

real time, or is it a different phenomena altogether; such as pathological lying or a fanciful

31
imagination drugged by an exalted ego, or a slanted agenda which is different form of lying,

or the most condemning scenario of all, that dating methods really don’t work because the

alleged data can or may be eventually deduced as caused by different attributes or events in

the rocks unrelated to alleged decay rates, or unknown and immeasurable cosmic

bombardments in the past? The following are examples: “some aquatic mosses now living in

Ice Land date around 6,000 to 8,000 years old by the Carbon 14 method. Living snails in

Nevada give apparent ages of 27,000 years, and most living marine specimens from the

world’s oceans date at least several hundred years old. Sea shells were recently discovered

where the shell dated 7,000 years older than the animal’s flesh. It was proposed the flesh of

the animal had concentrated and deposited carbon 14 in its shell. Could living creatures

deposit carbon 14, or excessive carbon 14 in bone, shells ─ even the wood of ancient plants,

etc,. This might suggest the need for further investigations into whether this has implications

for other carbon14 dates and specimens? Science and Religion Class. The reason some

living examples have an inaccurate carbon 14 age is that their environment has less than the

normal amount of carbon 14, so they date old even before they are dead. The scalp muscle of

a frozen musk ox from Alaska gave a carbon 14 date of 24,140 years, while its hair dated at

17,210 years. Marine shells in Hawaii register younger dates if preserved in volcanic ash

instead of limestone.” Lava flows that erupted on the north rim of the Grand Canyon after

the canyon formed, give potassium-argon dates a billion years older than the most ancient

basement rocks at the bottom of the canyon are alleged to be.

“Sunset Crater, an Arizona Volcano, is known from tree-ring dating to be about 1,000

years old. But Potassium-argon put it to over 200,000 years. [ G.B. Dalrymple, “40 Ar

Analysis of Historical Lava Flows,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6, 1969, pp. 47-55].

32
 “For the volcanic island of Rangitoto in New Zealand, potassium-argon dated the lava

flows as 145,000 to 465,000 years old, but the journal of the Geochemical Society noted that

‘the radiocarbon, geological and botanical evidence unequivocally shows that it was active

and was probably built during the last 1000 years.’ In fact, wood buried underneath its lava

has been carbon-dated at less than 350 years old.” [Ian McDougall, H.A Polach, and J.J.

Stipp, ‘Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts from Auckland Volcanic Field,

New Zealand,’ Geochimiea et Cosmochimica Acta, December 1969, pp. 1485, 1499]

“Even the lava dome of Mount St. Helens [created in 1980] has been ‘Radiometrically

dated at 2.8 million years. [H.M. Morris, “ Radiometric Dating, Back to Genesis, 1997].

James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999) pp. 146.

“C14 analysis of oil from Gulf of Mexico deposits showed an age measured in

thousands of years ─ not millions. Data produced at the Petroleum Institute at Victoria, New

Zealand, showed that Petroleum deposits were formed 6,000 – 7,000 years ago. Textbooks

state that petroleum formation took place about 300,000,000 years ago.” Velikovsky, 1955,

p.287: CRSQ 1965, 2:4, p.10. Fossil wood was found in an iron mine in Sefferville, Ontario,

Canada, that was a late Precambrian deposit. “Later the wood was described [reinterpreted]

as coming from late Cretaceous rubble, which made it about 100 million years old instead of

more than 600 millions years old.” Two independent C14 tests showed an age of about

4,000 years. Pensee, Fall 1972, 2:3, p.43.”

“The last major glacial advance in America was long dated at about 25,000 years ago.

C14 dates forced a revision down to 11, 400 years. The United States Geological Survey

carried out studies that gave a C14 date as recent as 3300 years ago, but no text treats such a

puzzling find that falls well within historical times.” Velikovsky, 1955, p.158-159; CRSQ,

33
1968, 5:2, p.67.

Here is a remarkable example of C14 difficulties in a book published by Stanford

University Press. “Six C14 ages were attained from a core in an attempt to date the formation

of the Bering Land Bridge [the refugee bridge taken by early explorers from Asia to the

America’s]. The dates ranged from 4390 to 15,500 Before the Present.”

“A survey of the 15,000 radiocarbon dates published through the year of 1969 in the

publication, Radicarbon, revealed the following statistics:

A. Of the dates of 9671 species of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12% have

radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.

B. Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as “infinite.”

C. Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old,

have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.

D. Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of the most primitive life

forms are dated within 40,000 years.”

Add to this, Coal from Russia from the “Pennsylvanian, period” supposedly 300

million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966.

Bones of a Sabre-toothed tiger from the LaBrea tar pits (near Los Angeles),

supposedly 100,000 million years old, gave a date of 28,000 years. Radiocarbon, vol. 10.

1968.

Confusion pervades the entire geological column. The Tapeat Sandstone in the Grand

Canyon represents a huge time gap in geological time, although it is claimed to have taken

480 million years to form. (Some researchers claim the Tapeat sandstones are as old as 535

million years) How do we know it couldn’t have taken 500 million years for this strata to

34
form? Because the strata is bent (and folded) in numerous places, without cracks or fissures

in those bends; proving its formation had to occur rapidly while it was still wet and plastic.

Dr. Andrew Snelling.

In other places, all sorts of disorder and contradictions are closeted away, older strata

overlaying younger strata; strata reputed to be tens of millions of years old show no signs of

erosion during those vast millenniums while dinosaur remains have been discovered with no

potential food sources available for millions of geological years. “The Morrison Formation

of the western United States appears to represent a vast but incomplete ecological system. It

has been one of the world’s richest sources of dinosaur fossils, yet plants are rare…. [Than]

What did the behemoths eat”? But remember, according to evolution, things have always

remained the same. Perhaps, in some geo-political areas on earth, food is nearly that scarce;

but no one thinks, except for dictators, that it should be normal!

Moon samples attained by NASA were dated by both uranium-thorium- lead and

potassium –argon methods, giving varying results from 2 million to 28 billion years. A lava

flow from underwater volcanoes near Hawaii historically dated at 1801 A. D. gives a

potassium-argon date ranging from 1.6 million to 2.96 billion years. Data from diamonds

using the more sophisticated “isochron” method came up with an age of 6,000 million years,

which is 1,400 million years older than the generally accepted age of the earth. Mortar from

Oxford Castle in England was dated by radiocarbon as 7370 years old, yet the castle itself was

built 785 years ago. ( E.A. von Fange, “Time upside down,” Quoted in Creation Research

Society Quarterly, November 1974, pp. 18. Freshly killed seals have been dated as having

died 1300 years ago. W.Dort, “Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land,” in Antarctic

Journal of the U.S., 1971, pp. 210. “Wood was cut out of living, growing trees. Although

35
only a few days dead, it was dated as having existed 10,000 years ago.” (B. Huber,

“Recording Gaseous Exchange Under field Conditions,” in Physiology of Forest Trees, ed. by

K.V. Thimann, 1958) Soils, in particular, are notoriously difficult to date with carbon 14

because of upward and downward migration of organic substances.

Dr. Giem, an expert in dating process, has noted that “for potassium-argon dates, the

assumption that argon is driven off is demonstrably not valid, and one cannot be sure the

clock is reset…. Rabidium – strontium dating isochrones could be mimicked by mixing lines,

which require essentially no time to form”….

Since there are few actual historical markers to validate Carbon 14 dates, there is one

more startling date I want to give you. “Carbon 14 date on bones from the destruction of

Nineveh in 612 BC, yielded a date of 810 BC + or - 40 years. The scene of carnage, showed

no signs of burial as the bodies had been left sprawled out in their violent positions of death

and then were buried by the dust of time and recently discovered. Why the actual, historical

date for the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC is known, is that ancient calendars were

calibrated with modern calendars so we know the day the city was destroyed and the day

when these people died.” Dr. Giem, Science and Religion Class, March 22, 2008, and also

described on one of his web sites.

“Jarmo was an ancient village in northeast Iraq that was inhabited for not over 500

years. Eleven C-14 tests were made there, and dates with a 6,000-year spread were tallied up!

A fundamental scientific principle is that a correct method will gave the same result when

repeated; if it cannot do this, it is not scientific.” Evolution Handbook pp. 195.

Extrapolating carbon drift / or carbon 14 anomalies means estimates of carbon 14 are

off by unknown amounts. Exponential mathematical arguments when applied to theoretical

36
constructs of nature can be as accurate as wishful thinking as correspondent to natural events.

Any date exponentially assumed can be logically incorrect as this does not necessarily

account for the way in which nature has reacted over time. Is an assumed constant rate more

logical than an assumed variation rate?, not unless one can blindly accept uniformitarianism

without the recognition of catastrophe or unaccounted for changes in nature is like closing one

eye while blind in the other.

Billions of dollars have been wasted to prove or support a constant decay rate and

almost nothing has been spent to make a case for a non-steady, random or variable state or

carbon deficient reservoirs or accelerated decay rates or variously heavy bombardments of

cosmic rays and decreased or weakened electromagnetic fields, because evolutionists have

been spending millions and billions of government monies on research and have deliberately

stymied opposing views by trumping the first Amendment freedom of speech and of the press

and monopolizing the disputation of government resources. Refer to the last several

Chapters: particularly; A Wall of Separation between Church and State.

“The original [carbon14] reservoir hypothesis assumes [an assumption is a bias or a

leap of faith] that the exchange rate (has always been) constant all over the world. This

method also assumes the variation in carbon 14 is global. [Furthermore] The age limit is

encountered when the amount of c14 in a sample is approximately equal to the c14 in the

assumed ‘dead carbon’ blank samples used as background. In addition, c14 is known to

behave chemically in a way different from c12 and c13 (due to different atomic mass), such

that it is possible [assumed] one isotope will be involved in decomposition reactions out of

ratio with other isotopes…” These are the underlying assumptions. Wikipedia Encyclopedia.

Facts cannot be constructed out of assumptions without building fallacies into those

37
assumptions. Moreover, numerous assumptions do not add up to an inevitable fact!! Thus a

foregone conclusion overstates the outcome and subtracts certainty. The greater the number

of assumptions which are necessary to form a premise, the greater are the odds the premise is

faulty, and/or unprovable, and without proof no facts can be established! The unobservable

cannot ascertain predictable certainty. Tagged: Fraud Check. p.14.

Note: these assumptions remain unproven and are almost certain to remain

unprovable; that is why they are referred to as assumptions rather than facts. If only one of

these assumptions are ever proven wrong, the entire apparatus will crash! But proving one of

these assumptions will not prove the others! There are several other underlying assumptions

in addition to the ones already mentioned. A. How fast does c14 decay? Is this a given or is

it proven beyond a couple of thousand years? B. What was the starting amount of c14 in the

creature when it died? This is always unknown. C. What are the sources which produce

carbon 14 and have they ever they varied? B & C are particularly difficult to determine if

they can be determined, at all. How abundant has carbon 14 been in the past? These are

inevitable unknowns. Radiometric dating methods are founded on assumptions exponentially

assumed at constant rates and is certainly questionable when such techniques can not be in

any way historically verified even close to their first half-life, and could only be collaborated

if written historical dates went back 5 to 10 thousand years or more, which of course, they do

not.

In fact: C14 has not been strictly constant during the span of time which can be

historical verified. Hessel de Vries. His discoveries are now recognized in the scientific

world and have necessitated the recalibration of the carbon 14 curve. This level is affected by

such things as variations in the earth’s magnetosphere caused by solar storms. The earth’s

38
magnetic field surrounds and protects us from harmful radiation from outer space. And the

earth’s magnetic field has been decaying (getting weaker). If this field was at one time

stronger than it now is, fewer cosmic rays could have penetrated the atmosphere. This would

result in a smaller production of C14 in the atmosphere. As the earth’s magnetic field has

been fading, today it is about 10% weaker than when German mathematician Carl Gauss

started keeping records on it on 1845. This field has been losing energy despite variations, so

it appears to be no more than 10,000 years old! If the earth’s magnetic field was stronger in

the past, than it would have repelled greater numbers of cosmic rays, reducing the production

of Carbon 14. If the production rate of c14 was less in the past, dates given using the c14

method would incorrectly assume more c14 had decayed out of a specimen than what has

actually occurred, giving older dates as less carbon is detected.

“In addition, there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, [less in] the

ocean sediments, … and sedimentary rocks. Carbon14 is [not] accurate in dating sedimentary

rocks because of their widely composite nature. Changing climate can sometimes disrupt the

carbon flow between these reservoirs and the atmosphere.” Source: Wikipedia: Radiocarbon

dating. “[T]the effect of variations in cosmic radiation intensity (caused by altitude, depth

below the earth surface, and astronomical events) can be difficult to calibrate.” The

usefulness of Carbon 14 by Hugh Ross, Ph.D.

If potential recalibration factors exist beyond historical boundaries, than the carbon

curve could have fluctuated in ways which are entirely unpredictable and unknown. There are

numerous potential causes such as, changes in the earth’s magnetic sphere, a global oceanic

reservoir as produced by a world-wide flood that would have disrupted the carbon flow

between these reservoirs and the atmosphere. The Bible states a global flood destroyed a pre-

39
flood earth, rather than some other event, and for which we have a present oceanic example.

The effect of a global flood would have swept away and buried almost all carbon based

organisms as a world-wide event, and those organisms exchanged and intermixed carbon

densities with the process of great volumes of water and indescribable volcanic eruptions and

gases mixing with continental masses of elements as is observable in world wide strata and

cool and oil deposits miles below the earth’s surface. A world wide cataclysmic event,

sudden and short of duration, instead of long ages better defines the violently restructured

strata of the earth, which vastly exceed the earth’s present bio mass of living organisms

estimated to have been as much as 100 - 500 times the present amount of biomass on earth.

If there was a far greater bio-mass in the past in which to concentrate a limited production of

carbon 14, that in essence would throw off the carbon clock by great ages?

The RATE Group findings:

In 1997 an eight-year research project was started to investigate the age of the earth.

The group was called the Rate group (radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth).

“The objective was to gather data commonly ignored or censored by evolutionary

standards of dating. The scientists reviewed the assumptions and procedures used in

estimating the age of rocks and fossils…. Samples were taken from ten different coal layers

that, according to evolutionists, represent different time periods in the geologic column

(Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic). The RATE group obtained ten coal samples from the

U. S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank. These coal samples were collected from

major coalfields across the United States. The coal samples, which dated to millions to

hundreds of millions of years old based on standard evolutionary time estimates, all contained

measurable amounts of c14. This is a significant discovery(!) Such old coal by accepted

40
geological standards should be devoid of c14, but it isn’t. No source of coal has been found

completely lacking carbon 14. Since the half-life of c14 is relatively short (5,730 years), there

should be no detectable c14 left after about 80,000 years [by the extremely liberal

evolutionary accounts]. The average c14 estimated age for all the layers from these three time

periods was approximately 50,000 years.” However, with the apparent decline of the earth’s

protective magnetic field and other factors, that age maybe reducible to no more than around

5,000 – 6,000 years.

“These results indicate the entire geological column is less than 100,000 years old ─

and could be much younger.”

Because the lifetime of c14 is so brief, the Accelerator Mass Spectrometer, which

counts individual atoms, poses an obvious challenge to the standard geological timescale

which assigns millions to hundreds of millions of years to this part of the rock layer [the fossil

strata]. That detectable carbon 14 is being found, indicates these rock layers are no where

near as old as they are claimed to be. When you can detect young biomass in old rocks

something is amiss.

“In fact, if a sample contains c14, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years

old.” More about mass spectrometers at the end of this chapter. The Mass Spectrometer may

have the deciding vote in this issue.

“Dr. Libby who came up with the radiocarbon dating process, ‘noted that the

atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium.’ This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby

since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve

equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed if the earth started with no 14c in the

atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state. Dr. Libby was also

41
very surprised to learn there were no human or historical artifacts over 5,000 years old which

could collaborate his theory of radiocarbon dating.

“If cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 – 30,000 years,

and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, than there should exist at

the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms

and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.

“Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (non-equilibrium state), and he attributed

it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of

c14/c12 is not constant. Tagged: Fraud Check. p.14.

“The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of c14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of

total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1

disintegrations per gram per minute.

“What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and c14 is

still out of equilibrium, than maybe the earth is not very old.”

Evolutionists claim life has been evolving for millions and hundreds of millions of

years, but “essentially nothing of evolutionary significance is believed to have occurred

during (carbon 14’s short time frame of less than 50-80 thousand years), so Carbon 14 is

essentially useless to evolution.” The oldest, written historical records of Egypt and other

ancient civilizations go back no farther than to about 2,600 B.C., or 4600 hundred years ago at

the very most; others will contend an even more recent date for Egyptian history: “ Well-

authenticated dates are known only back so far as about 1600 B.C. in Egyptian History,

according to John G. Read [J.G. Read, Journal of Near Eastern studies, vol. 29, No. 1. 1970].

Thus, the meaning of dates by Carbon 14 prior to 1600 B.C. is still as yet controversial.”

42
H.M Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), pp.85.

Some historians claim the discovery that one tree ring equals about 1 year, was first

made by Leonardo Da Vinci, others contend this discovery goes as far back as to the ancient

Greeks. Has modern science learned anything more since those ancient times? Well, the

issue isn’t as yet settled. Even the oldest living Bristlecone Pine, Methuselah, which is

estimated to be about 4,700 years old, raises problems for modern science. “Researcher

Walter Lammerts, a plant scientist, spent several years working with bristlecone pine

seedlings in their native habitat of Arizona. He discovered that the San Francisco Mountain

region, in which they grow, has spring and fall rains with a very dry summer in between.

Working carefully with the seedlings and giving them the same type of watering and other

climatic conditions that they would normally receive, ─ he found that the Bristlecone Pine

routinely stops growth during the dry summer, and when both spring and fall are rainy (which

is common) it produces two rings a year. This is an important discovery, for it would

indicate that the sequoias, not the bristlecone pines, are probably the oldest things on earth.”

This brings us to the most famous of all the bristlecone pines, the Currey tree, whose

martyrdom became an international scandal. Currey has become infamous for cutting down

the reputed oldest individual tree to have ever been found. He was a graduate student in

geology at the University of North Carolina with a National Science Foundation Grant for

two summer seasons of 1963 and 1964 and was researching climatic change during the ‘Little

Ice Age.’ His actions, however, have created enough heat of controversy to have melted that

‘Little Ice Age.’ And the charge is frequently leveled that cutting down the tree offered very

little or no benefit to his actual research or to science. I won’t give you the whole scenario

which is convoluted and is still very controversial and well documented in an excellent article

43
published on the internet by Michael P. Cohan, entitled: Oldest Living Tree Tells All. But I

am going to add more heat to the controversy because apparently not everything has been

told. In favor of giving the benefit of the doubt, I am sure Mr. Cohen has told every thing he

knows, and he hints at a problem I am going to raise to the level of a crisis for the this kind if

research. In his article, it is stated: “That tree, which Currey estimated ‘began growing about

4,900 years ago,’ has been dated by others at perhaps more than 5,100 years.” [If you see

italics, I have usually added them for emphasis throughout my critique]. Mr. Cohen quotes a

recount by Don Graybill at 4,862 years but lists no further information in support of the

contention of 5100 years estimated on missing rings due to possible abrasion by landslides

near ground level? But can landslides be proven or only assumed and their resultant affects?

Mr. Graybill probably already knew about what number he had to come up with as his count

was a recount. His conclusion could be prejudicial foreknowledge. I am assuming, however,

he is an honest scientist, and he got it about right. But then, there are other troubling

questions? After a slab of the old tree was carried out of the forest, “The finished section of

WPN-114, as Currey indicated, was transported in pieces and then fitted together from

sections cut at separate heights, like pieces from a three-dimensional puzzle. Provenance of

some of these sections is clouded.” Cohen. Clouded may be an astronomical understatement

as it may have been deliberately obscured! I have an eye witness account that the University

of Arizona has two slabs from this same tree, one slab counts at 3,100 years old and the other

at 3,900. What mathematical wizardry is going on here? ‘Come and let us reason together’:

3900-3100 = an 800 year gap + 3900 = 4700 years? A missing link in time, instead of a

missing link in the species, adds up nearly to the age the evolutionists are trying to

collaborate. This creative approach nearly agrees with Don Graybill’s total. Amazing! My

44
Scientist Friend had nothing to do with my math. I just thought the coincidence was

amazing! If we didn’t know how my figure was arrived at, we would likely ascribe it to a

miraculous coincidence, instead it was entirely fictitious as I have never physically counted

the rings or surveyed with wondrous ken its ancient bark. At this point, I am going to protect

the name of the witness as he might otherwise be forced to take advantage of the

government’s witness protection program. Things have gotten that much out of hand in the

uncertain world of reputation’s backstabbing assassins in the world of science. A

professional scientist and an expert on tree rings, he claims the older dates are made up. That

admission in the syndicated underworld of (Modern?) science may have signed his political

and scientific death warrant. Incidentally, in all the heat of battle, I have never heard even a

tattle that someone has tried to radiocarbon date the Currey tree. They don’t need to, or are

they afraid of the potential consequences of disagreement with their count? Could they even

be trusted to do it honestly without preconceived notions which could severely taint their

claims and distort the evidence ─ that pesky little orphan of evidence is still hiding out? Is

science trustworthy when so many scientists apparently believe deception is permissible in

order to prove something in science? Are all too many claims of scientific discoveries a

scam of misleading and subversive evolutionary propaganda? After all, they could probably

get the date they want whether it is there or not, so why try? I am writing this, now a book in

its own right, to establish the honored and unreliable ground on which science stands at the

pinnacle of its egotistical all-unknowingness and corrupt pageantry of false ideas.

I have received an alert that some ill-disposed critics now claim they can tell whether a

Bristlecone pine has produced more or less than a single ring in a year. Riddle solved, case

closed. But is this new claim in reality scientific mysticism? I am a skeptic by nature of

45
anything requiring evolutionary gullibility allied with extreme inaccuracy and unquestioned

faith in evolutionary assumptions! These fanatics like their evolutionary co-conspirators in

ice core theory have become the metaphysical palm readers of science ─ magicians of logic

and sorcerers of reasoning transforming the unknowable and imprecise nature of the natural

world into a mediocrity of baseless information and guess work formed into an agenda of

wishful thinking, rather, than by any credible, indisputable, empirical data. Since when did

scientists become the gods of man’s scientific enlightenment and eventual salvation, and

along with George Washington are incapable of telling a lie? Lying is big business worth

billions of dollars in science as it is in diplomacy and statesmanship, excluding George

Washington and Abraham Lincoln of course. In fact, it is an International Corporation of

Conspiracy and greedy Monetary Gilt in spite of all the good science, otherwise, can do!

Being a scientist does not necessarily mean you have your head screwed on straight ─ the

more heads screwed onto the beast of evolution the more likely they cannot be screwed on

straight like on the beast of Revelation.

Whatever dates are picked for the redwoods, Bristlecone pines, or ancient Egyptian or

Babylonian history or the history of other ancient civilizations, all are at least 1,000 – 2000

years shy of carbon14’s assumed first half-life of 5,700 years. According to internet sources,

it is claimed that scientists (Scientist’s are invisible people who don’t wear name tags and

therefore can’t be accused of anything) have been able to collaborate tree rings from dead

Bristlecone pine wood to stretch out the time to collaborate or recalibrate radiocarbon dating

to about 7,000 years according to the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of

Arizona, Tuscon. However, criticism has been justifiably leveled that [as I mentioned

earlier] “The entire chronology [of Bristle Cone Pines] is the work of one laboratory, the

46
director of which [C.W. Ferguson] has refused to allow critical study of the raw data.” If Mr.

Ferguson had nothing to hid, than why hid it? Any guesses out there, anyone? His attitude

seemed disturbing as ancient deadwood would have had to lay around separated from its

source and exposed to the elements for uncounted decades. Determining any vast age by such

doubtful methods and specimens seems even more improbable when scientists can’t even

arrive at the exact same age for the exact same tree using the exact same method, even though

Bristlecone pines are notoriously difficult to date because of their contorted growth. A ten

thousand year Bristlecone Pine age claim, made in a brochure I obtained from the Bristlecone

Pine National Forest, near Bishop California, in the 1990s, requires incredible gullibility and

blind faith in an ideology due to the many proceeding conflicts. In evolution, the impossible

isn’t impossible when a theory can be cooked up to disguise one’s ignorance! Tagged: Fraud

Check p. 14. There is absolutely nothing historically known to be older than 3-4 thousand

years in ancient written history to collaborate radiometric dating accuracy ─ not even tree

rings that old can be assuredly and physically attributed to a single tree! Nothing!

Absolutely nothing! And that is a well established fact! Do I need to repeat myself to make

myself clearer ─ there is nothing to substantiate radiocarbon’s vast claims except for

fabrications perjuring on the verge of madness which suggest a deliberateness more perverse

than madness. Less, perhaps, far less than 4,000 years ago is where all traceable human

history and living things disappear into the unfathomable grasp of unwritten time ─ the black

hole of history!

There is another notorious claim pertaining to Bristlecone Pine tree ring dating which

is clearly a case of dizzy circular reasoning that “wood specimens considered for ‘long

chronologies’ are first radio carbon dated. If the date is old enough, even if by an erroneous

47
reading, (meaning if tree ring counts give a shorter age than the expected radio carbon date),

tree ring specialists look at ring thickness for a way to extend the ‘long chronology.’” Radio

carbon, Vol. 23, 1981 pp. 165-166. Tree ring dating came up short as to their expectations of

the radio carbon age. This clearly suggest either tree rings counts, or radiometric dates are

inaccurate and can fail to collaborate. Specimens apparently radiocarbon dated older than the

age given by tree ring counts, so specialists look at ring thickness for a way to artificially

extend the evolutionary chronology. This indicates tree ring counts have not been agreeing

with radio carbon dates. But can this curious method employing ring thickness be trusted?

There is no way to prove there is any such relationship to age and ring width? It is entirely

held to by speculation as it fills a missing gap. In ring dating for climate studies, one ring is

only one year, which contradicts that one ring when trying to determine the age of the same

tree can equal more than one year. Dating methods are an artfully contrived, creative

foregone conclusions: for all intents and purposes, the age is forced to fit unbridled

assumptions. The date by which the other is modified or corrected is entirely speculative as to

the particular old age paradigm being defended. These trees even seem to age the longer they

are dead, or should that be expected given current scientific uncertainties! This is earned

sarcasm, of course! Could scientists be trusted to radiocarbon date trees “honestly and

without preconceived notions which severely taint their claims and distort the truth”? The

apparent answer is a resounding, No, they cannot be trusted! Lying protects their ego and

reputations, and standard of living to the extent they have become incorrigibly indoctrinated

by their own superstitions and nearly unconscious of this adverse effect on their judgment.

Tagged: Fraud Check. p.14 It is very difficult to get a man to believe the truth when his job

is at stake.

48
 What the carbon 14 theory says about itself: Carbon 14 theoretically takes 5,700 years

for one half of the original carbon-14 atoms to decay back to nitrogen 14, and 11,500 years

for three fourths of the original carbon 14 to decay back to nitrogen and so on as the decay

process proceeds theoretically. Half-life is calculated on the theorized steadily decreasing

volume of remaining carbon atoms and is not calculated on their variously short and long

death rates as predicted by the radiometric theory and why some original atoms in the

specimen die more quickly or slowly than others.

Using a Geiger counter, Libby “estimated in 1947 the steady state radioactivity

concentration of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm)

per gram.” This observed activity is theorized exponentially as a constant over time maybe

only a trick of the equation and variable uncertainty exists in the individual decay rate of

atoms that live much longer than others. This imparts an artificial stretching out of the age of

the specimen. If the 23,000 year old carbon atoms had decayed as rapidly as did their 5,700

year old original counterparts, no carbon-14 would remain after 5700 years! There is no way

to test the current accepted theory over long periods of time. The radiometric theory virtually

predicts this oddity in decay rates, and in fact, demands it! Carbon 14 is not a steady rate of

decay over time as it is a variable rate of a double life. This adds up with reservoir factors and

probable unknowns etc. to destabilize radiocarbon dating more than is admitted. A

calibration graph only makes it appear a steady rate or predictable rate is correctively

achievable by radiocarbon’s imposed but assumed exponent which is imposed on the equation

to represent the passage of time! But the effect of an exponent is merely an assumption when

applied conjointly to anything other than pure mathematics! Half-life is a statistical figment

of invention ─ a prestidigitation! Nature is neither a graph nor a statistic ─ that is our way of

49
trying to figure things out or to impose an understanding on what is going on. Any theory is

an artificial imposition of particulars on a wide-ranging theme of nature’s effects and

activities and is therefore an oblique angle of the facts The trick of uncertainty is to correlate

all of these countless obloquies and secure them into an unchallengeable law not even nature

could challenge. The delusion is that we often believe we have done just that when our rules

are not necessarily those by which nature has been, and is inevitably governed! That most

atoms do not live so much as a half-life is also predicted and have a variable and secret life of

their own. Radiometric dating can be relatively accurate only for a period equal to or likely

far less than its first theoretical, exponential half-life. If all radiometric beta particles died

early on and nearly all simultaneously, no half-lives could be achieved, so why they die at

different ages as is predicted cannot be explained, or the predicted half-life could be incorrect

and therefore the theory as an entirety? A contradiction in the theory likely means it is an

incorrect theory. Any increasingly older dates have an assumed exponent which is

unprovable except by multiplying assumptions by assumptions that can never be substantiated

because no eye- witness has ever lived long enough, nor could have ever left behind

corroborating records old enough to confirm the carbon 14 theory.

Summing up: The closer a specimen is in time to the original source of carbon14

consumption: the more constant the radiocarbon ratio would appear to be as it is an aggregate.

But as the time gap widens: the more scattered and inconsistent will be the events whether

measurable on an unpredictable scale which might appear contradictorily as a constant scale

by assuming many factors which are not measurable or known and because our method is not

part of nature’s activity, method or sequence and our understanding of atomic activity is not

entirely objective or complete but is subjective by a mass of theory and frailty of proof. Cross

50
analysis of various disciplines will only increase the uncertainty principle by their own

randomness and inclination towards subjectivism.

An Illustration of what I am describing follows. The illustration was copied by hand

from an almost identical illustration, but I have used it to illustrate a completely different

concept.

AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE THEORY

51
What is the decay rate control mechanism which allows some c14 atoms to live

52
thousands of years longer than their identical twins which were born over a few short decades

apart, or is the radiometric theory dead wrong when summing up long ages like a chemical

séance of the dead!

This raises problems concerning systems explained by quantum mechanics, “even one

as simple as an atom with a single electron, precise prediction of future behavior is essentially

impossible. Instead, only predictions of the probability of various behaviors can be made.

This can be illustrated by the description of an unstable radioactive nucleus. Quantum

mechanics does not predict when the individual nucleus will decay, although if many similar

nuclei are surveyed, one can predict what fraction will decay in any time interval. [One can

predict; but one cannot determine]. This novel feature of quantum mechanics, known as

indeterminism, has been one of the things that has led some prominent physicists, such as

Albert Einstein, to resist it.” Grolier Encyclopedia. But indeterminism raises a question

which can not be answered by quantum mechanics: there is no explicable mechanism which

determines the cause of behaviors. And to ask what causes behaviors is a legitimate quarry.

Indeterminism makes radiocarbon dating theory contradictory as I have already discussed ─ a

control mechanism is indicated by radiocarbon theory but this mechanism according to

quantum mechanics, has an indeterminable cause, expelling a mathematically defined

constant behavior that can also be described as a variable by logic. Until you know the cause,

you don’t fully understand the behavior. What is assumed is based primarily on theoretical

mathematical inferences. It is a grandiose form of arithmetic to the rescue of what little is

actually known even on a theoretical bases?

Here is what some specific scientists have said: “Robert Whitelaw, a nuclear and

engineering expert at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, found that the production rate [of carbon

53
14] is not equal to the disintegration rate. In fact, his calculations reveal a recent turning on

of the C -14 clock, ─ otherwise the two would be balanced.” This is the equilibrium problem

discussed earlier.

“It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates

from geological and archaeological samples in northwestern North America have been

adopted as ‘acceptable’ by investigators.” J. Ogden III, “The Use and Abuse of

Radiocarbon,” in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 288, 1977, pp. 167-173.

“Two researchers from the university of Uppsala, Sweden, in their report to the twelfth

Nobel Symposium, said this:

“C-14 was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A

famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among

archaeologists towards it, as follows: ‘If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the

main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is

completely ‘out of date,’ we just drop it. T. Save-Soderbergh and Ingrid U. Olsson, “C-14

Dating and Egyptian Chronology,” Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, ed.

Ingrid U. Olsson(1970), pp. 35. [also in Pensee, 3(1): 44]

“Only those radioactive dates are retained, which agree with the 19th –century

geological column dating theories. Research workers are told just that!” (L.R. Stieff, T.W.

Stern and R.N. Eichler, Evaluating Discordant Lead-Isotope Ages,” U.S. Geological Survey

Professional Papers, 1963, No. 414-E.

This can be further illustrated by reference to Uranium Disequilibrium Dating. There

is little need to get into the technical aspect as you will see there are obvious problems

without getting so involved.

54
1. The proportion of acid insoluble residue must be < 5% and the Th 230/ Th 232

activity ratio of terrestrial carbonate should be greater > 20.

2. The Ra 226/Th 230 and U234/U238 activity ratios of a marine sample older than

70Ka (70,000 years) should be in the range of 1.070. ( million) and 1.470.02 (million years)

respectively.

3. The radiometric age should be consistent with the statigraphic data/ or the Geologic

Time Scale.

4. Dates obtained using different methods, e.g. Th230/U 234 (Sect. 6.3.1, Pa231/U235

Sect.6.3.2), Th230-excess (sect.6.3.14) and Pa-excess (6.2.1), should agree. GeyhME,

Scheicher H, Absolute dating methods. Berlin: Springer – Verlag, 1990 p.213, citing Thurber

DL, Broecker WS, Blanchard RL, Potraz HA: “Uranium – Serious Ages of Pacific Atoll

Coral.” Science 1995; 149: 55-5.

“This means if authors and editors adhere to these criteria (especially the last two), no

dates will ever be published which disagree with either the standard geologic time scale (the

stratigraphic data) or with the standard interpretation of C14 dating.” Geyh and Schleicher, p.

222: Discussing methods for the “correction” of data, and noting their limitations, the authors

state, “However, as none of these methods is entirely satisfactory, samples should be selected

that will yield reliable ages with high probably.”

This means dates which do not agree with the standard interpretation of the Geologic

Time Scale will never be published, and will be thrown out. And what are “reliable ages”?

The accepted Geological Time Scale is based primarily on Carbon14 as the reliable age of a

specimen, but “fully half” of Radiocarbon’s C14 dates have too be thrown out to preserve the

Geological Time Scale. Also the Uranium Equilibrium Dating process is considered

55
“unsatisfactory” because so many of its dates have to be rejected in order to retain those dates

which agree with the accepted Geological Time Scale, or the standard Carbon 14 dating,

unless one jumps through a lot of hoops and rang a lot of bells. Whirling circular reasoning

can make any scientist who participates in the sport extremely dizzy in short order by

magnitudes. And the Standard Geological Time scale is supported by events too far in the

past to be observed with reproducible conditions in the present, therefore assumed events,

which causation can only be guessed at, inferred, or is generally a whim of presumption,

nonetheless is interpreted to create a norm. This can never establish a high probability when

a researcher is required to consider as correct only pre-determined types of data from

numerous contradictory options. This leads only to pseudo-scientific conclusions which

clearly violates the scientific method because the actual event can never be observable and

cannot be reproduced in experimental labs. But You will be surprised to learn that Uranium

can now be created in the laboratory? La Sierra University, CA This will probably led to

interesting implications in the radiometric dating field.

To make matters worse: Bard E, Hamelin B, Fairbanks RG, Zindler A: “Calibration of

14C Time Scale over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometer U-Th ages from

Barbados Corals,” was published in Nature 1990: 345: 405-10. It should perhaps be noted

they cited disagreements between presumed original C14/C ratios of previously dated varved

sediments (and) U-Th dating and ice cores of up to 100% (p.406). The data was so wide

spread it was all over the board!

“The troubles of radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious… It

should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely,

that the remaining half come to be accepted.” R.E. Lee, “Radiocarbon, Ages in Error,” in

56
Anthropological Journal of Canada, March 3, 1981, pp. 9.

Radiocarbon dating is considered reliable even though “fully half” of all radiocarbon

dates are rejected because they do not agree with the Geological Time Scale established by

C14 (making C14 self-certifying and indiscriminatingly proving itself), whereas Uranium

Disequilibrium Dating is considered unsatisfactory for many of the same reasons? Tagged:

Fraud Check. p. 14. There must be something magical in this kind of thinking which is

imperceptible to a logical brain!

The preceding admissions by scientists attest to the numerous inconsistencies deeply

embedded in the catacombs of science ─ admissible evidence of scientists misconstruing the

data to fit their evolutionary agenda. Most researchers are so indoctrinated in the procedures

they follow, they have become blinded to the fact their techniques do not perform within the

hallmark of a scientific method! If it were scientific, the results would be consistent with any

method employed! Fortunately, a few researchers have been honest enough to admit they

know what is going on under the cloak! Is it actually possible there has been some kind of

claw and dagger carbon 14 political disaster in the recent past, and some whistle-blower is

trying to bring it to our attention?

Scientists employ other controversial radiometric methods for dating the rocks and to

arrive at dates for strata in terms of a theoretical Geological Column with its corresponding

theoretical Geological Time Scale. Potassium-argon can be used to date only a few minerals,

some fine-grained igneous rocks and a few sediments, but none of the various radiometric

methods are very useful for dating fossils or sedimentary rock in which fossils are found,

because the organic material in a fossil almost without exception has disappeared. Since

fossils are only rarely found in igneous rocks, the age of fossils is mostly determined by

57
dating the lava flows which are sometimes found between layers of sedimentary rock.

However, the ages of the rocks need not in any way represent the age of the fossils in them,

unless we can demonstrate both formed at about the same time. Fossils are often dated by the

assumed age of the rock strata in which they are found, or the rock strata is dated by the

assumed age of the fossils they contain. This is a consequence of circular reasoning whirling

dizzyingly out of control. Perpetuation perpetuates perpetuation perpetually ─ assume an

assumption by an assumption and a hypothesis by another hypothesis and form it all into a

theory which convinces scientists by their irrational biases the method they use produces the

correct result, often without any real need of the sustainability and the credibility of logic. An

assumption is a structural artifice built upon and upheld only by air? A thing of fancy and

imagination and certainly of daring, defying the nerve of logic. A simple association of

words such as an assumption can form a sentence ─ its death sentence. The concept of

evolution as explaining anything rational and other than the fabulous invention of nothing of

substance is coming to the end of its age is what is meant. A theory never solves the problem

of its missing facts! And that is largely the problem, evolution only theorizes and theorizes

which gives birth to ever more theories, and forms a superstructure of illusions which never

provoke proof, and never produces anything from which the standpoint of a critical analysis

can support its imaginary claims! Tagged: Goodstein’s Fraud Check. P. 14

Mathematics and physics should be able to prove with artifice, the human head could

be placed in a position where it can be disjointed from the neck and comfortably held in the

arm. Biology could never do this. Some methods and disciplines have magical powers

rationally denied to others.

Evolutionists have established a presumed age for the rocks based on assumptions

58
which are driven by the fantasies of their overwrought and over-worked imaginations, than

throw out the dates which contradict their delusions. When dating over vast potentials of

time and events, accuracy is not a given, but is highly improbable and knowledge of past

events is not a given nor do they have the magic of a foregone conclusion. If there was a

Cambrian explosion and scientists know there was just such an explosion of life as evidenced

in the geological strata, or the Genesis Creation as it has been recounted for millenniums in

scriptures, it is not revealed by present dating theories unless it could be exposed what those

more than 50% of rejected radiometric dates might have whispered profanely as theoretical

endearments in the ear cast to doubt under their dying breath! This is the kind of cover up an

archeologist should find intriguing to uncover instead of becoming the unconscionable pall-

bearers of a cover up about man’s origins. The expectation of the truth is not to cover-up the

facts or to hid them, but to detect and report data accurately and honestly without prejudice

and not using disjointed details to create stories that don’t sound like fiction but are.

Otherwise, science can never learn and progress.

“Andrew Snelling has suggested that fractionation (sorting) of elements in the molten

state in the earth’s mantle could be a significant factor in explaining the ratios of isotope

concentrations which are interpreted as ages.

“As long ago as 1966, Nobel prize nominee Melvin Cook, professor of metallurgy at

the University of Utah, pointed out evidence that lead isotope ratios… may involve alteration

by important factors other than radioactive decay. Cook noted that, in ores from the Katanga

mine, for an example, there was an abundance of lead-208, a stable isotope, but no thorium-

232 as a source for lead-208. Thorium has a long half-life (decays slowly) and is not moved

out of the rock, so if the lead-208 came from thorium decay, some thorium should still be

59
there. The concentrations of lead -206, lead-207, and lead-208 suggest lead-208 came about

by neutron capture conversion of lead-206 to 207 to 208. When isotope concentrations are

adjusted for such conversions, the ages calculated are reduced from some 600 million to

recent. Other ore bodies seemed to show similar evidence. Cook recognized the current

understanding of nuclear physics did not seem to allow for such a conversion under normal

conditions, but he presents evidence that such did happen, and even suggests how it could

happen.”

“Physicist Dr. Robert Gentry has pointed out that the amount of helium in lead zircons

from deep bores is not consistent with an evolutionary age of 1,500 million years for the

granite rocks in which they are found. The amount of lead maybe consistent with the current

rates of decay over millions of years, but it would have diffused out of the crystals in that

time.”

Do different dating methods agree on the geological column? How many

measurements are anomalous when agreement would supposedly substantiate accuracy?

“Several factors need to be considered when evaluating how often methods give

expected (assumed) ages on the geological column. Some of the problems of determining the

accuracy of different dating methods were taken from John Woodmoreappe’s article on the

subject. First, many igneous formations span many periods, and so have little constraint on

what period they could belong to. The same applies to intrusions. Second, some kinds of

rook are not considered as suitable for dating such as sedimentary layers. Third, it is at least

possible that anomalies are under-reported in the literature. Evidence for this is partly quoted

in this chapter. Finally, the overwhelming majority of measurements on fossil bearing

geological column are all done using one method, the K-Ar method. Both potassium and

60
argon are water soluble, and argon is mobile in rock. Thus the agreement found between

many dates does not necessarily reflect an agreement between different methods, but rather

the agreement of the K-Ar method with itself. For example, if 80 percent of the

measurements were done using K-Ar dating, and the other 20 percent using other methods

gave random results, we might still be able to say that most of the measurements on a given

strata agree with one another reasonably well. Other words, there is no real correlation

between the results of different methods on the geological column, and they have a purely

random relationship to each other.”

Mr. Plaisted, who is essentially quoted above, and who is quoting John

Woodmoreappe, admits “The only correlation I know about that has been studied is between

K-Ar and Rb-Sr dating on Precambrian rock. And even for this one, the results were not very

good. This was a reference by Hurley and Rand, cited in Woodmoreappe’s paper. As far as I

know, no study has been done to determine how different methods correlate on the geological

column (excluding Precambrian rock).

“The reason for my request is that a correlation is not implied by the fact that there are

only 10 percent anomalies, or whatever. I showed that… the great majority of dates come

from one method (K-Ar) and that many igneous bodies have very wide biostratigraphic limits,

where many dates are acceptable, makes the percentage of anomalies irrelevant to the

question I am asking. And since this agreement is the strongest argument for the reliability of

radiometric dating, such an assumption of agreement appears to be without support so far.

“The question whether different methods correlate on the geologic column is not an

easy one to answer for additional reasons. Since the bulk of K-Ar dates are generally

accepted (assumed of course) as correct, one may say that certain minerals are reliable if they

61
tend to give similar dates, and unreliable otherwise. We can also say that certain formations

tend to give reliable dates and others do not, depending on whether the dates agree with K-Ar

dates. Thus we get an apparent correlation of different methods without much of a real

correlation in nature.”

There are a number of conditions necessary to confirm the reliability of radiometric

dating. “For this system, K-Ar, to work as a clock, the following four criteria must be

fulfilled.

1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.

2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of

crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.

3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of

crystallization.

4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known.”

“These methods are far from fallible and are based on three arbitrary assumptions (a

constant rate of decay, an isolated system in which no parent or daughter elements can be

added or lost, and a known amount of the daughter element present initially.” But the

corollary to number 1 is: You can not know the accuracy of a constant derived from

exponential reasoning without correlating historical records to support hypothetical accuracy.

“All of the parent and daughter atoms can move through the rocks. Heating and

deformation of rocks can cause these atoms to migrate, and water percolating through the

rocks can transport these substances and redeposit them, thus resetting the clock. Not

infrequently such recalibrations of the radiometric clocks is assumed in order to explain

62
different measurements of rock ages.” But can making assumed allowances for an assumed

event produce accuracy based on numerous other assumptions? One can only assume such a

thing.

And “it is also possible that exposure to neutrino, neutron, or cosmic radiation could

have greatly changed isotropic ratios or the rates at some time in the past.”

“It is known that neutrinos interact with atomic nuclei, so a larger density of neutrinos

could have sped up radioactive decay and made matter look old in a hurry.”

Here is another interesting statement: “Shaficullah and Damon said: The Ar40/Ar36

vs.K40/Ar36 isochrons are valid only when all the samples of the system under consideration

have the same non-radiogenic argon composition. If this condition does not hold, invalid

ages and intercepts are obtained. Models 2-9 yield isochron ages that are too high, too low,

or in the future, sometimes by orders of magnitude.” http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dating-

radiometric.htm , Article by Plaisted, 67 pages.

“The theory that argon diffuses out of sylvite crystals seems contrived. If argon does

not diffuse out of biotite, with its loose cleavage planes, why should argon diffuse out of

sylvite which has a close-packed crystal structure? It is of interest that several other minerals

“lose argon,” and yet we are told that in another mineral (this time igneous), sanidine.

diffusion of argon is several orders of magnitude faster at low temperatures than extrapolation

from high temperature data would indicate. Geyh and Schleicher, p.62 citing Marshall BD,

Woodard HH, De Paolo DJ: “K-Ca- Ar systematics of authigenic sanidine from Waukau,

Wisconsin, and the diffusion of argon.” And we read that “Initially, it was hoped that these

experiments [determining argon diffusion characteristics of minerals] would lead to a

classification of these minerals according to their ability to retain argon. In addition, it was

63
thought that experimentally diffusion coefficients might provide a way to correct ‘apparent’

ages for argon loss and provide a basis for using argon loss to determine the exact geologic

conditions (heating, burial, and so forth) that caused the loss. Unfortunately, these goals have

not been reached. Although the relative ability of most minerals to retain argon is known, this

knowledge has come largely from geologic studies rather from diffusion experiments.

Dalryumple and Lanphere, p. 151.

“In other words, the experimental evidence is against the diffusion which must have

happened if the evolutionary time scale is correct, and so the standard approach has been to

ignore the experimental evidence and try to create a scenario compatible with the evolutionary

time scale. Now that is fine if you know that the evolutionary time scale is correct. But if we

are trying to make an unbiased effort to determine the validity of the evolutionary time scale,

the evidence does not appear to support that scale.” Dr. Paul Giem

METHODS SHOULD WORK RELIABLY ON THINGS OF KNOWN AGE

“There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for

rocks of known age. (other examples has been mentioned before). (Another) example is K-

Ar ‘dating’ of five historical andesite lava flows from mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand.

Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the ‘dates’ range

from less than 270,000 to 3,500 million years.

“Again, using hindsight, it is argued that ‘excess’ argon from magma was retained in

the rock when it solidified. The secular, scientific literature list many examples of excess

argon causing dates of millions of years in rocks of known historical age. This excess appears

to come from the upper mantle, below the earth’s crust. This is consistent with a young world

─ the argon has had too little time to escape. If excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for

64
rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?”

“Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating,

points out that there are other large-scale trends in rocks that have nothing to do with

radioactive decay…. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain

‘bad’ dates.

“For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of

Australopithocus ramidus fossils. Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata

give dates of about 23 million years by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that

was ‘too old,’ according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand

scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected

17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 million. The other nine samples

again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded

them.” How did they determine if, or even which samples might have been contaminated, if

contamination were even a problem ─ certainly not by any known scientific method, but by

the foregone conclusions of their evolutionary paradigm.

But we are not finished with Australopithocus ramidus. The popular press hailed

Australopithocus as the “long-sought link in the evolutionary chain of species between

humans and their African ape ancestors.”

What is the evidence based on? A synopsis of an internet article by Don Batten.

“The holotype (the single specimen chosen as the type of a new species… in the

original description) is based solely on eight teeth, most of which are damaged. The teeth

differ significantly in shape. Such a difference in shape, as reflected in the measurements,

would be unlikely if the teeth belonged to the same species.” Again, science returns to the

65
tooth fairy for its uncompromising beliefs.

A cranial find was also reported. The inner-ear “semi-circular canal dimensions of

Australopithecus resemble those of living great apes, not Homo.” This means man’s

supposedly newly discovered relative was still fidgeting about on all fours to maintain his

balance and was moving to the sound of a different drummer banging on tree limbs.

“Like many previous claims about new fossil evidence for the evolution of man, this

one seems like another case of ‘much ado about nothing.’”

“A similar story surrounds the dating of the primitive skull known as KNM-ER 1470.

This started with an initial 212 to 230 million years, which, according to the fossils, was

considered way off the mark (humans ‘weren’t around then’). Various other attempts were

made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 million was settled

upon because of the (dis)agreement between several different published studies (although the

studies involved selection of ‘good’ from ‘bad’ results, just like Australoptheecus ramidus,

above. Furthermore, there was so much disagreement on everything there wasn’t any

agreement on anything other than, magically, somehow evolution had occurred.

“Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17

flaws in isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly

established the age of the earth at 4.6 billion years. John Woodmorappe has produced an

incisive critique of these dating methods. He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up

around the techniques. He shows that the few ‘good’ dates left after the ‘bad’ dates are

filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.”

References: Origins by Ariel Roth & The Dating Game by David N. Menton, Ph.D.;

Dr. Giem; The Evolution Handbook, and other sources previously mentioned.

66
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html. Radiocarbon dating is used to support

non-scientific findings, and only what the current secular propaganda allows. The evidence is

often indisputable, however. Specimens of nearly instantaneous fossilization always

contradict radiometric dating: like whale baleen caught in the action of fossilization.

The unknown is infinite, the known finite. What is the most recent discovery or

research in radiometric dating.

THE LASTEST ON RADIOMETERIC TECHNOLOGY

EVIDENCE FOR CORRELATIONS BETWEEN NUCLEAR DECAY RATES AND EARTH-SUN DISTANCE

Jere H. Jenkins, Ephraim Fischbach, John B. Buncher, John T. Gruenwald, Dennis E.

Krause, and Joshua J. Mattes.

(Dated: August 25, 2008)

[Introductory summary]

Unexplained periodic fluctuations in the decay rates of 32Si, and 226Ra have been reported by groups

at Brookhaven National Laboratory.

(32Si) At the Physikalisch-Technische-Bundesandstalt in Germany (226Ra). We show from an

analysis of the raw data in these experiments that the observed fluctuations are strongly correlated in time, not

only with each other, but also with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Some implications of these

results are also discussed, including the suggestion that discrepancies in published half-life determinations for

those and other nuclides may be attributable in part to differences in solar activity during the course of the

various experiments, or to seasonal variations in fundamental constants.

< ahref= http://arXiv.org/abs/0808.3283>arXiv.0808.3283v1...

http://avxiv.org/Ps_cache/arxiv.pdf/0808/0808.3283v1.pdf

NASA IBEX: INTERSTELLAR BOUNDARY EXPLORER was launched to probe

the outer boundaries of the solar system and the solar wind that spirals around the solar

67
system and carries the sun’s magnetic field with it, setting up a spiral magnetic field which

sends a stream of charged particles around the solar system and shields us from harsh cosmic

radiation. Not much is known about this boundary of our solar system formed by the solar

wind. The solar wind expands and contracts based on the constantly changing speed and

pressure of the solar wind, but what are the affects of this, say, on the production of carbon

14, is not well understood or perhaps not understood at all. Refer back to Svensmark or rather

Cosmoclimatology.

“Because most cosmic rays are [electrically] charged, they are deflected by the

magnetic field of the solar wind [and the magnetic field of the earth]. These dangerous

cosmic rays approach the earth from every direction. For this reason astronomers have not

been able to locate cosmic-ray sources with accuracy, especially as the mechanisms of cosmic

ray production are not yet established.” Grolier.

Lecture Notes:

Any residual carbon 14 activity found in fossilized carbon demands a short age

chronology. Following are a few summation notes from a Paul Giem lecture: According to

long age theories, essentially all fossil carbon should have no carbon 14 in it. Any carbon

found must be explained away as some kind of error.

Further [mass spectrometer] experiments have continued to find carbon 14 in fossil

carbon which should be “dead” according to long-age assumptions.

Long-agers explain [ or rationalize] this persistent problem as

1. Machine error

2. Carbon 14 is being created underground by nuclear synthesis. (This is not

supported by evidence).

68
 3. Contamination with modern carbon

4. Laboratory contamination

5. Residual carbon left over from carbon that use to be there.

The best explanation is that detection of c14 represents residual activity. But Long-

Agers are not about to admit to this.

The data indicate there is residual carbon in fossil carbon. And this indication is

getting stronger with time. Residual carbon requires a short age, and a short age destroys the

standard geological time scale.

Further discussion of radiometric instruments could be explanatory.

The Geiger counter, was the first instrument used for carbon 14 dating and detection

by counting rare disintegrations of carbon 14 atoms. Amplifications of these disintegrations

can be received audibly in earphones or recorded electronically through counting devices. A

new and more accurate but more complex method involves an expensive mass spectrometer

which actually counts individual carbon 14 atoms and gives more accurate totals. The

problem for evolutionists is the mass spectrometer consistently yields dates which are too

low. However, if its conclusions were scientifically accepted, all coal, all petroleum, and all

ancient human remains would be dated less than 5,000 years old. The earliest skeletal

remains in the Western Hemisphere have been dated by this method, and found to be only

about 5,000 years old.

“Several laboratories in the world are now equipped to perform a much improved

dating procedure. Using atomic accelerators, the carbon 14 atoms in a specimen can now be

counted. This gives more precise radiocarbon dates with even smaller specimens. The

standard, but less accurate… [Geiger Counter] only attempts to count the rare disintegrations

69
of carbon 14 atoms, which are sometimes confused with other types of disintegrations. This

new atomic accelerator technique has consistently detected at lest small amounts of carbon 14

in every organic specimen ─ even materials that evolutionists claim are millions of years old,

such as coal. The minimum amount of carbon 14 is so consistent that contamination can

probably be ruled out… Eleven human skeletons, the earliest known human remains in the

Western Hemisphere, have recently been dated by this new accelerator mass spectrometer

technique. All eleven were dated at about 5,000 years or less! If more of the claimed

evolutionary ancestors of man are tested and are also found to contain carbon 14, a major

scientific revolution would occur and thousands of textbooks will become obsolete.” Walter

T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 95. The secret here is how you count ─ by Geiger

counter, or by mass spectrometer: and what is being counted, alleged disintegrations or atoms!

A 70 million year old Mosasaur found in sedimentary marine rock yielded collagen

and DNA carbon dated by mass-spectrometer as only 22,000 radiocarbon years. This is a

giant lizard and not a marine animal as far as anyone knows. But remember, marine animals

appear older than their land bound counterparts and this creature was buried in sedimentary

marine rock? This creature’s marine sedimentary entombment could not have occurred more

than 22,000 years ago! Secondary reference in Science Daily linked to this information in the

original article. But the known properties of DNA declare that these ages are still too old to

be entirely accurate that only a few thousand years for DNA preservation is possible. Here is

a 70 million year purge of evolutionary eons contrasted to about 10-15 thousand years

overstated on the Biblical Flood account as is determinable. If you cannot have the data

100% entirely in favor of the Genesis and Flood accounts, it is remarkable to have the odds so

strikingly and overwhelmingly in favor of those accounts that the fact is all but certified by

70
the evidence. Those kind of odds are clearly acceptable as a theoretical compromise. There

is no way to be certain whether there was no hedging of the published data, as is common in

evolutionary dating as our 70 million year formally alleged specimen proves, to increase the

actual time lapse reported by obviously disappointed evolutionists who would not have

wanted to have given the creationists anything they wanted and were forced to concede eons

and might have been hesitant to report a shorter time frame the author’s wouldn’t be allowed

to publish? But the evidence is headed decisively in the direction supporting an approximate

Flood and Creation date!

“The problem is that when orthodox science discovers a new procedure will topple

major evolutionary foundations, a cover-up occurs. It is likely that the mass spectrometer

technique will never be permitted to be applied to major ancient archaeological or prehistoric

materials, such as ancient hominid bones. To do so would revel their recent age”! The

Evolutionary Handbook. If the old ages are correct, than a different technique should reveal

the same approximate age as has been previously obtained, if not, given the known

inefficiency of disintegration counts, the new ages should be substituted for the old ages.

Doing nothing can only imply a deliberate cover-up that the old ages already obtained are

regarded as potentially inaccurate. Almost certainly, the problems with contradictory ages

and fussing over radiometric dates may be due in some degree or even in a large part to

formally inefficient or improper instruments?

From Chapter 1: Placing those sacred artifacts of evolution under lock and key to

thwart any further investigations into their ages can only be considered suspicious?

“Evidence secreted away in vaults closed to any further scientific scrutiny can not be the

truth. It is presumptively inferred so strongly in law that the release of the information would

71
be so damaging and embarrassing to the spoliators’ theory that its release would not be

favorable to their position. “This suggestion is so strong, forensically speaking, that it is a

rule of presumptive inference in courts of law. The spoliator then bears the burden of proof to

show otherwise.” The burden of proof is against old ages! This is a contemptuous challenge

against those profane evolutionary ages which its defenders cannot now prove! See page 13,

and the chapter on Paleontology & Dinosaur DNA.

Then I came across this internet debate on “LUCY.” I thought Leaky had finally

settled the matter? But if his philosophical kinfolk don’t have anything substantial to present,

they have to nitpick the specimen to pieces and strangle it to get the last gasp of stale air out

of the corpse which doesn’t have lungs to filter it out or any other ephemeral, but remaining

body part.

A Debate between a Creationist (RM) and an Evolutionist (JF)

RM (Creationist)

“Australopithicines like Lucy have their skulls joined to their spines like apes. (The

skull is balanced upright in humans, sloping in apes), they have long curved hands and feet

for grasping branches … and their teeth are those of an ape.

“Show me a fossil that has feet, teeth and skull posture halfway between an ape’s and

a human and I’ll be very interested to see it.”

JF (Evolutionist)

“I should point out that this is a fairly unrealistic requirement. (This is an unexpected

revelation) There isn’t a single fossil hominid older than about 100,000 years old that has all 3

of these parts. There are a handful of fossils that have two of them. Nor would it be expected

that any individual ever existed in which all of these characteristics are ‘halfway’ between

72
apes and humans, (evolution has never happened?) since body parts do not have to evolve at

the same time or rate. Bipedalism occurred before human-like teeth, which occurred before

the rest of the skull became humanlike.”

What is wrong with this answer? I will dissect it for you.

“This is a fairly unrealistic requirement.” Why? If so many missing links have been

found and evolution is clearly illustrated by numerous specimens, remember millions of

fossils have been found, produce just one! Evolution is fairly unrealistic? That’s the

inadvertent, underlying meaning of his remarkable statement.

“There isn’t a single fossil hominid older than about 100,000 years old that has all

three parts.” This could become a jug-saw puzzle. This is a game of what came first or last:

The chicken or the egg. The answer is in the chapter on Mitochondrial Eve. But how does

he know how old anything is considering the uncertainties that assumptions imposed on

radiometric dating and other dating processes.

“There are a handful of fossils that have two of them.” What are the examples:

Nothing is offered.

“Nor would it be expected that any individual ever existed in which all of these

characteristics are ‘halfway’ between apes and humans, since body parts do not have to

evolve at the same time or rate.” He admits, there are no specimens, no missing links have

been discovered ─ this is a revealing confession? He states his proposition: It cannot be

expected, because ─ and then out of this lack of producing any evidence he establishes a rule:

“something that usually or normally happens, or customary course of events”: (Webster)

“body parts do not have to evolve at the same time or rate.” If there are no specimens to

support his claims, it would be absolutely impossible to establish any kind of order of

73
evolutionary processes or that an evolutionary process even took place! So how does he

know in what order things would or would not have evolved if evolving were even possible?

“Bipedalism occurred before human-like teeth, which occurred before the rest of the

skull became human like.” This is another rule: there are no sequences presented from actual

data to establish a rule. How does he know this? This is science fiction writing, not science.

When authorities solve a crime, they gather all the data available than make a

determination based on the evidence, but evolutionists like JF make a decision, then gather

only the evidence which seem to support their assumption, or they commit to a hypothesis

without any suitable evidence at all. Have you ever wondered why authorities catch crooks

and evolutions don’t find missing links? Police are not in the business of solving crimes

using philosophical conjecture like those employed by JF. Believing in an idea with all your

heart because you want to believe in it, is not a scientific notion.

RM argues that “Lucy’s feet are even longer and more curved than a chimpanzee’s.”

So paleoanthroplogists do have custody of her feet, or have they been wrapping individual

body parts in Egyptian fashion and hiding them in a sarcophagus purposely out of public view

as too much revelation would not be helpful to evolution? That sarcophagus apparently is the

London Natural History Museum (RM). The photos of Lucy’s skeletal remains, I have seen,

don’t show her having any feet, except in a few depictions, so are these famous missing parts

the guaranteed genuine article or are they only conjectured polymers or do researchers have

custody of another australopithicines with ape like feet? Trying to catch up with a purported

creationist fact in the slippery hands of evolutionists, is like chasing down a fleeting ghost of

the past. So this possibility comes like the sudden light of an unexpected revelation. And

now that the facts have been exposed and brought to light, it backs up what I was discussing

74
in the first chapter of this book. But the good news which some scientists won’t go ape over

is that Lucy sure appears to be an ape, thanks to Leakey and others and the evidence at hand.

Just when we believed the Lucy dream of evolutionary transfiguration was dead, Lucy

has again been resurrected and recovered by The National Geographic in their February

2009, two pages of illustration: The LEGACY OF AN IDEA. 1960s-1970s. “A series of

fossil discoveries by the Leakey’s, Donald Johnson and others… climaxes in 1974 with the

discovery of the partial skeleton of a 3.2 million-year-old hominid in Ethiopia,” “nicknamed

Lucy.” Some implausible legacies are almost impossible to kill off in print or over the air. I

didn’t think the evolutionists at the National Geographic believed in the resurrection of things

long dead? Perhaps this is a sign of “the end of the age”? The illustration is to a small

degree accurate counting skeletal bones recovered, but the evidence is that it is 100%

inaccurate as to interpretation. Lucy’s feet are still missing in this illustration. Remember,

that in 1990, Richard Leakey himself said that “If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have

to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark.(?) To date, there has been

nothing found to purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy…. If further pressed,

I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man (Italics

supplied) rather than a gradual process of evolving.” Remember, Mary Leakey prior to her

death agreed in principle. The National Geographic is publicly guilty of deception by

disregarding the scientific confessions of the Leakey’s and thereby dismissing the evidence

supporting those confessions! If the National Geographic cannot be held accountable to the

truth, then how can scientists anywhere be trusted when they claim how old an object is or

what is its actual significance in this or any other situation? Repetition is more beneficial to

maintaining a lie than admitting to the confession of facts as more reliable. If there isn’t a

75
new lie to replace an old deception, the current lie is a lies’ only viable defense and salvation

in a troubled time of crisis ─ particularly, when nearly getting caught telling a lie or under

suspicion of having told one! A repetitious denial as a defense of sincerity is highly

convincing and has the satisfaction of being extremely sinful. The reward is escaping a well

deserved punishment of scandal─ for a time, at least. Scandal is the last resort of most

reproofs. True punishment is unmentionable and follows afterwards and is often contained in

the prophecy predicted by earlier misdeeds.

The preceding information on dating methods echoes events apocalyptically similar to

the growing “Global Warming Scam News Flash/ damming evidence uncovered! “A Global

Warming Center” in Britain was hacked and the contents posted on the internet. Does what

these hacked documents and emails reveal have credible implications for the rest of science as

well? I first heard about this incident in mid-November 2009.

Admission from the Global Warming Center: “it was a hacker. We were aware of this

two or three days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of

data files and e-mails.”

“ The documents now have been confirmed as authentic.”

Compare these revelations in the growing Global Warming scandal with the admitted

problems with the Radiocarbon dating method referenced as A, B and C.

“The 1079 emails and 72 documents [ hacked from Britain’s Global warming Center]

seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the prominent scientists [of] the man

made warming theory ─ a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been

adding some of the most astonishing in updates below ─ emails suggesting conspiracy,

collusion in exaggerating warming data [A], possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing

76
information [B], organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions

of flaws in their public claims [B] and much more. If it is as it now seems never again will

‘peer review’ be used to shout down skeptics.”

Radiocarbon dating admissions compared to admissions hacked from Britain’s

Climate Warming Center.

(A) “Exaggerating… data”: Correlation: exponential exaggeration of assumed half-

lives. Mathematics creates too many assumed and artificial constructs that are unprovable.

(B)“Destruction of embarrassing information”: Correlation: “fewer than 50% of the

radiocarbon dates… have been adapted as ‘acceptable,’” “fully half of the dates are rejected.”

(C) “Organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, … admissions of flaws

in their public claims”: Correlation: “The troubles of radiocarbon dating method are deep and

serious.”

Here is what is revealed in the hacked data bases

1. Manipulated data and data distortions

2. Illegal suppression of information.

3. Strategies for propaganda efforts.

4. Tips for getting research funding.

5. Repeated attempts to discredit, ostracize, and deny funding to any AGW skeptic.

6. Coercion of media outlets, particularly, science journals.

7. Bragging of getting favorable scientists into the ‘peer review’ process.

Following are a few of the hacked selections from Britain’s Climate Warming Center

77
emails published on the internet. This Author is not responsible for the accuracy of published

reviews, but the increasing evidence is growing more damming by the moment and is

becoming known as the greatest fraud in scientific literature.

GENERAL SUBJECT LISTINGS

A few of the Personalities Involved

Phil Jones is the head of Britain’s Climate Warming Center in East Anglia.

Briffa is a computer programmer, and apparently is one of the individuals responsible

for questionable computer modeling.

Steve McIntyre was requesting an audit of records of the Global Warming

research center of East Anglia, Britain.

Mann is the originator of the famous and now discredited hockey stick graph.

Manipulation of Data to Conceal Declines in Temperatures

Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and it

is a travesty that they can’t. (1255352257)

Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling

trend showing up in the results. (0939154709)

Phil Jones says he uses Mann’s ‘Nature trick of adding in the real temps to

each series’ to hide the decline. (No number)

Is Man’s defense a conspiracy of lies? “Man says the ‘trick’ referred to in the

e-mails was not an act of deception, but a technique to solve the problem that, because

of pollution and other factors, tree ring dating are no longer reliable for temperatures

78
after 1960.” But I met a Climatologist in the early 2000’s while on a mountain walk,

doing pollution research in one of the most polluted areas in the United States and she

told me pollution didn’t appear to have had any detectable damage on the forest. She

had expected the opposite affect would have occurred, but she said the forest was

healthy. She was from a campus of the University of Southern California.

Replying to Mann’s ‘trick’, “Stephan McIntyre, a Toronta mathematician and

warming skeptic, say’s the ‘trick’ was misleading because it hid what 20th century

temperatures would have looked like with tree ring data alone.” “What the technique

was, was instead of showing the decline, not showing it,” McIntyre said.

“Generally, the rule is, the wider and denser the tree rings, the warmer the year

was.” This comparison also formulates into another contradictory rule, tree “ring

thickness is used as a way to extend the long age” radiocarbon dating “chronology.”

Notice, these two rules are contradictory, as one implies a year and the other extends a

year from the same specimen. If the tree rings showed climate warming which would

support Global Climate Warming as Mann postulates, than why did he hid it?

Obviously, it didn’t support his theory and he even produced an escape clause for not

disclosing it. The cause was pollution interfering with the production of tree ring

growth without providing any evidence pollution interferes with tree ring growth. We

just have to take his word for it? If his evidence was so irrefutable, than why did he

not release it in a timely manner with proof of pollution stunting or speeding up tree

ring growth. It was an excuse not scientifically derived and was not resorted to until

the desperation of needing an excuse. Obvious, his tree ring growth calculations

showed a decline in temperatures and this was a kind of heresy that would have put a

79
whistle blower tied to a fagot like a heretic. This puts to question whether the tree ring

hypothesis can be used reliably with any climate calculations, because there is mostly

circumstantial or invented evidence outside of tree rings of most warming and climate

declines and there is precious little of that gathered as data within modern historical

times, which only adds further to the uncertainty of correlating tree rings to climate

trends and possibly these problems do not intersect with radiocarbon dating! Most of

Mann’s chart with it’s famous hocky stick shaped staff was “deduced from tree rings

from 1000-1980.” The reason Mann became so angry at McIntyre, is McIntyre

successfully discredited Mann’s chart because the chart manipulated data, and didn’t

show actual discrepancies. The last year tree ring data used was 1980. “After 1980,

thermometers were used instead ─ and these are the years which show the greatest

warming.” So are tree ring theories wrong as climate indicators? Worse, this claimed

inaccuracy in tree ring dating extends back to 1960. Did Mann’s tree ring charts

show the technical changes made to the charts? We already know the answer is no!

Almost all climate research has been based on tree ring studies. To pull out these

fundamental underpinnings just when science now has some means to prove their

reliability was critical to determining the accuracy of methodology, theoretical basis,

and all underpinnings of research. Now, no one knows for certain, because either

records were not kept or were deleted, or hidden or manipulated in some fashion?

Even so, 50-100 years of thermometer recordings is entirely incapable of predicting

millennial cycles or changes! So the entire climate warming scenario is a hoax by the

method of determination employed. This raises the question if thermometers had been

around for use during the last thousand years, would they have shown the same

80
contradictions with tree rings and proxies such as ice cores as we, apparently, are

noting today? Of course there are going to be infinite protests and denials, but with

scientists caught with their pants down, a denial is just another hypocrisy of indecent

exposure! An admittance to one thing is an open denial of another, with the reverse

being as true.

Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.

(1139521913)

Prior to ARS, Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of “apparent

unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data.” [This appears

to be the politics leading science to a place of execution] Briffa says it was just as

warm a thousand years ago. (0938018124) Confession?

Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea water surface temperatures in the

context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)

David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for

Global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn’t be done because it confuses people

and because it will make things look warm. (1105019698)

Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the

ocean warming and that might be used by skeptics as evidence for urban heat islands.

“Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical runs with PCM

look as though they match observations ─ but the match is a fluke. PCM has no direct

aerosol and a low climate sensitivity ─ compensating errors. In my (perhaps too

harsh) view, there has been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by

individual authors and by IPCC.” (1255553034)

81
 Mick Kelly writes asking to explain recent lack of warming in public talk…

Kelly says he may also just chop the last few years off the graphic he is preparing.

(1225026120)

Suppression of Data and Information

Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to Freedom of

Information request. (1212063122)

Tom Wigley admits data withholding issue is hot potato, since many “good”

scientists condemn it. (1254756944)

Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with Freedom of Information Law in UK.

Phil Jones says to use IPR argument to hold to code. Says data is covered by

agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them.” (1106338806)

Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try and change the received data on their

alleged refutation of Mcintyre. [Presumably so it can get into AR4] (1189722851)

Jones says that UK climate organizations are coordinating themselves to resist

Freedom of Information. They get advice from the Information Commissioner [!]

(1219239172)

Jones tells Mann he is sending station data. Says if McIntyre request it under

Freedom of Information, he will delete it, rather than hand it over. Says he will hide

behind data protection laws. (1107454306)

Attempts to Suppress Publication of Dissenting Views

82
 Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published skeptic

papers. (104738848?)

Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another

BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely skeptical article. (1255352257)

Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for skeptic papers getting

published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science.

Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says

that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board

to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)

Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc if they enforce

intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met

Soc about new editor of weather and has threatened to resign from RMS.

(1237496573)

Reaction to McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-

in-chief over publication. Mann is concerned about connections to the paper’s editor

James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?] Tom Wigley says that if

Saiers is a skeptic, they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted.

(1106322460) [Note to readers ─ Saiers was subsequently ousted.]

Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.

(10893186160)

Peer Review

83
 Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a skeptic paper. Ask for

help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster

they know what to say about the paper and the [y]? comment without any prompting.

(1249503274)

Disputes, Fraud and other distortions

Wigley says Keenan’s Fraud accusation against Wang is correct.

(11885576689)

Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty

Red, and that they shouldn’t be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty

laundry they don’t want in the hands of those who might distort it. (1059664704)

[Distort it by telling the truth, of course!?]

Funkhouser says he’s pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrigiston

Series. Doesn’t think it is productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than

he has. (0843161829) First he milks, and then he is, apparently, asked to cook.

Tom Wigley tells Mann that figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is

deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a

fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by

authors and IPCC. (1255553024)

Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical

because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress

these against something else like the “increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage”

84
 he produces.

Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try and stop skeptic Sonia Bochmer

Christiansen from using her Hull affiliation. Graham F. Haughton of Hull University

says it is easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired. (1256765544)

Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi’s paper is crap. (1255352257)

Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asked him to send money to

personal bank account so as to avoid Tax, thereby retaining money for research.

Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs

to word things diplomatically. (1140554230)

Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged. (1132094873)

Michael Mann deliberately used a false H-index when nominating Phil Jones

for the AGU. (1213201481)

Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere knowing where the energy

goes or what effect of clouds is. Says geoengineering is impossible. (1255523796)

Agenda

“It was good to see you again yesterday ─ if briefly. One particular thing you said ─

and we agreed ─ was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were

working to the globalization agenda driven by organizations like WTO. So my first question

to you is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything particularly on this

subject, which talks about this in more detail”?

“Oh, its not about the planet getting warmer, but rather is a convenient means of

85
advancing an agenda that has already been pre-determined”?

Other evidence that Global warming is scamming science.

1. The ten hottest years on record started in 1991 2. Sea levels are rising 3. Ice caps

are melting 4. The ‘causal link between man-made warming is well established. None of

this is true!

1. “There is no firm evidence that warming is happening; even if it is, it is most likely

to have natural, not man-made causes; carbon dioxide, supposedly the culprit, makes up such

a tiny fraction of the atmosphere that even if it were to quadruple, the effect on climate would

be negligible.” “If carbon dioxide levels were doubled, only about 1 degree Celsius (or 1.8

degrees Fahrenheit) would be added to so called global warming! Most people thank carbon

dioxide is 70-80% of the atmosphere. Nitrogen accounts for approximately 78% of the total

molecules in the atmosphere, and oxygen represents nearly 21%. But carbon dioxide

constitutes only 0.05% of the total atmospheric gases and has about a 25% effect on warming.

Water vapor and clouds provide about 70%” of the total effect on warming and constitute up

to .4% of the atmosphere. One encyclopedia article states, “The immense quantity of fossil

fuels burned during the World’s rapid industrialization over the last 200 years has raised

(estimated) levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 28 percent” Encarta. That the

increase of carbon dioxide is an estimation is stated by many other sources. There should be a

note of caution made here. There is presently estimated 28% more carbon than is believed to

have existed in the atmosphere prior to the industrial age, but carbon dioxide does not

constitute 28% of the total of atmospheric gases. That amount is only 0.05 summed up as

including a total estimated increase of 28%. Different sources vary slightly. My recent

Encarta encyclopedia states that carbon dioxide constitutes only 0.03% of the atmosphere.

86
Obviously, water vapor is 3 to 4 times more effective in global heating than is carbon dioxide.

Without those other effects of global warming gases, such as water vapor and clouds, life on

earth would be impossible, so we are now saying that what makes life possible may also make

it impossible? Clouds and water vapor constitute far more influential greenhouse effects than

carbon dioxide, and the sun may have the greatest influence on the earth’s weather than any

other source.

Svensmark’s theory of cosmoclimatology has produced the most explanatory

experiments so far. “Variations in electromagnetic activity of the sun and fluctuations in

cosmic ray intensity from space result in the periodic warming and cooling of the earth.” Acts

& Facts, November 2008. Carbon dioxide and water vapor together may be only one of the

primary sources of global warming and cooling of the earth.

2. Sea levels are rising. This claim, it may surprise you, is not based on observable

data? “Like so much of the global warming industry, it is the result of frail computer

modeling using dodgy or incomplete data.” It is an entirely “artificial model construct based

on data fed into the computer drawn from the atypical North Atlantic basin, ignoring the seas

around Australia where levels have remained [ ] static.” Furthermore, “the only bit of the

Antarctic that is breaking up, the Larson ice shelf, which has been causing foaming hysteria

among eco-doomsters, won’t increase sea levels because it has already displaced its own

weight in the sea.”

3. Ice caps are melting. Some are, some aren’t. Some are breaking up, as is normal.

Some are actually expanding, as in the Antarctic where the [over all] ice sheet is growing.

4. The causal link is well established. “Totally false. It is only loudly asserted.

Virtually all the scare stuff comes from computer modeling, which is simply inadequate to

87
factor in all the ─ literally ─ millions of variables that make up climate change.” “Someone

has put into the computer the global warming scenario, and the computer has calculated what

would happen on the bases of that premise. But duh! ─the premise is totally unproven”!

Tagged: Fraud Check. p. 14

Additional observations: “Accurate temperatures measurements [taken] from weather

balloons and satellites since the late 1950’s show no atmospheric warming. In contrast,

average ground-based records [show] a warming of about 0.40 C over the same period. Many

scientists believe that thermometer records [are] biased by Urban Heat Island’ effect and other

artifacts.” An Urban Heat Island effect are warm areas near heating sources.

“Despite the expenditure of 50 billion US dollars, no unambiguous human cause has

been identified in the global temperature pattern.”

“On both normal and geological time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature

precede changes in CO2… Therefore, carbon dioxide cannot be the primary forcing change

for temperature change.”

Another source: “A period of … warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior

to the greatest phase of world industrialization, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and

1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.” Bob

Carter.

Steve McIntyre showed how the “hockey stick’ graph had been fabricated by a

computer model that produced “hockey stick” graphs whatever random data were fed into it.

After 1960, the tree ring data showed a decline, whereas thermometer data showed a warming

trend. A computer program entitled, the “Adjustment Routine!,” [contained these

comments,] “Apply a very artificial correction for decline. And he/or she wasn’t kidding.”

88
This or same other computer program contained this “Important note: The data after 1960

should not be used. The tree ring density records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to

the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. …This decline has been artificially

removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree ring

density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed [thermometer]

temperatures.” Has anyone ever accused these individuals of having rigged an agenda?

“The CUR studies were based on cherry-picking hundreds of Siberian samples only to

leave the ones that showed” climate warming. And [climate warming] was based on evidence

from only “one tree, YADO61, which seemed to show a ‘hockey stick’ pattern.” Does this

selective pattern of deleting or manipulating data sound familiar because it is familiar, “fully

half of the [radiometric] dates are rejected” ─ again, another correlation made by rejecting

contradictory results which don’t support a preconceived paradigm!

The analysis based on my suspicions were also correct: What Jones suggested by

emulating Mann’s ‘trick’ was “that tree ring data after 1960 were, or should be eliminated,

and substituted without explanation with a line based on quite [a] different [set] of data of

measured global temperatures” using data from thermometers to convey that temperatures

after 1960 had climbed drastically!

Another devastating blow was dealt to the CRU’s graphs by an expert known only as

“Lucy Skywalker.” She has cross-checked the actual temperature records for that part of

Siberia, showing that in the past 50 years temperatures have not risen at all.” Here is another

concern based the way temperatures are attained in Antarctica. “Anthony Watts discovers that

the one station used by suppliers of IPCC data to measure warming is [situated] not just in the

small part of the continent that is warming, [the Larson shelf] but in a settlement that’s

89
boomed with new sources of ‘urban’ type heat, from an air strip and a hanger to a cluster of

toasty new buildings.” The evidence for climate warming seems weak and mostly contrived.

The use of thermometers should have been broadly announced as a separate analysis until

there was a lot more data to compare tree ring results as to whether there would have been

analytic implications.

If scientists really can predict what is going to happen to long term global climates,

why is it they can’t get the weather right for the next three days?

Is the entire tree ring data faulty or the thermometers where tree rings indicate cooling

but thermometers indicate warming.? 20- 30- even 50 years or more of thermometer

readings would in no way be anywhere sufficient to establish where endless perpetuity is

headed or has derived. This could destroy the entire chorology which has been devised by

either method. This is a very disconcerting and perhaps unsolvable conundrum for science!

If scientists are caught lying when lying, can they be trusted about anything else they claim

about the reliability of experiments they make? Their resume for believability is a mirage and

evaporates into thin air with little time. It appears modern science is built on a Nomenclature

of deceptions founded on more and more lies and maintained by ever cleverer deceits. If

science evolves by frauds, than it is clearly not science. There is no reason to believe the

corruption discovered at East Anglia or the circumvention of the scientific method is limited

only to that one locale. There is a wide-spread philosophical and moral deficiency and lack of

integrity to truth in the world of science. It is a serious moral crisis which must be dealt with

decisively, or science can not be rationally useful! The reliability of science is entirely based

on integrity to evidence. Data is meaningless without it. Without integrity, there is no

science which can be relied upon and trusted and that will be THE REAL ISSUSE of the 21st

90
century.

If global warming, in spite of all the scientific hype currently involved to promote the

theory, actually occurs on a natural basis, could the artic circle again become tropical? In the

next chapter under the discussion of Wooly Mammoths, evidence supports Mammoths were

true tropical denizens where tens of thousands of remains have been found in artic regions and

about five millions have been estimated to have been in abundance. Creatures such as Saber

Tooth Tigers and crocodiles are found, that’s right, what are crocodiles doing in the Artic?

Imagine seeing a crocodile comfortably nestled in a snow drift, or imagine riding a Camel

across a glacier, animals which are either now extinct, or are no longer native to the artic

circle in places like Siberia, where once they were in abundance and live in entirely different

climes today. Were they swept into the artic by a world-wide cataclysm beyond human

comprehension. Some of the mammoths were preserved standing up with undigested food

still in their stomachs. Than could they have been swept in encased in icy glaciers, or was

this a related or later disaster to a world wide flood? I joke later on, that the only evidence for

summer in the artic are fossilized crocodiles, and it may be a sign of a year long Artic summer

with a different polar tilt. It appears it was not global warming which brought about these

creatures demise. Global Warmth set the ideal conditions of a once warm artic and these

creatures were enjoying its tropical bliss when a sudden, unexpected, instantaneous freeze up

of 300-400 degrees below zero brought about their sudden demise in a subzero, artic Sodom

and Gomorrah disaster.

“The burning of fossil fuels suggest that global temperatures could rise some 2 degrees

to 6 degrees Celsius (about 4 degrees to 11 degrees F) by early in the 20th century.” Encarta.

According to this greenhouse scenario, this may melt more of the polar ice caps and flood low

91
lying coastlines, but it won’t turn the artic into a tropical or subtropical paradise as it once

may have been? But would a rise in carbon dioxide create an inescapable doomsday scenario,

or could it be a cause for, at least, guarded optimism? Certainly there must be some price to

pay, but it would produce a nearly biological paradise for plants. Carbon dioxide is one of the

things plants love most like most people love warm apple pie and oxygen. Plants breath

carbon dioxide like we breath oxygen, and carbon dioxide is mandatory to plant existence.

The “evidence suggest that hindering world-wide economic growth for a slight growth in

global temperatures is unlikely to make earth more habitable for life in general. In fact, it

would probably have the opposite effect, by making it much less hospitable for civilization.

We agree with Peter Huber [Hard Green: Saving the environment from the Environmentalists,

A Conservative Manifesto (New York: Basic Books, 1999)] that a healthy economy leads to

a healthy environment. In addition, there is huge (and rapidly growing) volume of published

material demonstrating the many benefits to the biosphere and to civilization of elevated

carbon dioxide levels. For review of this topic, see C. D. Idso, “Earth’s Rising Atmospheric

CO² Concentration: Impacts on the Biosphere,” Energy & Environment 12 (2001): 287-310.

The increased plant growth resulting from higher carbon dioxide levels will greatly aid in

food production in the coming century as population grows. The overall climate would also

be more hospitable. For example, the growing season in cold latitudes would be

lengthened…evaporation and precipitation would increase, probably resulting in more rainfall

throughout the world and more snowfall in artic regions.” Would giant Alaskan gourds grow

into larger goliaths? And fruit will not hang like late apples slightly shriveled up like a tart

reproof to theft. But there goes any usefulness of my beloved artic where I don’t want to

vacation unless it warms up considerably. I wanted to outfit a crocodile with a saddle and

92
snow shoes and take a tour of polar Bears and artic foxes. I figure the cold would

substantially subdue his generally belligerent and disagreeable nature and we both could have

a good time. First, I will have to find a warm and complacent crocodile willing to go along

with my scheme with a promise of summer approaching while not tripping into his mouth.

Obviously, “there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long term climate

trends.” Claims that there is a consensus are entirely misleading.

“The IPCC , bases its reports largely on the data and charts supplied by research

scientists at CRU [which is closely associated with East Anglia] ─ largely from tree ring

dating gathered by [individuals] who just happen to be editors and lead authors of that same

UN panel.”

Placing various types of plants in a strictly controlled, enclosed and engineered

environments and growing and producing in various levels of carbon dioxide, should provide

at lest tentative answers to some of these disagreements. And I expect somewhere this has

already been done or is being done. But have they told the truth, or lied about their results, or

remained silent which is another form of lying or professional cowardliness in the face of

coercive discord.

It looks as though all hell has broke loose and is creating a new sort of climate

warming with the ramifications of scientific hype and discord! Science is developing into one

huge, calculated uncertainty of classic hypothesized ifs. This is the triumph of scientific

reductionism, not the scientific method of a the modern age?

The EPA determined … “that scientific evidence clearly shows greenhouse gases

[carbon dioxide, water vapor and clouds] are endangering American’s health and must be

regulated.” This puts a whole new light on storms and ‘regulating’ them. I came from the

93
East Coast where the weather [is not regulated and] is part of the entertainment. Here in

southern California, the boring and depressive sameness of the climate [due to regulation?]

has a tendency to lure one into a fundamental disregard of an expectation of sudden disaster.

And this makes California one of the most dangerous places on earth. If you find danger

entertaining, than you are almost guaranteed not to get bored before you get killed by a

landslide, fire, or earth quake in California.

The EPA’s official statement gave Obama a new way to regulate these gases

[including water vapor and clouds?] without needing the approval of the US Congress. We

won’t have to turn to the Congressional weather channel to get our news of another storm on

the horizon and find out weather it has Congress’s official approval or not. Is this an attempt

to side-step duly elected, constituted government authority and put none-elected, and even

foreign officials into power ? You are delusional if you think the EPA is going to regulate

claims if they do not regulate fraud, which has been overwhelmingly demonstrated and

officially sanctioned by inaction, or misappropriation of concerns. This entire scenario is

both a power grab, and a science gap. The EPA’s assurances are based on fraud, smoke and

mirrors ─ like phantoms dispersed in shadows of nothing! All based on a scenario some

imagine, perhaps, correctly, the EPA is planning to join hands with both Euro-Asiatic power

brokers at the helm in Copenhagen and build “a world-government exercising powers so

enormous, they exceed any possessed by any government in existence.” Could this kind of

collective produce the next world dictator, and is aimed, I would reckon, at eventually

destroying our national and world-wide economies and democracy so poorer nations and

unsuccessful tyrannies where wars and contentious unrest can take over world domination ─

another Babel for modern proverbs and to thwart prophecy which declares they “shall not

94
cleave one to another”! The Prophet Daniel.

Is the EPA an institution for raving fanatics who rule without answering to the

governed? They act as though they would govern by a twisted, overbearing sense of destiny

undergirded by a fabricated dooms day scenario stemming the rip currents of a non-

democratic entity. Nothing is seemingly more important in science, than an artificial truth

concocted out of lies amidst shrills of dissent into a seemingly delicate framework of non

sequiturs more fragile than a falling house of cards, and then, you are forced to swear

allegiance to the debacle, while the official office of dooms day climate scenarios denies it is

an asylum for fanatics and lunatics beyond recall. This impels a definition of fanaticism

emphasized by a fanaticism of errors!

A fanatic is incapable of changing his mind when the facts of the case have changed.

However, fanaticism is hardly criminal until someone thinks lying is permissible to prove

something. Sources concerning this scandal: the internet; and House Representative, Joe

Barton.

The various sources I have and will use in this context are innocent of the line of

sarcasm I have adapted throughout this work, but I have had enough of sick and sadistic

minds controlling science while the rest of us are being force fed to consume it almost daily

against our will. Evolution is destroying American science, and leading it hand in hand down

the road of destruction to some secret killing place where it will not need to politely betray

our Country and its Constitution to its enemies. It is not stretching the Bill of Rights beyond

its restraints to argue you should not deny some men the right to remain silent. Lying does

not engender Constitutional protections for deception or deviant behavior. If a liar cannot

otherwise resist the temptation, he would better remain silent so everyone will believe he is an

95
honest man ─ but that also implies another deception. A liar who keeps his mouth shut is

rarely betrayed by his silence. That is before hackers came into the world. Someday, some

madman is going to hack the human brain and none of us will have a thought left to ourselves.

Certainty the majority is not always right ─ even in science. One individual argued

with me that a majority of scientists support the (theoretical industrial cause of) global

warming. He also said the internet scandal was contrived and proven a fraud? This was

incredible news to me. Have any of us heard this convenient excuse to shut the argument

down? According to him, a majority consensus constitutes a correct viewpoint. But does it?

The 2009 Copenhagen Global Warming Treaty collapsed in great part due to a lack of a

world-wide consensus about the theory of global warming. For millenniums the majority of

human beings believed the sun revolved around the earth. That however, did not compel the

heavens to behave in such a manner. But I have taken this gentleman’s doubts seriously and

taken his part that the scandal itself was proven a plot with an Agenda. Fair to say, besides

climate warming or lack of, pollution is a subject sufficient on its own. I knew there would

be investigations into the email scandal, but I had not gotten back into finding out what was

the outcome! Dare to say, the outcome is still far from settled. The last date I was able to

assertion of an article describing the pros and cons of the investigation of this matter

concerning the scandal was a modification date on December 23, 2010, therefore the

information is currently up to date. The 22 page article, of which 14 pages are actual

commentary, the rest are supporting notes, is from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The title

of the article I am critiquing is, Climatic Research Unit email controversy The actual 160

page inquiry report can be found on the internet and appears professionally done, or, possibly,

professionally slicked over as many charge.

96
 Since the gentleman I had disagreed with believed that a consensus had settled the

matter in the climate warming supporters favor, and that a consensus implies the correct

viewpoint, my critique begins with the Independent Climate Change Email Review. “In July

2010, the British investigation commissioned by the [University of East Anglia], chaired by

Sir Muir Russell, and announced in December 2009, published its final report saying it had

exonerated the scientists of manipulating their research to support preconceived ideas about

global warming….The panel found they did not subvert the peer review process to censor

criticism as alleged, and that the data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available

to any ‘Competent’ researcher.” The resolution that the data needed to reproduce their

findings was freely available, is a competent defense, limiting it only to perceived

‘Competent’ researchers may be an excuse clause to suppress information and when the

quarry for information was eventually supplied, was it an exact facsimile of that employed in

the investigation or in actual summation and description of research or was the supplied

information slanted in such a way as to be intentionally misleading or lacked some crucial

factual support, appears to have never been adequately investigated.

Concern 1. The panel commissioned and lead by Muir Russell was set up by the same

University of East Anglia which was under investigation. This gives an overture of self-

examination and approximation of direct affiliation which could be a set up.

Concern 2. Muir Russell was a former University Principle at Glasgow [as I recall],

and has served in other University positions. This qualifies him to handle challenging

situations in a University, but it may have restrained open-minded independence from a

university environment and influences, and predisposed him, as well as his panel to smooth

things over to save the reputation of the university at the expense of getting at the truth of the

97
matter. This becomes a distinct possibility and a conflict of interest given one of the

accusations of the Peer Review Process ─ “That there is a list of people [who] know what to

say about [an inquiry, in this case?] and they comment without prompting.” Jones. A self-

fulfilled prophecy of the results of self-examination protecting the home base. Is a burglar or

a robber allowed to pick his own jury ─ never, but in principle, it can be hypothesized to have

been done here? I am not saying strictly anyone is necessarily culpable by association, but it

should have triggered greater concern that improper conduct might be quietly acquitted with

false pretenses to propriety made, and a call for greater independence for an inquiry should

have been uncompromisingly demanded. A result; none of the dissidents such as McIntyre

were interviewed ─ an obvious and, perhaps, deliberate oversight. Was Sir Muir Russell,

entirely free of “political correctness”? What are his leanings, political, philosophical, and

scientific and of those who made up of his panel, or do they have no leanings at all?

Indifference to sides demands an all but impossible person to find these days and extreme

ignorance of the issues at stake would also be necessary and not likely of someone who has

been a University president or of the other likely panel participants. It can almost be safely

assumed they were on the side they were investigating. It is all but impossible not to

rationalize one’s own biases if those biases supported the global warming scenario? A

philosophical or personal relationship too close to the defendants maybe the same as self-

justification. Criticisms on the internet brought out: “Russell’s leadership was further called

into question when it emerged that the university was under investigation by its main backer,

the Scottish Funding Council, for imposing so called “gagging orders” upon staff. The

practice, widely seen as incompatible with academic freedom, was suspected of possibly

being an attempt to silence whistle-blowers.” Other words, did this second investigation so

98
seriously threaten the financial funding of the University, that the motive to cover up

questionable behavior can be legitimately called into question as an attempt at all costs to save

the Universities’ financial solvency? As a result, how prone to fairness was the investigative

panel and were their conclusions thoroughly and impartial drawn or tainted by the influences

and difficult realities of this additional inquiry in such a jarring context.

What prompted the funding investigation, was it Sir Russell’s investigation, was it the

email scandal or previous conditions at the University, is not clear, but its potential influence

on the panel’s decision making is severely implicated as well as how much influence did Sir

Russell’s own investigation have on the funding investigation ─ a troubling matter, indeed?

In the findings, “The panel did rebuke the [Climate Research Unit] for the reluctance

[a cover-up word for refusal?] to release computer files, and found that a graph produced in

1999 was ‘misleading,’ though not deliberately so as necessary caveats had been included in

the accompanying text. It found evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to

make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them, though the panel did

not ask anyone at CRU whether they had actually done this. In spite of the fact, that the panel

spent 15 people days at the UEA carrying out interviews with scientists and didn’t ask any of

them at least one of the most important questions as to whether they had deleted emails. Than

did all this time spent together engender a conspiracy to conceal the facts of the situation?

Omissions can be as strange as admissions at times. Are omissions silent confessions of

wrong doing? The Independent Information Commissioners Office pointed out the emails

revealed that the freedom of information requests were ‘not dealt with as they should have

been under the legislation’ but that they could not prosecute due to the statute of limitations.

This gave the accused a scrubbed up look, and a new lease on life, but not a complete

99
validation even in the report of the inquiry. And would the defendants, so to speak, have

admitted to deleting emails knowing the consequences of such action? But why weren’t they

asked to at least have given the inquiry an appearance of having tried to have gotten at the

truth? The answer could be the evidence was already too strong and leaving that evidence

somewhat ambiguous helped in not bringing in a more negative verdict of questionable

procedures at the CRU ─ a decisive conclusion avoided by the statute of limitations. That

“the necessary caveats had been included in the accompany text” provides a partially rational

defense of only carelessness, although one wonders why they weren’t included in the graph as

an overall more relational, or unifying explanation with the text? Does this somewhat

disjointed explanatory procedure pervade other presentations of the CRU. This suggest some

carelessness in logic if defiance of the Freedom of Information Law was not the intent at that

particular reference. And what motives engender defying the law? What were they trying to

hide if this occurred? And is the present draft a precise facsimile of the one which was

disputed over in the emails? There were many pro and con statements concerning the fairness

and accuracy of the inquiry, leaving the investigation nearly as unsettled as the original source

of the dispute. Patrick J. Micheals who was criticized in the e-mails and who has long faulted

evidence pointing to human-driven warming said, “This is not a smoking gun; this is a

mushroom cloud.” He said that some e-mails showed an effort to block the release of data for

independent review, and that some messages discussed discrediting him by stating that he

knew his research was wrong in his doctrinal dissertation. “This shows these people are

willing to bend rules and go after other people’s reputations in very serious ways.” Hans von

Storch said, that the University of East Anglia had violated a fundamental principle of

science” by refusing to share data with other researchers. “They play science as a power

100
game,” he said. All this brings some of the charges against the CRU closer to home and

more realistic to imagine.

The explanation for the poor quality of one of the computer codes “below the standard

you would expect in any commercial code…was entirely pedagogical and was not used for

any research or analysis associated with the scientific publications showing the existence of

global warming,” sounds somewhat reasonable as an excuse but it also remains a strange

explanation and is supported by the testimony of only one individual as to why they didn’t

employ more accurately comparable and less “sloppy” teaching software if the software was

used only for that purpose? Some of the descriptions in the emails sound like the

determinations of actual research and actual conditions or bungled calculations? These

statements are not individually denied, they are flatly denied inclusively by the proceeding

admittance, which leaves far too much unexplained and therefore unacceptable.

Are there problems with Peer Review?

Following is an argument that peer review requirements are a First Amendment

abridgment in the United States.

The panel chaired by Sir Muir Russell concluded that the researchers at CRU “did not

subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged.” This may be a philosophical

white wash. Peer review infringements are a constant complaint in all areas where there is

strong disagreement, particularly in the biological sciences. Can peer review be subversive?

Its very requirements make subversion of conflicting ideas nearly impossible to avoid? In

fact, peer review is an effective way to control the opposition. The disagreements cover a

considerable range of scientific subjects and interpretations, and many of these complaints

are, indeed, legitimate and here is an important analysis of the problem quoting Mr. Meyer in

101
the latter part of the chapter entitled in my book, The Dover, Pennsylvania Trial.

As Mr. Meyer points out, “Clearly, there is no magic number of supporting peer-

reviewed publications that suddenly confer the adjective ‘scientific’ on a theory… if there

were a hard and fast numerical standard as low as even one, no new theory could ever achieve

scientific status. Each new theory would face an impossible catch-22; for a new theory to be

considered ‘scientific’ it must have appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, but

anytime a scientist submitted an article to a peer-reviewed science journal advocating a new

theory, it would have to be rejected as ‘unscientific’ on the grounds that no other peer-

reviewed scientific publications existed supporting the new theory,” for all intents and

purposes, this requirement would put and end to science as an investigative discovery engine.

The equivalent to this is a pharisaic-like, but irrational demand to keep repeating that a white

shirt is black, is black, is black. This effectively eliminates creativity and originality which

once were upheld as an ideal in western culture. Only monopolies and totalitarianisms

demand censorship of speech and the press, an infringement which expressly violates our own

US Constitution’s First Amendment rights.

Media reception

A New York Times Editorial referred to climategate as a “manufactured controversy.”

With carbon dioxide less than .5% of the total atmospheric gases, any argument

supporting the likelihood of Global warming, may be “straining at a gnat, and swallowing a

camel.”

A Wall Street Journal editorial criticized the Muir Russell study as “a 160 page

evasion of the real issues.” The newspaper said that “the review assumes the validity of the

global warming ‘consensus’ while purporting to reaffirm that consensus. Since a statement

102
cannot prove itself, the review merely demonstrates a weakness for circular logic.” The first

clue that something is wrong, is the claim that everyone supports it! The Economist said “…

the recent inquires raise important issues about how to do science in such an argumentative

area and under new levels of scrutiny, especially from a largely hostile and sometimes expert

blogosphere.” Critics and supporters are on opposite sides of the track. They are not on both

tracks together, although a few were trying ineffectively.

Throughout the article, there was overall agreement that there was a failure to fully

comply with the Freedom of information act and emails may have been deleted in order to

make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them. But that was only

punished by solacing words as the statue of limitations had expired. The Information

Commissioner’s Office stated the emails revealed the freedom of information act requests

were ‘not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation’ but that they could not

prosecute due to the statute of limitations. But according to what may have been a pseudo-

in-fact investigation, the emails did not reveal much of anything else, this seems troublesome

as it seems most likely doubtful as the emails appear to be legitimate conversations? It was

charged that the controversy focused on a small number of emails, cherry picked phrases,

including one in which Kevin Trenberth stated, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack

of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” were actually part of a

discussion on the need for better monitoring of energy flows involved in short-term climate

variability.’” Still, “ we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment” possibly,

because we are momentarily stumped, or moments may become trends into longer expanses

of time, is not entirely explained by the supposed explanation? The alleged subject matter

only exposed and supported the possible causes of a problem alluded to by Kevin Trenberth

103
and what may have been needed, or may still be needed to be done about understanding a

crisis in theory if anything can be done. “Climate variability” is claimed to have been the

subject discussed, and could easily cause statistical uncertainty or a lack of clear evidence for

a supported scenario leading to a justification for the statement. This is hardly cherry picking

so as to distort what was meant by the original quoted material. And how do you take a word

or a phrase, or a statement and add the context back in, so as to say what was never said or

was only true in the first place? But that wasn’t even done here. An explanation which left

more unexplained than explained was the explanation of circular reasoning. “The controversy

focused on a small number of emails.” One bad apple can spoil an entire bushel.

The IPCC is receiving considerable flack for its performance, as well.

The Climate Study Center in East Anglia is a small university department and has only

4,000 thermometers around the globe. However, critics argue that the Atmosphere is so huge

that the fact being neglected is there are literally millions of variables which influence global

weather, and what governs the weather has been over politicized by scientists. Consider, for

instance, this statistic: The sun produces in 40 minutes enough energy to supply the earth’s

energy needs for one year. Al Gore.

The Muir Russell investigation appears to have left the controversy as unsettled as the

original email debacle. Openness and honesty and fair play are equal partners to science. At

this point, no one has enough convincing evidence on either side of the climate issue to be so

self-assured and arrogant, as to be dogmatic. I am presenting the current issue as what are the

difficulties to be surmounted by either side. Many more decades of extensive research are

needed if a definitive answer can ever be obtained.

104
 CATASTROPHISM

A theory is a preconceived bias that distorts data.

A theory can sicken with advances in age as does the human organism, and time can

run out of control. “Charles Lyell’s first volume (1830) of Principles of Geology contained a

vigorous indictment of Catastrophe. Lyell argued that geological phenomena were explicable

in terms of contemporary time, a concept termed Uniformitarianism.” Grolier Encyclopedia.

Before the time of Lyell, catastrophists were much more empirically minded. The

geological record does seem to require catastrophism, as rocks and strata were fractured and

contorted; entire faunas and species had been wiped out in the fossil record, and mountain

ranges such as the Himalayas have been hurled upwards bringing along the sea beds out of

which they may have arisen or where marine organisms were later deposited by flood waters?

(The upper 4,000 feet of Mt. Everest is composed of marine fossil sediments). Global

fossilization and immense cool beds and oil reserves exist thousands of feet below the earth’s

surface, [ Oil reserves are known to be as deep as 32,000 feet in the Gulf of Mexico [Chevron

Oil] a gigantic scale which can not be duplicated by any present geological and biological

activity. Some theorize the continents may have been split asunder and driven apart by

gigantic forces beyond anything ever observed and older strata piled on top of younger strata?

If all the forests and bio-mass in the world today were buried, they could not form all the coal

and oil and soft clays hidden in the earth. The estimate is that the biomass buried in the earth

would have exceeded present levels on the earth by 100 times (some estimates are as high as

500 times)! The world changed dramatically and catastrophically some time in the past.

By applying uniformitarianism as the current rate of erosion calculated as the

105
reduction or the present erosion speed of the continents, (based on 12 global studies) the

continents would have eroded away in 14 million years or five times if the dinosaurs are

70,000,000 years old and no fossil containing strata would remain! Other words, the current

erosion rate exceeds uplift in spite of assumed Continental Subduction to the extent no

continents would be left if so much time has transpired according to theoretical evolutionary

time scales? It appears we have not gone through even one complete cycle of erosion of the

continents, or the geological column along with the fossil record could not have been

preserved. Present rates of erosion are so rapid they raise questions about long ages. The

Yellow river in China would erode to sea level an area the height of Mt. Everest in 10 million

years. Dott Batton in “Evolution of the Earth, finds there are only 400 hundred meters of

sediments in the oceans instead of the 30,000 metric thick layer that would be expected if the

earth were tens of millions of years old. River deltas around the world are relatively small

compared to what would be expected to have developed over very long time periods. If the

world is 2. 5 billion years old, the continents would have eroded to sea level nearly 250 times,

and there should be 74 times more volcanic material as to what is found on the present surface

of the earth. These studies put the rate of erosion and uplift at definite loggerheads with

radiometric dating.

“Mechanisms of plate movement remain a subject of intense geophysical research,

however, and the continental-drift aspect of plate movement continues to be controversial.

Some researchers, for example, point out that studies indicating the depth of continental roots

in the mantle rule out any simple linkage between plate activity and the actual form and

movement of the continental bodies.” Plate Tectonics: Grolier Encyclopedia. There is 1800

miles of solid rock underneath the crust, implying the continental roots have incredible

106
rigidity and depth.

The Ice Age is believed to have advanced as far south as Kansas City, Missouri.

Kansas City is approximately 2500 miles from the Artic Circle and about 4500 miles from the

North Pole. A vast inter-continental Ice sheet is claimed to have covered much of the North

American Continent, as well as the Antarctic, Europe and Siberia ─ melted and flowed into

the sea millenniums ago, and this would have dramatically raised sea levels? Before the Ice

Age melted, if oceans levels were two to three hundred feet below present shore lines, with

vast volumes of water held in ice sheets on land, there could have been a thousand mile wide

land bridge connecting North America to Siberia, one could have walked from present day

England to Europe, and from Asia to Australia, the figuration of the continents would have

reshaped themselves nearly unrecognizably from their present configurations on maps as we

see them today so they would not seem to have fitted together like an imagined piece from a

jig saw puzzle, conceivably challenging the theory of plate-tectonics or continental drift. Ice

melting from the continents raise sea levels more than melting ice overlaying water which

displaces only its own weight and depth in the oceans. However, plate-tectonics has credible

proponents as well. The complete breakup and rearrangement of the earth’s surface can be

attributed to the vast evidence of a world-wide cataclysm?

How quickly could these continental sheets of ice have vanished? “What might be the

most notable long-term shrinkage has occurred at Glacier Bay,” Alaska. “When Russian

explorers arrived in Alaska in the 1740s, there was no Glacier Bay. There was simply a wall

of ice across the north side of Icy Strait.

“That ice retreated to form a bay into what is now known as the Muir Glacier. And

from the 1800s until now, the Muir Glacier [has continued to retreat]. It is now back 57 miles

107
from the entrance to the bay…. Overall,… Alaska has lost 10,000 to 12,000 square kilometers

of ice in two centuries, and area nearly the size of Connecticut.” The PRESS-ENTERPRISE,

November 9, 2008

Today, one can travel 57 miles before arriving at the base of the glacier, but Muir

Glacier is thousands of miles from Kansas City. Some sources claim the ice age extended

almost to the equator. Most of that once extensive ice shield covering much of North

America and Europe may have disappeared in a few millenniums before man’s activities or

the modern Industrial Age could have had any significant influence on alleged Global

Warming. If you are a Creationist, you might argue global weather has been slowly

equalizing after the Great world-wide flood and global warming and global cooling may not

even exist, or be due to man’s activities?

“Enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100

percent of the world’s energy needs for a year.” Al Gore. It makes one pause to reflect how

man’s puny efforts could do much to affect global warming. When every 40 minutes, a year

of human production is matched by the sun! Knowing, however, that human activities

releases carcinogens and other toxins into the atmosphere, cleaner methods of energy such as

hydrogen and electrical or atomic energy should be further explored and developed because

carbon based energy sources: such as coal and oil will be eventually exhausted.

“Recently the acceptance of uniformitarianism has been significantly challenged with

a shift back to the former acceptance of catastrophe. “The data from the rocks themselves

have demanded a reinterpretation. The concept of a slow, constant rate of change is being

challenged at many levels of geological interpretation, and catastrophe is being considered as

important geological agents.” Note the following authoritive statements, which highlight this

108
recent shift in thought.

“W. B. Brown, Geology. ‘Of late there has been a serious rejuvenation of

catastrophism in Geological thought.’

“Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record. ‘The hurricane, the flood,

or the tsunami may do more in an hour or a day than the ordinary process of nature have

achieved in a thousand years.’”

The eruption in 1980 of Mt. Saint Helens has become a prime example of catastrophe,

and yet it was only a very minor event in comparative geological events. There has been a

lot of investigations into this disaster, and its challenging findings to uniformitarianism are

now well established.

“Erle Hauffman, in Roger Lewin, Science, ‘It is a great philosophical breakthrough for

geologists to accept catastrophe as a normal part of earth’s history.’”

But can this recovery of old ground be haled as a great scientific breakthrough when in

the early 1800’s geological catastrophe was the accepted norm? This is a scandalous debacle

with the patient regressing back to good health that science must recover to where it once left

off nearly two centuries ago when catastrophe was the accepted scientific explanation for a lot

of the geological phenomena we see around us today. Has too much learning turned science

to a raving lunatic which is only slowly recovering from its lingering death-defying illness?

Has the arrogance of too much learning driven science into the mindless intractability of static

dogma and to the brinkmanship of careless reasoning ─ that before uniformitarianism came

into vogue there was a true renaissance in learning before the pseudo-science of

uniformitarianism axed the tree of providence and science tripped backwards instead of

forward! The great clock of scientific advancement will have to be reset, leaving a gap in

109
human discovery and knowledge which could have been a triumph of human history now

irrecoverable and lost forever to the advancement of knowledge. This has been a great

disaster for science in that it had strayed from the straight and narrow of the empirical

evidence for over a hundred and fifty years only to reject uniformitarianism which it had more

recently accepted!

Dr. Roth writes: “Hutten and Lyell so thoroughly established the concept of (slow)

geological change over long periods of time that major catastrophes were completely ignored

for more than a century. The effect that this strict uniformitarian conditioning has had on the

matrix of geology as a whole cannot be easily evaluated, but it is unquestionably

considerable. The pattern of strict adherence to accepted ideas raises sobering questions

regarding the validity of other dominate ideas in science to say nothing of human activity as a

whole.”

And what is the evidence which has caused science to reevaluate this juggernaut in its

thinking? The following is from Ariel Roth’s article on the Geoscience web site? “A few

examples of catastrophic activity illustrate how rapidly such action can occur. In 1976, the

great Teton Dam in Idaho gave way, and in less than two hours the water had cut down

through 300 ft of the earthen dam. In 1959, an earthquake in the Madison River Canyon in

Southern Montana loosened material from as high as 1,000 ft above the canyon floor, forming

a huge landslide that traveled with such momentum across the canyon that it rode 400 ft up

the opposite side. Scientists estimate that the slide was traveling about 100 mi/hr and that the

whole process occurred in less than three minutes. Unfortunately, 19 campers were buried

beneath the slide.”

“In 1929, the Grand Banks earthquake near Newfoundland loosened some mud on the

110
edge of the Continental Shelf. Within 14 hrs that mud had traveled 500 mi into the North

Atlantic and deposited a new 2-4 ft-thick layer of sediment over 40,000 square miles of ocean

bottom. It is estimated that the mudflow traveled 55mi/hr and, interestingly, ran into the hull

of the Titanic, which had sunk in this region on its maiden voyage in 1912.

“Tens of thousands of layers of sediment that scientists originally considered to have

been deposited very slowly in shallow seas is now interrupted as having been deposited very

rapidly in special underwater mud flows, called turbidites. A number of so-called reefs,

composed of the skeletons of marine organisms that were thought to require many hundreds

to thousands of years to form are now considered to be the result of rapid debris flows.” Roth.

Before recorded history, did an overwhelming catastrophe rearrange the earth’s crust

and change the climate? And could the affects of such an overwhelming calamity have taken

numerous centuries for climate equilibrium to be re-established? Could there have been

other subsequent disasters as a result of a great world-wide flood, or in concert with it?

Fossils are found mostly in strata one mile thick encircling the earth and corresponds to the

environments which similar kinds of creatures inhabit in the present some argue? In contrast

to 19th Century theories of the geological column, what are marine fossils doing in the upper

four thousand feet of strata at the top of Mt. Everest where they clearly do not belong? An

exhausted clam clearly out of his watery environment would have to climb a tortuous trail up

one of the sheerest and most vertical peaks in the world to make the summit just for the

privilege to be fossilized, while numerous unlucky explorers have died climbing the Mountain

and were dully rewarded with their names published in forgotten obituaries and dusty journals

and by circumstance avoided being fossilized into monuments and statues like Lot’s foolish

wife, and thus barely escaped the everlasting consternation of fools like themselves. The

111
story of the clams share some inexplicable and almost other worldly catastrophe is undeniably

obvious. And if they could tell of their strange baptism out of water into the heights of the

heavens, they would tell of circumstances out of their power to avert. It was a sheer roller-

coaster ride all the way to the heightened peak of experience. But some inscrutable humans

will make the same climb into disastrous fame just for the challenge, in spite of a nearly

unavoidable fate.

Why did the mammoths and the mastodons die off in a mass extinction, has remained

a mystery? Even two thousand years ago the Romans dug out tusks in Siberia, referring to

their treasure as the “Ivory Mines.” It has been estimated as many as five million mammoths

perished all at one time in Siberia. How can such a massive extinction be explained? Could

this disaster have occurred shortly after the flood when the population of animals may have

quickly replenished themselves? In the ant-artic, Admiral Byrd described seeing palm trees

under clear patches of ice, but today there are no trees for thousands of square miles. Were

the North and South poles in pre-history tropical or Mediterranean-like paradises? Than how

could these now severe climates have changed in only a few, short hours as nearly

instantaneous events? That could be what the evidence suggest. The day of catastrophe

begin like any other tropical day in the far North. Hundreds of thousands of mammoths, and

perhaps millions more were eating contentedly when an unseasonable, continental blizzard

swept in and within a few hours or less the artic had frozen up solid and the temperature had

fallen to one hundred to two hundred and fifty degrees below zero and continued dropping

rapidly. In a very short time the temperature had plunged to three hundred degrees lower

than the highest temperature earlier that day, and then three-hundred degrees below zero and

continuing to drop with deadly, almost lightening speed. Could this have ever happened, you

112
might wonder? Such a sudden, drastic drop in temperature would be required to freeze a

huge mammoth rock solid in only a few, short hours. One would expect the long fury hair of

the mammoths would have protected them to some degree from a sudden and unseasonable

artic blast? But not if temperatures dropped this low and so suddenly. Unfortunately, for the

Mammoths, long, thick hair doesn’t necessarily mean an animal is suited for either hot or cold

weather. Mammoth skin, it has been discovered, didn’t have sebaceous glands which would

have coated their hair with protective oil. Without sebaceous glands, an animal’s hair will

freeze rapidly to its skin. Mammoths weren’t designed for cold weather, instead they were

tropical creatures living in a tropical climate at or near what today we call the North Pole

when a catastrophic world-wide shift in the climate occurred in only a few short hours.

A few of the Siberian mammoths got stuck in snow-drifts and frozen solid so rapidly

they were found standing up with undigested food in their stomachs and grass still in their

mouths? Even after death, stomach acid keeps on working and dissolves food in three to five

hours. They would have had to been frozen solid in less time than it would have taken for the

food in their stomachs to digest. The secret to their sudden demise seems to have been

hidden in the very tiny ice crystals found in their blood, indicating they had suffocated and

had been frozen almost instantly. How cold would it have to get to freeze a huge mammoth

in less than 3-5 hours. The temperature would have had to have dropped to at least 300

hundred degrees below zero or colder in order to freeze an animal as huge as a mammoth rock

solid that quickly, while the animal was still standing up, with undigested food still in its

stomach. However, the coldest temperature ever recorded on earth was a mere 128 degrees

below zero in comparison at Mt. Washington in New Hampshire in the United States – not

anywhere near cold enough to freeze a mammoth quickly enough to accomplish such an

113
astonishing feat. Maybe this explains why no frozen mammoths have ever been found on

Mount Washington?

Than how is such a catastrophe explainable? Here is one suggestion which has not

been put to field. Remember, this maybe only a possible explanation or only a partial

explanation. Strange anomalies occur when ice freezes at 300-400 degrees below zero. Ice

becomes magnetic as oxygen and hydrogen separate and become laminated. When ice

becomes that cold, if you could somehow survive such temperatures, you could pick up a

chunk of ice with a magnet. What kind of event could cause such an earth-shattering

catastrophe? One theory is the earth may have been struck head on and knocked out of kilter

from its magnetic pole by an apocalyptic comet or asteroid of solid ice striking the earth near

one of its magnetic poles with such force the impact caused our planet to wobble. This

massive rock of ice had been frozen iron solid in outer-space to 400 degrees below zero. If

some individual providentially survived this direct or glancing impact, but you weren’t so

lucky, that person might be able to pick up your corpse with a magnet and carry it to a morgue

where you would be put on ice at a much lower temperature. But only if this disaster had

occurred in more recent times, when science could have made it possible to create magnets, of

course.

The mammoths, however, were not the only victims of this sudden, catastrophic

extinction. In the New Siberian Islands, they find so many frozen animals the carnage is

described as nearly incomprehensible, frozen bobcats, frozen jaguars and rhinoceros, frozen

camels and hippopotamuses. What is a camel doing north off the artic circle unless the place

had at one time been a tropical or sub-tropical paradise and not an artic wasteland? In just

one year 20,000 mammoth tusks were removed from Siberia. Was the entire planet at one

114
time a tropical paradise stretching from pole to pole? Or were these millions of victims

swept there by a catastrophic, global flood? Was this the result of a world-wide flood or a

seceding disaster? Remember, a few of these behemoths still had undigested food in their

mouths and stomachs. Likely we will never learn that answer other than there was an

unimaginable earth shattering catastrophe beyond description. There are many limits to

human knowledge and the most outstanding limitation may be in science and in the factual

limitations of the human imagination. Most information compiled from Dr. Kent. Today, the

closest thing to a summer in the artic are fossilized crocodiles.

An article appeared in Science, 25 July 1997, titled “Evidence for a Large-Scale

Reorganization of Early Continental Masses…” in which the authors propose that at one time

the lithosphere rotated, or tilted 90 degrees. What may have caused this earth-shattering

metamorphose ─ some massive event in the core of the earth, the impact of an asteroid or

comet, a catastrophic of incomprehensible magnitude, cosmic nuclear fusion event from outer

space or inside the earth as some evidence indicates uranium deposits may have created

fusion, or a clustering of incomprehensible disasters knocked the earth’s axis from a

perpendicular rotation and caused a cataclysmic flood of Biblical Proportions and

Reorganized Early Continental Masses and created seasons and ice ages?

On July, 16, 2008 the Weather Channel announced the discovery of 4 square miles of

fossilized tropical plants preserved in a coal mine in Illinois. Was Illinois at one time a

tropical paradise, or were these biomasses swept into Illinois all the way from the tropics or

the artic and deposited by a mega-intercontinental flood, or did they at one time grow in

Illinois under the pseudonym of the same location? This is too drastic of an event to explain

by any stretch of uniformitarianism and remains unsolved except by the abbreviated account

115
given in Genesis. How is the ice age connected to a far more expansive and immense world-

wide apocalypse that buried and fossilized the dinosaurs and buried immense continents of

coal and oil and natural gas biomasses at times miles beneath the surface of the earth. One

theory: Coal may have come only from the bark of trees and not from the rest of the log mass,

meaning the bark was stripped off and sank to the bottom where it was quickly buried by

sediment flows and could have quickly turned to coal as billions, and trillions or hundreds of

trillions of logs grated against each other while crushing and smashing everything to bits in

their wake, then rotted away in the only massive transportation medium which could

accomplish such a tremendous feat ─ turbulent, continental world-wide massive water flows.

Check out Mt. Saint Helens, as this process has developed on a much smaller scale at the

scene of Mt. Saint Helens’ volcanic eruption near Spirit Lake, Oregon. The indications are

the biomass on earth were at one time far more massive and extensive than anything now

existing on present earth. We are constantly told everything always remains the same: today

is as yesterday as will be tomorrow. To believe that, one would have to be intellectually

obscure to the unexpected potentialities of unexplainable extra-terrestrial disasters as

evidenced in the vast layers of the earth and those daily disasters we are often forced to live

with where nature is still more powerful than man. The surface of the moon looks as though

it has barely survived an inter-planetary disaster in its past on its side away from the earth, let

alone many of the other planetary members of our solar system show similar scares from the

same projectory. One TV commentator has theorized the immense amount of semi and

pulverized-inter-planetary debris alluded to as the asteroid belt and the laws of planetary

physics suggest one planet in our solar system may have been destroyed. This is referred to

as Bode’s Law, but it has not obtained the recognized status of an actual law because it

116
predicts a planet where the asteroid belt is, and Neptune and Pluto are not where they were

predicted. Maybe I am being somewhat slap-stick and cheek with Pluto now downgraded

from planetary status and a planet conceivably could have been destroyed where the asteroid

belt now exists, maybe Bodes law could find new status. It is an interesting proposal, at least.

Die-hards brag about the corrective power of science and while everyone should have

hoped such a situation to be true, science, all too often, is vastly overwhelmed by the

regressive bigotries of its own disordered and irrational logic. An explanation cannot be used

as the evidence, a dodge which cannot substantiate evolutionary processes on the run.

117
 PALEOCURRENTS AND PARACONFORMITIES

Notes on Dr. Chadwick’s lecture on Paleocurrents.

1. What are paleocurrents?

2. What can paleocurrents tell us about the attribution of sedimentary environments in

the standard geological model?

3. How can we use this information to better understand the geological history of the

world?

4. What are the results for North America and other cratons (Continents) through

geological time?

“The ability to recreate the salient features of some or many past events involving

the movement of water on the earth’s surface through time, could provide a distinct advantage

for understanding those events…. Paleocurrents give us an ability to reconstruct a part of the

history of the earth from the past”.

What are paleocurrents? Paleocurrents are flow directions derived from features in

sedimentary rock that tell us which way some of the currents were moving that deposited the

sediments.

We can tell which direction sediment flows were traveling when the rocks were

being deposited.

1. Cross beds in sandstone

2. Ripple marks in sedimentary rock

3. Fossil orientation in deposits

118
4. Scour marks left in sedimentary rocks.

These indicators tell us in what direction water was flowing when carrying sediments

into place. These discoveries are the result of 1,000,000 measurements added to the database

over the last 30 years. This is real data not subject to much interpretation.

The data base covers the continents of North and South America, Australia, Great

Britain, and parts of Western Europe. Africa, Antarctica, Central Europe are modestly

represented. China, Russia, and most of Asia are poorly represented.

The expectation would be that you would see sediments flowing from all directions by

the standard model, but that is not what occurs. Starting at the bottom of the geological

column at the Precambrian and going up into the Paleozoic this is what has been found.

1. Precambrian are rocks that have no fossils in them. North American Paleocurrents are

variable and show no distinctive continent wide patterns. (White static)

2. Paleozoic: Paleocurrents show patterns that are continent wide and typically flow

towards the South West across the continent.

3. Mesozoic: patterns are continent wide and typically flow in a reverse direction

towards the East across the continent.

4. Cenozoic: North American Paleocurrents are again variable and do not show

continent-wide patterns. (White static)

The trends in South America are the same for each epoch as in North America. These

magatrends are broken down even more on Dr. Chadwick’s charts.

Conclusion:

Supracontinental, global (mega-trends) are unrecognized and probably cannot

be accommodated in the standard model. Maga-trends show movement on all the

119
continents in the same direction at the same time. Most workers within the standard

model typically do not think on this scale.

Based on Dr. Ross Presentations:

PARACONFORMITIES: ARE THE ROCKS AS OLD AS THEY LOOK?

“The Grand Canyon in Arizona is one of the great geological showcases of the

world….” “a spectacular gorge craved into the strata by the Colorado River and represent

a billion years of Earth history,” so we are told. The Grand Canyon is 217 miles long,

more than 1 mile deep in places and 4-18 miles wide. From the top to the bottom of the

canyon, missing strata or “gaps” represent approximately more than 100 million years of

layers absent or missing from the standard geologic timescale…. “Geologists determine

missing portions mainly by comparing fossils in the sedimentary layers with complete

sequences of the geological column.” When a layer is missing, it is added into the overall

timescale. This again is circular reasoning by providing the age of the strata by the kind

of fossil deposited in them, or providing the age of the fossils by the strata they are

typically buried in. But if either one of these assumptions are incorrect, then any

conclusion arrived at will be incorrect.

Geologists refer to these gaps as “unconformities.” Several types of

unconformities exist, but we are going to concern ourselves only with paraconformities.

“Some geologists have commented on the lack of evidence for geological change at these

gaps.” If the layers above or below the imputed gap at the line of their contact is not

visible or there is no evidence of erosion, it is called a paraconformity. Paraconformity

layers show little or no evidence of erosion even though the strata maybe alleged to be

millions of years old. But how could millions of years elapse without any erosion and

120
weathering having taken place? The most likely explanation is that these millions of years

never occurred.

“If there is erosion , one would expect abundant channeling, and formation of

deep gullies, canyons, and valleys, yet the contacts (gaps), sometimes described as

“continent sized,” are usually nearly planar” (flat). It is difficult to conceive of little or

nothing happening for millions of years on our planet’s surface. Over time either

deposition or erosion will occur. The weather would have to cease in order to prevent

either activity. Perhaps the proposed time for these gaps never occurred, and if it is

missing in one place, it is missing earth-wide.” These flat gaps between many of the

sedimentary layers of the earth poses a striking contrast with the irregular erosion on the

present earth’s surface which events created fantastic features like the Grand Canyon cut

through nearly the entire geological column of strata accumulatively dated at nearly a

billion years old, whereas millions, and in at least one strata, over a hundred million years

no detectable erosion occurred. Uniformitarianism as interpreted by the lack of erosion

makes no sense given the evidence.

The Grand Canyon’s strata were laid down rapidly according to water

deposition; and while the underlying rock was still pliable and forming, the canyon was

sculptured out of the rock by great receding flood waters. Supporting this view: the

canyon’s 500 million year old Tapeats sandstone sediments show folding of sections of

strata, at one juncture a 90% bend occurs without fractures, or cracks, indicating the

sandstones were bent while still wet and plastic, and therefore the sedimentary rock had

little time to form. The nearly five hundred million years alleged by scientists for these

deposits to have formed, could have never taken place. Where ever bends, twists and

121
turns and folds in uncracked strata occur, it indicates the strata was still wet and pliable

when formed.

Summary

The Tapeats sediments and paraconformities in The Grand Canyon argue for a

short time span for their formation and that other assumptions extrapolated about long age

formations are likely incorrect as well. “Evidence for a rapid formation of geological

strata are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many

millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots,

etc.); lack of soil layers…; thick layers of rock bent without fracturing, indicating that the

rock was soft when bent,” and layering events occurred over short periods of time.

If evolutionary geologists can overlook the obvious implications of these

features, it brings into serious question their understanding of other causes of geological

events, particularly those which are less obvious, and maybe a great number of geologists

are so fatalistically indoctrinated by their own biases they are intractable to the arguments

of reason!

122
 HONESTY IS A KEY ISSUE IN ANY DEBATE

All of the disagreement in science is quit astounding, of course! Naturalistic scientists

who are the supposedly trusted but self-proclaimed innovators of truth have not been honest,

and their reasoning has become so flawed and incoherent, they can no longer be regarded as

trusted explorers of Scientific Discovery? Are real facts liabilities to the contradictory

construct of evolution? There is a very profound reason why vast contradictions with

popularized theories have remained on the top secret list of scientists so you won’t know

something is gravely amiss with their dearly beloved but increasingly antiquated, weighty and

unworkable theory of evolution. A saint in the context of evolution is one who doesn’t sin

against the prevailing theory by telling the truth! You don’t want to become known as the

evolutionist who threw a monkey wrench into the works. Evolution teaches scientists to

disbelieve their own discoveries which contradict the so-called philosophical sovereignty of a

bankrupted evolutionary theory, and reinterpret their findings, even if it contradicts their data,

to fit the all- prevailing ─ the all mighty, screwed-up god of evolutionary theory. After all,

lies substitute for good evidence when duping the public’s gullibility to trust. This is an

ingrained fraud that has developed synapses in the brains of some scientists to lie without

ceasing! Many do it out of fear of going against the prevailing stream, or of putting

themselves under fire ─ or firing as is the usual punishment which keeps most otherwise

dissidents in line. Is this freedom? No. Is this democracy? No. Is it the insolvency of a

scientific Inquisition? How else can it be explained?

According to recent genetic discoveries, to change a habit so new synapses will grow

in the brain to reinforce the new habit takes 21 days and 6 months to integrate, ABC News.

123
Proverbially, neurons that fire together wire together. In six months, will more scientists be

telling the truth? Will they even want to ─ the place where they will have to begin if they

want to be regarded as trustworthy? Will they be together on the issues? Why change sides

just for the sake of the truth when truth is worth so little these days? Liars that fire off

together wire together and stick together, so to speak. There is little or no chance of

correction with truth with so many reputations seriously at stake. Truth is the hardest thing to

sell when lying is so prevalent and easy to get away with, and the rewards of not telling the

truth are much more consoling and rewarding to live with at the precise moment of potential

deception! To admit one was ever wrong, is for some, worse than accepting outright

damnation. And scientists are more like mice than men when dealing with the truth of an

issue. Than are they missing links? They are when it comes to telling the truth, which gives

an evolutionary spin about their compliancy in protecting truth. And they get a lot of

reinforcement from the hypocrites: the leaders of so-called Christian Denominations who

believe in, and promote evolution in any form, are committing Biblical suicide and

theological treason and philosophical damnation by calling the God of the Genesis a liar.

Studies have shown that at least 30% of scientists do not believe the evolutionary

theory (some statistics are even higher like 40%) and only 19% do, [a serious discrepancy]

and about 85% or a majority of Americans believe in God. Another study, The Pew Study,

quoted in the Tuesday, February 26, 2008, Los Angeles Times, reports that 78.4% of

Americans are Christians, about 5% belong to other faith traditions, and 16% are unaffiliated

with any religion. Besides other religious beliefs, atheists represent only “1.6%, and

agnostics, 2.4%.” But it is the beliefs of a majority of Americans under attack! The huge

gap in the scientific enrolment in the proceeding pole was likely due to a majority who are too

124
scared to admit what their real beliefs are due to firing and tenure practices in the

evolutionary fortresses of America’s colleges and universities ─ which tells us a lot more

than statistics are suppose to. The beliefs of people who believe in God, which includes:

Catholics and Protestants, Jews, and Muslims, and Christian evangelical groups and others,

who believe in God but do not belong to any particular religious persuasion are in a clear

majority, but are discriminated against more than are Blacks and Hispanics or the Jew who

has always been harshly and unfairly treated and persecuted, and no one from that

discriminated group of soundly ‘religious fanatics’ is making an outcry which should resound

across the continent and round the world from pole to pole. Is it possible to tell whether there

is a silent majority? It is called a conscience that can stir a man up to his own good and that

of others.

For other questions refer to, ‘Icons of Evolution science or myth?’ by Jonathan Wells,

and biochemist Michael Behe’s excellent book entitled: ‘Darwin’s Black Box: The

Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,’ where Behe discusses Irreducible Complexity: “By

irreducible complexity I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting

parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes

the system to effectively cease functioning…any precursor to an irreducibly complex system

that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.” Later he adds: “if a biological system

cannot be produced gradually it would have to arrive as an integrated unit….” “The abrupt

arrival of man” as Leaky expressed it seems to echo Genesis 1? Darwin states, “If it could be

demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have been formed by

numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Modern discoveries prove the theory has absolutely broken down! But fear of scandal can

125
save the guilty from a fate nearly as severe as physical death ─ referred to in less than polite

company as the dam constraints of a corporate lie.

Darwin foresaw the prophecy of doom which many of his modern adherents seem

unable to recognize or willfully will not admit to as though deception and outright lying is

convincing and credible on a higher level denied even to the truth.

Behe has recently authored a book: ‘The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the

Limits of Darwinism.’ On Page 9, Behe states: “in lieu of laboratory tests, by default most

biologists work within a Darwinian framework and assume what cannot be demonstrated.”

And on page 10, he goes on to say, “Breaking the theoretical logjam would require accurate

evolutionary data at the genetic level on an enormous number of organisms that are under

ceaseless pressure from natural selection. That data simply hasn’t been available in the past.

Now it is.”

For recent developments in Plasma Physics and the filament structure of the universe

visit: www.setterfield.org. Last I heard, Mr. Setterfield is writing a treatise or a book on

recent discoveries in plasma physics. Plasma physics already has been confirmed by other

Physicists in laboratory experiments and maybe a better explanation than the ‘Big Bang

theory.’ But likely, no existing theory is anywhere adequate in explaining how the universe

came to be or functions. Even Dawkins admits the Big Bang may never be proven, and the

Big Bang may not even be how the universe came “to be” and that leaves the GOD alternative

open for exploration.

While we are discussing the vast and stunning oddities of the universe, or some other

time frame or dimension: I am reminded of a lecture I heard about a year ago from this

writing. It was a description about a gene splicing experiment, or more precisely a gene

126
cutting experiment where they cut a gene out of a strand of DNA to find out what would

happen. Then a most unexpected and extraordinary thing occurred. The gene mysteriously

reappeared. The researchers did this a third or forth time before the gene finally failed to

reappear. Apparently, there is a fail proof recovery system like a spare tire, but if you have

more than three or four flat tires you’re out of luck. (Lecture by Pitman) Something like this

happened to my Dad at Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, while making a run for the last

evening ferry. We had three successive flat tires and only one spare and we were already late.

The above genetic discovery substantiates the atrophy principle in much the same way as

dying illustrates the problem on a daily human bases ─ numerous visits with doctors, the

taking of medications and nothing can overcome the genetic disposition of nature and the

patient dies anyway.

Was the Big Bang an inexplicably gigantic fire cracker without observers who would

have been too tongue tided, anyway, to have comprehensively related the event to the News

Papers or the internet? In the November 13, 2006, Time magazine article GOD VS.

SCIENCE: Dawkins admitted: “Physicists are working on the Big Bang, and one day they

may or may not solve it.” Imagine, one day they may not solve it and for many years they

have worked on it unsuccessfully. Words are given funny twists at times, a funny twist

without a laugh that may leave a theory with only the support of presumption. This admission

should have made a bigger bang than the actual event is thought to have made at its inception

if it ever occurred. According to Dawkins’ admission, the Big Bang theory is not an

established fact; and whatever existed and caused the Big Bang or some other cosmic event of

origin leaves startling implications that get you back to questioning what actually begin the

beginning? “We don’t know what 60% of the Universe is made of,” but these same

127
incoherent madmen can flip flop and assure us they know how the Universe begin and how it

operates in the same breath? Just what is the definition of crazy? Do we need to look it up, or

does their behavior and claims define the definition by default? Does Dawkins really have a

definition of science which is anything other than nonsense and doesn’t need psychoanalytics

to explain it.

Food for thought on a starvation diet: could the beginning of the universe have

expanded infinitely beyond the speed of light? Obviously I am trying to make life difficult

for theorists who think they know everything but don’t have a real clue to almost anything

that requires an answer. There are things physics is unable to answer, and even more that

theory cannot envision. In science, being certain of anything is the first sign the victim is far

too self-deceived to know anything he thinks he knows and is likely suffering some sort of

irrationality of certainty which has ravished his genius as a good theory has ruined many a

genius. In 25 years, most of what is known will all be wrong and the uncertainty will persist

and deepen and they will lay the victim between the covers of his coffin like the covers of a

book unread and men will busy themselves by not discussing the matter.

Dawkins, the self-appointed, modern apologist for Scientific Irrationalism, was

interviewed in the film Expelled. And he may not have expelled his demons. He couldn’t

find the right evolutionary pathway to anywhere in his imaginary world of non-sense and

make believe. He appeared more like a trickster unsure of himself and unable to pull

anything real out of his imaginary bag of evolutionary tricks ─ more like a tottering titan

staggering through a gigantic earthquake of contradictions and the flying debris of nonsense

and the unknown mixed together─ uncertain although decidedly unshaken in his own deceits.

After all, he has admitted evolution has failed dismally and scandalously as an explanatory

128
tool of origins when he regressed, once before, to arguing aliens started life on earth.

Intelligent aliens, is it possible? Perhaps these aliens arrived in “The Chariots of the Gods”?

That by some prankish evolutionary adversarial rule is inadmissible, however! It would be

worse than an evolutionary sacrilege if that alien were discovered to be God ─ heaven forbid

such a disturbing revelation to upset the evolutionary chemistry cart set adrift on an unknown

and vastly infinite universe! Any explanation crediting a Divine Power with the Creation of

Life and the Universe to whom miscreants might be morally obligated is an outrage by

evolutionary paranoia and as forbidden as was the unlawful fruit in the Garden of Eden.

Dawkins is naively admitting, evolution never occurred or why invent some alien to do what

evolution is incapable of doing! I saw this comment in the Los Angeles Times, Sunday

Opinion: “If earth is visited by aliens, having such unbelievable advanced technology to make

the trip, it would be them, not us, who would be in control of whom avoids whom.” And

since I don’t believe they would have come to avoid us, it will be the human race crying out

for “the rocks and the mountains to fall on us” to hide us from the face of God as it is told in

the Bible. But Dawkins has some strange and overpowering, perhaps, transcendental inner

urge to make his contradictory argument. Life seeded by a comet doesn’t help the

evolutionary argument either, and it is inconceivable to imagine how and where the seed of

life originated in the unfriendly, life threatening dangers of outer space? So life didn’t and

couldn’t have begun by evolution he is arguing. In fact, Dawkins admits to this in the film,

“We have no idea how life begin.” That rules out evolution. Then how can he be so

absolutely certain evolution is how life begin? He is obviously very confused. This

unsettling confession is something like bushwhacking in a bottomless pond with solid rock

edges. It doesn’t make sense and it never will make sense. This is an inadvertent admission

129
that all experiments like an Urey-Miller type of experiment, and attempts at artificial RNA

chemical reconstructions have totally failed to explain how life could have evolved from non-

living matter. No spontaneous generation, no radiometric dating which can accurately

explain anything at all concerning the most important question mankind will ever face ─

where did we come from and what is our purpose and what is our future? The answer to these

questions could entail otherwise unspecified consequences as some kind of Divine revelation

if that is what life is the evidence of. The evolutionists have no idea how life begin, and most

people don’t agree with Dawkins’ non sequitur that God cannot be allowed into any part of

the equation of life, as though, if God exists, He could by any investiture of human reason be

ejected from the process of creation which by logical inferences, these non-sensical theorists

really don’t know if He can be unquestionably eliminated. Dawkins has thrown out the baby

with the bathwater along with the golden challis ─ the epiphany of evolutionary godlessness

for the cheap change of dramatic confusion and certainly for uncertainty. The cat is out of

the bag and stumbling about dizzily as drunk as a sailor on a tossing sea! No one has to

figure this out except for Dawkins and his philosophical cronies who may not have reasoned

out the full implications of their disastrous arguments! His argument is not about the

pretended origins of evolution, it is about admitting to the act of God in Creation by whom the

naturalists could then be morally held accountable for their rebellion against the universe if

there is a God! The evolutionists are taking their existence out on God by punishing Him

with their disbelief ─ and by some weird twist of their magical argument they hope to

eliminate him from the universe. Therefore God is irrelevant and overruled, while they may

be only irresponsibly safe in their imaginations if they are wrong!

Men often hold to a reckless notion if they can avoid knowing the truth, their denial is

130
protected from any negative consequences of their delusion. And they have made a covenant

of defense: Science is mandated to protect Atheism, and what is not Atheism is not science.

Science interpreted by evolution is not democratic and therefore is the enemy of democracy.

Belief in God is treason against science! That is their conspiracy! Their position does not

merely traditionalize the irrational elements of their argument, but is also a declaration of

open war. Why don’t these atheistic, revolutionary insurrectionists just come out and admit

it: “We are going to destroy Christianity and God and all religions in our generation and take

down democracy with it”! And there is a disastrous historical precedent for this to happen. I

will eventually get to this and I will prove it, because history already has!

So, could life have been brought here by some unknown space aliens, or is this just

another cosmic illusion of Atheism’s peculiar psychosis? When American astronauts landed

on the moon, scientists bragged, “We have conquered space.” That should have been an

obvious delusion instead of logic?

In a typical galaxy, if you were to place a phone call from one end of the galaxy to the

other end, it would take 100,000- 200,000 years for the phone to ring at the other end. This

maybe enough time for mankind to have conceivably disappeared entirely from the universe,

or by the acrimoniousness of war, and his cemetery of futility and failure filled in by the dusty

drowsiness of eons, and the tombstones of granite and marble weathered away completely and

nothing of man remembered and never to be restored?

From earth, a space traveler traveling at 25,000 miles per hour would take 120,000

years to get to the nearest fixed star. And that star is but a grain of sand upon the vast ocean

of the universe. The nearest galaxy to our own, the Andromeda, is 2.8 million light years

from the earth. Such enormous distances as true space travel would require eternal life ─ a

131
Divine mastery over space and time! Man lives 70-80 years and is going nowhere in the

universe by his own efforts. He is bound by his limitations to the earth and certainly its

closest planets, and some of those, man is unlikely to ever reach with his more than scarce

presence and resources. There is no type of space suit or space shuttle capable of protecting a

potential human space traveler from the deadly cosmic rays zipping through outer space even

if man could travel at greater speeds once he has passed the boundaries of the earth’s

protective magnetic field. Just getting to Mars would be extremely dangerous once he got

past the earth’s magnetic barrier. Future astronauts will have to be suicidal by job description

to challenge the fatal boundaries of the universe that encroach on human will. Scientists

would have to protect an astronaut under a swimming pool of water to provide enough

protection from deadly space radiation so he could survive. Imagine launching such a

massive shield surrounding an astronaut into space. Scientists did an experiment with a less

cumbersome half-gallon of water incased around an astronaut’s head. Sparks and flashes of

light were going off inside his head ─ an ominous sign which challenges any hope of human

space travel and obviously the experiment had failed. The Bible and the Big Bang. How

could humans store enough food and water for the everlasting duration. I just recited this

comment in the Los Angeles Times, Sunday Opinion, January 23, 2011, about a statement

previously made by Stephen Hawking referring to aliens visiting the earth, the comment on

Hawking’s statement was: “If earth is visited by aliens, having such unbelievable advanced

technology to make the trip, it would be them, not us, who would be in control of whom

avoids whom.” John Loggins John’s argument makes the most sense. The men of the earth

will cry out for “the rocks and the mountains, fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who

sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb, Revelation 6:16.” For some, this will be

132
the greatest catastrophe in human history, for others, it will be the greatest and most

wondrously anticipated event in the ages of the universe. Anyone who has the technology to

travel rapidly through space and time, has a technology of science only imagined by our own.

Man is incapable of leaving his planet indefinitely without divine assistance, and without

divine assistance he will become extinct as a species and as a race.

Consider another problem? Researchers in Europe and in the United States are trying

to uncover the Higgs Field Particle, or the Higgs bozon termed the God particle which is

theorized to give weight to mass. At the speed of light, the weight of mass becomes infinite

making the speed of light too slow for space travel. Based on first principles, whatever that

is, elemental particles should have no mass. Some like protons, do have zero mass; yet others

are surprisingly heavy. Enter the Higgs bozon, which in theory, interacts with these heavy

particles, giving them their mass. The theory is, in order to make energy and speed infinite,

experimenters would have to get rid of or remove the Higgs particle to convert mass to zero to

produce infinite speed and infinite energy? However, no one knows whether this is even

possible and whether the Higgs is only a theoretical idea or it really exists and whether it

could or will ever be harnessed or whether a phenomena entirely different warps space and

time and does spectacular things we may never be able to trace? And if the particle turns out

to exist, it may have been understood eons ago. “As soon as the prophet Daniel began to

pray, an answer was given which I, the angel Gabriel, have come to tell Daniel while he was

still praying. Daniel 9:22. Daniel’s prayer is estimated to have lasted about 3 minutes. It

takes about 8 minutes and 20 seconds for light from the sun to reach the earth or 93,000,000

miles, or a duration longer than most church prayers, or slightly longer than it takes for a well

planned lie to materialize and develop and travel through the cerebrum of a dishonest person

133
for his approval. At 25,000 miles an hour, it would take slightly longer than a year to travel

to the sun. If heaven is only a 100 million or a hundred billion light years beyond the

boundaries of our planetary system, human beings without the intervention of God, will never

travel across space, time and the universe. Not unless they can avail themselves of the

extracted Higgs field particle for infinitely faster than light travel and would that even be fast

enough? It may not even exist or can not be detected, or we may never be able to understand

how to harness it or an entirely different phenomena beyond physics and the Higgs field

particle is inexplicably at work? As it stands, such an unrealistic expectation of infinite space

travel at speeds we are capable of, is a delusion of such vast and irrational magnitude, there

lacks an adequate psychiatry to diagnose that mankind is, indeed, a very delusional patient

and only a step away from total insanity. The only reason a human being is an intelligent

creature, is so he can live long enough to realize what an idiot he really is. Those who cannot

learn this invaluable but simple and humbling fact, have failed to learn the only real lesson

they ever need to understand. Dare a mere mortal, a narcissist, argue with this?

Who is God? What cannot be proven or disproven but persists to our senses, even if,

with what we only regard as a remote possibility, remains the most titillating, enticing and

thrilling and hopeful and unsolvable riddle in the entire Universe and may very well be true

against our inadequate reasoning of uncertainties. Life exists if only to prove impossibilities

exist! Is God the uncaused first cause infinitely beyond the comprehension of finite human

reasoning? Truth is not disproven by a host of denials to the contrary. Our knowledge is

finite, the unknown infinite, or there would not be a universe in the heavens!

A proof is not simply a statement of what one believes or wishes to be true but has

empirical, unchallengeable data inviting judicious intuition and reasoning. And that is what

134
this book is all about! Here is one explanation of the Big Bang theory: “In violation of

physical law, emptiness fled from the vacuum of space ─ and rushed into a super dense core,

that had a density of 10 94gm/cm and a temperature in excess of 10/39 degrees absolute. That

is a lot of density and heat for a gigantic pile of nothingness! (Especially when we realize it is

impossible for nothing to get hot. Although air gets hot, air is matter, not the absence of it.)

“Where did all this ‘Super dense core’ come from? Gamow solemnly came up with a

scientific answer for this; he said it came as a result of “the big squeeze,” when the emptiness

made up its mind to crowd together. Then, with true scientific aplomb, he named this solid

core of nothing “ylem” (pronounced “ee-lum”). With a name like that, many people thought

this must be a great scientific truth of some kind. In addition, numbers where provided to

add an additional scientific flair: This remarkable lack-of-anything was said by Gamow to

have a density of 10 to the 145th power g/cc, or one hundred trillion times the density of

water”!

“Then all that packed-in blankness went boom!”

The Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell pp. 70

Explain how a stable nuclei derived from an unstable beginning such as the Big Bang

where the known laws of physics could not have applied?

“The laws of physics are our laws and not nature’s.” Attributed to Paul Davis.

Perhaps God is responsible for the existence of the universe and finds fireworks as

entertaining and exciting as we do. And He sets the universe as an endless stage.

Evolutionists, along with the rest of their select group of arrogant intelligentsia of

confused pranksters of disinformation and disorientated pseudo-science, do not really

understand very much of anything about why anything exists, or even what may or may not

135
exist such as dark holes and dark matter which are code names for disguised ignorance. A

Black hole is theoretical physics trying to explain what scientists have no explanation of.

There is nothing to discover about a hole that is full of itself. Have scientists figured out how

to create a man ─ or a single cell amoeba? The answer to understanding an amoeba maybe

almost ─ not likely ─ never. But that only gets man to the moon in biology. He still has to

get back. But if creating a man is too difficult, they could start with an Ape. But an Ape is a

more complex creature with 24 Chromosomes compared to man’s embarrassing trite 23

chromosomes which doesn’t give him a very reliable and favorable resume when compared to

the competition? In fact, a toad has 22 chromosomes compared to a man. In complexity,

does this place man between a toad and an ape? Perhaps, it is better not to know and count

ones loses when trying to stay ahead of the game. Perhaps, the human race is not what they

seem to be ─ and the race is still on and man may be loosing badly. If an evolutionist had

said let there be light, we would never have had it in the entire history of the universe because

eternity could not have been long enough for light to have evolved and traveled to the far

reaches beyond eternity! Darkness would have reigned eternally supreme like dark matter,

and we would have never comprehended anything by the light of reason.

Knowledge is limited, swagger is infinite and obtuse. The more we learn the less we

seem to know. Many scientists are no longer certain as to how gravity operates. Everything

is a hypothesis and laws are no longer laws if someone is easily confused by the complexity

of it all? Nothing is worse than being a genius and totally confused. That is where science

becomes useful so you can confuse the other guy and he becomes too confused to realize you

are just as confused as he is. Genius has no other value. It makes you an educated liar, an

imaginative theorist, and dead wrong on almost everything in twenty five to thirty years when

136
your deceit or foolishness comes to light as darkness. Confusion and uncertainty is

increasing without knowledge and infinite muddle is what science is rapidly deteriorating to.

The phenomena of storms and weather patterns on the atmospheric planets and moons

of our solar system is little understood? You have heard a weather forecast for the coming

week or a few days in advance. A liar is more accurate than that! An evolutionist can’t even

fit into the billing, but scientists assure us with contemptuous absolutism and self-

overconfidence they are the depositories of infinite knowledge about how the Universe was

formed and functions while admitting they know almost nothing at all? By redefinition:

science is schizophrenia and it seems scientifically contagious. They pretend they can explain

the inconceivable complex features of the theoretical structures of atoms and those of the

unknown laws of nature and the universe without being able to explain what unexpected and

unanticipated genetic laws and astounding engineering innovations and astonishing marvels

may underlie things still ‘unseen and unknown and unimagined’ while failing to explain the

origins and workings of the simplest cell with its living, irreducibly complex organelles and

inter-related parts as irreducibly complex in many ways as those of a more massively complex

organism, or do the evolutionists fail miserably on all accounts, then castigate anyone who

disagrees with their radical and outrages presuppositions as “bigots and ignoramus” (referring

to us the general public, of course) while they are guilty of displaying a militant and mean-

minded attitude which should be internationally scandalous and repugnant by the magnitude

of their arrogance and the multitude of their ignorance.

I will hire a sculptor of modern art to create statutes of these grandiose leaders of self-

aggrandizement. Something about those high cheekbones and contempt ─ the mouth seems

to slither between the nose and chin, could it be ─ inaccuracy is more precise? I would be

137
unable to produce such a portrait as I am too much of a realist and would likely mess things

up.

A very short list of what scientists don’t know and can’t do?

Scientists still are unable to produce life even after Craig Venter’s hype.

Scientists still don’t know what causes epilepsy or a majority of diseases.

Scientist still can’t cure cancer or paralysis or grow new limbs.

Scientists can’t create a solar system where life exists. “We know very little about

our solar system.” National Geographic Channel, 11/9/2010. That being the case, I don’t

know how scientists can brag so confidently they know how the entire universe begin. The

Big Bang may yet blow up in their face.

Scientists can’t create an earth and build continents and seas on it with an atmosphere.

Scientists can’t fix the foundations of the earth or hang a planet on nothing.

Scientists can’t create a flower or a tree or a lady bug or a butterfly or an Ape or cause

any one of their entirely original inventions to produce something beautiful and useful and

ingenious.

Scientists haven’t created life, and most of all, they can not produce life or matter from

absolutely nothing. And even if they could produce any of these useful entities in only a most

superficial way, it can only be accomplished by challenged human intelligence and over-

confident, self-righteous plagiarism of an original template held like a hostage in the world’s

best laboratories to produce an inferior infringement on God’s thoughts as a pre-existent

blueprint of one of nature’s wonders. All other attempts will be dramatically and

embarrassingly unsuccessful and will continue to be so as scientists encounter increasing

138
complexity which will eventually stump the most brilliant human minds.

Scientists can’t create a living cell with its irreducible complexity of a higher order of

living things. A minuscule amount of plagiarizism has been achieved at immense effort and

massive cost. This rules out any other explanation than an Intelligent Designer with infinite

resources is behind the existence of everything.

Scientists can’t create sexual reproduction, consciousness or self-awareness.

Scientists still can’t solve the BIG BANG dilemma, or prove there ever was a Big

Bang to begin with ─ which may have gone out with a whimper! Solving even one of these

problems is not even a beginning to solving life’s total mystery and the hidden mysteries of

the universe.

The Big Bang does not explain the unknown laws governing how the universe Begin.

It is only a vain attempt to explain how it is believed the universe may have developed in a

vague theoretical construct alluded to by imperfect minds, and less perfect and suspect

theorists. Even if we assume the Big Bang occurred, The Law of the Conservation of

Angular Momentum states everything should be spinning in the same direction. Why do

Venus and Uranus spin backwards to the other planets? Why do some moons of the solar

system spin backwards, and some moons orbit their planets backwards? Some galaxies spin

backwards. The law of the conservation of angular momentum states everything should be

spinning in the same direction unless some inexplicable outside force was applied to change

an objects rotation. Than where did those inexplicable external forces derive from and what

did they consist of which impelled these objects of the mighty heavens to spin against the

overwhelming momentum of the Big Bang is a total mystery if you try to explain it as

anything other than an inexplicable happenstance without God. At this point, you are left

139
with abundant inexplicable mysteries, not just one. How could these massive forces be

duplicated by man’s limited resources.

You could make a list of tens of thousands of things scientists cannot explain. And

there are literally thousands of things which could be added to the scientific can’t do list. The

Biblical law of “Each After Its Own Kind” is not falsifiable by observation and

experimentation, and leads to the conclusion that with over 150 years of challenges, this is

unchallengeable. Humans produce only humans, dogs only dogs. If you mate cats, you don’t

expect to have puppies. Women don’t have babies so they can produce baby baboons. You

don’t plant orange trees and get broccoli. If you are hungry and go out to an apple tree, you

don’t expect to find only cankers or onions or pink dogwood blooms hanging from its limbs.

Such confusion would make life unlivable and unbearable. There has never been one single

observation or experimental fact which proves evolution; either in living organisms or in the

fossil record of the past, there remains a spectacular lack of evidence everywhere. Even

breeders only produce variations of particular kind of plant or animal – not an entire new

family, class, phylum or kingdom. Delusions which contradict consistent reality are defined

as schizophrenia and excused as evolution.

``

Scientists will require hundreds, perhaps many thousands and hundreds of thousands

and even millions of years, more likely never, to completely understand the DNA Digital

Code, or master the new field of epigenetics and other increasingly mysteriously hidden

miracles if they can ever completely figure out how our masterful genetic machinery of life

sustains and continues life? Then what will become the next, amazing puzzle in the function

and panorama of life or what we will term the next major and unexpected irreducibly complex

140
riddle of life yet to be uncovered and only partially understood? And all this maybe as far

from the beginning, as the beginning maybe from the end. “The living cell is so complex that

our super computers may never be able to figure it out.” “Scientific American” quoted by Jim

Burr. And never is the same length as eternity! Than how could blind chance have

accomplished such a mind boggling feat by defeating intelligence, as though blind chance

were a brain stupefied and all thought driven into extinction where only a coincidental

creativity is found? This argument has a sort of punctuated insanity! No it is not punctuated,

it lasts for a lifetime unless reason for some inexplicable reason returns to plague our fallible

creature the bearer of endless deceits.

A can’t list of what scientists don’t know and are unable to do and can’t explain would

create a list too long to publish on this planet and this inability of man to do so will likely

increase by dramatic leaps and bounds. “If every one of them were written down, I suppose

even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” Even John

the Revelator translated into a modern e-mail version, or in a day of high speed printing

presses would still encounter a similar problem with what could not be encompassed by our

inadequate knowledge. What we don’t know will always exceed exponentially what we

know.

Knowing all the answers and possessing all learning requires arrogance and beyond

arrogance ─ humility and Godhood. Who among us could have ever conceived of the blue

print of chromosomes and genes before they ever existed and imagined therein could be part

of the essence of life and the beginning of man and the creatures and planets around him?

But maybe a gene and an atom are only a blue print and maybe they are only a beginning

point? This may be disconcerting and startling to some people. The possibility is enough to

141
make an atheist mortified with anxiety and about to vomit and squirm with red-faced denial.

We may be only second-guessing an incomprehensibly supernatural intelligence as to how

and why things exist as they do. But mankind may have become the laughing stock of the

universe if his plight wasn’t so dreadfully pitiful and mercy has no provision. The human

race may need sympathy, and maybe downright pity more than anything else. Why should a

man imagine himself as a privileged sovereign of the Universe when his former Eden is a

wrecked world and his inheritance is crime. Who in his right mind would want to steal it

from him? He has nothing anyone in the universe could want. Unless ─ but that seems like

an incomparable humiliation and man is not a keen enough creature to appreciate it? Why

should anyone want to do that!

142
 PALEONTOLOGY & DINOSAUR DNA

A recent conundrum for the intelligentsia as the evolutionists would like to deceive the

world into thinking of their gymnastics of intellectual flights of back-firing imaginations and

unprovoked circular theories ─ of programmed falsehoods and dreamt up pretenses along

with backhanded excuses slashed across whirlwinds of nonsense: (theirs could be described as

a spectacularly indoctrinaired education with fabulous proportions of fiction). The recent

discovery of extremely fragile and delicate biological tissues inside the fossilized bones of

dinosaurs, and other comparable discoveries has shaken up the paleontology world with the

drastic insult they could have been wrong about many of their unprovable timeline assertions.

In fact, being wrong was not thought to be a rational alternative. But an unexpected

discovery can easily manhandle even an adept scientist. These new discoveries were secreted

away, mysteriously, for millenniums and ages beyond suspect, inside of ancient, fossilized

bones that contain fleeting biological substances such as; blood vessels, red blood cells,

possibly DNA, RNA which is even more fragile than DNA and protein, as well as collagen.

It is well established that DNA chemical substances have a very short shelf life. For instance:

at 100 degrees C, adenine found in DNA, RNA, and ADP and guanine found in DNA have

chemical half-lives of only about one year; uracil contained in the RNA has a half-life of

twelve years; and cytosine found in the DNA has a half-life of just nineteen days. The

presence of rarely preserved proteins can indicate certain other predecessor chemical

processes, but it is impossible to establish anything near a complete genome from such

143
inadequate data. In most remains a few decades old, a score of other highly perishable and

fleeting biological materials with proven short survival rates last for only a few decades,

weeks, days, even less ─ has left the world of paleontology wheeling from the shock of

dismay in the biological rebuke of their own ignorance. Such an astounding chemical feat

was never supposed to have happened, and it is occasions like this that brings out the best and

most educated and creative liars. It has always been assumed everything in a fossilized bone

had decayed and disappeared millions of years ago! That has been until now ─ that

assumption has been proven startlingly difficult to imagine as anywhere reliable by recent

discoveries. In the most ideal conditions, Collagen, the longest lasting biological material

other than bone, is known to last no longer than about 2000 thousand years at normal burial

temperatures, other words, well within the recorded history of man. But could even far more

fragile biological materials in fossilized and supposedly ancient Dinosaur bones have lasted

for millions of years unfossilized as fragile genetic proofs preserved in a mummified state

without having totally decomposed and disappeared? Scientists for scientific reasons are

growingly skeptical such evidences could have lasted unless dinosaurs lived much more

recently then once believed. Some things are certainly obvious but deniable, of course, and

that is the purpose of science these days it would seem ─ to deny what is the most intuitively

astounding and obvious, therefore that which makes the most sense. That is the way it is in

science where the obvious is most often mistrusted and misconstrued as an inadmissible

argument. One Montana 68,000,0000 million year old Tyrannosaurus was still in possession

of some of his Red Blood cells and Blood Vessels. An unbelievable feat for one very tuff old

monster. Dr. Mary Schweitzer, a molecular Paleontologist at North Carolina State made one

of the first discoveries. “Not only is the tissue intact, it is still transparent and pliable…. The

144
removal process left behind stretchy bone matrix material that, when examined

microscopically, seemed to show blood vessels, osteocytes, or bone building cells, and other

recognizable organic features.” There was an attempt to compare “branching blood vessels

and many small microstructures to structures in modern day Ostriches.” In support of the

current evolutionary theory that birds are closely related to dinosaurs. Do Ostriches have a

dino gene? That question should cause already bewildered and alarmed paleontologists to

scurry off to collect their evolutionary war gear and switch the ‘On’ switch to their electron

microscopes for another bewildered look. There were two photos offered for comparison, but

it seemed to me as only a humble artistic genius that it would take a lot of stretching of the

imagination in all directions to get the two to look even remotely alike ─ a lot more elasticity

than claimed, you might say to get the answer right. But than, that is why I am not an expert

but only a genius. I don’t see faces on the moon to prove life is there, or patchy

resemblances of ape like humans in clouds, and metaphors of patch worked time in stones and

genes. The theory that birds are related to dinosaurs was recently contradicted by another

find: An alleged 65 million year old duckbilled dinosaur still wearing his fossilized skin as

“hard as iron” mail, with fossilized scales ─ and is reputed to possibly have other body organs

as well. (Discovered in southwestern North Dakota.) North Dakota is a place where

something can be north of everything that is south, east or west of anything else. Skin decays

rapidly, therefore fossilization had to occur extremely rapidly if not suddenly to preserve it.

Otherwise, decomposition would see to it that there wouldn’t be anything left to discover and

argue over? The sudden rapidity of disaster is ascertained by a Corythosaurs buried alive

while giving birth. [My hearing on this one may have been a little faulty, but I believe this

was the beast described]. Chemistry says all perishable biological material should be gone in

145
a few thousand years at most. Time does not alter the laws of chemistry. But time and

inclination can easily alter the rationality of some minds.

Mary Schweitzer admitted, “The new finding will be viewed skeptically. It’s very,

very, very controversial because most people have gone on record saying there is an absolute

time limit to anything that’s protein or DNA.”

Blood cells in dinosaur bone should have disappeared eons ago. “I got goose bumps,”

recalls Mary Schweitzer. “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of

course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million

years old. How could blood cells last that long”?

Why was Schweitzer, an eye witness who microscopically observed the insides of a T.

rex bone, afraid to believe her own eyes? Isn’t empirical science about studied observation?

Connective tissue ruins and degrades over time, such that DNA could not survive at all, even

if the creature lived only 10,000 years ago. The existence of 65 million year old DNA is

biologically unthinkable. Other words, the old-earth evolutionary tale is clearly at odds with

the fresh dinosaur bone evidence. How embarrassing to the academic establishment! This

may be why ongoing dinosaur soft tissue discoveries are generally not broadcast through

popular media channels. Acts & Facts, Institute For Creation Research.

“I mean can you imagine pulling a bone out of the ground after 68,000,000 years and

then getting intact protein sequences?” said John Asara of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical

Center and Harvard Medical School, lead author of one of the studies.” ( Mary Schweitzer

stated, she “couldn’t believe it”). “That’s mind boggling how much preservation there is in

these bones.” Impossible of course, unless such discoveries indicate a sort of phony

evolutionary magic has occurred─ the bones are not as nearly as old as they have been

146
inaccurately dated ─ only a few thousand years old as indicated by a recent flood story in

contrast to millions and tens of millions of years as attested to by the evolutionary dumb

theory: an indication that radiometric techniques and theories are not only grossly but

fantastically inaccurate and misleading?

Scientists discovered bacteria in 200,000,000 year old salt crystals. When the

scientists took the bacteria out and plated them, the bacteria were still alive and grew. “There

is…the question of how bacterial biopolymers can remain intact over millions of years in

dormant bacteria, or, conversely, if bacteria are metabolically active enough to repair

biopolymers, this raises the question of what energy source could last over such a long

period.” I think the evolutionists are beating their bloodied heads against the rocks of a

naturalistic fate and damnations. One should wonder whether the salt crystals are actually

200 million years old or only a few thousand? Supposing there were an incredible 200

million year energy source, ridiculous, of course, how could a bacteria live for 200 million

years? That’s the really critical question posed by the suggestion of such extreme ages. Man

lives only 60-80 years on the average ─ a dominantly superior species, we believe, suffers

from a dangerously inferior mortality rate, whereas bacteria, an inferior, and often dangerous

or questionably useful entity can achieve an unchallengeable, and unimaginable biological

immortality? What a cruel price to pay for intellectual superiority and a little bit of ego. But

it fits with “the survival of the fittest” as these bacteria have survived longer than any other

life form, it is claimed. Therefore, these bacteria, rather than man, are the ultimate triumph of

the evolutionary scenario. Life must spiral downwards to achieve the ultimate evolutionary

victory! But I, like many others, have too much of an ‘ego’ and too much good sense to

believe this, or any other evolutionary poop-ontology.

147
 Tomas Lindahl in 1993 wondered “Deprived of the repair mechanisms provided in

living cells, fully hydrated DNA is spontaneously degraded to short fragments over a time

period of several thousand years at moderate temperatures. The apparent observation that

fully hydrated plant DNA might be retained in high-molecular mass form for 20,000,000

years is incompatible with the known properties of chemical structure of DNA.”

Notice the age estimates over which DNA is supposedly capable of surviving is down

drastically from 200 million to 20 million years and the bottom of the evolutionary Stock

Market is dropping out like lightening in referral to “the known properties.”

“Lindahl is probably correct in saying that DNA cannot last much longer than 10,000

years. All points of view are consistent when one concludes these old ages are wrong.”

Edward Golenberg. In fact, there are no historical dates which collaborate that DNA could

last for 4-5000 years and any known historically supported time periods are far less. 10,000

years is in itself, an extreme exaggeration of any known facts!

Definitely, Lindahl and Golenberg are on the right track, but there is one scandalous,

unacceptable conclusion to naturalist science that the detected DNA in such instances is not

millions of years old, but only a few thousand years old at most, but to suggest such a

scandalous possibility would be like a sacrilege degrading the country club atmosphere of the

evolutionary imaginary halls of triumph and the cause of all this debauchery would be an

ancient, world-wide flood.

A fossilized jelly fish was discovered in South Australia, mummified baleen in

deposits of whale bone near the Chilean coast; a fossilized fish memorializes in its stone

sudden Catastrophe as the larger predator in still-life swallows its prey with the victim’s tail

protruding out of the aggressor’s mouth. Instantaneous preservation by sudden Catastrophe is

148
the only explanation. If not, you explain it if you are arrogant enough to think you are more

astute than the cleverest source of incomprehensible academoniac: [ego insanity induced by

too much imaginary learning]. Most of mankind’s beliefs require overconfident self-

deceiving arrogance in direct denial of rational thought. These startling and contradictory

discoveries to pet paradigms of evolutionary schemes have sent paleontologists wheeling and

virtually standing on their heads and wondering what they can do next, if one can do much

rational thinking while spinning on one’s head. I doubt Shakespeare ever attempted it with

pen and ink in hand while writing Hamlet ─ the punctuation would have flown uncontrollably

in all directions along with letters and words and splatters of ink─ you could never write the

word evolution or Hamlet that way. As pointed out, what does this all mean for the bird

relationship of Bambiraptor dressed up in the ‘full regalia’ of faked and imaginary feathers

with a purported line of descent to birds, or a “65 million year old Triceratops whose

supposed DNA was discovered to have been deliberately substituted with turkey DNA.”

ICONS OF EVOLUTION: Archaeopteryx: Chapter on The Missing Link. Did you get that!

Had it been pork, it could have been a real link to substance hidden behind someone’s teeth!

These erroneous claims were a dishonest, sadistic tampering with the evidence without any

regard for the consequences of false information preying upon the public’s gullibility to

fraudulent science. Pass the dinosaur turkey loaf, please, mixed with Spin-ach and Nuts as in

culprit. I would like to know how many millions of years ago this crime occurred and did

authorities ever apprehended the 21st century culprit? I am guessing in which millennium and

century the crime or crimes occurred. Was this miraculous staging of disbelief an attempt to

discredit legitimate finds, made by other shocked and dismayed evolutionists, as I have

mentioned, over specimens, which have intact, ancient DNA inside their bones where no one

149
had ever been clever enough to look! Likely the turkey fraud had more to do with upholding

the Bambiraptor fraud, than to discredit tyrannosaurus by a suspect PHD who had grown

dizzy and bored from watching too many evolutionary science fiction horror flicks on TV and

couldn’t resist the plunge. “The end of the world is at hand” cried forth by disturbed

evolutionists right along and right beside on channel with the evangelical doom-sayers and

one of them very likely maybe right! “More than any time in history, mankind faces a cross-

roads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let

us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.” Woody Allen.

Check out the Body-Farm on the internet. There are established, historical rates of

body tissue decay at which point nothing but dust and fossils and lifeless matter is left. Every

evolutionist and atheist you see today, will one day be turned to dust and blown about by ill

winds, or swept out of people’s CLOSETS, and their infamy recounted only in the dusty

ossuary of books.

In Fact, “bio-chemical decay rates showing that soft tissues would be dust after all this

time [millions of years] are also thus far unfalsified” [even in a few thousand years].

“Therefore, the millions-of-years of age assignments must go.”

“However, if the deep time goes, then so does the grand theory of evolution that

depends on it. For many, that is too sacred an assumption to dare alter. Biblical data,

however, not only provide a timeframe for the death of these dinosaurs in Flood deposits a

few thousand years ago, but also a mode of deposition in agreement with observable data that

their demise occurred when they “fell into a watery grave.”” Acts & Facts. September 2009.

The “National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in

sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism.” Says Storrs L. Olson of Smithsonian

150
Institution. National Geographic’s Archaeoraptor, or “Piltdown bird” fraud brought harsh

criticism from the scientific community. What was all the conflict about? In an Open Letter

to Dr. Peter Raven of the NGS, Olson addresses the problem: “At a press conference held at

National Geographic Headquarters October 15,” (1999), “ a team of Geographic-supported

experts” (an expert is nomenclature for a highfalutin professional sociopath liar) “unveiled the

fossil, which they named Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis. At the time, the team members

announced that the 125-million-year-old creature, as well as two other fossils’ (all smuggled)

“from China which were also featured, demonstrated that feathers were widespread among

theropods, the carnivorous dinosaurs that include Tyrannosaurus and Velociraptor. Unique to

the Archaeoraptor fossil, they said, was the presence of both bird-like bone structure and a

strong, dinosaur-like tail.” These turned out to be composites from two very different

creatures. The dinosaur tail, it was later learned, did not belong to the rest of the beast, who

might have otherwise felt very naked without a tail while still alive and in the confusion of an

a-typical metamorphous. The so-called Archaeoraptor appeared in a full spread photograph in

the December National Geographic Magazine, the discovery “hailed as the best evidence to

date for Darwin’s so-called “missing link.” If this was the best evidence to date, than what

was the rest of the evidence? Certainly scandals. It is now widely known, this elusive,

illustrated link was a fraud, and what was hopelessly missing was the truth. To summarize,

no legitimate evidence for a missing link has ever been found! Obviously, the NGM is still

much in want of that missing link to integrity and the truth.

“Prior to the publication of the article Dinosaurs Take Wing in the July 1998 National

Geographic… I (Olson) tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative

viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it became eventually

151
clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing

dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs. It figures as little more than editorial

propagandizing…. This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies

of embryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned.

“More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan’s article that

are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is

little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact. The statement on page 103

that “hollow, hair-like structures characterized as protofeathers” is nonsense considering that

protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even

more hypothetical.

“The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National

Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence

that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur

Deinonychus and illustrations of baby trannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is

simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.

“The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively

promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature

and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased

proselytizers of the FAITH. TRUTH and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been

among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander

scientific hoaxes of our age.” Olson

This is just “one more example of the scientific community peddling fraud as

scientific fact.” Charles Colson. January 28, 2000.

152
 “A breathtaking forgery.” Tim Friend USA Today

A lie is a dinosaur with a tale pinned on, although the liar thinks it is a bird of

paradise.

Mary Schweitzer’s turkey shoot of a Piltdown-Tyrannosaurus monster so huge its

meat would feed entire villages has been called off due to the lack of prey. No one has asked

what if any alternatives she has planned for her Thanksgiving dinner. But this imaginary bird

certainly turned into a turkey of sorts. Dinosaur collagen has since been sequenced leaving no

doubt at all that the protein findings are genuine, and the sequence of dinosaur DNA wasn’t

turkey like but unique! Another slap in the face for National Geographic’s pretense to

science.

National Geographic printed a retraction. Retract quickly what you don’t want to

repent of to save at least your reputation if not your dying sense of honor. If repenting is an

unsatisfactory option, apologize. Most people won’t notice the farce and will forgive. Those

who rarely feel remorse often fear scandal. Remorse is the result of having a conscience, fear

of scandal is the adaptive fear of those who do not. For those who rarely feel remorse, fear of

scandal should be sufficient to keep their deviant behavior in check until they are convinced

they can get away with it the next time around. The overall enjoyment of a significant

scandal is directly proportional to the amount of amusement and money to be gained in the

ruin of reputations, where a simple, insincere apology will save the day if not one’s honor.

This was not the end of numerous other debacles, however. “In 1994…The

winners of the race to sequence dinosaur DNA were Scot Woodward and his colleagues,

who published their results in science. They extracted DNA from a well-preserved

153
dinosaur bone. However, they were not rewarded for their victory. The sequence they

discovered was not like birds or reptiles, but seemed unique.

“These researchers decided not to follow the procedure in the 1993 flowchart, which

would have told them that what they found was an unacceptable “anomaly.” The flowchart

describes the process of extracting dinosaur DNA. Step 7 asks: Is the sequence similar to

154
human, bacterial, or fungal DNA? If the answer is no, then step 8 asks, Is the sequence

similar to birds or crocodiles? If the answer is no, go back to step 1 and begin the procedure

all over again. If the answer is yes, you might have dino DNA. “Since this DNA did not fit

the interpreted evolutionary filter, the authors were raked over the academic coals. Moreover,

the objections were not based on conflicting research results, but appeared in [offended]

editorials and reviews. As a result of the uproar from the scientific community, their dinosaur

DNA sequence never became a permanent entry in any public database. In fact, since this

very public academic flogging, no scientist has attempted to publish any dinosaur DNA

research (resulting in “chilled” academic speech).” Acts and Facts, October 2009. If the

evidence deviates from evolution’s foregone conclusion, the facts are declared by the theory

to be in error ─ not the reverse ─ that the facts declare the theory in error! Since Scott

Woodward and his colleagues were the first to sequence dinosaur DNA, how could the

flowchart have predetermined a year in advance of their discovery that dinosaur DNA could

only resemble bird or crocodile DNA? A coincidence had it been right would have required

divination or something entirely of the miraculous. “Evolutionary “damage control” is

observed in the form of “chilling’ (i.e., coerced) censorship of research, with severe

consequences to those who “buck the System.” Acts & Facts. Truth is strangled by an

Inquisition. Imagine what these modern evolutionary despots would do, were they to gain

control of American Democracy as well as science? Democracy would come to a screaming,

screeching halt! Overnight, our land of freedom would be transformed into a totalitarian

state. The freedom of speech, and of the press, and of religion would be wiped out.

Evolution is a thoroughly cooked up theory boiling down to a conspiracy of antagonists to

truth and freedom.

155
 “Current naturalistic evolutionary theories hold that organic molecules should not

preserve over 100,000 years,” but where is there any evidence for this claim? I say it’s so, so

it’s so declared by a secular naturalist-anointed, prophesying PHD atheist? Over 65 million

years is majestically unbelievable and over a few thousand years is incredibly unbelievable!

There is a 65 million year gap in this riddle if you stop to think about it ─ 65 million years

which could have never occurred, either by fact, fantasy or theory stretched beyond the limits

of an uncontrolled and wild imagination! 65,000,000 yrs - 100,000 yrs = 64,900,000 yrs,

which never existed, leaving for known chemical and empirical evidence less than a

maximum of 5,000 yrs = 64,995,000 years which could have never occurred. The

65,000,000 years never existed. It just evaporated!! I was allowing 5,000 years for

extremely generous empirical evidence of chemical and time reactions when there is not any

empirical or historical evidence that biological materials will last anywhere near as long as 5

thousand years or even possibly 4 thousand years! See the problem? Other words, research

data which demonstrates such vast time-frames of preservation are entirely theoretical and

fictitious and off the map and unintuitive to any known and supportable date more than

several thousand years of known history. Theory, and not demonstrable data within already

known and limited parameters of a couple of thousand years for biological materials, “time

doesn’t alter chemistry” is needed to “exponentially and fictionally” stretch out the time-

frame “like stretchy bone matrix material” as an utterance of theoretical faith and

presumption. In less then 5,000 years ─ less than 4,000 years nothing is left but mummies,

dust and empty tombs. The evolutionists and the atheists will all be gone forever into the

unsettling and dusty nightmare of their disintegrating future. And nothing could make them

happier.

156
 So why is it so difficult to get answers out of very old mummies ─ like dead Pharaohs,

and so easy, once you’re learned the trick, to find answers just waiting to be discovered in

millions of year old dinosaur bones, is an astonishing mystery if you haven’t already guessed

there is something drastically and disturbingly wrong with modern dating techniques. Here

we have the very blueprints of life shouting out their recent age in conflict with the tick-tocks

in the rocks!

Evolution, however, will not be allowed to die a natural death. It must be propped up

by crutches, sustained by respirators and emergency tactics, and by a hopeless enthusiasm for

a dying and malignant and mean patient who is of no use to anyone other than frauds and

liars if left living.

MITOCHONDIA EVE

Who was Mitochondrial Eve? Her introduction first seized the popular imagination

with the original scientific article published in the January 1, 1987 issue of Nature, by Cann,

Stoneking, and Wilson; publicized as the Cann et al. study which announced, they had

“proven” that all modern human beings can trace their ancestry back to a single woman who

lived thousands of years ago in Africa. This woman was nicknamed Eve. This caused an

immediate international sensation and her name stuck. Only scientists can exceed publishers

in raising the temperature of sensationalism. Together, they can cook up almost anything

beyond the boiling point of wild speculation which crescendoed to a January 26, 1987 article

in Time, and in the following year to a major Newsweek production in January 1988 under the

sensational heading: “The Search for Adam and Eve: Scientists Explore a Controversial

Theory About Man’s Origins.” I still remember the News Week Magazine cover of Adam and

157
Eve, with Eve holding the apple more matter-of-factly than temptingly and the green serpent

full of guile and twisted around the tree in the background. The illusion to Genesis was

unmistakable. But the Newsweek Cover illustration was not a runaway masterpiece

recommending it to be hung in the gallery of a great museum. Adam was looking at Eve, not

at the apple. Where was the fascination of the temptation, and therefore man’s fascination

with the story ever since ─ and in center space was the cause of all of man’s woes, the

woman, Eve. Did the portrait really look like her, did it do her justice? Justice, of course,

was accomplished by other means and begins a very long and convoluted story. I felt like

booing. She wouldn’t even turn heads today. Since that first clinical trial played out between

a man and a woman as husband and wife in paradise long ago, the prospects of marriage

makes any expectation of immortal life extremely scary. Fortunately for Adam, he was a

coward and took the quickest way out when the opportunity came. But due to some

unrevealed incompetence, that took nearly a thousand years! And here’s the snag, whether

one falls in love, or falls out of love, either way involves a fall.

That aside. The claims made by the scientists in the original articles have brewed a lot

of controversy ever since. There are all sorts of extravagant claims fast forwarded, and new

data hitting the field, leading one internet author or authors to announce The Demise of

Mitochondrial Eve, apparently proposing their article as her obituary. Have scientists

successfully concealed the body of evidence in a crypt of scientific embarrassments, or

resurrected a subject they would rather forget? What is needed here is a diagnosis to decide

if the patient could have died of the symptoms described. And why did scientists name her,

Mitochondrial Eve, is fundamentally important to the intriguing story? First, understanding

what the mitochondria is and what functions it performs inside the body and within the cell

158
and how it is inherited is important to understanding “Eve’s” significance in the controversy.

The mitochondria are “the rod like, or bean like” structures in the cytoplasm of eukaryote

cells that serve as the center of inter-cellular enzyme activity which produces the ATP needed

to power the cell.” ATP is the molecule or the ‘energy source’ which runs the cell. The

mitochondria has its own digital-like coded DNA separate from that of the nucleus of the cell

which oversees the production of other proteins and hormones and innumerable chemicals

necessary to support life and its functions. The mitochondria DNA (mtDNA) strand is shorter

and relatively simple compared to the DNA strand found within the nucleus. And unlike the

nuclear DNA which is inherited from both parents, mitochondria (mtDNA) is inherited by

both the male and the female only from the maternal side of the family, or from the mother’s

line. And thus this line of descent can be traced back to a single woman who was the mother

of us all. So the scientific icon representing this hypothesis was nicknamed Eve for the first

woman. The choice of the name sensationalized the whole concept and that they could come

close to even proving it was totally startling and unexpected. This set up the stage for what

was to come next.

THE MOLECULAR CLOCK

The researchers who made the initial discovery of Eve’s mitochondrial linage,

proposed the time period during which she was supposed to have lived. The hypothesis went

like this. Mutations in the simpler Mitochondrial DNA occur much faster than in the nuclear

DNA, compressing more evolutionary generations into less time. If the assumption was made

there was one mutation every 1,000 years, and10 mutations were found between us and our

159
hypothetical ancestor, than it was assumed that ancestor lived 10,000 years ago.

However, “Until approximately 1997, we did not have good empirical measures of

mutation rates in humans. However, that situation greatly improved when geneticists were

able to analyze DNA from individuals with established family trees going back several

generations. One study found that mutation rates in mitochondria DNA were eighteen times

higher than previous estimates. (see Parsons, et al., 1997)” Another source quotes (the

same) “study by Parsons et al (1997) found a rate 20 times higher than that calculated from

other sources.” Http://www.freemaninstitute.com

Science writer Ann Gibbons authored an article for the January 2, 1998 issue of

Science titled: “The mitochondrial Clock,” the subheading which read as follows:

“Mitochondrial DNA appear to mutate faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics

procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events.” In that

article, she discussed the new data which showed rates used to obtain mitochondrial Eve’s age

no longer could be considered valid, and concluded: “Regardless of the cause, evolutionists

are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have

calculated that “Mitochondrial Eve” ─ the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that of all

living people ─ lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago…. Using the new clock, she would be a

mere 6,000 years old. (1998: 279:29, emphasis added.” That hung the jury and many

evolutionary reputations! Compare this to the recent discoveries of dinosaur DNA and

known decay rates of DNA materials and blood components and dates attained by Mass

Spectrometers ─ it indicates something is drastically wrong and startling with long age

theories!

The objection was immediate and right on cue. Gibbons quickly went on to note, of

160
course, “no one thinks that’s the case! An educated prejudice trumps research? Remember

Mary Schweitzer: referring to dinosaur DNA, “Of course, I couldn’t believe it.” But perhaps,

the case was, no one was thinking rationally and accepting the evidence presenting itself.

Only a naturalist would dare stare down a stubborn fact into submission and then oblivion,

then deny anything which can not be explained by the irrationalities of their evolutionary

gullibility. Or, the whole episode became an evolutionary cat fight? Fraud Check. p. 14.

“The ‘passing’ of one of evolution’s most familiar icons [ Eve] is due to new scientific

facts that have surfaced since her introduction in 1987. If humans received mitochondrial

DNA only from their mothers, then researchers could ‘map’ a family tree using that

information. And, if the mutations affecting mtDNA had indeed occurred at constant rates,

then mtDNA could serve as a molecular clock for timing evolutionary events and

reconstructing the evolutionary history of extant species.” It is the ‘ifs’ in these two sentences

that are the problem….” Indeed, the devil punctuates with “ifs.” If this is true, than all else

could be false, take note, the ifs are split for either side. If someone says, but, you have to

make an immediate judgment that the truth is one side, and the lie is on the other side. Your

responsibility is to figure out which side the truth is on.

“The validity of these assertions, however, depend upon two critically important

assumptions: (1) that mtDNA is, in fact, derived exclusively from the mother and (2) that the

mutation rate associated with mtDNA have remained constant over time. However, we now

know that both of these assumptions are wrong”! This is a very pragmatic and unapologetic

assertion that these hypothesizes have been proven wrong, otherwise it could not be known

that they are wrong. But have these hypothesizes actually been disproven? You cannot

disprove or prove an if with another if!

161
 The author continues :“First, let us examine the assumption that mtDNA is derived

solely from the mother… Several recent papers… have suggested that elements of mtDNA

may sometimes be inherited from the father. This hypothesis is based on evidence that

mtDNA may undergo recombination. If this does occur, maternal mtDNA in the egg must

cross over with homologous sequences in a different DNA molecule; paternal mtDNA seems

the most likely candidate…. If mtDNA can recombine, irrespective of the mechanism, there

are important implications for mtDNA evolution and for phylogenetic studies that use

mtDNA.” (Mightowlers, 2002, 355:1290, emphasis added). Note the large number of words

and phrases of contingency and unpredictability, disproving the verification of proof! There

is only one known case I have read of recombination which seems to have been possibly

confirmed and the patient was ill. Most claims are similar to the following quote from Athena

Review: Paleoanthropology Molecular clockwork and related theories: “As masses of data

accumulate from the statistically-oriented studies of mitochondrial biology, (scientists are

certain to uncover something it would seem) it is becoming apparent that the required

methodology of studying mtDNA is anything but straightforward. Currently under fire is the

once –canonical view that mtDNA is inherited only through the mother, now challenged by a

set of studies reported in Proceedings of the Royal Society ( 7 March 1999) by Erika

Hagelberg of Cambridge University, and Adam Eyre-Walker, Noel Smith and John Maynard

Smith of Sussex University. Why is maternal mtDNA under fire? It doesn’t mean the

finding about mitochondria Eve is wrong. [It means rather, that evolutionists don’t like the

implications of a short age Biblical Eve]. [What apparently was reported as the new disproof,

debunking the Eve embarrassment? ] It has been long known that paternal mitochondria can

sometimes penetrate the human egg and survive for several hours. [It apparently fails to

162
displace the mother’s maternal line which is the whole point, however]. And it is admitted in

the next line], evidence of [paternal] mtDNA recombinations in human populations has been

very elusive.” The above example does not produce evidence of a permanent replacement of

maternal mitochondria with paternal mtDNA [ the father’s side] in a cell as a healthy

substitute. These researchers apparently don’t get it. And in another place in this same

article, theory is suggested: “Recombination with paternal mtDNA causing some variation in

mtDNA would make its mutation rate much lower [how do they know this?] than biologists

thought. Erye-Walker notes Eve may have lived twice as long ago as current estimates.”

Evolutionists are desperate to fit Eve back into the evolutionary model and desperate people

do desperate things. If recombination can be proven, than recombination should, it is

theorized, slow down the molecular clock, and Eve should show a greater age. Note: this is

both a predicted outcome and a non-observed event! Evolution needs more time! To think

that Eve lived a mere 6,000 Biblical years ago is extremely embarrassing to their beloved

evolutionary sinking ship. After all of this hustle and bustle and thunder and lighting and

masses of data and the current methodology and canonical view under fire, everything we

were expecting comes to a sudden bust and boom to a screeching halt ending in a timid

whimper “can sometimes survive for several hours,” ─ not for an organism’s entire lifetime if

the cell is going to survive and to thrive, and is not going to flunk out on its evolutionary

expectations. This is what all the hoopla was about?! It was all smoke and air, thunder and

buster and when the smoke cleared what was left was only contaminated air. The way they

were building this up to a crescendo into a triumphal evolutionary climax, I wasn’t expecting

a whimper instead of a bang. So the final conclusion which proves the first if is wrong ─ is??

You have to watch out for evolutionary claims, they are often strutting more than they can

163
boast, more than they can know like a rooster strutting before the axe is dropped.

“Mitochondria in the sperm from the father [now where else would they get it] were

presumed to be destroyed immediately after conception, leaving behind only those from the

mother [sperm from the mother?]. But Marianne Schwartz and John Vissing from the

University Hospital Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, have discovered that one of their patients

inherited the majority of his mitochondria from his father.

‘”Even with very sensitive methods, paternal mitochondrial DNA has never been

detected in man before,’ Schwartz told Reuters. “There are many examples of family

pedigrees that follow mitochondrial diseases through the maternal line.” But as we are going

to learn, this one is sickly and a healthy one has never been found.

“The pair made the discovery while trying to discover why one of their patients

suffered extreme fatigue during exercise. The 28 year-old man had an entirely normal heart

and lungs and his muscles appeared healthy. But on closer inspection, Schwartz and Vissing

discovered that his muscles absorbed very little oxygen.

“This led them to examine the genetic sequence of his mitochondria. They discovered

two mutations in his mitochondria DNA ─ one of which was responsible for his extreme

fatigue.

“To try and investigate the mutations further, they also sequenced the DNA of his

mother, father and Uncle. To their surprise, the sequence matched those of his father and

uncle.”

This astounding and unexpected or contrived, or mistaken result as is often the case in

announced evolutionary discoveries, is a virtual rarity and the only case ever detected of

paternal mitochondria inheritance and is, unfortunately, a myopathy, a mitochondrial disease

164
where some genetic process has gone wrong enough to dethrone Mitochondrial Eve from her

scientific, canonical infallibility? Undoubtedly, these fact finders are going to need an entire

regiment of sick and ailing patients cursed by their paternal inheritance and numerous healthy

ones for certain, to edge out the competition from Eve, or to prove anything other than

evolution may have slipped and in the fall is responsible for causing the only noted case of

paternally inherited mitochondrial disease: the consequence, if evolution is going to be used

as an excuse for any kind of outcome, which seems fair to me. Instead of blaming an act of

God the next time something drastic happens, or I get the flu or catch a cold, I will consider

blaming one of my cellular, evolutionary mutations for acting up and causing me trouble, or

say evolution has screwed up mother nature and has slammed her flat on her back again.

But things don’t really improve and they do so dramatically.

Pertaining to argument (2) “let us examine the assumption that the mutations affecting

mtDNA did indeed occur at constant rates. We now know (this) assumption (is) wrong.”

Then where is the published data? My answer is short and to the point and to quote from the

same article: “Until 1997 we did not have good empirical measures of mutation rates.” This

means conversely, after 1997, we did have good empirical measures of mutation rates. This

conclusion is supported by, “that situation greatly improved when geneticists were able to

analyze DNA from individuals with well established family trees going back several

generations.” And what did this new evidence conclude? The new calculation of Eve’s age at

6,000 years is based on these newer, well-established, more accurate mutation rates. But the

writers now seem to concluded this new information has to be inaccurate or irrelevant by

quoting, “no one believes that’s the case, therefore, “We now know [this] assumption [is]

wrong”! Baloney! This is like the conundrum, which came first: the chicken or the egg? The

165
solution is easy, an egg doesn’t incubate the chicken! The triads of emotional denials caused

by the unexpected shock tests of more accurate mutation rates, proving what the evolutionists

dreaded and definitely did not want to hear, are regarded as more authoritive than the more

recent empirical findings which invalidates whatever point the writer or writers were trying to

make.

Eve’s age was recalculated in 1998 to be 6,000 years old. From the argument that

greater accuracy was achieved after 1997, we should assume this age is now correct and it

certainly matches what we know of the Biblical account. But right after quoting this new age

of Eve based on more accurate measurements after 1997, the writer or writers regress to

arguing, “We now know the two key assumptions behind the data used to establish the

existence of Eve are not just flawed, but wrong.”

But if both assumptions were wrong, how were they wrong as I just stated their

supporting argument? Whereas, Mitochondria DNA is maternally inherited solely from the

mother is not strongly disputed by a rare, possibly single deleterious paternal mutation. In

fact, the interpretation of the data after 1997 has not been disproven. Yet, these protagonists

of the facts counter as though absent-mindedly that the accurate statistics after 1997 has been

disproven by a simple declarative disclaimer that “No one thinks that’s the case!” Where is

the missing statistical data needed to prove their contention that Eve never existed? The

authors are wrong on both accounts because they lumped both objections together and were

unable to differentiate the right one from the wrong one, or prove any of their final and

concluding assertions. At this point they don’t have any idea whatever is right from wrong

they are so entirely confused by their refusal to believe the statistical research.

Evolution’s lack of being able to prove its vacillating claims strengthens the short age

166
evidence which goes back into the cannon of embarrassing evolutionary statistics and mishaps

─ or something like the opposite of a mishap if you are a creationist. And the evolutionists

still don’t get it! Not only has Eve been revived, she has grown much younger in relation to

her kin like the children of Narnia over time! As based on Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, or

a door of relativity. C.S. Lewis. “The original [slower]mutation rate used to calibrate the so-

called “molecular clock” are now known to have been in error.” Scientists seem unable to

make up their minds between embarrassment and facts. The evolutionists were originally

unwilling to accept only a few hundred thousand years for the Age of Eve, sure those numbers

were incorrect and were suppose to be a few million, so they kept working on their pesky

little problem until they got those numbers down so embarrassingly low they could be black

mailed shame facedly into lying about the experimental results. The strategy to preserve

evolution is to keep denying, keep lying until hopefully something magical turns up. The

empirical evidence states: the mutation rate was in error before 1997, corrected after 1997.

No wonder science is in such a muddle. Scientists have lost track of their own line of

reasoning – inconclusively reasoning circularly like a clock out of time! The name of the

internet article: The Demise of Mitochondrial EVE. The demise of ─ I will reserve further

comment.

Criticisms of these new mathematical facts have gone through the evolutionary time-

machine like untimely bombshells, and the evolutionists are the most offended by Eve’s

thankless anti-evolutionary stance after they had revived her. Eve has betrayed and offended

the human race once again, or a few disappointed members of that race one would assume so

goes the story. And now the evolutionists have a hereditary squabble with the females and

mothers of our race.

167
 Twin Double Helix’s

Even more intriguing than Eve’s potential age, if the mitochondria could be eliminated

from its cellular function, maybe the entire argument would go away en-mass or one by one

as every living vertebrae and cell died off on the planet. There is something inexplicable

about the mitochondria’s cellular association in that it possess its own, separate DNA apart

from that of the nucleus. The survival of the nucleus DNA and the entire organism is

dependent on the survival of the mitochondria and its mtDNA. One can not live or function

without the other and without inflicting a complex number of genetic diseases, serious to

terminal. If you removed the mitochondria from the cytoplasm, the nucleus would suffer a

catastrophic malfunction and the patient would atrophy and die. Both sets of DNA are

interdependent yet separate, which argues they could not have evolved independently, but

must have arrived simultaneously as fully functional pieces of genetic machinery on scene or

the cell would have perished. In fact, it would have never existed. There are two separate

DNA digital-like codes or sets of instructions inside a single cell undoubtedly with their own,

separate epigenous, arguing they could not have evolved separately because of their

interdependent nature as separate, living pieces of cellar machinery necessary to, yet apart

from, while operating in concert with the other. This relationship forms a genetic symbiosis

comparison, implicating design as the master and only possible instigator. DNA does not

have any intrinsic means of copying itself. It is therefore an extremely unlikely candidate for

the creation or reproduction of a different set of DNA inside the same cell which itself

appears to be the result of engineering much too clever to have been left entirely to chance.

Resultantly, the cellular machinery exhibits an irreducible complexity governed by an

unimaginably doubly complex digital-like coding system which has no other logical

168
explanation than that it was somehow designed to work in concert!

It will take more than an evolutionary revivalist campaign to save the day of tall tales

and the strangest of genetic inventions when the end of evolution is near.

Overheard between one fiend to another, “Who’s that jerk who proved the Bible right,

demote him immediately to the flames after we make a firm denial of everything.”! The

humans are likely to revolt? Then spare no fiendish mercy for either bribery or deceit to

induce the humans to disbelieve their own senses. Burn the good with the bad together, we

don’t have favorites, it’s a kind of devilish justice reserved for the most deserving.

BACK TO HONESTY

TV is one of these modern day miracles, making it possible for people to enjoy the

atrociousness of crime. It is safer to write about crime, than to commit it. “The average 18

year old has witnessed 200,000 violate crimes and 40,000 murders on television.” People

witnessing a crime first hand, may not come to a victim’s rescue, because they are not use to

getting involved while watching TV. One can set back, relax and be noncommittal. But if

you fake your dissertation for your PHD with doctored up information, you should be kicked

out of graduate school or jailed as a reward for all your hard earned labors; but if you are an

evolutionist, it will be hushed down to no more than a mere static in the background? To

fake facts and events of historical significance to gain tenure or to graduate with a Doctorial

thesis with honors: “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, as to be hated needs but to be

seen.” Alexander Pope. But it was graded by the professor and approved of by peers and

169
given the grade of A with applause. Things have changed drastically in recent years.

Dishonesty is not a frowned upon vice as it was formerly. If you are an evolutionist with or

without tenure, perpetrating fraud is not really regarded as a serious flaw; it’s evolution’s ace

ball as long as you don’t get caught red-handed and have your face put on a milk carton or on

a dime! A scare face on a dime is a new concept to send out red alerts to the nation but it

could ruin the currency and the economy.

Evolutionists get ever-fatter paychecks particularly if they are lying. A lie is inflated

by the amount of deception it incurs. However, I can feel sympathy for scientists trying to

figure out relationships hundreds of millions of years old (they claim) when I don’t even

know where all my relatives are at, since I moved out of state. That Triceratops was another

fraud on evolution’s beach of naked ambitions! But then, what would be one more fraud

among so many fields of evolutionary fakes? Has anyone investigated whether there is any

carbon 14 in those real dino burgers? To dare ask such a well-timed question at such an

inopportune moment for science must seem a scientific sacrilege. But I’ll ask it

anyway???????? I guess no one has checked for carbon 14? Perhaps, the unwanted and

startling potential to this answer is rattling their bones, or they will just fake the results or

remain suspiciously quite.

Did you know a specimen placed in a jar of mineral water can begin to fossilize in a

few days? “Trees can petrify in a few years, [and] under the right circumstances, especially

higher temperatures, coal can form within a few hours to years.” Ariel Roth. The recent

discoveries of fleeting biological materials in otherwise fossilized specimens contradict the

vast ages as interpreted by modern dating processes, and argue for a much more recent

disposition unless you are willing to prevaricate against the obvious. Credibility is stretched

170
beyond the breaking point ─ and than some and then beyond. And we are suppose to swallow

the entire line and sinker after finding the offending specimen had been buried so deep that to

bury credibility would not have to go so deep. A precedent is the justification for repeating

an error. Lying is the mortar holding evolutionary theory together. Civilization depends on

the lie, loves the lie, cannot function without it. It is the mainstay of our way of life. Destroy

the lie and you will have brought down civilization with it. Truth is good, truth is admirable,

but lying is what gets the work done and ‘is a very present help in time of trouble.’” Such

tactics pays out huge dividends when doing research and about to go bankrupt, make a sudden

though dubious discovery or invent a new hypothesis, and, in many cases, this may be more

than sufficient, and the grant monies will flow like “living water.” Currey is an excellent

example, supported by the National Science Foundation, of science and money run amuck in

each other’s sewers!

Perhaps, I have something else useful I can add to this troubling trend of scientists not

telling the truth: I was trying to stop complaining so often and transform my dissatisfaction

into gratitude. So I said to someone, I really appreciate this. Now, I was lying and in more

trouble than I was before. Most people have a habit of lying. Human beings are not

creatures of logic but of habit. Habits are a pompous and codified form of self-government

and mismanagement more indestructible than customs or laws. Do not trust a man who brags

of his habits and do not trust his habits if they tend to be in any way contradictory to other

aspects of his nature, or to what should be properly expected. I tried to break my habits, but

my habits broke me when I forgot to take only one-step at a time. Joggers can sympathize

with this. I tried to pick myself up and brush the dust off my pride like a champion by

default and limped like an undignified victory to the wrong side of defeat. I have tried to

171
break my habits by “try, try again” until I had the best-trained habits in the world. What to

do, if desperate, give up and tell the truth. It will work wonders like a cure.

But, not everything holds a cure. It can be much easier to live with a clearly dumb

but appreciative and loving beast, than to live with someone who is arrogant and corrupt and

insane, and who lives consequentially in the air of an imaginary world of falsehoods and

paranoia no matter how cleverly conceived. I know, I was married to the Anointed

Cherubim. My problem was I didn’t recognize it. She put on airs of possessing a 139 IQ

filtered through a craftily disguised borderline disorder. I wasn’t impressed, and she

apparently regarded my uprising as an act of blasphemy that I could honestly believe she

didn’t know everything, both then and into the future. An IQ only measures 1 out of every 7-

8 known mental abilities: examples of a few major intellectual abilities not included in IQ

Tests are artistic abilities like that of Raphael, or musical geniuses like Bach, and intellectual

talents with immense creative insight and originality which only an idiot could ever figure out

how to measure and predict. She lacked most of the other eight or nine and had to lie to make

up for the deficit, so I rest my case. My attitude of which she has almost everything to do

with wasn’t marital betrayal, it was largely enhanced by my skepticism of the growing and

overwhelming evidence she didn’t know everything and had to conceal it with her contempt,

but her delusion in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary had become the default

setting in her life.

This is why I can speak as an expert on the subject of lying. I have had the

unprecedented opportunity to study firsthand one of the finest specimens ever collected of an

out and out, unapologetic liar. I have been able to look into the very heart and soul of the lie

and have found it wanting on every occasion and on every account. As a result, I now

172
present my most damming and credible evidence of all ─ she was an attorney. To my

knowledge, no attorney will ever get into paradise as they have robbed so many others of it.

No place is worse than hell unless it has an attorney in it. Only an attorney can make a

respectable living out of wrongdoing. How many Lawyers would like to see the world

become a better place, so they could declare bankruptcy? Lawyers are democracy’s card

carrying Jesuits. It figures, as Satan was the first prosecuting attorney and opposes every

man’s case. Most people are idiots and many more are liars, and she was both to each and

every extreme!

I understand when someone is lying as well as anyone alive except for the devil, and

we disagree on almost everything and would argue all the time had we the chance. I hate the

lie, disrespect it on every occasion I have an opportunity to confront it and condemn it as the

most vile, vicious and hateful thing in all the known universe. I am even willing to make all

sorts of chancy and dangerous statements against it as an indictment of an extreme display of

small self-interest and detest it at every point. Lying has been honed by the human race into

a militant and cunning science. Truth ─ what is truth but a lie picked clean to the bone and

left to rot? Apparently, some reprobates accept this, of which there are more than a few, and

who practice the rituals of debauchery only in the highest art form like modern art.

I have just been alerted by a reliable source that lawyers are more closely related to

meat than to vegetables and potatoes, and that lawyers are a reliable source of protein when

thoroughly cooked, but the sometimes tuff meat of this strange animal without through

tenderizing is hardly digestible by the normal carnivore. However, with better packaging of

the product and more careful training on its use and preservation, cannibalism could become

legalized as long as cannibals swear only to consume lawyers, in spite of the over all average

173
quality of the meat. A few lawyers likely would even go along with this exemption if they

could bribe someone into saving their worthless necks. The flesh of an occasionally good,

ripe lawyer along with beef and chicken could provide irreplaceable nourishment for the

starving and needy and thus help stave off world hunger, constituting an invaluable and

renewable food source as a supply is produced abundantly on a yearly basis ─ much like

raising any other crop. Are you afraid supplies could run out ─ that the victims/ scratch that

word immediately/ these benefactors of the human race, this sounds like a reform, don’t get

wind of, or get alarmed at this proposal, and that fewer will want to chance the gallows and

this will decrease their numbers at university courses dedicated to training for the gallows, or

for late hour services at the butchers. This oversight in our plan of letting the news get out too

soon and stymie our scheme, and scare off our prey, could be the cause of potential fewer

trainees and valuable food supplies could plunge or even be lost, but I can assure you this will

never happen. There are so many human beings in this world who so desperately want to

take advantage of their fellow man and do him an injustice that they will be too distracted by

their pressing studies as to how to cheat and rip off their neighbor to ever take notice of a

public warning of punishment for their a schemes, perhaps, for centuries. Someone else

suggested: Lawyers could be used as a reliable food source so my idea is not entirely original.

Another consumer has tasted blood and has grown to like it. But I want you to know

precisely where I stand: There are two kinds of people in this world and one kind is kinder

than the other kind: Assassins and vegetarians. The assassins are the ones who will need

lawyers and that creates a supply problem. But the instructions for vegetarians is that when

planting lawyers in your garden, use lots of herbicide, much more than recommended.

I feel I need to apologize, however. Everyone with a 139 IQ may not be dishonest but

174
they maybe accident prone. It was my friend, Nick, who also had a 139 IQ, who recovered

consciousness while lying with provocation on top of the ax head after the dead tree limb he

was cutting off ─ when he was still high and lifted up about 12 feet in the air and off the

ground ─ came crashing down with him obeying gravity and riding the down draft at the

precise moment when he least expected an outcome of disaster. At least, he wasn’t seriously

injured or killed. That everything I am relating about these two individuals could be

coincidental is precisely because that is what it is.

Nick’s experience persuaded me gravity is not an ad hoc principle, or merely some

dubious theory but a harsh and unremitting law escaped only by strict obedience or good

fortune and circumstance or Divine Intervention. A theory won’t even come close to breaking

your neck, but a law ─ that is a totally different thing altogether, violate a law and the

punishment could easily be a whole lot worse by merely having your head lopped off.

This concept is a whole lot clearer in my mind since that day than it is in the minds of

Mr. Miller or Alan Bonsell, whose bushwhacking takes many misdirected turns later in my

retelling, and who could have never taken a serious fall from high in a tree which could have

ended everything and could have provided a valuable concept which they still haven’t

learned. This is in satirical reference to the Chapter on the Dover Monkey Trial.

175
 CRITIQUE OF FRANCIS COLLINS’ BOOK: ‘THE LANGUAGE OF GOD.”

Mr. Collins published a recent book titled: “The Language of God.” Like anyone

learning a new language, he along with the rest of us obviously doesn’t understand very much

of it, except for a few phrases and a word here and there. His book is a grammatical failure

in that aspect, as he has not gotten the problematics of the God language line of reasoning

down pat as well as he thinks he has gotten the general and specific scientific lines of

reasoning. This is a sore spot in his failure of anyone learning a new language by which the

interpretation into another language is inadequate, or one’s overall understanding of the

source tongue is vastly inadequate as would be our ability to understand a Divine Language ─

about that he would be right.

On page 64, Mr. Collins describes “the annihilation of matter and antimatter in the

early moments of the exploding universe. This hypothesis is nick-named the Big Bang

176
theory. Matter exists, antimatter is theoretical but under suspicion.

Therefore, a substantial question can be asked, if “the annihilation of matter occurred

during the early moments of the exploding universe,” how can annihilated matter continue to

explode repeatedly, or expand or collapse or develop into anything else if it originated out of

absolute nothingness which could only produce absolutely nothing as a result of the missing

laws of physics? Somehow, we shouldn’t be here to dispute the annihilation of matter.

Therefore, something or Someone formed and shaped the universe by rules unknown to the

ingenuity of modern physics and relativity. We know instinctively, this conjecture is true

even if such an event remains problematic and undecipherable, despite any interpretations

given to explain it. As the Big Bang was initiated by forces defying the known laws of

physics, than by logical inference physics cannot explain any of the possibilities that relate

profoundly to the advent of the universe. Phenomena and their affects are insufficient to

determine unknown and miraculous causes and events, which can be only conjectured as to

their cause. Therefore, The Big Bang theory will remain unsolvable and therefore

unprovable. There is another vexing problem, which bothered Einstein and many other

physicists. No actual physical mechanism is known to exist for quantum mechanics, though

quantum mechanics follows the principles of mathematics and predicts some phenomena,

suggesting there are other constructs to properties hidden in the universe which are only

partially explainable or only detectable by quantum mechanics and physics: that there are

other structural fields of unknown energies that can be only phenomenally, not physically and

substantially understood. “The fact is that the fundamentals of Quantum mechanics remain

unresolved.” Notwithstanding, quantum mechanics is considered by many as the greatest

achievement of the human mind. Someone has said, “If you torture numbers enough, they

177
will confess to almost anything.” In science, the advantage of being a genius is that you can

propose absolutely ridiculous theories no one else is capable of disproving, and that is often as

far as genius can go.

Mr. Collins takes aim at irreducible complexity as relatively dismissive. He rehashes,

old, re-treaded evolutionary arguments, to rational and legitimate counter arguments put forth

by Dr. Behe and others, and Mr. Collins dismisses those arguments as though ignoring

objections, defeats them ─ making evolution one more hollow sounding, echo-chamber of

dull thuds, dead on arrival, flash-pan of nonsense. By failing to confront counter arguments

against evolution with ripe fruit, Mr. Collins fails to present a convincing case against

irreducible complexity. Other words, irreducible complexity determines that all the various

parts have to exist simultaneously in order for an organism to function and exist, as opposed

to evolution which imagines for example that a heart or liver could develop and exist

independent of the other or independently from other body organs and systems, which require

the function of the other.

Charles Darwin hypothesizes in his 1859, Origin of Species: “If it could be

demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have formed by

numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Unfortunately for Darwin, almost all biological functions and systems are irreducibly

complex. The flagellum is a miniature bio-machine that Mr. Collins refers to as particularly

prominent example Behe uses to illustrate the irreducible complexity of numerous co-

operative parts needed for a particular molecular machine such as the flagellum bacteria’s

miniature outboard motor to work. The flagellum is a miniature bio-machine where all the

parts must be present at the same time in order to perform a particular function, that is,

178
propelling the flagellum bacteria around in its medium. This little bio machine magnified

some 50,000 times, has a motor, universal joint, propeller, a drive shaft, a stator, bushings and

a protein pump etc. Remove any of those parts and it would not work! All these parts have

to be working simultaneously for the machine to operate normally like a miniature outboard

motor. Does the tail wag the dog or does the dog wag the tail you might ask? Mr. Collins to

quote, Behe “postulates that one component of this complex flagellum outboard motor might

have evolved overtime.” This is not what I have actually understood, I have read and heard

Behe myself. What Behe is saying: even if we assume there was a preexisting part, (this is

not meant as a statement of belief in such an origin but is only a concession to the other side

for the sake of argument), all the rest of the components are originals with no counterparts

that could have come from somewhere else. They have no evolutionary dependence or

remote resemblance to any other preceding part. Every part as is, is required for every other

part to function properly. Each part would have no useful function unless numerous other

parts were working in unison with it. These various parts would have become evolutionary

cast offs ─ and evolution could not have preserved them as evolution rids itself of useless

parts as it has no portent of the future usefulness of anything. “Survival of the fittest should

eliminate weak, aberrant organisms, [and useless parts], but it does not provide for the

evolution of complex systems with interdependent parts. Evolutionary systems would not

work, and have no survival value, until all the necessary subunits are present and assembled.

Other words, natural selection works to eliminate inferior organisms [and useless parts], but it

cannot design complex new systems” and organisms. According to the constructs of

evolutionary theory, natural selection, which would eliminate useless parts before other parts

could evolve and become co-operative, actively prevents evolution from occurring.

179
Furthermore, “Blind evolution” is incapable of producing such stunning results of seeing a

design!

Consider that the chlorophyll molecule in green plants possess the unique capacity to

convert the energy from the sun along with carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates

which form an important class of foods in animal nutrition. But the most surprising

discovery is that chlorophyll in plants and human blood is only one molecule different. The

two structures are very similar. The most apparent difference between them is that

hemoglobin is built around iron, and chlorophyll is built around magnesium. A remarkably

irreducibly complex relationship exist in the process of respiration in animals and the

irreducibly complex process of respiration in plants. The processes relationship between

plants and animals are irreducibly complex and interdependent and essential to the sustenance

of all life on earth. The inhalation of oxygen/expiration of carbon dioxide by animals

compliments the inhalation of carbon dioxide/ expiration of oxygen in plants. Many elements

of plant “blood” are identical to those of animal blood. And the synthesis of hemoglobin in

animals can occur in much the same way as the synthesis of chlorophyll in plants.

Symbiosis refers to various kinds of close and permanent associations between

members of different species. Mutualism is a type of symbiosis wherein both members

benefit and cannot exist without the other in an interdependent and irreducibly complex

relationship that scores high on the evolutionary hit lists of impossibilities, but the

relationship, nonetheless exists robustly, in spite of the contradictory theory of evolution in

full denial of the obvious. Lichen is a mutual partnership between a fungus and an alga. A

bee burglarizing an iris creates an irreducibly complex system of pollination and inter-

dependence. Marriage and sex gets you into an irreducibly complex situation called a

180
relationship and a family until an ugly divorce ensues, in which case, it becomes multiply

irreducibly complex as matrimony becomes acrimony. Irreducibly complex creatures and

social orders and interdependencies are everywhere in nature. Irreducibly complex

relationships from sub-atomic particles to microscopic biological designs and engineering are

the most prolific relationships on earth!

Collins most stunning big gun argument against irreducible complexity is that most

biologists don’t show interest “in pursuing these ideas”? This is a cop-out without the force.

The majority have rarely been right throughout history including science, except when the

majority votes as a democracy, and even then, they don’t always get it right. Hitler

commanded a majority, so did Mussolini. These two modern demoniacs were both

evolutionists, and they destroyed millions of human lives. Tyrants love majorities; majorities

that remain silent and afraid, or run away. Are these Mr. Collins’ banner in favor of. To his

credit, he believes in the persuasion of a moral law. Mr. Collins’ arguments are a poor

substitute for logic, however, and I will get more into that.

Mr. Collins bewails that “Critics are fond of pointing out that evolution is ‘only a

theory,’ a statement that puzzles working scientists who are use to a different meaning of the

word. My [‘Mr. Collins’] Funk and Wagnall’s dictionary provides the following two

alternative definitions for the word ‘theory’: (1) a speculative or conjectural view of

something; (2) fundamental principles underlying a science, art, etc.: music theory, theory of

equations.” But what is incorrect is not fundamental to anything but error.

Unfortunately, Funk and Wagnall’s dictionary has been ‘defunct’ for upwards of 20

years. I went to the large, nearby University library, and they didn’t have it. I went to

Barnes and Noble, and it wasn’t even listed on their computers. I went to two other large

181
libraries, and neither could find it, and the man at the last information desk said, they

apparently haven’t published a dictionary in 20 years.

Funk and Wagnall’s Source of Slang is a current publication, but I think it is doubtful

this is what Mr. Collins is referring to? This doesn’t necessarily mean his dictionary is

incorrect, but his dictionary is as outdated as are his arguments he has put out for sale against

“irreducible complexity.” Mr. Collins’ quarrel sounds a lot like the irrational, pooped out old

ideas rehashed time over time again by evolutionists with unswerving regularity like a cup of

bad coffee taken with growing repugnancy and a swollen tongue and lip. Are you becoming

tired of evolution’s constant repetition of profusive nonsense? They strip away the grandeur

of the English Language till it is dead on arrival of all sound and sense. Bad scientists

borrow, good scientists steal, and great scientists conceal their guilt and avoid scandals.

Here is a thing that really irks me as a wordsmith. There is a conspiracy to redefine

words or to apply them inappropriately to make evolution appear more palatable, and by

redefining evolution, making evolution appear more acceptable and factual than it is. Literary

transmutation by spurious masters of literary transfigurations, do not make evolution appear

more reliable than it wasn’t before the delusion was conspired. I can accept Mr. Collins’ first

definition that evolution is a theoretical construct, but there are damming problems with the

second definition when applied to evolution as a given. (2) “fundamental principles

underlying, science, art,” does not mean that evolution is a correct and therefore an

unchallengeable paradigm. Evolution is not an underlying principle of nature, and therefore

of science, if the theory of evolution is wrong! And there is growing dissent and

dissatisfaction with evolution as an operational hypothesis which constantly don’t fit well

with the growing field of evidence. An example from discredited science from the past: The

182
Greeks taking a geometrical approach to explaining the motions of celestial bodies of the sun

and moon in the heavens, used spheres and circles, which were perfected by Hipparchas (190-

120 BC) and Ptolemy (AD 100-170) and was not overturned until Kepler replaced the circle

with an ellipse in 1609. The circle was a fundamental principle underlying science which

incorrectly defined the movements of celestial bodies for nearly 2000 years. I and millions of

others believe, evolution is another ‘Greek illusion’ of our day. So why fudge a definition?

If you can’t prove an assertion is valid, redefine it: A lie can perform miraculous tricks like

that! And we have already gotten into, and will be getting into other numerous modern day

scientific hallucinations accepted as the gospel truth of that type of unpardonable religion of a

false science!

The correct usage for evolution is still only definition number one! The second

definition is a fallacy when applied to evolution. The theory of evolution isn’t necessary to

the advancement of science. I have just stated the unpardonable, hunt down and kill, sin. I

will have to become a paranoiac to protect myself.

“Here is a brief, partial overview of what major scientists were accomplishing in the

18th and 19th Centuries. All of them were creationists. And to them, science owes its

indebtedness to its foundational and systematic underpinnings and to the scientific method

which so-called modern science is clearly on its way to rejecting.

Louis Agassiz (1807-1873): glacial geology, ichthyology.

Charles Babbage (1792-1871): actuarial tables, calculating machine, foundations of

computer science.

Frances Bacon (1561-1626): scientific method of research.

Robert Boyle (1627-1691): chemistry, gas dynamics.

183
Sir David Brewster (1781-1868: optical mineralogy, kaleidoscope.

Georges Cuvier (1781-1832): comparative anatomy, invertebrate paleontology.

Sir Humphry Davy (1781-1829: thermokinetics.

Jean Henri Fabre (1823-1915): entomology of living insects.

Michael Faraday (1791-1829): electric generator, electro-magnetics, field theory.

Sir John Fleming (1849-1945): electronic, thermic valve.

Joseph Henry (1797-1878): electric motor, galvanometer.

Sir William Herschel (1738-1822): galactic astronomy, double stars.

James Joule (1818-1889): reversible thermodynamics.

Lord William Kelvin (1824-1907): absolute temperature scale, energetics,

thermodynamics, transatlantic cable.

Johannes Kepler (1571-1631): celestrial mechanics, ephemeris tables, physical

astronomy.

Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778): classification system, systematic biology.

Joseph Lister (1827-1912): antiseptic surgery.

Matthew Maury (1806-1873): hydrography, oceanography.

James C. Maxwell (1831-1879): electrical dynamics, statistical thermodynamics.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884): genetics.

Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872): telegraph.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727): calculus, dynamics, law of gravity, reflecting telescopes,

and a religious scholar who wrote books on religion.

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): hydrostatics, barometer.

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895): bacteriology, biogenesis law, pasteurization, vaccination,

184
 and immunization. He fought against “spontaneous generation:” a theory embraced

by Darwinists and still unproven, although thousands of experiments have proven the

impossibility of “spontaneous generation” having ever occurred.

Sir William Ramsey (1852-1916): inert gases, isotropic chemistry.

John Ray (1627-1705): natural history, classification of plants and animals.

John Rayleigh (1842-1919): dimensional analysis, model analysis.

Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866: non-Euclidean geometry.

Sir James Simpson (1811-1870): chloroform, gynecology.

Sir George stokes (1819-1903): fluid mechanics.

Randolph Virchow (1821-1902): pathology.

List from the “Handbook of Evolution”

Mr. Collins continues: “It is also important to point out that the design of the eye does

not appear on close inspection to be completely ideal.” Now wait just a minute Mr. Collins!

Is this an attack on artists? Just how close is Mr. Collins peering at the facts. Obviously, if

you are able to read this, he and his blundering comrades are not very close. At this point, I

am about to call him an idiot, although I know he isn’t. But their accusation is an incredible

insult to the entire world of the arts. Around 16 years of age, I was a genius at portrait

painting. Such talent at such an early age is rarely heard of. My eyes then were nearly as

good as a human eye could be, and good sight is insight in the brain as well as it is accurate

perception in the eye structure itself. Now, Mr. Collins has the audacity to claim my eyesight

and perception and the eyesight of every other artist is inadequate and not up to the task ─

something was and is irretrievably wrong with my vision and theirs? Perhaps, I should take

his careless remarks personally as an insult. Maybe there could have never been any artistic

185
geniuses, because no artist could have ever had good enough vision to be a genius. In which

case, perhaps, no one could have ever seen well enough to be a critic as Mr. Collins has

inadvertently become. Maybe a cave man’s eyesight was better than modern man’s as

human eyesight may have deteriorated over time, as I, and others have earlier suggested.

Maybe it is devolution, not evolution that is puzzling him, or may be he is puzzled for no

apparent reason at all? What are the alleged problems with the human eye?

Is the eye wired backwards? Since others have dealt with the eye’s amazing

irreducible complexity, I will only deal with the solution to this evolutionary irritation in the

eye.

1. “’The human eye has a blind spot’…. It is caused by the functionally nonsensical

arrangement of the axon of the retinal cells which run forward into the eye.” “Vertebrates are

cursed with an inside out retina in the eye…. Did God at the time of the ‘Fall’ turn the

vertebrate retina inside out…? “Any engineer “would laugh at any suggestion that the

photocells might point away from the light…. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in

backwards.”

As an artist, I take personal insult to these crude, nonsensical public displays of

stultifying, scandalous stupidity. Such a cynical serenade of a wolf pack closing in can be

castigated only by public humiliation. What their sarcasm means is that if God didn’t design

the eye, then evolution is to blame for all these visual foul-ups. Such a serious visual deficit

as charged, is almost enough to make one feel hopelessly disheartened for the likes of

Michelangelo or Rembrandt, struggling all their lives with a permanent visual disability they

were unaware of, or for an unknown Mozart struggling to develop a reliable brail musical

system so he could get his great masterworks before the public eye ( a phrase which would

186
never be used in that kind of society) who would never be able to see clearly enough to play

the notes right, and for the rest of us who write literature and technical drafts, peer through

electron microscopes, or read a road map and fumble our way around from day to day. This

is absolute nonsense! There is no need for self-pity, however. The spot where the optic nerve

goes through the retina has no rods or cones, and causes a blind spot where we can’t see.

Admittedly, I, and many others never saw this dumb argument coming, but is that proof these

radicals are right? We are unaware of this blind spot because the other eye compensates for

it. I would describe this as extremely clever engineering, but this ingeniously marvelous but

somewhat mischievous feature could be the bearer of particularly disastrous news for

evolutionists, because this clever solution to their problem may have had to have been

designed before the curse of the “Fall.” When my cataracts were removed, my physician

never informed me I had a more serious, incurable problem called ─ eyesight. I might have

sued if my ailment had not been hereditary, but I still can’t see the problem.

Evolutionists suggest the eye has three fundamental flaws. But the evolutionists seem

incapable of seeing the rather obvious solution to their uninsightful and imaginary dilemma.

Here are only three of their fundamental philosophical dementias, which blind them: Their

scientific assaults against rationality are riddled with illogical, hypothetical errors of

presumptuous sarcasms? They are limited to High IQs like blinders on a mule, or because

they were unable to see the answers clearly enough on their stolen answer sheets, or worse,

such instinctive, clearly hereditary limitations almost cry out for the next degree of dementia.

We don’t need to guess at what such radical public displays of imaginary travesties will

follow: they will have to lie and commit fraud to get their meaning across!

I will present their case, than crush it! What are the arrogant claims of these looney-

187
tune wisecrackers compared to the brilliant architecture of a human eye. Alleged problem

number one: “The rods and cones are buried deep in the retina, with their light-sensitive ends

turned away from the light and into the dark pigment epithelium.” An evolutionary hurrah is

heard in the snickering background at such a stupid design! “Second, the complicated nerve

cell layer of the retina lies between the incoming light and the light-sensitive rods and cones.

This is a brilliant misconception, and deserves another snicker or two! “The presence of the

nerve cells on the inside of the layer of rods and cones is also the cause of a third and similar

problem.” The evolutionists are winning their case, so they can be grateful even for this

uncomfortable evolutionary foul up. “The information the nerve cells process has to get out

of the eye, and this occurs by way of the optic nerve. The spot where that nerve goes through

the retina has no rods or cones, and causes a blind spot where we can’t see.” No snickers this

time as the eye’s dubious structure is a triumph of natural selection. The evolutionists are

obviously unable to see the problem they have raised, which suggest they may be blind to the

solution?

“Some evolutionists reason that if the eye had been designed properly, the

arrangement of the layers of the retina would have been reversed from the present situation.

Thus the nerve cell layer and nerve would be behind the rods and cones, and the eye would

not have a bind spot.” If the evolutionists are wrong, there must be a wretched blind spot in

their reasoning.

Actually, the eye is very cleverly designed. The “region, called the fovea, harbors

some 30,000 cones that provide the sharp type of vision you are using as you read these

words,” or when an artist creates a drawing or etching. “There the nerve cells and their fibers

are especially small, and the fibers radiate away from that region, leaving the cones of the

188
fovea more open to direct light coming from the lens. Other nerve fibers and rare blood

vessels in the region of the fovea go around it, thus further avoiding any blockage of the

incoming light. The eye is constructed so as to give a sharp image just where needed.

Furthermore, the nerve cells and fibers are not that much of an obstruction to the incoming

light. If you remove the dark pigment epithelium from the backside of the retina, what

remains, which includes the rods and cones and the nerve cell layer, is almost perfectly

transparent.” Furthermore, “scientists have discovered some long cells that seem to transfer

light from the inside surface of the eye, directly to the rods and cones.” The purported

incapacitating blind spot has already been dealt with?

“There appears to be a very good reason the retina is inverted, and that is because the

special nutritional requirements of the rods and cones. Among the most active cells in our

bodies, they are constantly replacing their discs, probably so as to maintain a fresh supply of

protein molecules that detect light. A single rod cell can have close to 1,000 discs…. Studies

on the rhesus monkey indicate that each rod produces 80-90 new discs per day….

(Parenthetically, this rate is very slow compared to the 2 million red blood cells formed in our

bodies every second!) The discs develop in the region of the rod or cone cell close to the

nucleus are disposed of at the end most intimately associated with the pigment epithelium.

That epithelium absorbs the old discs and recycles some of their parts to the rods. For several

reasons, separation of the retina from its pigment result in blindness, hence that connection is

vital. Just on the outside of the pigment epithelium is the choroid blood supply, which

provides the pigment epithelium with some of the nutrients needed by the active rods and

cones as they manufacture more discs.”

But the problem gets much more complicated than all this. “We do not do not actually

189
see in our eyes, although we might intuitively think so. The eye only collects and processes

information that is sent on to the back part of our brain, which puts the image together.

Without our brains, we would perceive nothing. Millions of bits of information rapidly travel

from the eye to the brain by way of the optic nerve. The brain analysis the data for various

components such as brightness, color, motion, form, focus, and depth. Then the brain puts it

altogether in an integrated picture. The process is incredibly complex, incredibly fast, and

goes on without conscious effort.” “Quoted material is from Science Discovers God.” But

one can ask, how does the brain know how to go through all these processes? Who has been

its teacher, who framed it to be aware such things? Without an eye, the brain would be unable

to see, without a brain, the eye would be blinded! But if there were not also a heart, and a

liver, and a pancreas, the organism would die. Darwin predicted, “If it can 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.” Are there any

examples in nature how evolution works? NO! There are no in-between- stage creatures or

missing links! Are there new, improved species arriving as a result of evolutionary

mechanisms. There are no known examples! And nature is not producing any detectable

improvements in design or evolution. All irreducibly complex organisms already exist pre-

programmed and pre-organized. The destruction of, or damage to, or illness of anyone of the

necessary parts diminishes the entire organism, and in all too many cases, can prove disabling

or fatal, particularly if anyone of these necessary parts is deformed or missing. And all the

preceding is only a partial description of the known complexity of our visual and other

organs.

If we had the kind of eye the evolutionists theorize would be more efficient and artists

190
it is alleged by implication would be happier with, the retina in the eye would be backwards

from the way it is now. And it would be separated from the nourishment of its pigment

epithelium and blindness would result; and no one would be snickering or had ever heard of

the visual arts. Everyone would be too preoccupied tripping over things to take time out to

be cynical as that would be the way things are! For stupidity, no one can beat an engineer,

except for a scientist. But there is limited billing in order to attend this exclusive party. You

have to be an evolutionist, and you have to be uncommonly dolt. It is a good thing no

evolutionist has ever evolved into a god and left to his own witless devices to design the

universe, because more of us, a clear God-fearing majority, would then have to become

atheists. But given the present circumstances and the exact order of necessary conditions

which make life possible, that will be unnecessary. If the evolutionists had created the eye

the way they think it should have worked, no one would have ever been able to have seen a

dammed thing. That is how ingenious these idiots are! The evolutionists have put their foot

in their mouth, swallowed, and everything followed through the stomach and intestines and

excreted in the dust! The flies will take care of what is left.

Being unable to see the light clearly is not entirely confined to science as it is also

becoming a state-wide problem, and significantly so. The light in my state is steadily glowing

dimmer and dimmer between sunset and sunrise. In my state’s commendable quest and

humanitarian and sacred trust to alleviate the debatable greenhouse effect and save on utility

bills, it is apparently state law that you are no longer allowed to be able to see clearly. I have

always been use to turning up my powerful halogen pole lamps while doing my painting and

writing. But parts for these devices by some inexplicable neglect of commercial greed, or by

some sacred, political encyclical, have been made as rare and difficult to obtain as diamonds

191
in the ruff and the beast itself has been ordered into extinction. What to do? I will have to

double or triple the number of lights in my cramped space and double my electric bill. It is

apparent to me, state or federal law is not comparable to the Ten Commandments or too

anything useful by chance or intent. If I find that evolutionists did this to me, I will have them

put on my most wanted list and ran out of state or put in chains! There is an age old

incompatibility existing between us which is more than a mere spat.

And there is an age-old incompatibility between the species not deciphered by

alluding to illusionary genetic similarities, pages 134-135. That is not simply a fact because it

is an inexpressibly complex fact. It can be deduced from the elaborate speculations of

stunned scientists that in the tricky code of genetic structures and complexly vast functions,

similarities maybe riddles and not answers. The following Photo’s make this point strikingly

clear. They clearly demonstrate vast and unaccounted for differences in the finished product

of various creatures.

WHAT ARE A FEW OF MAN’S NUMERIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS?

Leonardo Da Vinci Johann Sebastian Bach

192
 Wright Brothers

Edison light bulb

193
E=M²

194
 “The order of genes along a chromosome is often the same in humans and mice,

though the precise spacing between genes may vary somewhat.” Dr. Francis Collins.

It is ridiculous to make claims like this. It simply illustrates human

ignorance.

Triumph! The Pinnacle of Evolution!

Caught in a Mousetrap

The most famous mouse in the world, Micky Mouse, is a human creation.

Micky is more famous than any real mouse. Strange world we live in,

isn’t it? Fiction takes such strange twists where truth lacks the liberty.

195
 There maybe far more tantalizing pieces of undiscovered data in the “somewhat” than

in the “precise, or the opposite may be equally true. Obviously. there are an infinite number

of hidden riddles, and riddles within riddles disguising greater riddles far more complex than

any known riddles. Correlation does not necessarily mean genetic ancestry of origin. We

often know the facts, but we do not always know the truth, and more often, we don’t even

know the facts or the truth. A theory doesn’t solve the problem of missing facts. We only

deceive ourselves into believing the facts are what we imagine or assume them to be. Does

Dr. Collins’ assertions of dramatic speculation not backed up by complex biological and

chemical analysis of actual, observable relationships in the genetic code distill any obvious

truths? Is this the equivalent in genetics to Haeckel’s embryos without the fraud but with the

error? More exists in the undiscovered than in the disclosed. Mark Twain commented:

“there is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture

out of such a trifling investment of fact.” Science has a miraculous ability to project far

beyond the limited knowledge of a phenomena what is not supportable with either evidence or

data. An explanation usually fictionalizes data.

If Mark Twain were alive today, I think he would settle the matter somewhat in this

fashion, “the proof one is unquestionably a higher animal is that one can be tempted to lie.

The lower animals are above such things. Any attempt to prove a man and a mouse are

closely related by digressing to arguments of genetics, is uninspiringly ridiculous. That a

mouse can be tempted to die as did Adam for a mere morsel of deceit, is a much more

promising argument that they are somehow related. That a man and a mouse can be tempted

to die for almost nothing guarantees they are related.

The Psalmist wrote in Psalms 139: 14, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”

196
 Shakespeare wrote: “What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! How

infinite in faculty! In form, in moving, how express and admirable! In action like an angel!

in apprehension how like a god”! In chromosomes how like a mouse? Perhaps, some men

really are a piece of work!

What are the renowned achievements of mice? “Will Sir Lancelot, Shakespearian

Einstein the Mouse please step forward to the podium. Step forward, please ─ pleeaassee ─ .

Return the prize to the man who was about to hand it over.”

MICE ALONG WITH RATS AND OTHER RODENT’S ONLY CALL TO FAME IS

THE TRANSMISSION OF NUMERIOUS DISEASES THAT HAVE DESTROYED

MILLIONS OF HUMAN LIVES! Millions of human beings have died of starvation and

other virulent diseases as the result of granaries and food supplies being pilferaged, infected

and destroyed by rodents. One exterminator advertises: “Rats are nasty little vermin that

carry deadly viruses.” As it is alleged they carry our genes, this makes rats seem very human

like and explains much more about mankind, who are not always kind, than otherwise

admitted publicly and politically.

Notice: Rodents can be exterminated under the Vermin Elimination Act without

anyone applying for a license or politically overthrowing anything; and rats and mice can be

sacrificed for laboratory experimentation without the threat of scandal or charges of cruel and

inhuman treatment being brought and punishment inflicted. And this is one of the primary

differences between a rat and a man, a rat can be exterminated with out scurrilous judgment

being inflicted against the man, whereas if the man were killed, the act would inflame the

savage indictment of murder against a whole species. Apparently, according to evolutionists,

a rat and a man are first cousins, or are somehow related by an incestuous evolutionary

197
relationship. To get at the issue of injustice and inequality of blame in this relationship, one

of these days, I am going to set up a laboratory in a jungle or on a desert somewhere and catch

a couple of evolutionists to experiment on, but only on the rats of this particular species. It is

my theory that dishonesty evolves from something that could have turned out much better.

Injustice is never a pre-conceived, deliberate intention of a rat not of the human kind whereas

it is always the intention of the humankind. I will get back to you when the determination is

eventually made.

Before things get better, they usually get worse: “Bubonic plague is an acute infection

in humans and various species of rodents, caused by Yersinia pestis, a bacterium transmitted

by fleas that have [feasted] on infected rodents.” Without antibiotic treatment in humans,

death occurs with non-contradiction and victorious within days.

“Plague pneumonia is caused by inhaling infected droplets from the lungs of someone

whose plague infection has spread to the respiratory system. This is the most contagious form

of the disease and the form that progresses most rapidly.” Mozart may have died from the

plague. This may be the greatest triumph RatDom evil has ever conceived.

“Respiratory transmission was mainly responsible for the historic plague epidemics

that swept across entire continents and wiped out tens of millions of people. One such

epidemic killed an estimated 100 million people in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia during

the 6th century. Another epidemic in the same regions during the 14th century ─ known as the

Black Death ─ killed one-forth to one-half of the population of Europe, or about 75 million

people.” Grolier Encyclopedia. This is in addition to the terrors of the Inquisition which

were rarely this efficient over time. It maybe a wonder the human race wasn’t wiped out with

so many disasters plaguing the world. Would Hitler and Stalin have loved living in times of

198
disaster like those, as who can match wits with a rat like a man.

If there is a rat equivalent to the Noble Prize, this vastly successful scheme in

human birth control and ethnic cleansing would by far surpass the qualifications for the

achievements acclaimed by a Nobel Prize for ingenious methods to preserve man’s inclination

to nastiness and inhumanity to man for generations to come.

With these statistics now in my hands, I won’t need to waste my time on endless

experiments. The answer is obvious, a rat is a good for-nothing rat, in spite of who he is.

What would seem more important in genetic structuring is the actual meaning of the

apparently slight (alleged) variations in genes or chromosomes, or what appears to be the

imprecise spacing between the genes, or millions of other unknown facets and relationships in

chromosomes and genes maybe comparative in genetic sequencing like vast gulfs from star to

star ─ a gulf ─ a universe ─ an infinite unknown? Mr. Collins actually supports this concept

on pp.127-127. “If one picks the coding region of a human gene, (that is the part that contains

the instructions for a protein), …, there will nearly always be a highly significant match to the

genomes of other mammals” and discernable but imperfect matches with other simpler

organisms. If on the other hand, one chooses a bit of human DNA that lies between the genes,

then the likelihood of being able to find a similar sequence in the genomes of other distantly[,

alleged,] related organisms decreases.” This is an extremely important point of possible

ignorance, considering that science still may not know so much as implicated by its claims?

Maybe regions lying between the genes or beyond the genes, which do not code for proteins

are more important to the variations and kinds of organisms seen on the earth. Although

organisms seem to employ (alleged) similar mechanisms of genetic structuring and function,

non-protein coding areas make it impossible for all species to have evolved from a single

199
Divine Creator, which therefore argue for an individual creation? Subtlety in genetic

functions and engineering is a complexly vast and probably an unfathomable issue. Though

some genes may appear identical in their structure and composition, they may have very

different profiles and outcomes and affects in the DNA. A gene is more than the total sum of

its total parts. Genes and chromosomes can be “like in appearance but unlike in structure or

function,” botany: definition of spurious. Webster’s. Mr. Collins and his colleagues simply

don’t know enough to draw preemptive conclusions. In another chapter we will discuss gene

types and structures which differ one from another.

Dr. Collins describes on page 140 of his book how “a single letter of the DNA code

misspelled in the FOXP2 gene on chromosome 7” caused in one particular family “profound

language deficits, without other obvious consequences.” This family “had severe difficulty

in speaking. They struggled to process words according to grammatical rules, to understand

complex sentence structure, and to move muscles of their mouths, faces, and voice boxes, to

articulate certain sounds.” There are going to be numerous other astounding surprises in our

genes awaiting discovery. Someone should figure out whether the FOXP2 gene is missing or

misspelled in the Apes. Maybe a human FOXP2 gene could be spliced into the embryonic

genes of an ape, and we could teach a chimpanzee to speak fluent English and write puzzler

prize novels? Any jackal up to the challenge. I bet it is nowhere remotely that simple or

obvious.

The February 2009 issue of the National Geographic article: “What Darwin didn’t

know,” swaggers that the FOXP2 gene “is critical for the normal development of both speech

in people and song birds. Demonstrating the genes affect on the vocalizations of birds, a

mirror-image copy of the FOXP2 gene was inserted with a special virus into a part of the

200
brain of a young zebra finch, the effect of which “stifled the gene’s natural expression. The

result was that birds not only sang more variably than usually but also inaccurately imitated

the song of adults.” An obvious point has been implied but missed. Although the bird’s

vocalizations were, as expected, negatively affected or may be they weren’t negatively

affected, but more creative, the birds still sung to whatever extent. Obviously, other genes are

involved in vocalizations. It might be deducted, if these other genes are more specific to the

various needs of a particular species, such as song birds have different beak structures from

say a human mandible, then different genes would be necessary to produce these necessary

differences and vocalization affects, and they would be in totality individually irreducibly

complex structure of genes and may be difficult to trace or ascribe to a single origin?

Otherwise, this would seem to make the process of evolution far more complex than ever

imagined when considering millions of species have been identified. Given these odds, the

occurrence of creating a vast, living paraphernalia of creatures seems impossible on an

evolutionary level of even a few common genes.

Mr. Collins admits it may take several hundred years to figure out how all our genes

function ─ if the human mind can ever warp itself around such complex enormities of design

and engineering, then go through the process to create them out of absolutely nothing as

before anything tangible or intangible existed. These are the inescapable rules of the game

everyone has to play by. “If the complexity required to start the process of life was beyond

the ability of the universe’s chemicals to self-assemble, couldn’t God have had to step in to

initiate the process”? But if the process to start life was so incomprehensibly and

ingeniously complex, why was it insufficient to complete the vast order of life? In order to

explain how life from inanimate matter spontaneously originated and then learned to function

201
and develop, you would have to demonstrate chemically and precisely how this could have

ever happened. Guess work does not produce a marginally correct answer. This is where I

believe one principle of evolution appertains as airy insubstantualities confirmed in theory.

Time and eons of it beyond eternity maybe be required to understand and recreate even a

fraction of our genetic information, or to figure out some of what actually lies hidden deeply

behind it, and we will have to use every single brain cell we have in order to achieve an

unlikely chance to accomplish such an improvable feat for humans. The graphics of genes

and their close similarity in appearances can be deceiving as interpreted by Dr. Collins, do not

explain epigenos, or taggers that travel on the surface of genes and turn them either off or on,

nor do the graphics account for alternative [gene] splicing that make vastly complex

combinations of genes possible. “Scientific interest is shifting from tiny changes in one or a

few DNA bases to activity of transposable elements sometimes consisting of thousands of

bases. Such segments move around, sometimes at great rates, from one part of the DNA to

another. “Science Discovers God” by Ariel Roth. Than there is a story of the disappearing,

then reappearing gene after it was spliced out by scientists, which I have already mentioned.

There is no explanation how this could have occurred, which implies there are underlying

mechanisms which have not been discovered and may never be discovered or fully

understood?

A comparison of the order of mouse and human genes along a chromosome, nor “the

comparison of chimp and human sequences, [“human chromosome 2, according to

evolutionists, seems to be made up of a head to head fusion of two intermediate-size chimp

chromosomes”] interesting as it is, does not tell us what it means to be human.” Francis

Collins. The likely answer to the specialization of life is of a far more intricate complexity

202
than we have ever imagined: this is the super universe of the incredible microscopic. And

maybe we are only observing a complexity like that of an infinite universe without either an

edge or an end because there is neither!

I deal with the purported fusion of the human chromosome 2 which Mr. Collins refers

to on page 137 of his book in my criticism of the Dover, Pennsylvania monkey trail. There I

deal with the problem in considerable length and show that the implications of evolutionary

origins are both improbable as they are impossible, and therefore unprovable and carelessly

overlook the rational.

The preceding pictures indicated something is drastically wrong with Mr. Collins’

evolutionary illusion. If the order and spacing of genes are so closely related in the

chromosomes of a man and a mouse, than why is a man not a mouse, and a mouse not a man,

and where is the fossil agreement? There is no proven agreement between fossils and genes

other than inventions of preposterous and illogical conjectures! A rat studying to become a

man is still a rat, although a lot of men are rats. An evolutionary scenario is not a probable or

provable concept. The functions of our genes are not straight-forward to our understanding

and as apparent as Dr. Collins implies. Most genetic mechanisms are very little understood.

And the vast amounts of data being discovered is difficult for the human mind to grasp!

Wishful thinking may be creative imagination, but it is not creative science, nor does it carry

any predictive power.

Darwin believed a cell was a simple mass or “blob of jelly.” “If Darwin knew what

we know about science today, would he have developed his theory? We now know that each

cell is a mind-bogglingly complex city, with factories containing a myriad of complex

machines, and its DNA contains hundreds of encyclopedias worth of detailed, coded

203
information.” Creation Ministries International. And all this super complex activity takes

place in a object totally invisible to the unaided eye. Mr. Collins, as is every other scientist,

is as stumped by the riddle of “each after its own kind” as Darwin was ignorant of the cell’s

fantastic design of complexity and of which we may still be nearly as ignorant as Darwin was,

and are only on the edge of the frontiers of discovery!

Mr. Collins believes ‘rare’ genetic mutations can provide some new advantage. But is

an entirely new and advantageous mutation possible and has it ever been observed and

accounted for? There are a limited code of chemicals available, a limited chemical alphabet

of words, phrases, and letters that, although they can produce millions and perhaps tens of

millions or billions of combinations ─ how is a new language created in the form of an

entirely new phyla or family? A Language is limited by its rules. And the language is

already assembled. In English, if I say: there is a fox, my meaning may be entirely different

than if I say: He is a sly fox; but I used the same language to express potentially different

ideas. However, each description is restricted by the rules of language which produces a

precise meaning. Could restricted meaning in a Divine Language produce a specific creature?

The only allowance possible in evolution is misspelling and mistakes in syntax. Letters

IHIEGRBSB without any arraignment provided by rules produces only gibberish. Reality

predicts errors in a system that atrophies and dies.

Starting at the bottom of page 129 through to the next page: “within the genome,

Darwin’s theory predicts mutations which do not affect function will accumulate steadily over

time.” There are several notable points: [A] “mutations that do not affect function,” implies

others do. [B] Since no one proposes what purpose junk DNA serves, if any,’ therefore you

cannot accurately attribute what occurs in the junk DNA region to any particular outcome

204
although a negative outcome is now anticipated. [C] Darwin, of course, never heard of junk

DNA, or of DNA, so Darwin himself could not have been genetically and theoretically

specific about the purpose and outcome of gene activity and tie it accurately to his theory.

These specifications are limited strictly to mutations that affect function, not to ones that do

not affect function. “Mutations in the coding region of genes,” (this region is only a small

fraction of the genome, or 1.5 % is dedicated to protein coding) “however are expected to be

observed less frequently, since most will be deleterious, and only a rare such event will

provide a selective advantage and be retained during the evolutionary process. That is

exactly what is observed.” Or is it? Does Evolution theory predict that “most” of the

“mutations in the coding region of the genes” “will be deleterious?” This sounds like a

creationist’s point of view, not an evolutionary one, and the exact opposite of what

Darwinism could have predicted. And why couldn’t a deleterious mutation add a selective

disadvantage, why wouldn’t a disadvantage be retained by evolution? By what observable

law of addition or subtraction does evolution act by? Are there enough beneficial mutations

creating information to make evolution a constructive mechanism for building life? Mr.

Collins in principle claims: “This is exactly what is observed.” In a few pages we are going to

learn this is decisively false! No such observation has ever been made and documented in any

laboratory on earth including that of Mr. Collins’. If a tornado destroys a house, it stays

destroyed unless rebuilt by a designer.

Mr. Collins continues: “That means that it is possible for some (not all) mutations in

the coding region to be “silent,” where the encoded amino acid is not altered by the change,

and so no penalty is paid.” Or is this entirely extrapolation not well drawn, and actual damage

to the genome is not even implied? Is there junk DNA in the coding regions, and are there

205
mutations in the non-coding, and Junk DNA areas are probably not really junk genetic

material? And how did these mutations become silent, and could the genes have been

knocked out by too much garbage? Just asking ─ no need for tempers to flare. But (not all)

mutations are silent. “Silent differences are much more common in the coding regions than

those that alter an amino acid.” But this doesn’t explain whether this alteration is

accumulatively good or bad but, he seems vaguely implying by the testimony of his

association of concepts it is to be seen as neutral? What we are going to learn is that it is

entirely disastrous. Deleterious mutations in the coding region that alter an amino acid

outnumber advantageous ones a likely million to one Gerrish and Lenski, 1998. In fact, the

rate “ is so extremely low as to thwart any actual measurement.” (Bataillon, 2000; Elena et

al., 1998. Deleterious mutations damage a coding region or they could not be deleterious.

This is what Mr. Collins admits: “Most of” the “mutations in the coding region,” “will be

deleterious.” He is referring specifically to mutations that damage amino acids and the

sustainability of a healthy species. Since deleterious mutations exceed advantages mutations,

it would seem the damage caused by them would exceed by excess all repair and

advantageous events. Therefore, there are far more deleterious mutations in the coding areas

than advantages ones. This is not what Darwin would have predicted, we assume had he

known? If the human race had existed for millions of years, how is it possible the first

detectable visages of human civilization go back only 3,000 to 4,000 years? Why doesn’t

poetry and song, and the arts and sciences go back 200,000 or half a million years? If the

human race has existed for millions of years with the high rates of deleterious mutations far

exceeding the possibility of only a few very rare advantageous ones which experimental

science has shown remain entirely conjectural, how could the human race have escaped

206
extinction? We should have been long extinct and unable to argue over this question! And

this is what the evidence and research is going to show! We may not be able to argue over

this point much longer if either side is right!

If the phenomenon on page 130 which Mr. Collins alludes were one of those ‘rarer’

‘beneficial’ mutations, which he firmly believes in, he wouldn’t have hesitated to have

provided an example as superior to any theorizing of possibilities. Lack of an observable and

follow up example of an exact cause and effect implies the extreme rarity, or the non-

occurrence of an example, and stymies any possibility of its existence, in spite of anything

imagined or otherwise sworn to! No adherent would hesitate to triumph at the ultimate proof

of dogmas claims! Silence on this matter speaks denial in volumes.

Has any real scientist actually observed or witnessed one of those rare, advantageous

mutations and followed it through to an observable change in the final product of a new

species as a transformation from one phyla into an entirely different type? We have been fed

on theory while snacking on facts.

At the bottom of page 130, Mr. Collins construes triumphantly “that is exactly what

Darwin’s theory would predict.” Mr. Collins has stated the case precisely backwards. This is

not what “Darwin’s theory would have predicted” but is more precisely what Creationists’

and Intelligent Design advocates would have predicted: that life atrophies from an

accumulation of damaging mutations. Evolution predicts coding regions will, on extremely

rare occasions, alter an amino acid in such a favorable way it produces an entirely new phyla.

Where are there any fossil and genetic records and chemical analyses and observational and

experimental proofs that such a correlation exist between conjecture and fact, cause and effect

in the natural world, and what would have been the latent processes involved as it is left

207
entirely unexplained? Mr. Collins provides an example of a ‘silent’ or neutral mutation on

page 130. We are led to believe, this ‘silent’ phenomena may have been observed, at least, in

very limited quantities. If so, it produces nothing new, provides nothing to the organism

which is advantageous, and no worthwhile function is gained by such mutational activity and

it is more likely to have been damaging to the organism in its collective uselessness. If rare

and beneficial mutations do occur, they are so rare as to be no more than one to a million

harmful mutations, so achieving any advantage is an uphill fight against a rapidly increasingly

steeper incline of morbidity, or a loss on an existing impossibility that is incalculably

increasing. As it turns out, not all of our ‘Junk’ DNA is junk. “As more vertebrate genomes

are sequenced, it turns out that they contain stretches of DNA that do not encode proteins or

RNA but have nonetheless been remarkably conserved…. Some of these regions have

accumulated fewer mutations then protein encoding genes have. This suggest, those

sequences are extremely important to the welfare of the organism, but why is not yet known.”

It is now known at least 30% of the genome is functional and codes for regulatory control of

the genes and for non-protein molecules and the mutation rate in those regions are as high as

elsewhere in the genome. This is particularly bad news for humans when this group of

mutations, as well as numerous others such as mitrochromal DNA which has a higher rate of

mutation, plus deletions, insertions, duplications, translocations, inversions, micro-satellite

DNA regions which mutate at rates nearly 1 million-fold above normal, accidents and injuries

and environmental damage and other causes of mutations are not included with the deleterious

individual and generational estimates of mutational rates which alone are 100-300 per

individual per generation which could go even higher inclusively and could go as high 612 –

6,360 per person per generation! Genetic Entropy by Dr. John Sanford, pp 36-37. However,

208
Dr. Sanford uses the very conservative figure of only one-hundred mutations per generation

throughout his book to show that even at that applied rate of genome degradation will be

disastrous and will, no one knows when as a species, bring about extinction.

Mr. Collins’ illustrations of genetic misspellings and mutations have an overall

negative affect on the organism as misspellings would have a negative affect on the works

shelved in a library. It is difficult to conjecture how an entirely negative process can be used

to insist on the extreme opposite as being equally true ─ such as an advantageous mutation

which could somehow neutralize all the deleterious effects and add an additional benefit to

that dazzles the imagination but strangles reason and intuition!

150 years after the drastic effect of Darwinism influence on science and on society as

a whole, what is the scientific evidence supporting or refuting the Primary Axiom of

Evolution which claims Natural Selection and Mutation is the primary and overriding

mechanism of biology. What are the chances Darwin’s hypothesis of Natural Selection and

Mutation, coming well before the advent of genetics and the age of modern science would

have held true ─ would have been all but impossible and miraculous if it has. This is where I

want anyone who reads the words written here to become well acquainted with Dr. John

Sanford and his work and expertise in the field of genetics and compare this information to

what we have read of Mr. Collins arguments.

Who is Dr. Sanford? I imagine everyone knows, or should know by now, but likely

most don’t. In his book entitled “Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome” on the

page after the title sheet “About the Author,” we learn Dr. Sanford, is now semi-retired, was a

Cornell University Professor for 25 years, and received his PhD from the University of

Wisconsin in the area of plant breeding and plant genetics. He conducted genetic research at

209
the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station in Geneva, NY where he bred new crop

varieties using conventional breeding and then became heavily involved in the newly-

emerging field of plant genetic engineering. He has published over 80 scientific publications

and has over 30 patents. His most significant scientific contributions involve three inventions,

the biolistic (“gene gun”) process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization. A

large fraction of the transgenic crops grown in the world today were genetically engineered

using the same gene gun technology developed by John Sanford and his collaborators. He

has started two biotech enterprises derived from his research, Biolistics, Inc., and Sanford

Scientific, Inc., and has started a small non-profit organization, Feed My Sheep Foundation.

Mr. Sanford after years as an evolutionist became a short age creationist based on his own

research into genetics.

The Foreword to his book is written by Dr. John Baumgardner, who received a PhD in

geophysics from UCLA and worked as a research scientist in the Theoretical Division of Los

Alamos National Laboratory for 20 years. He received a MS degree in electrical engineering

from Princeton University, where he first became aware of information theory and later its

implications for biological systems.

To quote a paragraph from that Foreword: “The field of population genetics deals

largely with complex mathematical models that attempt to describe how mutations are passed

from one generation to the next after they arise, and how they affect the survival of individual

members of a population in each generation. The reality of these conceptual models depends

critically, of course, upon the realism of the assumptions on which they are built. In this book

the author exposes the obvious lack of realism of many of the most critical assumptions that

have been applied for the last 75 years. Most professional biologists, like the author during

210
the earlier part of his professional career, base much of their confidence in the Primary Axiom

on claims derived from these conceptual models that have employed observationally

unjustifiable assumptions. Most biologists today are unaware that the claims of population

genetics to which they were exposed in graduate school can no longer be defended from a

scientific standpoint. Most, therefore, can hardly imagine that when realistic assumptions are

applied, population genetics actually repudiates the Axiom.”

What is the Primary Axiom? It is the underlying Darwinian belief that mutation plus

natural selection can explain all aspects of life. And there is only one evolutionary

mechanism and that is mutation and natural selection. If that hypothesis collapses and falls

into ruin, evolution will have no other rational explanation and will become a smarting error

of the past.

Then, “Is the net information within the genome going up or down?” Speculation on

how selection might synthesize new information is inherently hypothetical. “In a sense it

becomes a philosophical question and is not really (a) subject of scientific analysis. However,

I believe the going down aspect of the genome is subject to scientific analysis…. Such

analysis persuasively argues that net information must be declining” pp.105.

“If the genome is actually degenerating, it is bad news for the long term future for the

human race. It is also bad news for evolutionary theory. If mutation/selection cannot

preserve the information already in the genome, it is difficult to imagine how it could have

created all that information in the first place! We cannot rationally speak of genome building

when there is a net loss of information every generation”! pp.105.

“The consensus among human geneticists is that, at present, the human race is

genetically degenerating due to rapid mutation accumulation and relaxed natural selection

211
pressure (Crow, 1997)”.... “They realize that genetic information is currently being lost,

which must eventually result in reduced fitness for our species” Genetic Entropy by Dr. John

Sanford pp. 45. “I have seen estimates of the ratio of deleterious-to-beneficial mutations

ranging from one thousand to one up to one million to one. The best estimates seem to be one

million to one (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998). The actual rate of beneficial mutations is so

extremely low as to thwart any actual measurement (Bataillon, 2000; Elena et al., 1998)”

pp.24. Other words, no beneficial mutation has ever been detected or discovered, but

deleterious mutations have been observed from the tens of thousands to the millions. “The

known mutation rate for humans is too high to be countered by any level of selection.

Therefore, mutations will continue to accumulate, and the species must degenerate” pp. 72.

And “if the genome is degenerating, our species is not evolving” pp. 146. Mutation/

Selection cannot stop the loss of genomic information, let alone create the genome! Why is

this? It is because selection occurs on the level of the whole organism. It can not stop the

loss of information (which is immeasurably complex) due to mutation, and is happening on

the molecular level” pp.147. Bergman (2004) reviewed the topic of beneficial mutations…He

did a simple literature search via Biological Abstract and Medline. He found 453,732

“mutation” hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word “beneficial” (about 4 in

10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, the presumed beneficial mutations were

only beneficial in a very narrow sense and consistently involved loss-of-function (loss of

information)…. He was unable to find a single example of a mutation which unambiguously

created new information. While it is almost universally accepted that beneficial, information-

creating mutations must occur, this belief seems to be based upon uncritical acceptance of the

Primary Axiom rather than upon actual evidence pp.26-27.

212
 “…(D)eleterious mutations rate appears to be so high in humans and our close

relatives that it is doubtful that such species could survive…” Walker/ Keightley’s

Degeneration pp.174.

Crow’s Concerns 1997

The discovery of high mutation rates creates fundamental problems for evolution. Dr.

Crow “goes on to acknowledge that humanity must now be genetically inferior to our stone

age ancestors. This is an amazing confession about the reality of genomic degeneration.”

This would also mean we have degenerated from our Ape-like ancestors (devolution) pp.130.

“No form of selection can maintain let alone create higher genomes” pp.63.

Howell’s Challenge (commented on by Dr. Sanford)

“Just 0.1-1.0 mitochondrial mutations per person create insurmountable problems for

evolutionary theory. Yet, this is nothing compared to the hundreds of mutations

simultaneously occurring within the other chromosomes” pp. 181.

“A surprising large range of biologically realistic parameter combinations should

have led to extinction of the evolutionary line leading to humans within 20 millions of

years….”

Loew’s (preceding) limit for extinction is based upon only the damage associated with

the mitochondrial genome, but the whole genome is 200,000 times larger! Other words, our

ancient ancestors would have perished long before we could have evolved from them!

Lande (1994) and Lynch et al. (1994) ….concluded…VSDMs (very slightly

deleterious mutations) can rapidly drive the population to extinction.”

Did Mr. Collins admit to species extinction as an outcome of deleterious mutations

overwhelming our survival, or ‘that very slightly deleterious mutations “can rapidly drive a

213
population to extinction”? How is it possible to drive a species to extinction genetically

while it is theoretically, so to speck, progressively advancing unless evolution is not

occurring? Perhaps, Mr. Collins is attempting to retrieve Natural Selection from the brink of

genetic disaster as a viable theoretical option. But a theory doesn’t resolve the problem of

missing evidence. Theoretical concepts are not options to empirical facts. Undoubtedly,

there is no biological safety mechanism capable of removing the mutational curse of our

disintegrating genome. But Mr. Collins seems uncertain whether he should hedge his bets or

throw in the towel and walks the tight rope strung above the barbed fence. Natural selection

working in consort with mutation is not a savior of our race, but a death warrant. The Law of

Entropy repudiates the hypothesis of natural selection as a false axiom worthy only of

scientific and philosophical repudiation. We cannot save ourselves by unworkable and

unreliable theoretics.

Time ruins a woman and ravages a man making two victims with their heirs. This is

called the Law of Entropy devolving into Atrophy.

“During the last century, there was a great deal of effort invested in trying to use

mutation to generate useful (crop) variation…. When it was discovered that certain forms of

radiation and certain chemicals were powerful mutagenic agents, millions and millions of

plants were mutagenized and screened for possible improvements. Assuming the Primary

Axiom, it would seem obvious that this would result in rapid “evolution” of our crops. For

several decades this was the main thrust of crop improvement research. Vast numbers of

mutants were produced and screened, collectively representing many billions of mutation

events. A huge number of small, sterile, sick, deformed, aberrant plants were produced.

However, from all this effort, almost no meaningful crop improvement resulted… There was

214
no significant new beneficial mutations arising” pp. 25. “However, the very same scientists

who failed at mutation/selection were extremely successful when they abandoned mutation

breeding and instead used the pre-existing natural variations within each plant species or

genus. This would make sense if such pre-existing variation did not principally arise via

mutation, but originally arose by design” pp.26.

“As a plant breeder I would score hundreds of plants for their phenotype (yield, vigor,

disease resistance, etc.) and then I would rank them from best to worst. I would decide which

fraction of the population I wished to eliminate, drawing a line through the ranking at the

desired level and keep only those plants above the mark. This is called “truncation selection”

and is used by breeders because it is especially effective. However, this type of selection

never happens in nature.” Breeders “have used blocking techniques, replication, statistical

analysis, … and highly controlled environments” as well as Truncated selection. Again,

“Natural Selection does none of this. It is, by definition, a blind and uncontrolled process”

without the imagination and logic of mind. Successful mutation breeding is accomplished

through net loss of information, and the loss of a biological function. Most are found within

the area of ornamental plants where dysfunctional anomalies are found to be novel and

interesting to the eye. “Examples of “useful” mutations within ornamental plants include

sterility, dwarfing, mottled or variegated foliage, or misshaped floral organs” pp.26. But

these mutants are like public advertisements of purposely rendered and partially dysfunctional

genomes.

“To even try “to explain the incredible amount of information which must be packed

into the genome (given the extreme complexity of life), we really have to assume that there

are even higher levels of organization and information encrypted within the genome. For

215
example, we know there is another whole level of organization at the epigenetic level (Gibbs,

2003). There also appears to be extensive, sequence-dependant, three-dimensional

organization within chromosomes and within the whole nucleus (Manuelidis, 1990; Gardiner,

1995: Flam, 1994). Trifonov (1989) has shown that probably all DNA sequences in the

genome encrypt multiple codes (up to 12) pp.132.

“The problem of ubiquitous, genome-wide, poly –constrained DNA seems absolutely

overwhelming for evolutionary theory. Changing anything seems to change everything. The

poly-constrained nature of DNA serves as strong evidence that higher genomes cannot evolve

via mutation/ selection except on a very trivial level. Logically, all poly-constrained DNA

had to be designed pp. 133.

I have let you into only a small portion of the contents Mr. Sanford has packed into

this brilliant expose of logic unraveling speculative scientific error in 232 pages of solid logic

and empirical knowledge from cover to cover and that is why Mr. Sanford can declare with

absolute confidence: “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 than an invisible speck of dust. Mutation/ selection can not 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. And Mr. Sanford may have hit on an unnoticed

but very crucial scientific point made, perhaps, unknowingly by the inspired writer of Genesis

2: 7, “the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground” ─ think about that for a while!

In science the quicker you learn something, the quicker it becomes obsolete and that is

true even for the opinions of prestige’s scientists like Mr. Collins. When I begin writing this

216
book about two years ago, every evolutionist I had heard of, believed that most of the DNA or

about 98% of it was junk. I didn’t. Now they believe as I do! Even an evolutionist can

occasionally be converted to believe in an idea that rubs like an offense.

Mr. Collins continues on pp. 187 “Core ID theory, as outlined by Johnson, also suffers

by providing no mechanism by which the postulated supernatural interventions would give

rise to complexity.” But why should Mr. Johnson be expected to explain “supernatural

interventions” any more than Mr. Collins is required to explain the mechanism by which the

postulation of ‘Spontaneous Generation’ could ever give rise to the complexity of life. Mr.

Collins later denies that life could evolve out of nothing and instead, argues that life must

have been initiated by God. But Mr. Collins says virtually nothing which postulates how

God’s supernatural intervention might have taken place. He is guilty of much the same

shortcoming as he accuses Mr. Johnson of committing. Notwithstanding, Mr. Collins

declares, “ID is a scientific dead end.” Maybe science as Mr. Collins equates it is a dead end

if mankind is not the most intelligent life in the universe. And this possibility is still up for

grabs, exponentially.

Update: As I would have suspected, an “unbiased whole genome comparison between

chimp and human has not been done and certainly should be. Despite this fact, several studies

have been performed where targeted regions of the genomes were compared and overall

estimates of similarity as low as 86% were obtained. Once again, keep in mind that these

regions were hand-picked because they already showed similarity at some level.” (this

resonates with Mr. Collins’ comparison of mice and human genes). “Most of the DNA

sequence (98%) across the chromosomal region encompassing a gene is not used for protein

coding, but rather for gene regulation (and/or produce non-protein molecules, and are often

217
left out of “gene to gene” comparative analysis. …The fact remains that there are large

blocks of sequence anomalies between chimp and human that are not directly comparable and

would actually give a similarity of 0 percent in some regions. In addition, the loss and

addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps

and vise versa. This is difficult to explain in evolutionary terms since the gorilla is lower on

the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these

large blocks of DNA ─ from an evolutionary perspective ─ appear first in gorillas, disappear

in chimps, and then reappear in humans”? Acts & Facts issued by the Institute for Creation

Research. June 2009.

“Whole genomes (human and chimp) have never been really compared, only hand

selected regions already known to be similar have been examined, and the data is heavily

biased. In fact, due to limitations in technology, researches do not even have the complete

genomic sequence for human or chimp at present. In the sequence they do have, much more

analysis needs to be done.

“Here are a number of key points that counter the evolutionary claims of close human-

chimp similarity:

“The chimp genome is 10-12 % larger than the human genome and is not in a near-

finished state like the human genome; it is considered a rough draft.

“When large regions of the two genomes are compared, critical sequence

dissimilarities become evident.

“Extremely large blocks of dissimilarity exist on a number of key chromosomes,

including marked structural differences between the entire male (Y) chromosomes.

“Distinct differences in gene function and regulation are now known to be a more

218
significant factor in determining differences in traits between organisms than the gene

sequence alone….Unfortunately, evolutionary assumptions drove a biased approach of simple

sequence comparisons, providing few answers as to why humans and chimps are obviously so

different.” Acts & Facts. June 2009.

Mr. Collins did not explain whole ranks and territories of genes were left out of his

comparison of human and mice genes. If it is not the whole truth, it is not the truth at all.

That is the way I was brought up to think and it makes sense, because the alternative

immediately creates a false impression! What is the matter with the human race today? Is the

truth something they are no longer capable of understanding. If you are incapable of

understanding the truth, you have failed the primary test of reason and are adrift in the world,

and you have assassinated logic as descent is the most provocative enemy of logic.

Mr. Collins claims: “ID portrays the almighty as a clumsy Creator, having to intervene

at regular intervals to fix the inadequacies of his own initial plan for generating the

complexity of life. I thought this belief was similar to Deism rather than ID-ism, strictly

speaking? For a believer [Mr. Collins] who stands in awe of the almost unimaginable

intelligence and creative genius of God, this is a very unsatisfactory image.” This avoids

there are various differences of degrees of concept between creationists and IDers. Mr.

Collins, himself, does not, on a confessional level stand in awe of the most unimaginable

intelligence and creative genius of God because he delegates God to a restricted and limited

role of initiation in the beginning of things and establishes a rule which he can not

demonstrate, that the same God is limited in what he is able to accomplish. Thus Mr. Collins’

explanation is equally unsatisfactory. God has been relegated by Mr. Collins to no more than

a brilliant, but impish, sometimes clumsy improviser whose creation is beyond his concern

219
and control, as though God wasn’t up to the challenge of creating beings in his own image on

the day of Creation. Scripture entirely disagrees with this. Has Mr. Collins read Genesis? It

is obvious he has read at least a part of it and should not quarrel with it if he claims to be a

Christian? But he has missed the most fundamental and critical theme in scripture. It

involves A War of the Worlds and a rebellion in the universe. Other worlds and creatures

living on those planets have been discussed for millenniums before the first evolutionist

pinched himself and was terrified that he was alive and awake and possibly alone and adrift in

the universe. This “War of the Worldviews” [transfigured from A War of the Worlds] came

about as described by Mr. Collins as beginning initially during the French Revolution. A very

narrow view. “A … powerful force giving rise to atheism in the eighteenth century was a

rebellion against the oppressive authority of the government and the church…. Equating the

organized church with God himself, [which the Pope claims arrogantly of himself as

deserving of worship] revolutionaries decided it was better to throw off both.”

“Dismantling the ‘argument from design’ that had been such a powerful arrow in the

theist’s quiver, the advent of evolutionary theory was seized upon by atheists as a powerful

counter weapon against spiritually” pp. 162. It would follow that atheists would seek control

of the government and society and destroy religion! But, just because there is a strong

counter-reaction to a wrong does not innately imbue that reaction with the greater morality of

a higher principle or with truth in the forefront! “The advent of evolutionary theory was

seized upon” not as commending itself as a more rational concept of Atheism verses God, but

more as a reactionary weapon against the tyranny and intolerance of a state religion under

Catholicism. There was another, far more useful and productive counter-reaction to this type

of tyranny, and it produced America and democracy. Too often, the negative rule of history is

220
that history negatively repeats itself. Oppression incites a counter reaction which itself

incites a future rebellion. It was Roman Catholicism atheism rebelled against in France. But

modern Catholicism finds itself on the side of the evolutionists and Atheists, because

Catholicism “rejects creationism.” Something disingenuous and very disturbing is going on.

Two assassins united are never amalgamated into a stronger peace. History does indeed

produce strange bedfellows with their contagious interbreeding of social evils.

The French Revolution provided the emphasis for Atheism. But this is a shorthand

history of a very complex period of issues in French history. National bankruptcy was

averted by confiscating ecclesiastical lands. In 1798 the Roman Church was further

incapacitated when Napoleon’s chief of staff, general Berthier took the Pope captive.

However, the new, atheistic society became so ruthless, bloody and reactionary,

Napoleon restored Catholicism by the Concordant of 1801. Atheism had been a disaster, but

Catholicism had been a catastrophe, neither one was tolerable, but both checked the other

while neither improved on the insufferable conditions of society.

On page 91, Mr. Collins states “The profound difficulties in defining a convincing

pathway for life’s origin have led some scientists, [most notably Crick and Watson], to

propose that life forms arrived on earth from outer space.” However, “[This] does nothing to

resolve the ultimate question of life’s origin, since it simply forces that astonishing event to

another time and place even further back.” Other words, the evolutionists are astonished that

they don’t have a clue as to how life begin. So why upbraid Johnson for what Mr. Collins

himself is unable to explain. This is a double standard. The fox is hollowing at its echoes

and startled by its own shadow!

When the discovery of the double-helix was announced, Crick declared, “We have

221
found the secret of life.” But Mr. Collins has stated “the ultimate question of life’s origin”

remains unsolved! Perhaps, the discovery of the double-helix is only the turn key into a

Pandora’s box of unimaginable, conceptual difficulties and we stand at the beginning of a new

frontier of puzzling challenges, particularly if you are an evolutionist! What is meant by

gene mapping. Take a map and go out and look at what it represents in a physical, three

dimensional reality. What you know from the map is the lowest common denominator of the

visible and invisible world that is around you. Is everything now known?

On pp.154, Mr. Collins disagrees, and rightly so, with Aristotelian Traditions of

posing theories without requiring experimental support. But as described in his book, I

believe Mr. Collins, and all evolutionists in particular are virtually guilty of this very thing!

Evolution is like a distorted Aristotelian Tradition requiring that all experimental results be

subjugated to support the one and only allowable interpretation ─ evolution while throwing

out any data which doesn’t support or rejects evolution by its direct implications! Science

should spend more time gathering data, than focusing on “perishable hypothesis” of

naturalistic processes like following a wrong signpost and arriving at a wrong location and

having wasted all that traveling time and expense only to have to turn around and go back as

science has been forced to do by supporting its 19th Century belief in catastrophism and

largely rejecting the uniformitarianism it promoted for most of the 20th Century!

Another one of my major objections to the arguments Mr. Collins presents in his book,

“The Language of God,” is it possible for Mr. Collins to be an Evangelical Christian, or a

Christian of any kind. I am not trying to be unkind. Mr. Collins accepts the moral Law as a

necessary foundation of human society and as incontrovertible evidence of God’s authority

and purpose as the way by which man is divinely ordained to live.

222
 Mr. Collins also believes in the resurrection of Christ as a central theme of

Christianity. On pp.48, he states: “Miracles play a particularly powerful role in Christianity

─ especially the most significant miracle of all, Christ’s rising from the dead.” The apostle

Paul proclaims the resurrection as at the center of Christian faith in I Corinthians 15: 12-18.

“But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that

there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even

Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is

your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have

testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the

dead will not be raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those

who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.”

Mr. Collins continues with his resurrection theme on pages 221-223, and how he

personally relates the experience of the resurrection of Christ to himself. “The other

scandalous thing that the New Testament eyewitnesses said about Him, [Christ] and that

Christians seem to take as a central theme of their faith, is that this good man rose from the

dead. For a scientific mind, this was difficult stuff. But on the other hand, if Christ really was

the Son of God, as he explicitly claimed, then surely of all those who ever walked the face of

the earth, He could suspend the laws of nature if he needed to do so to achieve a more

important purpose.”

Indeed, Christ frequently suspended the laws of nature in the testimony of scriptures.

He walked on water, turned water into grape juice without grapes or vines, he resurrected the

dead, he healed the blindness of a man who had been blind from birth.

223
 Mr. Collins continues about his own experience. “His resurrection had to be more

than a demonstration of magical powers. What was the real point of it? Christians have

puzzled over this question for two millennia. After much searching, I could find no single

answer ─ instead, there were several interlocking answers, all pointing to the idea of a bridge

between ourselves and a holy God. Mr. Collins continues: Some commentators focus on the

idea of substitution ─Christ dying in place of all of us who deserve God’s judgment for our

wrongdoings. Others call it redemption ─ Christ paid the ultimate price to free us from the

bondage of sin, so that we could find God and rest in the confidence that He no longer judges

us by our actions, but sees us as having been washed clean. Christians call this salvation by

grace. But for me, the crucifixion and resurrection also provide something else. My desire to

draw close to God was blocked by my own pride and selfish desire to be in control.

Faithfulness to God requires a kind of death of the self-will, in order to be reborn as a new

creation.” On this last point, Mr. Collins has hit the nail on the head for all of us.

There is another concept, perhaps, Mr. Collins is unfamiliar with: that the crucifixion

is the paradigm, the central theme of the greatest conflict of all the ages. A struggle between

good and evil which begin in a place called heaven and is culminating on this planet. A

conflict revealing that if evil is left to its own ends and devises, it would destroy every good

thing that has ever existed, as jealousy and pride incited the motives to destroy that “good

man,” the incarnated Christ. That evil would destroy God himself, if it were possible, is

proven by the Cross to the universe. The Bible from Genesis to Revelation predicts the

eventual, irrevocable, eternal defeat of all evil as God re-enters history to confront and defeat

it with the resurrection of the righteous, the destruction of evil and this present world, and the

recreation of planet earth to the condition of a renewed Eden. Revelation chapters 20-22.

224
 Can a follower of Christianity be a true Christian, if he believes in the resurrection, but

not in the literal story of the Genesis Creation? I will have to establish some facts in order to

provide a logical answer this question.

Mr. Collins claims he is not a Deist but a theist, the primary difference being his belief

in revelation. However, Mr. Collins is still an evolutionist who believes only that God

provided the initial spark of life from which everything else evolved, although he is willing to

accept the authority of the moral law, and the fundamentals of the resurrection. But is this

position logical? Can a man serve two masters as diametrically opposed to each other as is

evolution verses Creation? Because they are in every way total opposites. It takes two to

tangle and two to dance but only one to be two faced. Instead, I believe Mr. Collin’s

definition shows a lack of critical insight into this incompatibility. I will prove his statement

of belief in a resurrection is incompatible with a non-literal Genesis interpretation and that

Genesis is a literal, though limited description of events. Both the creation and the

resurrection are directly related and tied together, because they are acts of the same God. For

each point, I will list a few quotations from what scriptures say about these particular

concepts. This is not intended as a complete theological treatise meant to convert anyone, but

simply as an argument of logic and of science based on scripture, and Mr. Collins’ statements

and interpretations bearing on the subject and whether or not they agree with both science and

scripture, and whether science and Genesis can agree.

The first prediction of the future crucifixion is found in Genesis 3 and is best

understood with Christian hindsight: “He [the redeemer, the earliest reference to Christ] will

crush your head [the head of Satan, the Biblical author of destruction and evil], and you will

strike his heal.” Genesis 3:15. Satan would receive a death wound to his head, but the injury

225
inflicted upon the Son of God would leave non-deadly scares in his hands, feet, and side as an

eternal tribute of Christ’s triumph over evil. The injury inflicted upon the person of the

Godhead in the full manifestation of Christ, would be healed along with the sins of the world

as we understand the injury our suffering has brought upon God and upon ourselves.

It was man’s betrayal of his Creator which brought separation from God, and death

into the world: The Genesis story relates:

1. The first prediction that man would die as a result of disobedience is found in

Genesis 3:19. “You will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were

taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” Evil behavior would not go unpunished,

and is not rewarded by translation to paradise or immortality in the future unless it is truly

repented of and forgiven by a merciful God. It should not be overlooked that man had been

previously warned of the consequence of sin should he disobey the wisdom of his Creator:

Genesis 3:17.

2. What is death? Notice: we already have one definition. Man would return to the

dust from which he was taken. Sin would not become immortal. Genesis 3: 22. Man would

cease to exist much in the same manner as he had not existed before his Creator had formed

him from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Without both

the dust of the ground and the breath of God within man, man cannot survive. Man is

dependant on God for his existence. When a man dies, he returns to the same non-existent

state before the first man, Adam, was created.

3. Ecclesiastes 9: 5. “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know

nothing.”

4. Psalms 6:5, “No one remembers you [God] when he is dead. Who praises you from

226
the grave”? Death is an unconscious state.

When you hold a handful of dust, how much memory is in the dust, how much

thinking can it do, does it look around and say, O I am but dust, if only I could become a

man? Of course that is nonsense except in the vernacular of the Supernatural.

Without death, there would be no need for a resurrection. God has never resurrected

someone who has not died. He does not resurrect the living. That would be incompatible

with the concept’s meaning!

Lazarus had died four days previously to Christ’s arrival and He responded to Martha,

Lazarus weeping sister, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha replied tearfully with one of

the best known of all Biblical teachings, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection of

the last day.” John 5: 29: Christ responded, “I AM the resurrection and the life” and called

Lazarus out of the tomb. “The time is coming when all who are in the grave shall hear his

voice and come out: those who have done right will rise to life; those who have done wrong

will rise to hear their doom.” But she had lost sight Christ was the one who would come on

that last day of earth’s history and bring back to life those whose names are written in the

Lamb’s Book of Life. The final resurrection is also prophesied by Daniel the prophet in

Daniel 12: 2. “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting

life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Most people likely don’t know the

Scriptures teach there are two resurrections? “They (the saints) came to life and reigned with

Christ for a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the end of the

thousand years). This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in

the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them.” Revelation 20: 4-5. After

the thousand years, the resurrection of the wicked takes place who are then given their

227
sentence of doom and punishment of eternal death. Then the earth is restored and recreated

for the children of God and God comes to dwell forever with men. Earth’s great future has

only begun. These great events are found in the last chapters of Revelation.

What is the setting of the (first) resurrection which all of God’s children have waited

for faithfully down through the ages? “We who are still alive, who are left till the coming of

the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will

descend from heaven, with the shout of a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and

with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still

alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to met the Lord in the air.

And so we will be with the Lord forever.

“I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of God,

nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all

sleep, but we will be changed ─ in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For

the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed. For

the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality….

Then the saying that it is written will come true: ‘Death is swallowed up in victory,’ Where, O

death, is your victory? Where, O death is your sting?

Paul called the resurrection a mystery. When Moses described the creation of life on

this planet: even as an observer in vision or as a listener to the story told by God, certainly it

would have been a mystery to Moses how God did his mighty, creative acts. Understanding

the science of Creation would have required a scientific knowledge of life far exceeding

anything imaginable by modern human scientific knowledge and research. Won’t it be

incredibly exciting to study the science of the resurrection in the new earth and witness a new

228
heavens and a new earth created as promised in Revelation!

Here is my question? If millions of righteous are resurrected ─ in a flash, in the

twinkling of an eye, transformed instantly with immortality with those who are still living at

the time ─ than how was God miraculously unable to create Adam, the first man, in a single

24 hour day, on the 6th day of Creation, and instead, had to resort to long evolutionary time

periods for man to evolve? It is obvious, evolution and creationism are not parts of the same

puzzle. As God created man, He resurrects the dead.

The Bible makes incredibly good internal sense with itself, if it isn’t monkeyed with.

A literal interpretation of Genesis is consistent with what is understood in modern physics and

biological systems and I will describe those shortly.

On page 150, Mr. Collins surmises: “Genesis 2 ( ) begins with a description of God

resting on the seventh-day” [The Sabbath of Genesis, or Saturday]. “After this appears a

second description of the creation of humans, this time explicitly referring to Adam. The

second creation description is not entirely compatible with the first; in Genesis 1 vegetation

appears three days before humans are created, whereas in Genesis 2 it seems that God creates

Adam from the dust of the earth before any shrub or plant had yet appeared.”

Genesis 1:2 “Now the earth was formless and empty,” some versions say: void; and

then emerges a brief chronology of God’s creation week.” Genesis 2 through chapter 3

introduces a new theme which is not intended to be chronological and the reason should

become obvious. Before there were any plants, the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the

earth, and there was no man to till the ground. But a mist went up from the earth and watered

the whole face of the earth ─ readying the ground for the plants to come. And God made man

out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became

229
a living being. And God put man in a garden he had made. Nothing in the complete text of

chapter two or three in any way contradicts Genesis 1 as a factual account or the later flood

account of rain which came several thousand years after the plants and man had been created,

so this account agrees with the cardinal points of Genesis 1. The introductory descriptions of

Genesis 2 are similar with Genesis 1 with some scenes omitted and new information revealed.

Mr. Collins reasoned “in Genesis 1 vegetation appears three days before humans are created,

whereas in Genesis 2 it seems God creates Adam from the dust of the earth before any shrub

or plant had appeared. The emphases should be on the word seems which assumes a position

or order in which an event in chapters two and three are told implies chronological

positioning, but this is only a rule which has been made up on the assumption the seceding

chapters are also impelled to continue a chronological structuring. Why?

This second account is not a contradiction. It is a brief encapsulation, or

foreshortening of the Creation story to move quickly into another important theme: The

disruption of God’s perfection, the fall of man, and the cause of man’s moral and physical

catastrophe and decline, and what God plans to do about this dilemma, revealed in the

recreation of the earth in the book of Revelation. Genesis begins with creation and man’s fall

and the promise of restoration and Revelation ends with the recreation of planet earth and

man’s redemption and God’s marvelous fulfillment for the human race, perhaps, beyond that

of God’s original purpose for man and certainly beyond man’s most magnificent dreams.

This retelling of the Genesis story is more than a simple literary technique. It brings in new

and vastly important elements into the story of man and his Creator and promises that man

and God’s special relationship will be eventually restored and will continue for eternity to

come.

230
 I am persuaded scientists are not necessarily expert authorities on literary technique

and should not pose as such, and that a chronology of the Redemption story which was only

beginning its long and trying history intermixed with the chronology of the Creation story

which had already occurred, wouldn’t have been clearly understood in the significance of the

events to transpire in the future of man, and therefore, would be insufficiently appreciated

until the redemption story had played out for a sufficient time, and the wages of sin was paid

at the Cross of Calvary. The Genesis account of Creation was vibrant history, the account of

the restoration of God’s creation is yet to be fully played out in the final cleansing of evil

from the universe.

Mr. Collins ask, “What are we to make of these descriptions [the Genesis record of

each day of Creation consisting of an evening and a morning]? Did the writer intend for this

to be a literal depiction of precise chronological days of twenty-four-hour duration (although

the sun was not created until day four, leaving open the question of how long a day would

have been before that)”?

In addition, “the Hebrew language does not have a past perfect tense and can not

distinguish between God “made” or “had made” the sun and moon. Thus, based on syntax,

the original writing could not provide a preference for a young solar system as compared to a

very old solar system…. The words “He made” were inserted in translation and are not part

of the original Hebrew manuscripts. Ariel Roth. I will elaborate on possible solutions to this

later.

At the bottom of page 151 -152, Mr. Collins invokes Augustine and complains

“Augustine is posing more questions than he is providing answers for. He [Augustine]

repeatedly returns to the question of the meaning of time, concluding that God is outside of

231
time and not bounded by it.” (2 Peter 3:8 states this explicitly: ‘With the Lord a day is like a

thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day’). This in turn causes Augustine to

question the duration of a literal seven days of biblical creation.”

Which interpretation of a Genesis day is correct, a non-literal creation day interpreted

as a thousand years or some long age, or a literal Biblical account that each day in the Genesis

Creation had an evening and morning, or a duration of 24 hours as we have today? The only

difference being that today we use Roman time reckoning: midnight- midnight, instead of

beginning with evening or darkness, and ending with morning or daylight until darkness

returns, beginning another day. There were actually three ways to determine a day in

Palestine in Christ’s day: Genesis, Roman, and 12 hr periods of night and day divided into 4

watches of three hours each, which may have been derived from Persian time keeping.

Augustine is correct in relating the eternal nature of God as outside of time and not

bound by it, but any inference that a day in Genesis is as a thousand years and a thousand

years is as a day is incorrectly applied to the duration of the days of Genesis and here are a

few reasons why. First, Peter 3:8 may be an amplification of the following verse 9 in that

God is not slack as men count slackness, but is patient, not desiring any should perish.

Experts in various fields could probably add many other reasons than the following:

If we reckon each day of creation was a thousand years, we immediately stumble into

very uninviting inconsistencies. Here is the first problem: If each day was a thousand years

and consisted of an evening and morning, or an equal time of darkness and light, than the

night would last 500 years and daylight would continue for 500 years computed into 7 days =

3,500 years of night and 3,500 years of daylight. Vegetation was created on the third day, and

the various types of animals were created on the 5th and 6th days including man on the 6th day.

232
 Mr. Collins notes that the sun and moon apparently weren’t created until the forth day,

even though light was created on the first day. But from day one through day seven, each day

is recorded has having an evening and a morning, if taken literally, implies seven 24 hour,

weekly days like we have today and this would also indicate the earth was rotating. None of

the Biblical statements are as incongruous as they first appear to be, only if they are in

actuality a thousand years, as proposed by Mr. Collins and St. Augustine, instead of a regular

24 hour day. Genesis proclaims evening and morning were the cycle of each day. With at

least 500 hundred years of night instead of our common 12 hours of darkness, all plant life

would have perished by the morning of the 4th day. Notice, the plants were created on the

third day before the sun and moon on the forth day. If this wasn’t devastating enough for the

creatures of the seas and skies, another, or a second night totaling 1000 years of darkness, and

then a third 500 years of darkness intrudes before the mammals and man were created and had

a chance to get a bite; excluding the first three thousand year periods or 1500 years of half

days of night. All the food stores and the feeding grounds were laid waste, and the Tree of

the Knowledge of Good and Evil, would have died. A good thing. Then God could have not

have warned Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, as the tree

would have already perished. But they ate of it, proving the tree was not dead, but they soon

would be. And how did Adam and Eve get enough vitamin D during the 7th day’s beginning

500 years of darkness. Remember, the days in Genesis begin with evening or darkness and

that darkness ended with morning or daylight. There is the evening of the 4th , 5th, 6th and 7th

days. This 2000 years of darkness would have produced, along with the first 2 – 3 half days

of up to 1,500 years of darkness with at least a number of ice ages during the creation week

with their subsequent melting and flooding and erosion and numerous other disasters.

233
 Adam likely would have died of serious vitamin D deficiency, a condition a physician

would consider an emergency after nearly 500 years with nothing to eat ─ plus the ravages of

scurvy would have been unprecedented compared to anything recorded among early

prospectors and explorers of North America and of other continents. Adam would have also

suffered from every vitamin deficiency imaginable and every known protein deficiency. Was

Adam the first man in history to die of starvation? No sun light for 500 years, and worse for

this to occur on the evening or beginning of the first Sabbath of the world, would have

screwed up bio-chemistry and would have turned the Sabbath into the “dreadful day of the

Lord.”

“Adam lived 930 years, and then he died” Genesis 5:3. No one knows how long he

might have actually lived had he been able to have gotten something to eat. Modern cases of

starvation followed by death usually last no longer than 40-45 days without the consumption

of any food. No wonder he grabbed the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and

Evil, he probably fought for it. He was frantic with hunger. But in spite of this, Adam’s age

at death creates another conflict with the interpretation of a thousand year Genesis day. Both

Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day. Either Adam died the same day he was created

because he lived 70 years less than a thousand years, and therefore could have never kept a

Sabbath, or if he was created late on the 6th day, he died sometime on the 7th Day while God

was resting. That would have really ruined God’s rest. And God, who cannot lie, Hebrews

6:18, Numbers 23:19, lied when he recorded the Genesis Creation “was good” when it was

evil. This conflicts with the Biblical account that Able was the first person who died, and was

mourned by his parents, Adam and Eve, and this terrible event befell humanity after the fall

after the Creation week.

234
 Furthermore, a day is a year predicts: Adam lived approximately 339,450 years.

Adam is recorded in Genesis to have lived 930 years x 365 days each year, if a day equals a

year, therefore, Adam lived 339,450 years and if this also represents a thousand years for each

day ad infinitum ─ or seemingly eternal life though man was not allowed by God to eat of the

True of Life and thus become immortal? Genesis 3:22. People who won’t believe the literal

Biblical account of 24 hour days certainly are not going to believe this twist to their own

logic, and neither will those who accept the literally traditional 930 year length of Adam’s life

span. A literal interpretation that a day in Genesis is 24 hours is far more creditable!

Imagine another problem created by a thousand year day, again 500 years of night and

500 years of daylight. This would screw up physics. Has astrophysics calculated what kind

of orbit and rotations the sun, moon and the earth would have needed in order to have

accomplish this astonishing and inexplicable feat that defies known physics just so the

Genesis Creation would last for 7 thousand years with 500 year days and nights, or is it only 3

thousand additional years starting at day four? Only to make a mad scramble to speed

everything up or slow everything down and possibly rearrange orbits to proper rotations

within certain precise parameters so humanity would have normal years and a daily rotation

of 24 hours?

This is such a fantastic scenario: one extra day may need to be added to the Genesis

story to fit the entire scheme in, in all its breath taking complexity, oddly this missing link in

time is never even raised. The scenario of extra time allotted for the creation of life on this

world, however, does not even help evolution to produce anything during so short a span of

six to eight thousand years as this amount of time is not long enough to have produced

anything useful according to the evolutionary hypothesis which requires hundreds of

235
thousands to billions of years or more.

“Humans, like most animals and plants, have biological rhythms, known as circadian

rhythms, which are controlled by a biological clock and work on a daily time scale. These

affect body temperature, alertness, appetite, hormone secretion etc. as well as sleep timing.”

One of these hormones is Melatonin, “which is important in the regulation of circadian

rhythms of several biological functions.” Melatonin is produced by the absence of light and

enables us to sleep.

“Production of melatonin by the pineal gland is under the influence of the

suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) of the hypothalamus, which receives information from the

retina about daily pattern of light and darkness. Both SCN rhythmicity and melatonin

production are affected by non-image forming light information traveling through the

recently- identified retinohypothalamic tract (RHT). This is the non-visual light track that

receives information from the eyes sent to the hypothalamus about the pattern of light and

darkness.

“The light/dark information reaches the SCN via retinal photosensitive ganglion cells,

intrinsically photosensitive photoreceptive cells, distinct from those involved in image

forming (that is, these light sensitive cells are a third type in the retina, in addition to the rods

and cones)…. This photoperiod cue entrains the circadian rhythm, and the resultant

production of specific ‘ dark’ – ‘light’ -induced neural and endocrine signals regulates

behavioral and physiological circadian rhythms.” Wikipedia

Consider a butterfly in context. “A recent study by Dr. Steven M. Reppert, a

neurobiologist from the University of Massachusetts Medical School discovered two genes

that are believed to help navigate Monarchs in their migratory journeys. The ability to go in a

236
correct direction is explained by circadian clocks, cryptochrome (CRY) genes, and a sun

compass. A circadian clock is an internal biological clock that allows the butterfly to have a

sense of time. There are two CRY genes. CRY1 gene is made up of proteins that are created

and destroyed on a 24 hour cycle. It is light-sensitive, estimating the hours of the day by the

amount of light. The CRY2 gene connects the time of day to the sun’s position. Within the

butterfly’s biological clock, time and physical orientation of the sun is known and assists the

butterfly in knowing which direction to travel.” The only refrain to this is Psalms 139: 14.

We are “fearfully and wonderfully made” including all of God’s creation.

With a 1000 year day, Adam’s circadian rhythm would have made him delirious, a

dysfunction that has a name stuck to it: Circadian rhythm abnormality, or an inadequate

ability to reset the sleep/wake cycle to environmental time cues. Could he actually have been

wide-awake for 500 years? I wouldn’t last for a few days of normal time. With worsening

vitamin D deficiency, increasing hormonal imbalances, punishing hunger, sleep deprivation,

and lack of alertness due to 500 years of darkness and circadian rhythm abnormality, it is

doubtful Adam could have survived more than a few hundred years. He was likely the sickest

man who ever died. He and Eve probably could not have been alert enough to have seen the

Temptation coming.

And imagine how confused a butterfly’s internal map would become, trying

hopelessly to align a 24 hour biological clock to 500 years of sun light or of darkness. If the

creature’s internal clock somehow succeeded, it would have had to make fantastic

calculations which no physicist or astronomer even today would know how to work out.

How did a 24 hour biological clock survive, or particularly the butterfly itself which only

lives a few days or months? Could the species have survived? Don’t forget how many

237
cycles of 500 years of darkness after the butterfly was created there may have been?

Obviously, the Genesis story makes a lot of scientific sense if a day in Genesis was a 24 hour

period as is a current day, because man, plants and other animals as well as butterflies, have

survived and somehow thrived.

However, a day is a thousand years riddle gets ever more perplexing. You are

probably wiping the sweat off your brow and wondering if you are going to be able to get

through this with all your brain cells still intact. How could anyone keep the Sabbath for a

thousand years when the life span of the average human beings now is only 60-80 years?

How could this Sabbath requirement be complied with as most will have died long before or

after the Sabbath comes around. And if they were born on the Sabbath the 7th day, most

would never have to work in their entire lifetime if a Sabbath day is a thousand years. A

majority of us could likely live with that idea for a short while before starvation and boredom

overwhelmed us.

Here is the basic, simple math: every generation produces a new generation of

individuals every 20-25 years according to present death rates. A new generation in twenty

years produces five new generations in a century. A new generation produced every 25 years

produces approximately four new generations in one hundred years. During every thousand

years, 40-50 new generations are produced by multiplying by 10 centuries. In six thousand

years, 240-300 new generations of individuals are produced, who have not lived long enough

to have kept a Sabbath. No wonder the 4th commandment says, “Remember the Sabbath day

to keep it holy.” The commandment having rarely, perhaps having never been kept would

have been forgotten thousands of years ago.

The 4th Commandment states implicitly, “Remember to keep the Sabbath day holy.

238
You have six days to labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath to the

Lord your God; that day you will not do any work, you, your son or your daughter, your

manservant or your maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six

days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on

the seventh day. Therefore, he blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” A fact most

notably overlooked: the Sabbath was instituted to memorialize the Creation of the earth by its

Creator God. The previous clauses describe which day among the seven is the Sabbath, how

it is to be observed, and why it must be kept in this shorter summation of the first few

chapters of Genesis. No other reason to observe the Sabbath is given anywhere in scripture

except as God is the Creator and the restorer of His Creation. God’s crystal clear statement in

the Ten Commandments is that man is to work six days of the week and keep the seventh-day

as the Sabbath in the same manner as God created the earth in six days and rested on the

seventh-day, precluding any day age interpretation.

But for logic’s sake, if a day and therefore the Sabbath where a thousand years, and no

work was allowed to take place for that duration of time, how would millions of people

support themselves with a livelihood as working would be a desecration of this sacred day?

Not everyone could be a pastor as this would leave no willing congregations? The dilemma

would create world-wide havoc and economic disaster unlike anything ever witnessed where

nearly 100 % of the population of believers are out of work and dying of hunger and

starvation. And most people would quickly tire of having to be holy for so long, particularly

under such dire circumstances! Non-believers would be the only individuals exempt from

such disasters, making the Divine Plan disastrous by its own demands.

Yet the Sabbath day was so sacred, execution was the punishment for desecrating it

239
during the Mosaic and the period of the Judges. Numbers 15: 32, tells the story of a man

who was arrested and executed for desecrating the Sabbath. The man could not have been

arrested and executed for desecration of the Sabbath if he and no one else knew when the

Sabbath took place or how long it lasted or if the executioners were too weak from starvation

to pick up a stone after nearly a thousand years and generations of hunger. Stoning was the

preferred method of execution. If doing good deeds and saving life were permissible on the

Sabbath, would killing an offender be permissible on the Sabbath-day? The Israeli army

marched around Jericho once every day and on the seventh day marched around the city seven

times and attacked. The walls of the city fell and the Israelites rushed in and killed everyone

in the city. Was this seventh-day the Sabbath or day seven in succession in which the

Israelites had marched around the city? Is this a nearly forgotten but scripturally sound and

effective form of evangelism which is permissible on the Sabbath-day and has been seriously

overlooked and neglected in recent years? Maybe we should start evangelistic efforts at

many of the evolutionary-educational fortresses in the United States? But if a day is a

thousand years, the very idea is almost too exhausting to think about as the population of the

city would have to be much larger than any city now on earth if it would take a thousand years

to march around it 7 times, instead of 7 times in one 24 hour period or during 12 hours of

daylight so the Israelites could see where they were going. Of course, this idea is as

preposterous as the thousand year-day theory of Creation, and the Bible says the attack on

Jericho occurred on day seven of marching around the city 7 times which implies a small city,

but doesn’t state the attack occurred on the Sabbath, which leaves open the possibility that

marching around with delayed intent is permissible on the Sabbath-day, particularly if the

delay of destruction is nearly a thousand years? This way the victims will be provided

240
enough opportunity to escape and possibly reform. A day is a thousand years constructs a

mixed metaphor of time which does not fit in with the rest of the Biblical stories, and

therefore this idea has to be rejected as unsound concerning the limited facts and time

provided.

Execution for desecrating the Sabbath in Biblical times was by stoning and this was

before the Ten Commandments were written by God’s own finger on the Tables of Stone.

It is doubtful Augustine’s and Collins’ interpretation applies to the time after the

Creation Account. Otherwise, there is a likely scenario every Israelite eventually would have

been arrested for some serious misdemeanor or felony concerning the Sabbath including the

arrestees for “who is without sin.” And you wouldn’t find millions of stones lying aimlessly

on the ground in the Holy Land, but tourists would be pointing at massive heaps of stones

piled sky high over some long forgotten and vanquished victims. And tourists would be

scratching and waging their heads in puzzlement, because no one would have ever heard of an

Israelite as they would have all been stoned to death thousands of years ago. With such a

commiserate threat hanging over your head for a thousand years, let alone for a more limited,

specified 24 hour period, there is only a slight chance you wouldn’t know the precise moment

when the Sabbath begin and ended and how it was to be kept. But than, maybe everyone was

too weak from hunger and exhaustion for a thousand years and no one had the energy to pick

up a stone. It is obvious from the wording of the commandment the Sabbath day was a day

like the other six in length of duration, all comprised of twenty-four hours and during the six

preceding days of Creation, God created the firmament, the earth to be inhabited with its

expanse of innumerable creatures. It is obvious that applying the thousand year day principle

to any period of time after the creation week, makes no more sense than applying this fallacy

241
to the creation week itself.

Unquestionably, the Israelites knew in Moses’ time that a day in Genesis as declared

in the 4th Commandment was limited to a 24 hour period, or God would have had to resort to

numerous modifiers, qualifications and explanations. A sinful and untrustworthy people

would have had to have been nearly immortal to have observed a thousand year Sabbath day

and to skip millennial long church services; and modern scholars would be constantly

confused with the difficulties I have tried to unscramble. The Israelites clearly understood the

correct interpretation of Genesis and Exodus thousands of years before St. Augustine became

confused and became the cause of confusion in millions of other victims, who failed,

however, out of negligence to checkout what Genesis and Exodus had to correctly say about

the matter.

Mr. Collins cast doubt on the description of God creating light on the first day, three

days before He created a sun or moon? There are numerous scriptures, which support how

God could have done this. Where and what are the clues?

“The Lord guided them (The Children of Israel) by a pillar of cloud during the day and

by a pillar of fire at night” Exodus 13:21. As night came, the pillar of cloud turned into a

pillar of fire, lighting the Israel camp” Exodus 14: 20.

Moses had to vale his face after talking with God, because his face had become so

radiant that none of the Israelites could stand to come near him. Exodus 35: 29-33. And we

wonder where Moses got his information for Genesis?

“There he [Christ] was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his

clothes became as white as the light.” Matthew 17: 2.

The apostle Paul testifies to King Agrippa of what happened on the road to Damascus

242
which lead to his conversion: “About noon, O King, as I was on the road, I saw a light from

heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. We all fell to the

ground.”

“Until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own

time ─ God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, who alone is

immortal and who lives in unapproachable light.” 1 Timothy 6: 14-16.

“God is a consuming fire,” Hebrews 12:29: the God who created stars and planets also

created light. Why should creating light be more of a problem for Him than creating planets

and stars?

John the Revelator saw Christ in heaven and describes the scene: “I heard behind me a

loud voice like a trumpet… I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me [and it]

was someone ‘like a son of man’… his eyes were like blazing fire, his feet were like bronze

glowing in a furnace… his face was like the sun in all its brilliance. Revelation 1: 10-16.

This may make a kind of Supernatural Sense: incredibly high temperatures are

necessary to mold and transform metals, and precious metals, and to perform atomic fusion

which takes place within the sun, to rearrange and activate and possibly create atoms out of

forces beyond ordinary physics. We have no idea what may actually be involved here. But

here we have a Living Creature who has all of the physical attributes of the powers of nature!

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had

passed away… [And] I saw the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven

from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice

from the thrown saying, Now the dwelling of God is with men, and He will live with them.”

Revelation 21: 1&2. Then verse 23: “The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on

243
it, for the glory of the Lord gives it light, and the Lamb [Christ] is its lamp.”

In an age of light bulbs and search lights, to belittle a description of creating light far

advanced over any process mankind then or now knows how to produce, seems arrogantly

naive. The lowly firefly has outwitted man for millenniums in this contest. They create a

cold light 100% energy efficient, whereas a modern filament light bulb uses 4% of its energy

to produce light and waste the other 96% of its energy to heat what doesn’t need to be heated.

And it took one of mankind’s most brilliant geniuses to create the almost totally inefficient

though very useful apparatus of a light bulb.

Glowworms and fireflies “mix luciferin, a substance in luminescent organisms that

produces light by combining oxygen in the presence of luciferase,” however, this intricate

process also requires about 1000 enzymes scientists have been as yet unable to duplicate. You

can put this on the can’t do list at the end of the chapter entitled: HONESTY IS A KEY

ISSUE IN ANY DEBATE.

Here is a lowly creature whose light is more efficient than modern science has been

able to produce, and scientists vindictively upbraid a description of creating light which

maybe be vastly superior to their own techniques. How a lowly glowworm has been able to

outwit its far more brilliant human competitors for millenniums is a stunning mystery, a

masterful stroke even though scientists know what chemicals combine in a glowworm to

produce the world’s most efficient light? This reminds me of the many mysteries of genetics

which can not be explained. This is not just on the read only list, it is on the can’t create list

even if one could read the instructions in the complex digital like language of a cell and one

doesn’t know whether a complex cell has many more languages with their own set of rules to

obscure the meaning from fools like us.

244
 And while mankind theorizes how the sun creates light and heat and plots a hidden

course through the universe, has he been able in triumphal arrogance to create a ‘star’ with

worlds spinning and whirling around it, or produced an atom out of nothing from which a

living creature is composed? A cynic can become so clever in his own deceits, he fools

himself like no other.

It is obvious Scripture intended we view the first, second, and third days as 24-hour

periods. To get some idea of what may have been going on during those three apparently

very busy days may take science another 20 thousand, perhaps, several hundred thousand or

millions of years to figure out, even if the puzzle were decipherable and we appear to have

initial success in our efforts and there is anywhere near that much time left to mankind to

figure it out? But that is highly improbable and unlikely. Perhaps the earth was spinning in a

24 hour perpendicular rotation to the sun and was lit by the glory of God during the first few

days of Genesis?

In the light of Revelation, Genesis 1: 3 could be interpreted to read: “And God said,

‘Let there be light, and there was light,’ for ‘the earth did not [yet] need the light of the sun or

the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gave it light’ ─ this was day one.’” Revelation

21: 23.

This is not the only theory. The earth may have been rotating around the light of God

who rules and created the laws of the universe, and who set the foundations of the earth, so

they are unmovable, and stretched out the heavens. “Some claim the sun was created on day

one and became visible on day four. Others claim the sun was old and became partially

visible on day one and fully visible on Day four” as the atmosphere cleared. Ariel Roth.

Whatever, it must be noted: the entire fourth day and the first day were devoted to creating

245
light. The forth day is the first mention of specifically known cosmic objects creating light in

our solar system and were assigned for dividing day from darkness, for signs and seasons, and

for days and years. Time divided into a 24 hour day and night, evening and morning were

created on the first day and this indicates rotation, the forth day may indicate the creation of

orbits, the fixing in place of astronomical foundations and seasons and the final grouping of

astronomical objects together ?

From astronomy, are there any planets known to exist without suns? The other

planets in our solar system seem to be in a constant state “without form and void or empty”

and rotating indefinitely around our sun? Some of our solar planets are too far out in space

from the sun to receive adequate energy, light, and heat from the sun to sustain complex life

forms. For any of the other planets in our solar system to support life would require drastic,

unimaginable engineering processes, and immense interplanetary rearrangements interacting

with little understood titanic, cosmic forces beyond the comprehension of modern physics and

biological sciences in order to achieve conditions which would permit life to be designed for a

supporting environment. The very foundations of any potential terrestrial object would likely

have to be moved in the heavens to find a favorable life zone. However, Scripture does

contest God did something extraordinarily important involving the sun and moon in their

relationship to the earth on the forth day?

For those who swear to a belief God created the entire universe on the forth day of

creation, they have never pondered the possibilities hinted at in Proverbs 8: 23-27 where

God’s wisdom is personified:

“From the Beginning, before there was ever an earth… before the mountains were

settled,…before the hills…While as yet He had not made the earth or its fields, or the

246
primeval dust of the world when He (God) set the heavens in place, I (God’s genius and

wisdom) was there! NKJ, NIV. All versions I have read place a period directly after the

word “world.” Why? To avoid a long sentence? To preserve a philosophical paradigm?

The period appears arbitrary and unnecessary as “an adverbial clause at the end of a sentence

is not usually set off by a coma, or by a period to begin a new sentence.” Modern punctuation

was unknown in Biblical times. Are these translations open to possibilities, or are inhibited

by mind sets? What did God do who has inhabited all of eternity? Did he grow bored as

men grow bored who have little or nothing to do or become dissatisfied, so He created a place

called “earth” to be inhabited with beings He could walk in a garden with and communicate

with? “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the

Lord, and Satan came also” from the earth as an unwelcome guest and as the surrogate

representative of this world. This suggest there could be other worlds besides the earth with

intelligent beings living on them, and they can travel from distant parts of the universe and

have direct communion in heaven with their Creator. This was affirmed in scripture

thousands of years before an evolutionist ever pondered the heavens or the unknown planets

of the cosmos or that man might not be alone in the universe, and long before man could have

sent lunar probes and wasted billions of dollars and entire lives in worthless pursuits and

useless enterprises trying to discover life elsewhere in the universe when there is a source

which for thousands of years has spoken of such things.

Will man ever travel to even the nearest galaxy as it would take him a trillion years

traveling at 25,000 m.p.h. Not in a hundred trillion years will man ever secede in traveling

deep into the universe! Even the speed of light is far too slow for space travel. Man is stuck

permanently on planet earth and a few surrounding planets. In the 17th Chapter of the Gospel

247
of John, Christ prays twice to His Father in Heaven, verse 5: “Father, glorify me in your

presence with the glory I had with you before the world begin.” And verse 24: “you loved me

before the Creation of the world.” From eternity God has been active in his Creation! There

was a time and place unique before our world ever existed. God’s wisdom prevailed, and that

WISDOM brought to fruition, and fruition achieved Marvelous Wonders unknown to and

before the human race existed. What were those defining achievements of wisdom which

brought glory to the Godhead before the creation of the earth? “Eye has not seen, nor ear

heard, nor has entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who

love Him.” 1 Corinthians 2: 9. “For God chose us in Christ before the creation of the world

to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love God predestined us to be adopted as sons and

daughters through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will ─ to the praise of

God’s glorious grace, which God has freely given us in the One whom God loves.” Ephesians

1:4-6. God was not caught by surprise by the crisis on earth. He had prepared an emergency

plan before the foundation of the world to restore his children should they fall. This is the

only way man will ever get off this planet and out of our solar system and travel infinite space

as we travel with God himself. 1 Thessalonians 4: 17. But the most magnificent and

unmatchable wonder of our God is not the unlimitedness of His Universe and His

unchallengeable Might and unsearchable wisdom, but the unmatchable faithfulness of His

love towards those whom He has created to share the joy of His creation with Him.

As light from astronomical objects in the universe can take up to billions of light years

to reach the earth, how could the stars have not been created until day four since their light

was already visible on planet earth on day four? How could the creation of the entire universe

take only one day, while the conditions for life and the creation of life on a single planet took

248
an entire week? A single creation day for the rest of the universe, and a creation week for the

earth correspondingly makes little sense. The light from the universe when living beings first

saw it from earth was already ancient.

Some one asked? how do you explain six month long days and nights at the earth’s

poles? First: this is not anywhere near a thousand years or more and there is residual light.

Second: Most of the earth where humans have lived for millenniums experience a 24 hour

day. Third: This may give an indication that the earth before some incomprehensible

catastrophe such as a Biblical flood was not originally tilted on shifting axes and the days

were more evenly distributed as 24 hours over the planet’s surface? This could explain the

numerous, well-preserved mummy’s and fossil finds of tropical plants and animals in artic

regions as though those areas were once tropical, or sub-tropical. This last peculiarity maybe

evidence of a great cataclysmic flood of Biblical proportions related to other colossal events

in the course of catastrophe, is the only logical explanation of past geological events.

Check point, it’s your move.

Genesis makes sense only if the creation days are a literal 24 hours. A non-literal

interpretation destroys the context and any sensible continuity and makes the story

meaningless. According to a non-literal interpretation: Adam and Eve could not have

disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,

because the tree would have perished during the first 500 years of darkness after the plants

were created and before Adam and Eve were formed. So disobedience, and therefore sin

could have never occurred, man has not fallen, therefore man does not need to be saved from

a fallen state, and this would lead to no need for salvation and a resurrection, because the

human race was not condemned to die for distrusting God, and there would be no need for

249
God to recreate the earth as described in Revelation chapters 21&22. Yet death is constantly

around us and we realize the Genesis interpretation of the data makes remarkably good sense.

A non-literal scenario is inconsistent with Biblical textual meaning, and completely

unravels any figurative interpretation of Genesis. “The main questions about creation week

arise from a lack of detailed scientific information and not contradiction.”

The Bible makes good internal sense when it is not monkeyed with. Here is an ancient

Book, the most technically sound and scientific document ever produced in the ancient world.

A Masterpiece which miraculously did not make the many scientific errors made by the

ancients like the earth upheld on the back of a turtle, or more recently, a day is a thousand

years. And it takes one of the brightest minds of our century to screw up the Biblical

account, and he is not alone. He has an unreliable friend in St. Augustine and many others.

Who, like Augustine, believed the sun moved around the earth, and there were no people

living on the bottom of the world because they would have to stand on their heads. Does Mr.

Collins want to continue quoting St. Augustine? In those days only more knowledge

correctly understood would have turned the world upside down – and eventually did. I think

this needs no further discussion.

And, was Augustine actually confused on the meaning of Genesis, or a philosophical

bigot who persecuted and refuted beliefs which differed from his own pagan influenced

Christian beliefs? Augustine helped the Roman Emperors, particularly, Diocletian, to

persecute Christians who were Seventh-day Sabbath keepers. He likely came up with his

argument that “a day in creation is a thousand years,” in order to refute Seventh-day Sabbath

keepers in the early Christian church. But Augustine‘s interpretation of scripture was dead

wrong! Augustine was a platonic philosopher more than he was a Christian apologist. A

250
historical fact few scholars are aware of. “He adopted Platonic metaphysics, seeing absolute

good as the center of reality, transcending thought and the material world. Building on this

base, he tried to create a synthesis of the gospel in Neo-Platonism idealism.” This

predisposed him to viewing Biblical concepts as paradoxical opposites and he was unable to

synchronize those differences in his mind which led to some of his fallacies such as: at the

end of every day of creation, God proclaimed that day’s work only as “good” except for the

second day. This recognition was partly resolved on the third day, and again on the six day

when “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” But good and very good in

Augustine’s mind were not complete perfection, therefore the creation was somehow

imperfect. Augustine’s mind was preconditioned to being unable to comprehend the reality of

the perfection of creation didn’t come until the final day, the 7th day, the dawn of the first new

Sabbath of the new world where the hearts of man and God were bounded together in direct

communion in thankfulness, joyfulness, love, and appreciation. This was the summation of

the perfection of God’s creative acts which Augustine unfortunately missed. Perfection was

achieved in a new and wonderful relationship between God and his creation.

I have presented my critique of some of the ideas suggested by Mr. Collins, and they

are not intended to be personally critical, but to disagree and to present evidence for that

disagreement.

My statements are not intended as a criticism of Mr. Collins’ very fine and intriguing

work in the field of genetics, but when he wonders aimlessly, almost wildly into highly

speculative matters, he is no longer standing on solid and therefore defensible ground.

Mr. Collins proposal of scriptural interpretation must be rejected because it is

unscientific and is an irrational interpretation of the Biblical texts!

251
 His conjectures on science must also be rejected as similar methods of logic that

produced the previous unfounded assumptions about scripture must be rejected!

Warning! I was recently alerted with the disturbing news that Mr. Collins is a leading

proponent of an organization called Biologos, which has as its intent to persuade Christian

organizations and groups to accept the theory of evolution, which undermines all Christian

faith and teachings from Genesis to Revelation. Christian groups should have nothing to do

with supporting this fanatical organization and should avoid wasting even a moment of their

time with it. Either Mr. Collins is a Christian adherent or he is not, and this evidence further

suggest he is not and his pretense of, is a ruse. “If they do not speak according to this word, it

is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8: 20. This seems ironic as Mr. Collins has no

idea how light may have been created from the first and preceding days from the beginning.

This irony is acerbated even more by Mr. Collins inability to shed any light at all on the

context of scripture other than making himself look ill-informed. Fame is the ruin of

irrationalism. If what is taught is not scriptural, than it is lying from the view of a Biblical

perspective.

Evolution no longer has the momentum of modern scientific discovery supporting it:

the subject of this book. Lying is as close as one can come to defrauding and stealing the

truth. Mr. Collins in appearance is misconstruing the facts and twisting the evidence as I have

demonstrated in this chapter whether he is actually sincere, or sincerely wrong. And in this

chapter of Mr. Collins’ life, the question is not what has he done for science, but what has he

done to the alleged rational of science.

252
 CRITIQUING ORIGINS

A side bar to “Icons of Evolution: Chapter entitled Darwin’s Finches: To quote Wells:

Contrary to popular legend, the Galapagos finches “had almost nothing to do with the

formulation of Darwin’s theory.” One recent Text Book fails to mention that the fluctuations

in the bills of the finch population on the Galapagos Inlands from wet years through draught

years reversed the bill structures of the Galapagos finches, leaving no net gain in evolution.

To quote another source Quoted in Wells’ book: “the evolutionary change…observed

during the drought of 1977 was reversed by the heavy rains of 1983. ‘Selection had flipped,’

wrote Weiner. The Birds took a giant step backwards, after their great step forward.’” Other

words, evolution had done a flip-flop.

253
 However, the February 2009, National Geographic tries to maintain the delusion this

really is evolution taking place. But the mental image produced by evolutionary propaganda

is that such changes imply this is a road to cross-species macroevolution, which it is not.

One might ask: which way is forward and which way is backwards if the change

adapts successfully to the circumstances? Otherwise, progress is entirely open to

speculation? Essentially, this is an excellent example of an adaptation of a species to its

environment without macroevolution being involved, which is at the crux of the evolution-

creationists’ debate.

Confusion lies in the fact, how can a fact lie? Evolution has two entirely different

meanings: microevolution, variations within a species; and macroevolution, a species

changing into an entirely different type of organism. Evolutionists constantly use these two

distinct meanings inter-changeably in a sort of mixed metaphor of totally different processes

and theories, which makes the use of the word ‘evolution’ so exasperating. Creationists

accept microevolution as there are numerous examples all around us and in human variations

and variations in other phylum and families of plants and animals. Macroevolution has never

been proven or demonstrated and has a very lack-luster zero compilation of evidence.

Modern science textbooks are virtual sarcophaguses preserving long dead concepts

killed off in the extinction of bad and worn out ideas. One recent textbook, Campbell and

Reece only acknowledges although there were fluctuations in the beaks, the evidence

demonstrates evolution can occur very rapidly. However, these authors are still misleading

the public because they do not inform the student the beak structures of the birds can reverse

themselves rapidly to previous structures. Other words, evolution can reverse itself rapidly

for no net gain. The constant attempt to manufacture truth out of lies is an extremely serious

254
flaw in evolutionary theory. That is to say, lying apparently is far more important in

maintaining the evolutionary theory than are any known facts to support it.

A baffling conundrum plaguing the creditability of evolutionary assumptions is that it

has been well known since the 1970’s and 80’s that amino acids do not have the ability by and

of themselves to self-assemble into proteins which are the building blocks of life. Amino

acids have no natural attraction, or affinity towards each other, and cannot self-assemble into

proteins without the precise digital instructions encoded within the DNA! The building

blocks of life cannot self-assemble anymore than can bricks self-assemble into a house! To

build a house, necessitates a builder. And where did these digital instructions come from is

baffling to the credibility of evolution? There is no naturalist mechanism which produces

information ─ only an intelligence greater than our own could produce such an astonishing

array of original information which produced such an astonishing feat of living engineering.

The completely debunked Miller-Urey experiment is still taught in current school textbooks

simply because there is nothing else out there in the empty script of evolution to replace it.

Then why teach a known falsehood? This is as fraudulent as were the faked drawing of

Haeckel’s Embryos! Other words, “chemical evolution is impossible,” Dean Kenyon, author

of “Chemical Predestination,” no longer believes his original theory that amino acids can self-

replicate into proteins because it has been empirically proven they cannot! Evolution is a

resurrected theory every time it is brought up!

The Miller-Urey experiment, still taught in America’s schools, is suppose to duplicate

the primordial soup by producing amino acids it is claimed. However, in the experiment, only

a few simple amino-acids, not the far more complex and essential molecules necessary to life,

are produced. But how are the far more numerous and complex molecules necessary to life

255
created when they can not be produced by any known laboratory means including the Miller-

Urey apparatus? The evolutionist’s have no credible answer to this.

Dr. Paul Giem of Loma Linda University sums up the results of the Miller-Urey

experiment in listing a number of reasons why the Miller-Urey experiment fails to explain

how Spontaneous Generation, which is the cornerstone of evolution, could have ever

occurred.

1. The Miller-apparatus do not produce all the amino acids used in life.

2. The Miller-Urey apparatus produce numerous other compounds not used in life, and

some that are toxic, …[like] hydrogen cyanide and left over formaldehyde: two toxic

substances that are never mentioned in textbooks, because, if they were, than you would know

that the experiment doesn’t work.

3. The Miller-Urey apparatus do not produce sugars in the presence of ammonia, which

is required for producing amino acids.

4. The Miller-Urey apparatus do not produce all the bases for DNA and RNA….

5. No known reaction will add bases to the 1 position of ribose….

6. There are no known process for consistently forming one chirality….

7. There is no known way to get nucleoside triposphates from nucleosides other than

biochemically.

8. When nucleosides polymerize naturally into RNA, they form 2’ – 5’ linkages rather

than the 3’ – 5 linkages normally found in (laboratory produced) RNA.

9. Even given all the ingredients for life, life will not spontaneously reorganize….

http://www.uncommondescent/intelligent-design/faith-and-reason

Summing up: a Majority of the molecules produced by the Miller-Urey experiment are

256
toxic to life.

Remember, Louis Pasteur, the father of microbiology? Due to the naivety and

determined regression of evolution, he was 150 years ahead of his time! This means he was

150 years ahead of present day science of the 21st Century which has been trying with cold

calculation and wily exasperation to resurrect what experimental science has repeatedly

proven over and over again could have never occurred: Spontaneous Generation: the triumph

of hope over exasperating experience: the triumph of theory over fact. And this brings on a

more serious criticism: The truth is the one thing most people are against. A fact is more

palatable and more human if it has an error in it.

Any evidence for a belief in an undirected biogenesis can come only from statements

of theory, and where theory subordinates fact, certainty comes only by faith in the

untrustworthy.

Kairos 2/16/2007 on the above web site stated succinctly “good science degenerates

into bad dogma where unproven speculation becomes scientific axiom” where evolutionary

faith equates with assumption, conjecture, axiom, or postulate which equate as synonyms of

theory!

Mr. Collins, who headed the genome mapping project, in his book, “The Language of

God,” confronted this problem head on: The “formation of basic building blocks of RNA has

not been achievable in the Miller-Urey type of experiment, nor has a fully self-replicating

RNA been possible to design.” Remember, he has employed the word “design” because that

is the only way it could ever been accomplished. And on the preceding page, he states:

“How could a self-replicating information-carrying molecule assemble spontaneously from

these compounds? DNA, with its phosphate-sugar backbone and intricately arranged organic

257
bases, stacked neatly on top of one another and paired together at each rung of the twisted

double helix, seems an utterly improbable molecule to have “just happened” ─ especially

since DNA seems to possess no intrinsic means of copying itself.”

Do evolutionists actually argue that evolution is proven by a lack of evidence for it?

You won’t believe this, but that is exactly the desperate, psychopathic argument I will later

critique, and this crazy contention, the unreliable soul-mate of insanity and sure madness is

associated with a world renowned name! The Miller-Urey experiment is an artificial

experiment which is none reproducible in nature and has been a total disaster in every

laboratory effort to prove what is the unprovable. It fails to produce anything useful from

nothing or from something else, and this failure on numerous fronts has driven evolution into

an absolute ballistic crisis of fantastic denials against ID and creationism. No processes

outside of or replicated or invented inside of a laboratory has ever come remotely close to

producing life from non-living material! Life cannot and will never be produced by human

collusion. All the experimentation by evolutionists hasn’t produced a single useful result

from which they can support their wildly desperate and crazy assertions for the last century

and a half! To repeat: experiments such as the Miller-Urey experiment has not produced a

single, critical fact for the justification of its errant expectations ─ none whatsoever!

Evolution is not science. It is unrivaled speculation turned into an unbridled,

philosophical madness crying and screaming in the Wilderness of its own Damnations.

Origin of Life

Green, D. et R. Goldberger

258
 Molecular Insights into the Living Process

(1967) pp. 406-407

… “the macro molecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies

beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do

not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet.” Then it must also follow

that cells could not have arisen on other planets by the same creative improbabilities of

evolution which then, inexplicably found their way to our planet.

The Origin of Life

Yockey, Hubert P.

Journal of Theoretical Biology

(1977) Vol.67 p. 398

“The warm little pond scenario was invented ad hoc to serve as a materialistic

reductionist explanation of the origin of life. It is unsupported by any other evidence and will

remain ad hoc until such evidence is found….

“One must conclude that, contrary to established and current wisdom a scenario of

describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on

the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.” So to buy time, in order to delay the

inevitable embarrassment of being proven ludicrously wrong: come up with fantastic

explanations even if it means incredible, fly in your face lying to get the job done?

And there you have it! Did you noticed, faith is the essential ingredient of belief in

evolution, the same as in a religion, and therefore evolution is religion with a faith that God

does not exist. The evolutionists refuse to admit they are in trouble because they are stalling

259
for time as if they haven’t enough already in their desperate hope that something will turn up

and save their Great Cosmographical Myth of Evolution from extinction. No one wants his

own ideas to become the brainchild of a fallacy. Most people caught in the crux will sacrifice

truth in order to save face, and will lie all the more to save both faces, while the crime of

sacrificing the truth creates three simultaneous disasters; even though, there are no successful

incidents recorded in trying to save both faces and one’s reputation simultaneously. Truth is

not disproven by a host of denials to the contrary.

By what seemingly magical trick do proteins form? Proteins are created by the

instructions embedded inside of the DNA molecule ─ the most complexly condensed

structure in our known universe. This structure inside a single cell is so complex that those

instructions if they were printed in a manual, it is estimated, would “fill 500,000 pages,” and

all this detailed complexity exist in a molecule so submicroscopic it boggles the mind and is

invisible to the naked eye and to an ordinary microscope. “Scientists have calculated how

many tightly written books it would take to cover the amount of information managed in a

single human body ─ they would fill the grand canyon over 50 times.” Another way to

express this mind boggling concept is that if all the strands of a person’s DNA were extended

strand to strand it would stretch from here to the moon and yet could fill a teaspoon with

enough space left over for every book that has ever been written! Compare this to the fact

that a stack of one trillion single dollar bills would reach only 68,000 miles towards the moon.

Now let’s really get serious: “Recent findings indicate that optimally-fine tuned rules,

necessary to give meaning to the information stored in DNA, are actually built into the

genetic code. The cell’s machinery uses these rules to make proteins which also harbor

digital-like information. Given the time scale for the origin of life, natural selection would

260
have had to “evaluate” roughly 1055 codes per second to arrive at the genetic code. On this

basis alone, evidence argues against an evolutionary origin. There simply hasn’t been enough

time for natural processes to stumble upon the genetic code.” Astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross.

Did you know there are 60,000-70,000 miles of blood vessels in every human body. One

simply cannot wrap their mind around such staggering figures. But that is no cause to reject

their obvious implications! Carl Sagan has an often repeated saying that each cell has more

information than the library of Congress. Indeed, the human body is more complex than all

human technologies combined. “Where did all this information come from, and how can it

possibly be maintained? This is the mystery of the genome” Genetic Entropy by John

Sanford. But this only represents the beginning complexity of the problem when you

consider the entire universe, and we have no agreed upon concept as to how really huge and

strange and wonderful it may be! Incomprehensible vastness, in small things or in large,

simply blows the mind, and we keep finding even more vastness and more incomprehensible

curiosities to astound us! Consider these three questions or statements to begin with:

1. If genetic similarities in separate species argue for a common ancestor, would not

the separate genetic code in the genes for each species argue for a separate origin?

Remember, DNA has no inherent, native ability to reproduce itself.

2. The DNA code does not match up with the fossil record, which I won’t be

discussing.

3. The more complex the system the more difficult it is to improve it.

I want to discuss the implications of number 1. According to the February 2009,

National Geographic magazine: “Evolution works not just by changing genes, but by

modifying the way those genes are switched on or off.” “The primary fuel for the evolution

261
of anatomy turns out not to be gene changes, but changes in the regulation of genes that

control development.” I want to ask a question: where did the switches and genes originate

from and can scientists prove any of this off and on gene switching mechanism governs the

evolution of anatomy when macroevolution has never been observed, demonstrated, or proven

in the physical world!

There is no proof genes can be changed advantageously to produce a new type of gene

or a new type of organism, or that regulation significantly changes anatomy when regulation

would not be expected to produce changes but only to preserve, or to protect the viability of

the organism. Wouldn’t gene regulation which is very precise prevent mutational changes

and mistakes? What modifies the way genes are switched off or on and why? That

mechanism is not described, but I will discussed this argument further in the chapter which

deals with a Smithsonian article.

Then what mechanism governs the regulation of genes? This suggests a very

complex and important mechanism is still undetermined as the development of new species

with new genes is not occurring among modern species and has not been demonstrated in

ancient organisms.

“The notion of genetic switches explains the humiliating surprise that human beings

appear to have no special human genes.” Taggers or gene switchers are thought to be

influenced by environmental factors, stress, and what one eats. “So evolution was always

going to be about changing the process of growth rather than specifying the end product of

that growth.”

This is an attempt to escape the obvious importance of “ specifying the end product”

“of each after its own kind.” There are clear cut problems with the evolutionary arguments

262
drawn in that they are entirely conjectural and diluting into non-sense or are dodging or trying

to confuse the issue. Evolution cannot spontaneously generate life from inanimate matter!

Thousands of failed experiments have conclusively proven that evolution cannot evolve from

inanimate chemicals. What cannot start up, cannot therefore exist to produce anything!

Genes could never evolve because they cannot exist according to the lack of the evidence for

evolution, and yet they miraculously exist outside of any explanations whatsoever of

evolution!

We are discussing extremely, almost incomprehensibly complex genetic structures and

functions which are totally necessary to life at any level. The cell and its genes are fully

developed, functional and complete as is. There is no latitude for the cell and its genes to

have evolved? In fact, did you notice, this wasn’t even part of the evolutionists’ argument.

The genes in their argument are already pre-existing? What organelles can be extracted from

the cell and the cell would go on living? This would cause almost certain and immediate

death. Therefore, the living cell is irreducibly complex?

“Amino acids can not form themselves into proteins.” Dean Kenyon. Evolution

cannot get started! Therefore, the whole evolutionary scenario that comes after the

conception of the impossible would have a far more than equal chance of never happening

and by the known laws of living things would bring everything to a screeching halt called

extinction! This was discussed in the chapter critiquing Francis Collins’ book, The Language

of God, and his misadventure into the strange and improvable world of his explanation of

mutations.

Genes are regulated, and new genes are not created by the switching function. Genes

are pre-existing with their switches and have a fixed and proscribed limited functionality to

263
their switching mechanisms.

If genes are switched off or on, this could account primarily for adaptations or

variations in a particular species caused or brought about by influences of environmental

factors and heredity and has nothing to do with actual macroevolution and account only for

individual differences influencing microevolution built into our genes.

The genes are pre-existing as are their functions and if genes are regulated, how are

they regulated or what regulates them? The brain is known to do some of this work.

Aberrations in chromosomes and genes do not produce advantageous results but deformities

or spontaneous abortions or defects or illnesses or death of the organism.

Not all genes have been discovered by any means. This has been indirectly pointed

out in the case of the insertion of a mirror copy of the FOXP2 gene into a zebra finch. The

mirror copy interfered with the bird’s usual vocalizations but did not entirely override them,

indicating other genes also take part in vocalizations.

To claim the end product of a species is less important than the not fully explained

processes within that organism, and what actually determines the kind of organism that will

exist ─ seems hallucinatory.

Where did the mind boggling, bafflingly complex instructions of our genetic code

derive from ─ the self-contained instructions written into our DNA? Is it the maddening

quandary of evolution which will never be solved using evolutionary theory? Even Leroy

Hood, one of the earliest proponents of the Human Genome Project (began by Watson &

completed by Francis Collins), nearly admitted to such in the 2005 Summer Edition of News

Week magazine. But no one seems to have caught this tell tail revelation. Hood was

instrumental in unraveling the Human Genome. But he makes an astounding statement, a

264
prediction in reality about his current project analyzing how protein molecules fold. “The

task would take ‘a hundred thousand years with our computers,’ Hood said. But he has a

corporate partner with IBM and access to the companies Grid system, which uses ‘brain’

power from computers around the world to do immensely complicated math.” So are we now

talking about 95,000 years or 85,000 years, I am sure no one knows for certain, including Mr.

Hood? And no one living will live to know. And what happens if there is a computer glitch

and something goes haywire with the calculations? Instead of a hundred thousand years or

less, (1333 generations of human life spans of 75 years each laid end to end, approximately)

how about using the word never as more practical and realistic, or is that a profane word

concerning evolutionary doctrine because of the word’s less than subtle and possible religious

implications which can be tacked on. This dilemma is recounted to illustrate the vast,

overwhelming complexity of a problem which refuses comprehensible reality and will

certainly refuse to go away! Where did these mind boggling instructions encoded in man’s

DNA derive from ─ the self-replicating instructions and the non-replicating DNA structures

designed and encoded into man’s genes? An information based system implies it has an

origin of intelligence and thought. Man scripts with paper and pen like children at play, but

the language of God is inscribed deeply into every creature’s living DNA and cell structure

and complex functions. Only God can transcribe cunningly in fleshly bone and sinews of His

creatures, the stunning wisdom of His brilliance. Man’s DNA and a cell in all its perfection

and that of all living things is God’s signature and His credentials which can never be forged!

“(Hood’s) vision of ‘discovery science’ (or research driven by the search for data

rather than the formation of hypotheses)” would be a much more honest and efficient way for

science to circle its wagons, which suggest the complete failure of evolution as an explanatory

265
discovery tool. Perhaps, some scientists hope the delusion of an evolutionary explanation

will remain if they give the appearance it is not necessary to defend evolution. But that

would be too much hocus pocus and mysticism and not science. Perhaps like Hood, I, too,

have grown weary that science has grown to be more theory than substance, 99% perspiration

and 1% fact and that threatened with uncertainty, which may have never been a real fact in the

first place.

Most scientists are not admitting to how little they really know about anything, or of

their growing awareness of the unexplainable complexity of life and science’s total collapse in

its failure to explain how it all began or functions! And they maybe only observing the tip of

the iceberg! Wells quotes Dawkins as arguing, [the insane argument or the argument of utter,

desperate madness] ‘“Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of

explaining certain aspects of life.’ But claiming that a theory is true “in principle” is the

hallmark of philosophical argument, not a scientific inference. The latter requires evidence,

and as Dawkins himself admits, evidence is unnecessary to prove the truth of Darwinism.”

But if evidence is unnecessary, than a theory is total nonsense and impure speculation!

Evolution is what is referred to as “a fact free science,” which is not, of course, science by any

definition or description or ubiquitous stretch of the imagination, but something more closely

akin to professional voodooism! But notice: Dawkins admitted evolution is a theory by

stating it is a “theory.” A theory is unproven while a law is undeniably certain with proof,

and therefore, theory is not a constituted fact (official data which can be used confidently

beyond the challenge of disproof or suspicion and lacks any irrational or improvable

assumptions, or is suspect by logic), or we are not using the same dictionaries. I use

Webster’s College Dictionary Fourth Edition, or Webster’s International Unabridged. What

266
is Dawkins’ using ─ certainly not an Oxford Dictionary? Silence from the evolutionary

opposition is not golden but brass, and tarnishes over time. What is Dawkins trying to say as

he isn’t making any sense? It’s just clatter in an empty drum ─ with fits of evolution to

deaden the ear. Unlike the opposing view, science as evolution has atrophied into nonsense.

With reasoning like this, of what use are the schizophrenics?

Quoting the same News Week article: “Scientists now know the sequences of most of

our genes. But they do not necessarily know how those genes work or, considering most of

the genome is “Junk” DNA ( a scientific misnomer?) that doesn’t contribute to the body’s

normal functioning, whether they work at all.” Discarding what they do not understand is a

typical failure of evolutionists that should have led to apologies in the past. For example: In

Robert S. Schwartz’s triad in The New England Journal of Medicine, October 6, 2005, he

states with consistent irrationality: “An intelligent student might ask why the designer made

mitochondria in the first place?” Re-emphasizing the evolutionary premise: if you can’t

explain it, it must be useless ─ would seem to stymie science. Not a very advantageous

position to hold in view of science’s once erroneous opinion that the appendix was useless.

The mitochondria is not useless: it produces energy for the cell and does it ingeniously

efficiently. Has Mr. Schwartz proven a better way, perhaps inventing a new type of cell? He

would instantly become the wealthiest and most famous man on earth. The patient alone

would be worth billions, undoubtedly trillions. In fact, if the mitochondria was eliminated,

the victim would die. If the mitochondria functions poorly, the victim is sickly. Obviously,

it is an extremely vital organelle and performs certain irreplaceable functions for a cell. It

reminds me of one of Emerson’s statements that a weed is a plant whose usefulness has not as

yet been discovered. Mr. Schwartz’s ignorance is startling, coming like a cold blast as it does

267
from one of the foremost Medical Journals of the world?

Crick who helped unravel the double helix said, “Biologists must constantly keep in

mind that what they see was not designed, but evolved.” Should Crick have referred to his

suspicions as dumb instinct, rather than an intelligent apprehension of an Intelligent Designer

and that something can become so obvious it must be disregarded as fact? The burden of

proof rests on the denial of the obvious, or the inability to recognize it! How much Spirits did

it take to come up with such an obvious whiplash of insanity. Is science going mad? There

appears to be a conspiracy against the obvious with swirling high flights of false ecstasy to

save the delicate structure of falsehood from collapse. Albert Einstein would strongly

disagree with Crick, he stated: “The harmony of natural law reputes an intelligence of such

superiority that compared with it, all the systematic thinking of human beings is utterly

insignificant.” Wernher Von Braun added: “One cannot be exposed to the law and order of

the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. Through

a closer look at creation, we are to gain a better knowledge of the creator.” Einstein said, all

of the systematic thinking of human beings is utterly insignificant compared to that of the

Creator, and that would include Crick and any scientists who are yet to come on the scene.

The truth is, modern science is destroying evolutionary theory rather than confirming it as the

evolutionists would deceive society into believing. Evolutionary theory is precisely that, a

theory in crisis which has become so entirely dysfunctional in its explanation for the origins

and development of life here on earth or anywhere else in the universe that it will have to be

entirely discarded or it will force research out of the realm of science! When scientists

eventually discover what functions our Junk DNA perform, if they ever figure it out, they will

have to trash their assumptions. This may not equate with throwing the baby out with the

268
bath water but it likely does.

Sometime, after I wrote the above useless section of literature based on the fact that

human beings don’t know everything, I discovered someone had been scavenging the trash

bin of science and came up with this piece of scrape that someone apparently intended for the

garbage bin on the internet. I made this almost worthless, but startling discovery on January

8, 2008. In my research, I started out without mutations and I wound up with mutations

scattered all over the place. The damage done to science was bandaged up this way. …not

all our “Junk” DNA is junk. Was I surprised! No, actually I wasn’t at all surprised. I have

always suspected evolutionary predictions are inaccurate and false. I had been afraid

someone was going to toss a match into that waste bin and start a bonfire. “As more

vertebrate genomes are sequenced, it turns out that they contain stretches of DNA that do not

encode proteins or RNA but have nonetheless been remarkably conserved…. Some of these

regions have accumulated fewer mutations then protein encoding genes have. This suggest,

those sequences are extremely important to the welfare of the organism, but why is not yet

known.” Note: I employed this tidbit to help dissect a part of Francis Collins’ book, “The

Language of God. It seemed appropriate here where I originally had it, so I have left it in.

Francis Collins states only 1.5% of the genome codes for proteins. So maybe these other

DNA sequence regions could be as important to the organism as are protein coding areas?

No one really knows? We are right back to the unknown, (perhaps the place where most

everything is) but all this time I had felt like a walking trash can, getting worse with bad

breath and a vomiting and queasy until the relief to wake up and find it was only a bad

illusion ─ which is often a reliable certainty that our illusions are wrong. I was saved by the

correcting power of science as rare as a cancer cure. I had intended to hold a swap meet

269
under the conviction that what is one persons’ garbage is another’s treasure, but now I have

put that idea on hold.

I was just handed this notice, Mr. Collins has found in his latest book more junk to

litter my notes with. The whole universe now seems littered with “JUNK” from the thinnest

cell to deep outer space. Rationally, he thinks all that junk may not all be junk. You know

how it is, you go through someone else’s garbage, and you find something you believe is

useful. I may very well have to throw away this piece of scrap I am writing and start over

again ─ bull’s eye! But I couldn’t bear the loss ─ I went and retrieved it just in the nick of

time before it was wisped away by municipal duty ─ perhaps science can be saved in the nick

of time before it creates a real disaster by sputtering to a stop like the dinosaurs. Bone pits

are scattered over a wide range in the west. Our national backyard is littered with scraps of

mysterious calligraphy in bone and everyone seems hampered by their education in reading it.

However, we can isolate some facts:

1. ‘Spontaneous Generation’ has remained unproven and undemonstrated for 150

years and can now be declare disproven. No start up switch for evolution has ever been

discovered or will never be discovered. What cannot start up, cannot exist, therefore cannot

proceed to evolve to produce anything! Therefore, evolution could not have accomplished

anything it is credited with. The ass has to be born before it can grow up and become an ass

head.

2. “No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.”

3. “Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy and the second law of

thermodynamics.”

4. “The dating methods evolutionists rely on to assign millions and billions of years to

270
 rocks and fossils are inconsistent and based on [numerous, unprovable] assumptions.”

Evolution collects assumptions like the wind collects dust. Studies of correlation

between various radiometric dating techniques have not been done on any wide scale,

and even if it were done, would the published results reflect the actual findings?

Remember, 50% of all radiometric dates are discarded because they don’t reflect the

researchers viewpoint!

5. The delicate preservation of dinosaur DNA is totally inconsistent with long age

dating theories.

I added the first and last assertions and a part of the forth. Dr. Paul Giem listed the

other three on the internet.

Increasing discoveries in the last few decades and accumulating data and what will yet

turn up, is opening a Pandora’s box for evolution. Once opened, it will never close until

evolution’s demise, and then a more modern science can develop and progress as it should

have. Today, science is destroying the evolutionary theory and that is why the evolutionists

are screaming like burnt fiends who stepped barefoot of their own free will into the hot coals

and flames.

271
 FAITH IN EVOLUTION IS ATTESTED TO IN

THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE

In October 6, 2005, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article on

Intelligent Design entitled: Faith Healers and Physicians ─ Teaching Pseudoscience by

Mandate. [It is strongly recommended before attempting to read this critique that you

read the New England Journal of Medicine article, reproduced at the end of this book]

There were apparently no rebuttals to Mr. Schwartz negative review. Why? I think it

will become obvious. Mr. Schwartz is an editor of the magazine, I referred to him

previously, who will not chance having his ego challenged. [It is necessary in order to fully

understand my rebuttal in this critique that you read Mr. Schwartz’s demeaning article

reproduced at the end of this book].

272
 Beginning with Mr. Schwartz’s ending argument, he makes this statement in summing

up: “This concept, [evolution] if properly understood, can inspire more faith than any hidden

Wizard.” Mr. Schwartz denigrates God to the rank of some impish prankster who is less than

an Intelligent Designer. And Mr. Schwartz apparently believes his arguments are convincing

enough and so thoroughly incontrovertible that whatever else is not understood can be

understood by faith in what is assumed to be known. A somewhat comparable definition that

can be accepted by people who accept the evidence as totally contrary to the premise he holds.

Mr. Schwartz argues that evolution can inspire more faith than a belief in a higher

intelligence. On page 2 of his thesis, Mr. Schwartz claims, “At its root intelligent design is a

medieval theological proposition that is based on faith, not logic, and certainly not science.

However, this so-called “medieval proposition” mentioned despairingly, has a deep

theological foundation that goes back to the Biblical Creation and has more than a billion,

perhaps two billion “ignoramuses” as he calls them, like me, who believe in it.

Then Mr. Schwartz steps into the deep, swirling waters of conflicting currents and rip

tides and hopes to be able to keep his head above water but drowns in the attempt. He has

stated that the evolutionary premise will produce “more faith”. One can argue from his

premise that if evolution can be based on more faith than is necessary to believe in Intelligent

Design, than evolution is less logical than Intelligent Design since his argument elsewhere is

that faith is not logical ─ then why did he use the argument in his summation at all. Maybe

the Intelligent Design adherents should welcome him into the fellowship.

Simplifying the above argument into its essential elements:

If evolution is based on more faith than Intelligent Design, evolution is therefore less

logical, and therefore less likely to be science. That is his argument in context. Apparently,

273
he is not perceptive enough to realize he has made this counter-productive argument to his

cause. And it became a noxious cause, like that of an exterminator, immediately upon

writing the title to his essay.

His screaming, explanatory arguments shouts down not only the opposition but any

possibly logical argument in his thesis, if there really is one. Most of his rants conflict with

other logical counter arguments that the world of nature is far too complex to be explained by

simplistic naturalistic causes. A problem which his beloved “theory of evolution has not

come close to solving.” Nature’s complexity has stumped all evolutionary explanations, and

Mr. Schwartz has increased his own dilemma by virtually arguing Intelligent Design doesn’t

need as much faith on which to premise its argument which to him should therefore be more

logical.

Mr. Schwartz has already raised his voice and is screaming from the page at the top of

his lungs at the opposition and has already denied any response, and any rational acceptance

on his part of a reasonable attempt to counter his position.

Mr. Schwartz has virtually argued that Intelligent Design is more logical than

evolution because it needs less faith to believe in it. Maybe he has a nagging insight into

Intelligent Design’s correctness. Frankly, I believe Intelligent Design inspires more faith

because the scientific evidence for it seems incontrovertible. If Mr. Schwartz cannot be more

logical in arguing for the premise he believes in, then he is not smart enough to insist on

others accepting his analysis. I personally question his ability to make a rational judgment on

the issue he has raised. He has added nothing in way of a material argument to the debate.

He has brought more form than matter to the issue and has entirely ignored a more

fundamental problem perplexing evolutionary explanation. How can evolution explain the

274
origin of the genetic code embedded in the double helix? Since amino acids cannot naturally

form themselves into proteins, (Dean Kenyon) than how did the instructions that allow them

to perform their miracle get into our digital genetic code? Other words, biochemical

evolution is impossible as explained by natural processes except by some evolutionary

miracle which evolutionists are unable to explain and refuse to accept and constantly deny.

Far worse, he infers by association that Intelligent Design advocates are as despicable

as Stalin. An incredible charge! At this point he had better be able to prove it, rather than

make totally preposterous claims that suggest he might have a serious mental problem. Yes,

psychology is a branch of medicine. Mr. Schwartz is headed on a steep downhill slop of

disaster. As evil as Stalin was, Mr. Schwartz appears to have avoided using even more

meaningful, descriptive and, perhaps religiously inclined words. He would undoubtedly take

issue with words like: evil, wickedness, or their general summation: sin? It is likely those of

his hated opposition may have a more truthful and expanded understanding of the world and

their surroundings than he does! Evolution has not taken enough fire for its belief in ‘the

survival of the fittest’ which justifies the survival of master nations or races to exterminate

selected breeds who are perceived in some way as inferior or in competition for some vital

resource. Is that the evolution of evil, which he would avoid, or the proper world he

envisions? Most regard Stalin as profoundly wicked, an epitome of evil, a sort of humanized

Satan as a descriptive analogy of what evil is fully capable of as a genocide of a generation of

Stalin’s own people demonstrated. The seriousness of an evolutionist’s moral ineptitude of

which they are capable places them in jeopardy of far worse evils [a religious concept] than

they can imagine, and which can make them guilty of lacking a clear, moral perception of the

world they live in. Everything they disagree with is equated with Stalin, and everything they

275
agree on isn’t? That is the very limited view of a card carrying bigot. And that seems to

resonate with something else in Mr. Schwartz’s acerbity: “We have the purpose of preventing

bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States.” No freedom of

speech, no freedom of the press, no academic freedom. No freedoms at all except for those

who agree with what I say is the truth! The Constitution was designed to save us from

despots like Mr. Schwartz. It makes one wonder who is really Teaching Pseudoscience by

Mandate? In retrospect, it makes me shudder to think what would happen if he were put in

control of society, in which case, we might not have seen the worse. And where are all the

supporting facts that Mr. Schwartz has presented that will convince and silence even his

opponents that he is undeniably right? I will get to an example shortly. Had Stalin allowed

the teaching of evolution, the belief in the survival of the fittest would have failed to have

changed history, or to have saved anyone and could have made matters far worse than what

makes history cringe in retelling them! Does Mr. Schwartz actually believe that the teaching

of the survival of the fittest would have prevented the genocide that occurred? Some of his

adherents maybe gullible enough to believe their own dogmatic preconceived delusions can

stretch such a far out assertion to radical proportions and rely on it as unassailable truth, but

most? Mr. Schwartz has just aced ignorance in history. Stalin was an atheist and

evolutionist. It was Stalin’s evolutionary philosophy that evolved that historical disaster.

Now, what about that comparison to Stalin? More facts are coming up, shortly as I can get to

them.

If I were an evolutionist, I would have one more worrisome thought about human

evolution: Could the survival of the fittest; the most egotistical philosophy in all of human

history, have exterminated the gene that would have mutated to become the next step in

276
evolutionary development? Could the exterminations of millions by war and abortion have

been sufficient to have accomplished the same feat. We will probably never know, but we

will get to that again, later. Likely the philosophy of the survival of the fittest will prevent

evolutionists from ever really knowing. Obviously, the Intelligent Design adherents can sleep

at night, not wringing their hands and pacing back and forth and losing sleep worrying about

such a possibility.

Then what are Mr. Schwartz immutable and insurmountable arguments upon which he

rests his case and bases his faith?

His uncertainty about the usefulness of mitochondria was previously discussed and

raises considerable doubt about his credentials to represent the pulpit of a substantial

medically oriented organization. Remember “The DNA of mitochondria changes 20 times

faster than was originally believed. Calculate the increased rapidity of these changes, man

would have had to appeared about 6,000 years ago.” Refer to the chapter on Mitochondria

Eve.

Religion will stymie science, or is it the other way around: Evolution has stymied and

blackmailed science? His weighty argument is the great awakening to which he stirs

civilization to stumble to its feet and defend itself. This is his great dogmatic siren call to the

faithful, but his motive is as suspect as it is morally bankrupt since he has to deliberately

ignore examples too numerous to list that contradict this bold and inclusive assertion. His

example of Jehovah Witness refusing blood transfusions while ignoring better known

examples of Seventh-day Adventist Medical schools and institutions which emphasis research

and science, and numerous medical institutions of Protestants, Baptists, Catholics, Methodists

and Jews ─ all religious, sound like the lunatic ravings of someone who has lost his reason

277
before he has lost his faith. What about Saint Jude Children’s Research Hospital, “We are

the cutting edge of science,” or what about the world famous Loma Linda Children’s

Hospital? If there are so many religious institutions saving precious lives, where are all of

those free thinking atheistic hospitals fully dedicated to saving ‘worthless’ lives? That is

precisely why you won’t find an atheist hospital: “we the people” don’t deserve to survive! I

bring this up because life is essentially worthless to an atheist accept for himself. Mr.

Schwartz’s condemnation is slander that could take lives. His remarks are worse than totally

irresponsible and reprehensible! They could be criminal as a result of the damage they could

do!

Simply from the evidence, I believe one can rationally believe in an Intelligent

Creator. I believe that the Designer of life is a loving God and compassionate Father. The

evidence does not seem irrational but overwhelming and compellingly reasonable to me. It is

not so far out to believe in a Biblical record of sin and rebellion and that the results of cause

and effect were perpetuated by an intelligent and evil interferer that Christians refer to as a

mighty created being called Satan who gave existence to evil.

Mr. Schwartz’s unsound and petty rant on an important issue widens the divide to an

unbridgeable chasm into which he has stumbled headlong, and this should be an

embarrassment to the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The (man) does protest too much, I think.” Shakespeare adapted.

278
 WHO WAS DARWIN & HOW THIS AFFECTS FREEDOM?

THE MAN WHO ALMOST NOBODY KNOWS &

THE HISTORY AND CONSEQUENCES OF EVOLUTION

CRITIQUE of November 28, 2005 Newsweek Article on “THE REAL DARWIN.”

The real question becomes, does Newsweek have any real idea as to who the real

Darwin was? Apparently, they don’t have a clue, and they are not out looking for it, either.

After raising Darwin to the status of a naturalist Deity, proclaiming victoriously in iconic

worship “Of the revolutionary thinkers who have done the most to shape the intellectual

history of the last century, two ─ Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx ─ are in eclipse today, and

279
one ─Albert Einstein ─ has been accepted into the canon of modern thought, even if most

people still don’t understand what he was thinking. Darwin alone stands unassimilated,

provocative, even threatening to some … Like Pat Robertson.” Poor Pat Robertson. His

remarks predestined him for the Newsweek treatment as though he were the only madman out

there. But Pat Robertson is the opposite of a schizophrenic ─ whatever that maybe ─ a

schizophrenic is a ventriloquist without dolls ─ he speaks only for himself, not for the entire

world community of Christianity. Perhaps Pat Robertson is an absurd example in deciding

what God will or will not do and does not speak directly for God? Newsweek may very well

be right there. Unfortunately, an absurd exception has the solemn mystic of a rational

example, which it is not. I am not defending evolution, which I think is far more absurd than

Newsweek’s persecution of an irrational model like some of his counterparts in defending

evolution. Whatever, Newsweek’s incriminatingly humorous divergence from the subject

adds nothing to the argument, and is biased as Newsweek has not presented equally dogmatic

triads from the other side. Mad men are not the exclusive priority of either side. Pat Robert’s

pronouncement neither prove nor disprove anything other than Pat Robertson’s brain may

have been raptured away like some of his opponents into a state where they seem unable to

find their way back to reality, particularly, since either side is clever at not understanding its

own tenets. How could I say such a thing? Since Newsweek has misrepresented Intelligent

Design arguments, they have set themselves up to attack on the subject of their chosen wed-

lock. “Albert Einstein has been assimilated into the canon of modern thought even though

most still don’t understand what he was thinking.” However, Darwin hasn’t been assimilated

into current acceptance because most people do understand all too well what Darwin was

thinking and not only disagree with it, but not one iota of evidence leading to proof has ever

280
been found for his dogmatist assertions! Notwithstanding, the holy script of Newsweek

continues to perpetuate an either deliberate miss- representation of the facts or sloughed on

their homework ─ a scandalous shortcoming that forces one to wonder whether he can ever

again believe anything Newsweek claims to be true!

“Of the revolutionary thinkers who have done the most to shape the intellectual history

of the last century, two ─ Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx ─ are in eclipse today…. Darwin

stands alone unassimilated.” And this is where the greatest of all ironies lie, because Darwin

had the greatest influence on the other two and on the 20th century. Darwin’s theory was

fully assimilated into Nazism and Communist society and Freud’s theories of psychology. Is

it that for which Newsweek pines for, or they don’t know what they are talking about?!

It is more than fortunate, or dare I say, perhaps Providential, that Darwinism has not

been as yet assimilated into American culture when you reckon with that “Intellectual history

of the last century”! “Karl Marx (was) closely linked to Darwinism. (In fact, Darwin’s

theory was the kingpin for Marxist theory). That which Darwin did to biology, Marx with the

help of others did to society. All the worst political philosophies of the 20th century emerged

from the dark cave of Darwinism.”

“In 1866, Marx wrote to Fredrick Engels, that the ‘Origin of Species contained the

basis in natural history for their political and economic system for an atheist world.’ In 1861,

Marx had written to Engels: ‘Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a base in

natural selection for the class struggle in history.’”

“Marx’ and Engel’s acceptance of evolutionary theory made Darwin’s theory the

‘Scientific’ basis of all later communist ideologies.

281
 “Lenin was an ardent evolutionist who in 1918 violently overthrew the Russian

government and founded the Soviet Union.

“At an early age, while attending a Christian Orthodox school, Stalin became an

atheist. The Soviet Union under Stalin was an outstanding example of Darwinist principles

extended to an entire nation.” These above quotes are from The Evolution Handbook and so

are some of the following. Similar records can be found in other sources; the internet being

an excellent source.

“Adolf Hitler carefully studied the writings of Darwin and Nietzsche. Hitler’s book,

Mein Kampf was based on evolutionary theory. (Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics,

1947, pp. 28). The very title of the book (‘my Struggle’ [to survive and overcome]) was

copied from a Darwinian expression. Hitler believed he was fulfilling evolutionary objectives

by eliminating ‘undesirable individuals and inferior races’ in order to produce Germany’s

‘Master Race.’” Larry Azar, Twentieth Century in Crisis, 1990, pp. 180. The elimination of

the Jews was a staggering genocide carried out by the delusion: “the survival of the fittest.”

It was, instead, those who were themselves ‘unfit’ to live in a civilized society who promoted

this evil concept into murderous warfare. And that unrest assured that “the survival of the

fittest” and “ethnic cleaning” are twin terrors and inflamers of racism and hatred.

When I wrote this latter comparison, although the phrase ‘ethnic cleansing’ probably

originated in western reports as I have learned, I suspected it had as its origins, conditions

springing from earlier Nazi and Communists countries and this seems to be the case since it

appears as a cultural derivative of “the survival of the fittest.” The term was first used, during

the break up of The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 1991-1995).

Mussolini was one more of like spirit in that triangle of evil.

282
 “Sigmund Freud was deeply indebted to the evolutionary training he received in

Germany as a young man. He fully accepted it, as well as Haeckel’s recapitulation theory,

(which, today, we know was a fraud! Haeckel had deliberately faked his drawings of

embryos). Freud began his Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1916) with Haeckel’s

premise: ‘Each individual somehow recapitulates in an abbreviated form the entire

development of the human race’ (R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, pp.177.

Haeckel’s fraud completely discredits Freud’s premise!

“Freud’s ‘Oedipus complex’ was based on a theory of ‘Primal horde’ he developed

about a ‘mental complex’ that cavemen families had long ago. His theories of anxiety

complexes, and ‘oral’ and ‘anal’ stages, etc., were based on his belief that our ancestors were

savage.

“Darwin, Marx, and Freud helped shape the modern mind into conformity with the

world view of Mechanistic Materialism.” E.A. Opitz, “The Use of Reason in Religion,” in

Imprimis 7(2): 4 (1978)

“Darwin, Nietzsche, and Haeckel laid the foundations for the intense German

militarism that eventually led to the 1st World War. There were others who participated in

the development, of course, including many of the German generals and political leaders, all

very much under the spell of the German variety of social Darwinism. General Friedrich von

Bernhardi said:

“War gives biological just decisions, since its decisions rest on the very nature of

things…It is not only a biological law, but moral obligation and, as such, an indispensable

factor in civilization!” Just what moral obligation is he referring to as indispensable? “The

first point is that selfishness and violence are inherent in us, inherited from our remotest

283
animal ancestors. Violence is, then, natural to man, a product of evolution.” P.J. Darlington,

Evolution For Naturalist (1980), pp. 243-244. Other words, “Only the fittest [killers] should

survive.” R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 207 [also pp. 312-313. Violence

in society is acceptable! We can dismiss our police forces. Reason forbid! Even if violence

is perceived as natural to man, does not mean it is good. And if it is not good, it is assuredly

evil and a vice. That is why as individuals and nations, we make provisions to protect

ourselves.

There isn’t a criminal element in science? What idiots could we be deceiving by

making such ludicrous claims except ourselves? There are criminal elements in every aspect

of human society and activity, but science is innocent? The world is corrupt throughout. If

you don’t believe there are criminal elements in science and social and political powers

willing to dupe, defraud, cheat and exploit, than you are either in liege with them, or you are

crazy. Look at your television set. Rogue scientists madden by their greed for recognition,

wealth and fame, and institutional maniacs of twisted dogma with their scrip writers spill

lengthily scenarios of dubious theories, hobgoblins of fiction, anarchies of dissipations to

indoctrinate the public mind, and we wonder why there is so much crime in our society, and

no one raises an objection or even an eyebrow? And our government will protect this filth

and decadency with tanks and troops in our own streets if it feels error is threatened? That is

how far democracy in America has fallen. It is an international and a historical disgrace!

This is not the nation our founders intended and brought forth in the righteously indignant

strength of liberty!

“Natural selection can favor egotism, hedonism, cowardice instead of bravery,

cheating and exploitation.” Theoddosius Dobzhansky, “Ethics and Values in Biological and

284
Cultural Evolution, in Los Angeles Times, June 16, 1974, pp.6. In “Total Truth: Liberating

Christianity From Its Cultural Captivity, Nancy Pearcey notes that the implications of

Darwinism eventually destroy the authority of any ethical system….” This disagrees entirely

with the concepts of our nation’s founding fathers that only with moral authority could liberty

exist! Lincoln said, “The strength of a nation rest in the homes of its people.” Without

integrity and a love for truth supreme and triumphant above all other of humanities’ rights and

freedoms, democracy disintegrates into a despotism of the majority of evil doers! And if a

whole people become liars, cheats, defrauders, thieves and immoral ─ so will become their

concepts of justice ─ it will rob instead of restore! When Mr. Schwartz threatened “We have

the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the

United States.” Is that a prophecy of how he would bring this mighty nation to its knees?!

Valor is the jackal who robs a lion but is slaughtered for his daring. Cunning and

moral cowardliness create the wolf pack of entrenched mentalities. Evil succeeds when good

men do nothing. But you can’t save everyone. Some thugs are not worth saving. Hitler and

Stalin are a few examples which come expectedly to mind. The world would have been a far

better and more peaceful and safer place without them having ever existed. What do you

think would have happened had David walked up to Goliath and had tried to offer him a few

Jewish tracts, or a couple of Psalms? The Children of Israel would be alluded to, without

enthusiasm, in no more than a few minor history books. And the promised Messiah could not

have come through the stock of David and the entire history of the Bible would have been

unwritten. And modern Israel certainly would not exist!

Protestant Christianity played the major role in the abolition of slavery, atheists played

no role whatsoever, but they now want to be accredited with the achievements of democracy

285
─ to seize the great powers of this Nation formed by Christian principles and rationalize they

can make government work by substituting with their own corruptions. That is when the

great foundations of this nation will fall to be replaced by a revolutionary undergirding of

mischievous and destructive principles. Such irrationality will about a cataclysmic and

unprecedented historical, philosophical and political disaster! I will make the case of history

as I go, because history is key to the issue!

God by name is declared resoundingly and repeatedly Supreme in America’s

Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that

among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness:” These words ─ some of the

finest and noblest words ever crafted in any language ─ ended thousands of years of

insufferable and brutal oppressions and slavery and despotisms! Which phrases should we

now eliminate for the betterment of all? Which claims are heretical and treasonable? Which

were uncannily misguided? And which of these fundamental principles should we persecute

and prosecute? Do we commit treason by threatening to change our democratic form of

government ─ for that would be the cloaked testament of intent if we take offense to these

ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights?

How dare anyone claim the Constitution demands the name of God be stricken from

Our Nation’s Declarative Proposition, that God was assassinated by the Constitution and Our

Bill of Rights or that we should trash or make void our Constitution, our Declaration of

Independence, and our consciousness of the Creator to whom our freedoms are dedicated and

founded ─ that would be tantamount to anarchy and treason, treason which goes clear to the

heart of the Supreme Court and the Presidency if it must! Is it disingenuous to our welfare to

286
provide these founding beliefs equal fortune to all others? Nor does it make any sense to

argue contradictory that they are inexplicably opposed to their own utterances.

How can we become so free we are stricken free from the principles and foundations

which give us our freedoms and which gave men the courage to defy the evils of their age and

to stand up for the rights which belong to every individual. To imagine such an improvable

scenario is madness and to dream of the triumph of tyranny and evil once again. Who has

ever heard the opposition to these ideals write such a stirring line for the defense of the rights

of others who can not be regarded by them as the ‘fit’ subjects of such rights? Should we

become so foolish as to reinstate anyone of histories proven despotisms, however its

arguments for our welfare are attributed, then we will have become the dedicated assassins of

freedom by our own philosophical suicide.

But this is only the beginning of intrigues: The Preambles of all 50 Constitutions of

our individual States refer to the Judeo-Christian Creator God from whom comes, directly or

indirectly, our freedoms and rights! This Creator God is referred to in respectful terms as

“God: the Supreme Being, The Sovereign, or Supreme Ruler of the Universe or Nation, the

Great Legislator of the Universe, the Author of existence, our Creator,” and in the Declaration

of Independence, tribute is made to “Divine Providence”! Would you start a revolution by

striking out those references to God Almighty from these profoundly extraordinary

instruments, from that historically pre-emanate, written monument to human introspection

and Divine Genius our Declaration of Independence ─ because a revolution is what you

would get! Test forbearance, and you will bear the overwhelming consequences in the total

disaster of that betrayal! And to replace those three great Instruments of moral government

with “the survival of the fittest,” and not even the fit will survive.

287
 There is another flanking attack against the First Amendment. “[T] he U.S. Supreme

Court, [has] reduced the First Amendment’s free exercise clause to a virtual dead letter in the

infamous peyote cases in 1990. The result is that religious freedom is no longer protected as a

fundamental right either by the U.S. or California Constitutions.” My first reaction is that this

is treason, which perhaps goes even beyond this treasonable paradigm covertly represented as

“neutral laws of general application” by which state and Federal Governments can assault

First Amendment rights. What are neutral laws of general application? For instance: if an

individual “professes doctrines of religious faith superior to the law of the land, and in effect

[if the state were] to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself” this would challenge

the authority of the state and would be unlawful. No freedom of conscience, no freedom of

the press or freedom of speech or practice! What this means is that state and/or Federal law

takes preference over religious beliefs, or individual liberties by a claim which trumps every

single right guaranteed in the First Amendment! This is outright, blatant treason! This goes

so far that if Sunday Laws become the law of the land, you do not have a right even to oppose

them. This is the script of totalitarianism where State and Federal power rules supreme over

innate personal rights! Explain this to Adam and Eve, or to Moses, or to Daniel, or to Christ’s

apostles who all kept Saturday as the Sabbath from Creation beyond the dawn of the new

earth to come as prophesied in Isaiah 66: 23, or the tens of millions of Christian martyrs who

died for their faith, or to the Pilgrims and others who fled European political and religious

persecutions and established sanctuary in a new land! And where now can men flee to

become free?

According to the arguments in our Declaration of Independence, inalienable rights are

granted and guaranteed only to individuals, not to governments. Governments are instituted

288
as their sole claim to existence to protect those rights, not to trump and usurp them!

The American Revolution was fought over the right of collective individuals to rid

themselves of totalitarian seizers of individual rights. The structure of the state is not

democratic, nor the division of any powers, without the recognition, the practice of, and

existence of the inalienable rights of its people! What most people do not recognize is that a

democracy classified as a certain type of physical structure can be either free, totalitarian, or

despotic. Refer to slavery in The United States before the Civil War. If government sets at

jeopardy the beliefs and practices of all various religious views by restraining a few alleged

extreme practices and do so on inclusive arguments of law and religion, that is totalitarianism.

A similar comparison can be made to the presumption of innocence because it is perceived it

would be fairer for a few who are guilty to go free rather than an innocent individual should

be convicted and incarcerated or put to death upon which society would become guilty of

murder and false incarceration and accusation. A crime for which it punished the innocent.

I attended a well-structured, church sponsored lecture on the UNINITED NATIONS

END P OVERTY MILLENNIUM GOALS 2015, and what should be the church’s response to

such commendable goals?

When the lecture was nearly finished, the lecturer asked what attributes the Church

excelled at; and about a dozen good suggestions were given. A gentleman setting next to me

mentioned defending “religious freedom.” I suspected rightly as I was later told: this man

held a high position in the Church’s Religious Liberty Department.

After the lecture, I went up to this man and said to him somewhat doubtfully and

uncomplimentary, “I thought the way the church had handled the religious liberty issue had in

many ways done more harm than good.”

289
 I related my charge against the concept of “A Wall of Separation Between Church and

State” which the church has vigorously defended and often misapplied as have the courts in

my view.

The response I immediately got was as though I had personally leveled my attack

against him, or had assaulted him personally.

I argued a few of the issues and statistics I use in this book without any visible effect

on his rote recital of narrowing opinions. Here is one of his concepts I want to quote him on

as a so called church leader and defender of the faith. “The state should be secular.

Everything evolved over long periods of time and that is the way it is.” Such an answer is

like putting the devil in charge of both heaven and hell and making a hell out of both.

Webster. Democracy is defined A: as government of the people, either directly or by

elected representatives. B: Majority rule. C: The acceptance and practice of the principles of

equality of rights, opportunity, and treatment.

Webster. Secularism is defined 1. … rejection of any form of religious faith. 2. the

belief that religion should not enter into public education or other state functions. This

defined that gentleman’s position perfectly.

“If the state should be secular,” than the acceptance and practice of the principles of

equality of rights, opportunity, and treatment” has been essentially denied to traditional

religious beliefs, and this has effectively scraped the First Amendment and equal and fair

representation of ideas is denied. Secularism is not part of the definition and structure of

democracy, nor does secularism protect religious liberty as it is adversarial to that freedom,

and what rational is used to seek protection from an enemy is akin to suicide. To what can a

“Wall of Separation” be applied? To any competing and violence riddled philosophy, which

290
seeks control of society through a dominating worldview.

In trying to keep the jackal out, we have allowed the hyena to slip through chased by

the lion, I argued. Any dominating worldview is not to control the dictates and reins of

government but is to be allowed access so it can express its views without conflicting

interference or practice intolerance to other competing concepts and ideas.

As already defined: secularism is the belief religious matters have no place in

government. But what is secularism in America? It is the allowance to predominate as a

revolutionary attack on all religious beliefs? Secularism does not seek equality and tolerance,

nor neutrality ─ it seeks absolute, determinate control of and domination and the annihilation

of all opposing viewpoints. Such a vicious paradigm of pseudo-scientific philosophy cannot

be given unmanaged and unequal power in a democracy or it will raise its ugly head from the

ashes of the democracy it has thrust down and burned to the ground!

If democracy must be secular: Then again what do we do with the Declaration of

Independence: toss out the phrase: “God created all men equal and endowed them with certain

inalienable rights,” because this stance is a seditious attack on our nation, or does this

recognition instead allow democracy and freedom to function? Did Jefferson contradicted

himself when he coined the phrase “A Wall of Separation between Church and State” if he

meant the extremes to which its interpretation has been taken to allow religion and the God to

whom he gave credit for the inalienable rights which all men inherit at birth ─ that Greatest

of Documents standing as a Historical Monument of Guarantees of protected and inalienable

rights signed by over fifty of the Founding Fathers of this Nation, should be vulnerable to

attacks of annihilation which inevitably come from our foe of uncontrolled secularism!

Than is “In God we trust” a phrase in which to our peril we can no longer trust? You

291
can argue for the triumph of secularism with some pretense to sanity? Never as long as this

nation stands in stark contrast to totalitarianism which promotes a singularly focused,

dominating world view! And what has democracy achieved since the writing of the

Declaration of Independence and the Constitution without significant input from secularism

which has contributed little or nothing to how our nation is best governed? And now the

seculars want to be in control as a reward for their unearned privilege and show us how it

should have been done and the repairers of freedom are now considered the enemy of their

own efforts? This is a vicious turning of the tables and a slap in the nation’s face that bends

towards anarchy and revolution.

What Jefferson today would say in more modern terms is that collectively we do not

want any domineering and persecuting worldview, whether religious or otherwise, controlling

the state. This is the purpose of the non-establishment clause.

Innuendo, wild speculations, and unfounded theories in science and history are

increasingly permeating and becoming the norm of these disciplines. One commercial

channel recently aired a program which alleged: The Declaration of Independence and the

Constitution were conceived and drafted under the influence of a drug induced radicalism!

To imply such a connection is treason! Throw those bustards in jail, or hang them from a

gallows ten stories high like the gallows of Haman made for Mordecai! Could the framers of

the Constitution and the signors of the Declaration of Independence have executed such

exquisite documents as clearly and majestically framed in logic and language induced by a

delusional state of narcotics? A theory based almost solely on the history that a few of the

signors of these world renowned instruments raised hemp commercially for the creation of

rope and sailcloth? Anyone who makes such slanderous charges without a more factual

292
foundation is a danger to society and should be locked up in an insane asylum! I remember

when it was common to purchase rope made out of hemp years ago here in the United States,

but it does not follow therefore, that I or most everyone else have ever used any kind of

narcotics or hallucinatory drugs made from the plant because it was ever used to make rope,

which I and most have not. Nor am I alleging we should go back to raising hemp or opium,

because of its potential life altering and life threatening abuses. Nonetheless, this public

defamation of our nation’s founders demonstrates that a critic can be alive and well and still

be an idiot without any grace from history to be forgiving. But its intent went even further! It

was nothing less than a blazon attack to scandalize the founders of this greatest of all nations,

and to lessen their profoundly important influence in establishing democracy. It was an act of

betrayal of what our nation stands for.

The 2008 Reader’ Digest contained an article entitled: Why We’re Happy by Arthur C.

Brooks. In the introduction, it is stated: “Turns out, happiness has a lot to do with values ─

and it’s key to our prosperity as a nation.”

“Along with life and liberty, happiness was the connection between the Creator and

our nation’s destiny, and the ability of it’s citizens to pursue and achieve happiness was a

measure of the effectiveness and morality of the state.”

“The Founders listed liberty right up there with the pursuit of happiness as an

objective that merited a struggle for our national independence. In fact, freedom and

happiness are intimately related: People who consider themselves free are a lot happier than

those who don’t.” And “happy people increase our prosperity and strengthen our

communities. They make better citizens ─ and better citizens are vital to making our nation

healthy and strong”(!)

293
 “Moral values are critical to Americans. This suggest, that, as a people, we do best by

protecting our political and economic freedoms and guarding against a culture that sanctions

licentiousness.”

Where did these concepts that are so much a part of American life originate as a

political force? John Locke’s writings influenced the American Revolution and was strongly

reflected in America’s Declaration of Independence.

Amended Bibliography of Locke

John Locke, one of the greatest political philosophers of all times, was educated at

Christ Church at Oxford, England…

“In 1679, Locke returned to England from France, but in view of his opposition to

Roman Catholicism favored by the English Monarchy, he returned to the continent. From

1683-1688, he lived in Holland, and following the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the

restoration of Protestantism to favor, Locke returned once more to England.” www.island-of-

freedom.com/LOCKE.htm

“Locke exercised enormous influence in both England and America. In his two

treatises of Government (1690), Locke set forth the view that the state exists to preserve the

natural rights of its citizens. When governments fail in that task, citizens have the right ─

and sometimes the duty ─ to withdraw their support and even to rebel…. Locke maintained

that the state of nature is a happy and tolerant one, that the social contract preserves the pre-

existent natural rights of the individual to life, liberty, and property, and that the enjoyment of

private rights ─ the pursuit of happiness ─ leads, in civil society, to the common good.”

294
Grolier Encyclopedia of Knowledge.

Along with John Locke’s famous treatises on Government, he also wrote on

theological subjects: his The Reasonableness of Christianity was Published in 1695.

Another remarkable and brilliant man had immense influence on the development of

the American Constitution. “It was partly due to the brilliance of (baron de) Montesquieu that

the United States of America has descended into serious bloodshed only once in over two

hundred years.” This has not been accomplished by any other nation during our time.

“Montesquieu advocated constitutionalism, the preservation of civil liberties, the

abolition of slavery (This is supported by Wikipedia Encyclopedia), gradualism, moderation,

peace, internationalism, social and economic justice with due respect to national and local

tradition. He believed in justice and the rule of law; detested all forms of extremism and

fanaticism; put his faith in the balance of power and the division of authority as a weapon

against despotic rule by individuals or groups or majorities; and approved of social equality,

but not to the point which it threatened individual liberty….” Sir Isaiah Berlin.

Amended Bibliography of Montesquieu

After having studied at the Catholic College of Juilly, he married Jeanne de Latrigue, a

Calvinist, who brought him a substantial dowry when he was 26. “His masterwork, “De

l’Esprit des Lois (The Spirit of the Laws) was originally published anonymously in 1748 and

quickly rose to a position of enormous influence. In France, it met with an unfriendly

reception from both supporters and opponents of the regime. The Roman Catholic Church

banned l’Esprit ─ along with many of Montesquieu’s other works ─ in 1751 and included it

295
on the papacy’s notorious index. It received the highest praise from the rest of Europe,

especially Great Britain.

“Montesquieu was also highly regarded in the British colonies in America as a

champion of British liberty (though not of American Independence). Political Scientist

Donald Lutz found that Montesquieu was the most frequently quoted authority on government

and politics in colonial pre-revolutionary America. Following the American secession,

Montesquieu’s work remained a powerful influence on many American Founders, most

notably James Madison of Virginia, the “Father of the Constitution.” Montesquieu’s

philosophy that “government should be set up so that no man need be afraid of another”

reminded Madison and others that a free and stable foundation for their new national

government required a clearly defined and balanced separation of powers.”

Some inept scholars argue Montesquieu was indifferent to religion. However,

Montesquieu wrote book number XXV, entitled: Of Laws in Relationship to the

Establishment of Religion and its External Polity. I suppose that is what scholars do, they

write books on subjects on which they are indifferent. It has never worked for me. If that is

what separates a writer from a scholar, than the definition must not mean anything. In fact,

Montesquieu seemed concerned in his book about point number [5] “That the Catholic

Religion is most agreeable to Monarchy, and Protestantism to a Republic.” There were

relatively no evolutionists, and few atheists which is not the case as it is today in our society.

Evolutionists and atheists prefer totalitarianism and not peace but conflict and war.

“The Pope annulled the [great] Magna Carta,” Jeopardy ABC, November 18, 2008.

I found a brief on Montesquieu by Jean-Jacques. He points out that “Montesquieu

was the foremost philosophic influence upon the framers of the American Declaration and the

296
1787 Constitution, who blended liberalism, modern republicanism, as well as classical

philosophy, Christianity, and classic common law.”

“The American statesmen where very familiar with “l’ Esprit des lois” and from it

derived much of their idea of Federal Government. Jefferson, the author of the Declaration

of Independence, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, who wrote in the “Federalist” in defense of the

new Constitution, were all enthusiastic readers of Montesquieu.” Catholic Encyclopedia.

All this strikes a stark contrast with the claims of many secular scholars that

America’s Founders held to a secular, deistic worldview. Is this true, or are they trying to

plunder with travesty, and censure with perversion in order to malign and twist the facts of

history?

Why are secular claims attempting to change the facts of history by rewriting or

ignoring that the American Declaration of Independence and its Constitution were founded by

a decidedly Christian and Protestant influence? That is precisely why the Constitution has

worked!

Christian-Jewish concepts are the only principles that would have allowed democracy

to take shape. Any other philosophical construct will inevitably evolve towards

totalitarianism. And any amalgamation of truth with error and atheism in a very real modern

sense, will prove disastrous for America and for mankind.

The following history of the beliefs of our founding forefathers of our nation is an

amalgamation of my comments and condensed selections from: “Were America’s Founders

Deists? By Brannon Howse. (Attained from the Internet)

Deists do not accept the Bible as a supernatural revelation from God to man. They

believe God created the world then “walked away” from his experiment and takes no further

297
interest in it. That is precisely what I would do if I were God. I would wash my hands of the

whole mess as it has become. That is what I would do since I am a man imagining what I

would otherwise do ─ but that is not what God would do as the compassionate Father of the

human race. I partially repainted the damaged background of a portrait I had painted. I

didn’t take quite the same pains with it as I originally did ─ but I think God does better than

that.

In today’s world, you can be both a deist and an evolutionist as one extreme. The

preceding groundless claims that deists and not Christians were responsible for our

democratic system of government, is an attempt to steal credit for the concept of a Democratic

Government which changed the course of history, of which the secularists had almost nothing

to do with! So knowing whether the Founders of this nation were deists or not, can help to

determine the religious and moral grounds on which our Democratic form of Government was

founded! Among the signers of The Declaration of Independence, 28 were Episcopalians, 8

Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman

Catholics, and three Deists. This accounts for 54 of the 56 signors.

Only 3 out of 56 were possibly deists. These where Hugh Williamson of North

Carolina, James Willson of Pennsylvania, and Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania. Hugh

Williamson, however, was a licensed by the Presbyterian Church to preach, so this cast doubt

on whether he was actually a deist. Benjamin Franklin became disenchanted with deism later

in life, and at the Great Convention, it was Franklin who called for prayer, declaring that “the

longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth ─ God governs in the affairs of

men.” If you are a deist, you do not believe God intervenes in the affairs of men and you are

not going to pray to Him, requesting him to do so!

298
 Another signer of the Declaration of Independence, Noah Webster, the author of

Webster’s Dictionary, went so far as to affirm that, “All the miseries and evils which men

suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their

despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.”

President George Washington believed it was impossible for a nation to be moral

without religion:

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained

without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds,

… reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail on

exclusion of religious principles.”

In Washington’s farewell address, he added, National morality could not exist “in

exclusion of religious principle.” “Virtue or morality,” he concluded, as the products of

religion, were “a necessary spring of popular government.” Library of Congress: Religion in

the Founding era.

Another signer, Robert Winthrop believed that if the Christian worldview was ever

rejected, crime would increase and government force would become more necessary, and as a

result, American’s would have less freedom. Is this prophecy being fulfilled before our very

eyes?

John Adams, a self-confessed “church going animal,” in a letter tells Jefferson, that

“Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company,

I mean hell.”

James Madison, our fourth President, and known as ‘The Father of the Our

Constitution’ made the following statement: “We have staked the whole of all our political

299
Institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and

all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten

Commandments of God.”

Whoever claims America was not, and is not a nation founded on Biblical principles is

either incredibly ignorant, or the damnedest and most reprehensible liar on earth. Satan

wouldn’t even come in a distant second. On the back side of a Lincoln 5 dollar bill above the

engraving of Lincoln’s Memorial it says “In God We Trust.” Not Darwin, not Charlemagne.

I took out a quarter, a dime, and a nickel and they all had printed on them “In God We Trust.”

Even a penny has this simple phrase minted on it. With a penny worth so little these days, it

must take great faith that this phase is even worth engraving on it. This must mean we are

still hopeful, still enthusiastic about our countries future!

If you walk down the steps of the Washington Monument, hundreds of stones which

line its walls have religious references or quotes of scripture inscribed on them. If you take a

tour of The Supreme Court, the Library of Congress, or the Capital, you will see cravings and

depictions everywhere with scriptural scenes and references, if only you look. Right above

the head of the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court is engraved the 10 Commandments: the

insignia of our nation’s great heritage. As you walk up the steps to the building which houses

the Supreme Court, you can see near the top of the building a row of the world’s great

lawgivers and each one is facing the one in the middle who is facing forward with a full

frontal view… It is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments! Most people don’t

notice, but these depictions and carvings are there and a few are nearly hidden. If it were

decided to rid ourselves of all of them, it would almost necessitate tearing down our nation’s

most significant National Structures and Treasures. At that point, revolution would be the

300
only other most likely alternative to architectural massacre.

How than, have we gotten to the point where everything we have done for over the last

two-hundred years is now suddenly wrong and Unconstitutional? If scripture had never

existed, there would have been no Protestant Reformation, and without the Reformation, there

would have been no democracy as a BASTION OF FREEDOM in a new land, and America

would have never become the great nation it has become. Only fraud dares to take history by

storm and separate it violently from the facts.

Religion in our National Institutions is Monumentalized as representative of our

nation’s greatness. The relationship of scriptures to our Constitution is also unique. 34% of

all the quotes referred to in the writing of the Constitution were from the Bible. Some of our

Constitution’s novel concepts were drawn directly from the scriptures. Quoted from David

Barton.

“Many of our founding fathers were taught to read using the Bible. If it had no

educational value, than many of them would have been illiterate.” Christian Examiner,

August 2010.

The Liberty Bell enshrined in Independence Hall has engraved in its eternal metal of

truth, “Proclaim Liberty throughout the Land” Leviticus 25:10. On the adoption of our

Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, the Liberty Bell pealed almighty for all the

world to hear our great Trans-Atlantic shout of triumphant freedom reverberating still

throughout our land and lands afar, and it was quickly heralded to all our states. Not until the

truths found in scripture were rescued from the airless dungeons of the ages could liberty ring

throughout the world, pure and sweet and true. From the land of truth and freedom gushes the

springs of liberty where the seed of truth has taken root. Liberty is the triumph of the

301
Protestant Reformation, an unapologetic fact, whether it is lied about or admitted to, or not!

Decidedly Christian influences persuaded the foundation of America while unrest

brewed in the heart of Europe, and the contrast is extreme. The present crisis over our

nation’s Christian heritage is not simply over mere political differences, but a great and

widening divide which will decide the fate of our nation and the stability of our country and

that of the rest of the world!

“Darwinism basically taught that there is no moral code, our ancestors were savage,

and civilization only progressed by violence against others. It therefore lead to extreme

nationalism, racism, and warfare and produced Nazism and Fascism. Evolution was

declared to involve “natural selection”; and, in the struggle to survive, the fittest will win

out at the expense of their rivals.” But in strong opposition stands the golden rule that

rules the fate of nations like a rod of iron Palms 2:7: Revelation 2:27.

“General Frederich von Bernhard (a German military officer) wrote a book upon

retirement in 1909, extolling evolution and appealing to Germany to start another war! His

book was entitled: Germany and the Next War. Heinrich von Treitsche, a Prussian militarist,

loudly called for a war by Germany to fulfill its “evolutionary destiny.” (Heinrich G. von

Treit, politics, Vol. 1, pp. 66-67). Their teachings were fully adopted by the German

government; and it only waited for a pretext to start the war. (R. Milner, Encyclopedia of

Evolution, 1990. pp. 59). The Evolution Handbook.

“Natural Selection was the all-powerful law impelling German society to bloody

struggle.”

“During World War 1, German intellectuals believed natural selection was irresistibly

all-powerful..., a law of nature impelling them to bloody struggle for domination. Their

302
political and military textbooks promoted Darwin’s theories as the ‘scientific’ basis of a quest

for world conquest, with the full backing of German scientists and professors of biology.”

(Italics supplied for emphases). R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 59. This

theme reoccurred and received even more extreme emphasis during the Second World War

under Nazi terrorism! Of the dozen people who helped Hitler devise the schedule to handle

the Jews in instigating “the final solution,” 8 had doctorates. An educated despot is more

competent than an uneducated killer.

Other words, the history of the last century has outlined with damning consequences

the dangers of expounding social, political, economic or scientific concepts on evolutionary

dogma. “Marx and Freud have been eclipsed,” but the undergirding principle of their

ideologies ─ evolution and Darwinism, is attempting to make a come back and take a firm

hold that is determined to undermine the Constitution of the United States. It is a survival of

the fittest between evolution and Christian principles, and those of tolerance and equality

which originally formed our great Union and our great Constitution. Remember Mr.

Schwartz has already announced evolution’s stated agenda: “We have the purpose of

preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the Education of the United States.” No

freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, no ─ I am sure you have already gotten the

picture ─ a snapshot of many of our University and College Campuses. If George

Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Adams and Newton were alive today, undoubtedly he would

consider them enemies, as well.

Sir Julian Huxley backs up Schwartz’s evolutionary rallying call in Sol Tax and

Charles Callendar (ed), Evolution After Darwin, 3 vols. (1980) “It is essential for evolution

to become the central core of any educational system…. ” Why? If they control the

303
education of the United States, they will control its political and social and moral systems and

will be able to carry out their ultimate purpose in life and that is the ‘survival of the fittest,’

which the 20th century has witnessed as the greatest holocaust in such a short span of world

history. But evolution is very adaptable because it “is the law of nature” they would have us

believe. It can exploit any belief system with almost undetectable stealth until it springs upon

its deluded and unfortunate victims with a deadly blow! It is the same primeval principle,

fixed, determined and often two-faced in its hidden agenda that is purposefully deadly in its

intent!

We lament the potential of children as the bane though wonder of the world. When

they are babies, they are sweet and cute and cuddly and charming and adorable and

affectionate and loving and sincere and forgiving and the world is an entirely optimistic and

wondrous place. After they are grown, they become statesmen, scientists, lawyers, and

leaders who are increasingly callous and in error, and the world would have been a much

better place without them. There is only one consolation that life is short, and only one reality

that every field of human endeavor can advance at only one death at a time, which suggest we

should celebrate death, rather than life, rather than mourn.

When bringing up children, we should endeavor they become good, rather than they

should become great, because if they grow up to be great, they often are not good!

304
 THE MONKEY TRIALS THAT HAVE MADE A MONKEY OUT OF

THE UNITED STATES

The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is a primary source of treason against

the Constitution in the United States and is being taken over by marxists, socialists, and

radicals, [Glen Beck] has now been joined by another axis of evil: Americans United for the

Separation of Church and State. (Reference to the Dover, Pennsylvania trial). They are the

engines of evolutionary despotism. Why do I make such a scandalously damning charge? I

don’t say slander because slander has to be false. You will see what I mean shortly. “The

Scopes Trial (July 10-July 21, 1925) was a powerful aid to the cause of evolution; yet

305
scientific discoveries were not involved. That was fortunate; since, except for a single tooth

(later disproved) and a few other frauds, the evolutionists had nothing worthwhile to present.

(The World’s Most Famous Court trial: A complete Stenographic Report, 1925). The ACLU

had been searching for someone they could use to test the Butler Act, which forbid the

teaching of evolution in the public schools of Tennessee. John Scopes (24 at the time)

volunteered for the job. He later privately admitted that he had never actually taught

evolution in class, so the case was based on fraud; he had spent the time teaching them

football maneuvers (John Scopes, Center of the storm, 1967, pp. 60). But no matter, the

ACLU wanted to humiliate the state of Tennessee, that no other state would ever dare oppose

the evolutionists. The entire trial, widely reported as the ‘Tennessee Monkey Trial’ was

presented to the public as something of a comic opera. (A trained ape was even sent in, to

walk around on a chain in the streets of Dayton). But the objective was deadly serious; and

they succeeded very well. Although the verdict was against Scopes, American’s politicians

learned the lesson: Do not oppose the evolutionists.

“The Scopes trail, the first event nationally broadcast over the radio, was a major

victory for evolutionists throughout the world. Ridicule, side issues, misinformation, and

false statements, were used to win the battle.

“It is a known fact that the ACLU has advised every state legislature, considering

enacting a law permitting equal time for both views, that the ACLU will give them another

full-blown ‘Monkey trial,’ as they did at Dayton, Tennessee in 1925.” But what is equal

time but representative democracy at work. Other words, they would shoot down democracy

should it raise its ugly head of justice and take a breath!

“The evolutionists never defend their position with facts, for they do not have any.

306
Instead, they use ridicule and lawsuits. (Norman Geisler, The Creator and the Courtroom,

1982; Robert Gentry, Creation’s tiny Mystery, 1986.” Other words, the evolutionists are

attempting to control the United States as they did Russia and Germany during the 20th

century and we know what results came of that ─ two World Wars among other atrocities too

terrible to mention. The manipulators of history and gangsters of murderous dogma have

virtually hijacked the Constitution of the United States and threaten to shoot anyone dead who

defends it.

I am going to take a moment out to make this statement about the courts in our nation

in this 21st Century. The legal system, a fig leaf for naked ambition in this country, is the

most scandalous institution in the Nation. Even if a few judges are competent and

predisposed to fairness, beneath him sits a whole array of vultures who will pick clean

anything which even resembles truth within sight. Truth is damnation and hell! American

jurisprudence as practiced as a reality of vast corruption is going to be the subject of my next

book!

The concept of evolution “prohibits” the free exercise of theistic religion. Enest

Haeckel “encouraged the destruction of the established church in Germany with its sermons

about ‘the meek shall inherit the earth’ and compassion for unfortunates. Such a

‘superstitious’ doctrine would lead to ‘racial suicide.’” R. Miner, Encyclopedia of Evolution.

(1990) pp.119. Instead, the Nazi’s had a more efficient idea that lead to racial exterminations

for the unfortunates, and for all intents and purposes, undid the Protestant Reformation in

Germany.

“Hitler…repeatedly condemned Christianity for its opposition to the teachings of

evolution. [Sound familiar]? For Hitler, evolution was the Hallmark of modern science and

307
culture [again, does this sound disturbingly familiar]? and he defended its veracity as

tenaciously as did Haeckel:” the fraud. Daniel Gasman, Scientific Origins of Modern

Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernest Haeckel and the German Monist League (1971), pp.

188.

Hitler said: “I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that has ever

existed.” Adolf Hitler, quoted in Larry Azar, Twentieth Century in Crisis (1990) pp. 155.

And we all know what an emulously good and righteous man that criminally insane

psychopath Hitler was? Other words, all that Christianity and this Nation need to survive, is

another modern evolutionary touting Hitler to engrave his name on new horrors leading us

into an even more tragic future of war and decimation?

What 21st century editor called (Christians and other religious groups) “bigots and

ignoramuses”? Has anything in evolutionary dogma changed over the last century and a

half? If you can discover it, you are cleverer than any one else alive. Because evolution

makes the same claims, operates under the same principles and assumptions, adheres to the

same dogma as it did in the 19th and 20th century, it only lacks opportunity, which it is

constantly striving to obtain.

The first Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech and of the press, but the

practice of religion is specifically protected by the first clause of the First Amendment with

guarantees of other freedoms contained therein. There would be no need for protection if it

were unlikely to be attacked! The practice of religious beliefs is a freedom specifically and

fully protected whether the ACLU or Mr. Schwartz believes in it or not. The actions and

positions of the ACLU argues this right does not extend to the EDUCATIONAL system,

which the evolutionists esteem themselves as controlling. But Control is the most

308
dangerous of all models of evolution! The freedom of speech, the freedom of press, and the

freedom to practice religion is by the very intent of the language used in the Amendment

implied fully as an omnipotent and omnipresent right of an individual that cannot be limited

by other definitions to someone else’s liking. The ACLU is arguing that Atheism must be

protected, but Intelligent Design and Creationism cannot and must not be protected and must

be assaulted and eliminated from public view before the atheists can herald its extinction.

That is an antitheses to the 1st Amendment and The Declaration of Independence and

effectively trashes the US Constitution! But what can be falsely interpreted as Constitutional

can be defined as an enemy of freedom! And we have already witnessed THAT in Hitler’s

Germany and Stalin’s Russia under the despotism of an atheistic and evolutionary domination

which is not needed by any society unless it desires first hand its own destruction! All the

evolutionist’s have to offer is another Nazi Germany, another Hitler and another Stalin! Just

‘give them enough time and anything will become possible’!

Furthermore, evolutionists have already trumped the majority will in the United States.

They have not only protected and exceeded their right as a minority, but they have usurped

and trumped the right of the majority of the American people to be governed by, and to

express freely and openly, their own ideals and principles of morality of conduct and belief,

scientifically and faith based. American society is being attacked by Federally imposed

Evolutionary mandates in exclusion of the fundamental beliefs of Americans! Thus atheists

have essentially overthrown the Constitution of the United States, because a true democracy

protects the rights of both: that of a minority and that of a majority so all men can decide for

themselves and do for themselves as is completely denied by historical evolution. To them,

the Constitution must be amended, trounced or overthrown. Something which history

309
records the evolutionists have done in the past! In Germany, they wiped out the Weimer

Republic and established the Third Reich! Take warning, there is nothing new in their

tactics and philosophy to prevent such an outcome again unless we, the American people,

wake up and put a stop to it!

And it doesn’t necessarily take long to destroy a society once all the degradations are

sat in place. “Don’t forget that Germany was the most educated country in Europe. It was

full of music, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years ─

a shorter time span than just two terms of the U.S. presidency ─ it was rounding up its own

citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors

against neighbors. All with the best intentions, of course, the road to hell is paved with

them.” Pam Geller.

Repeating the warnings of history: the ACLU is intrinsically the equivalent to an

American Nazi party advancing the evolutionary agenda with political dogma and propaganda

as the Nazi party did in pre-world War II Germany. In addition, they know how to sabotage

and eliminate Democracies as did Hitler in bringing down the Weimar Republic in Germany.

Evolutionists would again impose their philosophical and political genocide of the survival of

the fittest as world domination. The survival of the fittest is a terrorist philosophy that would

contradictorily rule and destroy the world simultaneously. Of course, if we publicly accuse

them of such a criminal intent, they will pled foul and innocence, but where did that foul fly

but like a nuclear warhead into their own dugout before they were dug in. Take all the

destructive evolutionary history of the past and tie it together and fit it into a canister with

dynamite. Now thrust that canister into the bonfire of a political hell they would dare ignite to

destroy the whole world ─ but it would not be nearly powerful enough to blow up the world

310
into cinders ─ not with mere dynamite ─ but armed with nuclear warheads is an entirely

different scenario altogether. That dastardly evolutionary inhumanity of man towards man

could still await us on the knife edge of eternity!

SMITHSONIAN “What Darwin Didn’t Know” February 2009

This title echos the National Geographic February 2009 Article “What Darwin

Didn’t Know.” Could this concurrence have occurred by Intelligent Design or in this case by

collusion? The two must have shook hands to plagiarize the other, at least as to the title of

their respective articles. Can they prove it happened only by sheer happenstance or

evolution? Otherwise, this is no accident. It is a too agreeable of a coincidence to be

otherwise. It is the seesaw wail of serial propaganda. It seems of late many people are

realizing Darwin “didn’t know” everything. With serious doubts widespread from the

National Geographic to the Smithsonian, and ID, it is enough to raise suspicions this is an

311
apologetic conspiracy triangulated on the date of Darwin’s birth. Some could argue I am

merely contriving an issue on very little evidence or substance. The evolutionists don’t

believe the other side should be allowed to do unto them as they have often done to their

opponents. But I, and I am sure, others find it offensive the Smithsonian chose in another

article of the same issue: “Twin Peaks,” to erect an editorial edifice of affirmation to equate

Darwin in any way with Abraham Lincoln except they were born by sheer and lonely

circumstance on February 12, 1809. Any other association of the two by implication or

conspiracy doesn’t amalgamate the finer character of Abraham Lincoln into that of the lesser,

base clay of Darwin. The Smithsonian’s comparison of Darwin with Lincoln would

transliterate more accurately as a smear tactic against Lincoln. The Smithsonian’s inclusion is

an insult both to history and to America! It is certainly reprehensible and irresponsible.

Abraham Lincoln’s efforts contributed irreplaceably to keeping American democracy safe for

the inheritance of freedom, but Darwinism contributed philosophically and actively to the war

effort exerted by Germany in World War 1, and Darwinism destroyed democracy in Germany

prior to World War 2 and was the undergirding provocation of Nazism and Communism. I

will later discuss this history in considerable detail. The argument that either atheism or

evolution has any irreproachableness of morality is a travesty! What else does the

Smithsonian claim that is believable?

In the first paragraph of the second page of the article, the evolutionists establish their

theme. This is a statement of evolutionary theory and therefore of evolutionary faith alone ─

not a statement of anything which has been proven during the advent of the evolutionary

banner since its initial inception from Darwin.

I address the opposite point of view by inserting additional words in italics into the

312
Smithsonian quote: “all life is related through the act of Creation, species do not change into

other kinds and variations occur over time in response to preset limits of natural selection,

and new forms do not replace those that came before…. ─ evolution is quite simply not the

way biology works, and is not the central organizing principle of life on earth.”

The following two terms need to be defined as they are constantly conjured up by

evolutionists as a single term and this delusion garbles their speech with a forked tongue of

double meanings in a echo chamber.

“Microevolution: small scale hereditary changes in organisms through mutations and

recombinations, resulting in the formation of slightly differing varieties.” Webster. An

example, “He [Darwin] also saw that individuals within any given species, despite many

similarities, also differed from one another ─ and some of those differences were passed from

parents to their offspring.” Smithsonian. Mutations are mostly deleterious. The above

Webster’s definition may be antiquated and should be redefined as “small scale hereditary

changes in organisms through “genetic variations and recombinations,” resulting in the

formation of slightly differing varieties of the same species.”

“Macroevolution: large scale and long range evolution involving the appearance of

new genera, families, etc. of organisms.” Webster. Examples: Only a few disputed

individual forms are known to exist and most are likely fakes, or represent separate

genera or families. Needed at minimum: tens of thousands of examples ─ or else why

do scientists call what doesn’t exist: “missing links”? Under dispute: theoretical

“large scale and long range evolution, or a change from one type of organism into

another.” “Large scale” cannot be illustrated by rare and disputed examples, and

“Long range” cannot be proven by disputed rare examples. Fossils have lost their

313
 living evidence and what little is left is mostly subject to conjecture. And what is

conjecture or suspect could be related to a systematic delusion of a biased

interpretation.

The previous two very different meanings are generally lumped together as a fictional

amalgamation of the two.

Species is a catch all word and as such is often disputed for its inaccurate use = a

species clash.

There is wholesale evidence for microevolution; Darwin’s only though considerable

contribution to science. What has remained unproven and extremely controversial is

macroevolution and Naturalism’s contention that all life forms came about by “Spontaneous

Generation” which formed a single cell organism,” challenged and disproven in Darwin’s

own time by Lois Pasteur, and by thousands of successive, failed experiments including the

Miller-Urey experiment, which has proven spontaneous generation could have never

occurred, and therefore is not a mechanism by which evolution could occur and proceed.

What cannot start, cannot go, and therefore cannot evolve and survive. As we have already

noted, paleontology does not provide the evidence for successive evolution as Darwin once

thought possible. “The survival of the fittest” as revealed by 20th Century political

catastrophes, is one of the most accursed, philosophical damnations in the entirety of human

history.

The Smithsonian’s conjectures of evolutionary mechanisms follow:

They will be accepted as evidences of microevolution or as the development of

immunity, rejected as mechanisms of macroevolution for the following reasons: The

contention boils down to the variations within a type to produce slightly different versions of

314
the type set against conversions of one type evolving into another type. It does not

necessarily follow that genetic laws, which produce a variation within a type are the same as

those that produces a type. Speculation is not synonymous with fact.

The following objections are in the same order as are the claims presented in the

Smithsonian article:

1. “‘Horizontal Transfer’ of genetic material is pervasive in bacteria; it’s how

antibiotic resistance often spreads from one strain to another. Animals rarely acquire whole

genes in this way, but our own DNA is packed with smaller bits of genetic material picked up

from viruses …, including many elements that regulate when genes are active or dormant.”

This is likely a conjecture from ignorance. This maybe insinuating our cells inter-react with

foreign bodies using the cell as an embryonic soup which allows accidents and mutations to

occur. Whether our own DNA is packed with smaller bits of genetic material picked up from

viruses, which can regulate our own genes is probably curtailed by our own genetic responses.

Normal cell regulation could simply be a genetic immune response so a host cell

recognizes and responds to, and reproduces only its own genetic material and removes or

destroys or neutralizes foreign invaders and can thus protect itself from threats from invaders.

Viruses are virulent and destructive agents. The entire body of medical-scientific literature is

unanimous that viruses are one of the most dangerous of all contagions incriminated as

Cancer causing to causing Aids, thousands of flues and diseases of every conception, and

colds of which there are 106 different varieties, and are most apt to strike down the old and

infirm and the young.

There are no smart viruses, which improves human growth and development,

increases human intelligence, or prolongs life, or improves the genome’s information, so no

315
evolutionary value is known to be gained from such a contagion except as adapted for a

vaccine by intelligent design!

Then why do evolutionists retain the virus scenario for any reason other than the thin

slice of possibility theoretical vagueness provides in lieu of clear evidence transforms

uncertainty into rationality, unless they believe with so much foreign and virulent genetic

material floating about, it has to randomly react to the DNA environment of a receiving

organism to change or impose some evolutionary process. However, this is a giant leap of

conjectural faith and back again without any corresponding evidence a species acting as a

genetic garbage disposal will find some benefit by being dumped on. There is no evidence

these events could be in anyway equivalent to splicing in or splicing out a gene and by some

unobserved event improve or radically change the same species for the better!

Is science claiming you are human because an Ape caught a virulent virus once upon a

time and the virus flipped the wrong genetic switch? You were a mistake but the switch was

already there? It maybe true, whether your mother has ever told you that or not. Some

people are like a cancer on society. Maybe that is how an evolutionist came to be ─ like a

cancer?

Some comparisons do not explain much of anything and can be illustrated: both a

potato and an ape have 48 chromosomes, and this is not likely to change. The primary

similarity: both organisms could be eaten, but one would put up a desperate fight, and both

will atrophy and die if left to rot and grow old. Conclusion: chromosomal numerical

similarity is not significant for these kinds of comparisons. Humans and chimpanzees have a

98 % statistical similarity in their genes it is claimed. This is not significantly differential to

explain the actual differences observable in either species.

316
 This can be backed up by another recent discovery. It was thought viruses attack

identical insertion points in the DNA of different species implicating a common ancestor.

More in depth research has shown there are 30,000 insertion points in human DNA that

viruses can attack, but only seven of these sites are the same in humans and chimpanzees.

This suggest there is no correlation to a common evolutionary ancestor between the two.

Sean Pitman. So back to evolutionary square one in a universe of round objects.

Viruses provide no provable value to the advancement of evolution. They harm

numerous physical processes, either by killing the host organism, or by wasting survival

energies by forcing the host organism to mount heroic defenses instead of preserving the

original vitality of the organism in a comparably safe environment where defenses would be

unnecessary. This in spite of the fact that the organism may appear to have become better

prepared to defend itself and carries on. `

2. “Evolutionary developmental biology…, focuses on changes in the exquisitely

choreographed process that causes a fertilized egg to mature. Behind one series of such

changes are the so-called homeotic genes, which dictate where legs or arms or eyes will form

on a growing embryo. These central-control genes turned out to be almost identical even in

animals as different as worms, flies, and human beings. Many researchers now think that

much of evolution works not so much through mutations, [Mr. Collins can give up on that

argument. Conjectures don’t belong to a loyalist party] or random errors in the major

functional genes, [aberrations] but by tweaking the ways by which developmental genes

control other genes.” Remember, The best estimate of the ratio of deleterious-to-beneficial

mutations seem to be one million to one (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998. The actual rate of

beneficial mutation is so extremely low as to thwart any actual measurement (Bataillon, 2000;

317
Elena et al., 1998. The human race is degenerating due to a rapid mutation accumulation and

relaxed natural selection pressure (Crow 1997). And “if the genome is degenerating, our

species is not evolving” Genetic Entropy pp. 146. The clearly highly overwhelmed or more

likely non-existent mechanism of mutation and Natural Selection acting as a compound

mechanism of evolution is a decayed relic of theoretical over enthusiasm for an imaginative

idea that has failed to be confirmed as a functioning mechanism in a living organism. The

question then becomes ─ can genes be tweaked in ways in which it is impossible for the genes

to react if genes are preset for certain specified functions and variations from the beginning of

creation ─ an ill chosen word? The genes, which Control genes dictate, are they identical in

different taxonomic groups? If these other genes are identical, than the evolutionists really

are stumped. When you compare the legs of a fly to those of a human, or a human eye to the

eye of a fly, they are vastly dissimilar. It is not only important where legs and arms will

grow, but what kind of differences appendages will develop. No attempt is made to explain

this and this question is left hanging by the statement: “Behind one series of such changes” ─

what are behind the other series and what are those series?! I had a friend years ago who had

an I.Q of around 115. When he applied for college he recorded an I.Q of 140 and got into

medical school. He told me a few years later that most medical diagnosis are educated

guesses. I have been experimented on or misdiagnosed enough to know this has to be true.

Does this hold equally true in other areas of science. Is this particularly true in the life

sciences where a theory is like the educated guess of a diagnoses unflatteringly swayed by a

stubbornly accepted paradigm if wrong?

There is no fly in the I of man who struts about as the paradigm of reason.

A recent program on the Discovery Channel apparently highlighted genetic switches

318
and taggers. I have not seen the program, but I have read some discussion about it and that

discussion backs up the position I have just taken that different kinds of anatomical groups

require dissimilar genes that are not in the gene pool of other living organisms. Apparently,

even the genes of some living creatures contain gene codes for anatomical structures that the

living organism no longer has.

“Living chickens don’t have teeth, but they apparently do have the genes for them…

Cave fish that don’t have eyes still have the gene to make eyes (plus one key point mutation

that turns the eye making gene off).” This leaves one to ponder whether those genes for

making eyes where switched on, would those genes again produce eyes? Either way, it

would still be a fish in water. “It is very easy to start out with more information than is

needed and loose expression of it in various environments where it is no longer needed, than

to go the other way around and get novel genetic information when it didn’t already exist in

the gene pool.”

“Consider that taking a bird gene pool that already contains the genes for both scales

and feathers to produce a bird that has feathers where it usually grows scales, or visa versa,” is

no big deal. Every single cell of that creature has all the genes. Getting it to grow either

scales or feathers is a matter of turning on the right set of genes. What the scientists

interviewed in the Discovery program did was to flip a very simple chemical switch

(Retinoic/ Vitamin A in this case) to turn on the desired set of genes for either scales or

feathers.

“The problem is that this very interesting demonstration does not support the

hypothesis that creatures that never did have genes for feathers to begin with could produce

feathers by flipping the same informationally simple chemical switch…. [I]f a clever genetic

319
engineer were to splice out the information coding for feather construction from a chicken

embryo, and splice it into an iguana embryo [reptiles do not have genes for making feathers],

this would confirm my point ─ that is, such complex information at such a high level cannot

arise via the evolutionary mechanism of random mutation and natural selection. It has to be

created or transferred from a preexisting source of high-level information.” Sean Pitman,

M.D. DetectingDesign.com.

So than, did dinosaurs have genes for feathers? There has been only one dinosaur

discovered with feathers and it was a fake, [Bambiraptor] (which I have already discussed) so

any purported family relationship between birds and dinosaurs has been entirely conjectured

on the level of a Hollywood stunt. Evidently an evolutionist is more capable of seeing what

isn’t there, than you are capable of seeing what is there. Evolutionists are extremely gifted

with surrealistic imaginations most of us with much better sense lack.

A gene insertion very similar to what Dr. Pitman has suggested, has already been

accomplished with roses. Roses do not posses a gene for the color blue. However, blue roses

have been produced by splicing in a gene for blue extracted from blue irises, proving that if an

organism doesn’t have a particular feature provided for in its genes, “it has to be created or

transferred from a preexisting source of High-level information.” If you find different types

of organisms share a few almost identical or common genes, but they have other inherently

different genes pools than other organisms, the Design option appears obvious and appealing.

The evolutionary argument by the Smithsonian is the same bait and switch argument

as in the first and then the proceeding evolutionary problems. Say one thing and mean

another. I am going to add a few facts to this mix.

A. According to Francis Collins, only 1.5% of the DNA codes for protein. And it is

320
these areas that code for protein, which “dictate where legs or arms or eyes will form on the

embryo.” How much of that 1.5% is understood by science: 10%, 25%, only 1% ─ less than

1% ─ no one really knows? Most articles on Evolution claim that 98% of our DNA is “Junk

DNA.” Organisms are wrecking yards for genes? “Many genetic diseases are the result of

frameshift mutations wrecking proteins.” Or so goes the theory and it may be true. Gene

Machine, New Scientist/ Nov. 2008. Is the human race one vast land of mobile wreaking

yards? This maybe true from a Creationist’s point of view. But this also is the suggestion of

too many deleterious genetic mutations. What is the function of this other 98.5% of the DNA

─ to set around with its feet in the air, smoking a cigar? Such an astonishing claim that most

of our genetic material is ‘junk’ belongs entirely to those wonder boys of evolution and now

they are beginning to discover things are far more complex then they could have ever

imagined. Those vast areas of Junk DNA are now known to be an important non-protein

coding region, and may conceal the instructions for creating other genes? “A given gene can

produce multiple RNA transcripts, depending on how the pieces are assembled. These, in

turn, can produce vary different protein machines: ‘This process, called alternative splicing,

can produce mRNA molecules and proteins with dramatically different functions, despite

being formed from the same gene.’ Also the same gene can produce different molecules in

different kinds of tissue. The report on Science Daily that two proteins coming from the same

genes can have opposite functions, depending on how they are spliced and in what cells they

are expressed.”

“The potential for expression of the DNA code is huge; one gene in fruit flies,

reported Nature News, is thought to generate over 38,000 protein products. Only

about 6% of human genes, it turns out, produce a transcript from a linear strand of

321
 DNA. Most others put together parts from different locations on the chromosome.

With alternative splicing, its possible that dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of

different products can be produced from the same gene. This begs another question:

what code is directing the assembly of other regions of DNA code”? Add to this that

vast strand of ‘junk DNA, or genes which produces non- protein coding chemicals

and the possibilities are INFINITE beyond imagination.

B. These central-control genes turned out to be almost identical even in animals as

different as worms, flies and human beings.” If these genes are so alike, than why are the

organisms so different as is admitted? Obviously, researchers don’t have a clue as to what

mechanism determines types. So they argue, they must largely ignore that question, because

they can’t figure out what determines the “end product”! With 98% of the DNA still an

unexplored frontier, and possibly little of the 1.5% of the protein coding regions understood,

what information does this convey on the immutability of the type of an organism, or is

something else entirely, other than genes exerting an influence? Remember the reappearing

gene that was spliced out? Scientists have no clue to any of these riddles.

Genes are pre-existing and functioning, and all the evolutionists have been able to do

is describe some of those functions and conjecture up what purpose they think they may have,

which may take “a hundred thousand years” to discover how our genes work ─ if scientists

ever can figure it out. Then, evolutionists will have to figure out how to create complex

folding molecules, poly-constrained DNA and multiply irreducibly complex creatures like

man and all the complex species, phylum, and families of the world and that will add an

INFINITELY to an to an immensity to an eternity to impossible difficulties! The gene of life

is the most complex and intricate instruction manual in the known universe, and those

322
instructions are not matter yet no physical law disobeys those instructions. Evolutionists

have not created anything other than crazy suppositions and hocus pocus and mist like in

mystifying. Genes have targeted, specified functions independently complex of our discovery

of them.

There are as many as 30,000 genes, each one with as many as 50,000 component parts

and possibly billions of combinations and inter-reactions times millions or billions?

“Researchers figured out that host cells were tagging the foreign genes with an ‘off

switch’ that made the genes inoperable. The new gene was passed on to an animals offspring,

but so was the off switch ─ that is, the parents experience influenced its offspring’s

inheritance.”

And this brings us to the new direction biological science is headed. Gene switches or

taggers have been demonstrated by a number of experiments. Studies have linked these

switches called the epigenome to disease and development, showing these switches change in

response to the environment and even the affects of life style and diet can be passed on from

parents to offspring. It is now known the mapping of the human genome didn’t provide all

the answers. So what is the epigenome ? Called collectively the epigenome, it is a network

of chemical switches which set on our DNA, switching our genes off or on and is like a

second genome wrapped around the inner one, and has not yet been mapped and is little

understood.

Scientists had long puzzled over the different fates of identical twins: both have the

same genes, yet one may develop a serious disease like cancer or autism and the other is

normal. The answer lies in the epigenome, a process that can differ even between identical

twines.

323
 Trans-generation epigenetic observations were made by Marcus Pembrey and his

colleagues, who studied the detailed records of birth and deaths in a small Swedish town near

the artic circle, and who had also kept records of the harvest, and came up with some

astounding observations. It was found that only certain periods during the ancestors

development can trigger a trans-generational response. It was “discovered “that the paternal

(but not maternal) grandsons of Swedish boys who were exposed during pre-adolescence to

famine in the 19th Century were less likely to die of cardiovascular disease. If food was

plentiful, then diabetes mortality increased, suggesting this was a trans-generational

inheritance. The paternal granddaughters of women who experienced famine while in the

womb lived shorter lives,” and the grandchildren of women who had suffered malnutrition

during pregnancy are likely to weigh less at birth. It was obvious that the diet in one

generation affected the life expectancy in another, and that the events that occurred in one

generation could affect a descendant far into the future even though that individual had never

experienced a famine himself. The earlier food supply was affecting the mortality rate or

longevity of later generations.

One researcher exposed pregnant rats to high doses of pesticides. Within six months,

cancers, brain tumors, breast cancer, prostate cancer and kidney disease, and other diseases

developed. The next generation was produced and checked, and “this phenomena persisted

until the 3rd and 4th generations” to quote his words.

All of these results undeniably illustrate the irreducibly complex inter-reactions

between the genome and the epigenome that recently could have never been dreamt of by

modern science. This is an interacting relationship so inconceivably complex its existence

clearly disproves it could have ever been arrived at by an incoherent and undirected

324
gradualistic process. But so entrenched has become the standard of evolution, it is damnably,

and nearly and certainly scandalously impossible to retreat from its erroneous position for

many so-called scientists!

This brings up an interesting import to a well-known Biblical verse in the Ten

Commandments, or maybe there was never any real twist as to its actual meaning if it had

been properly understood in the Beginning. It simply was not genetically understood by the

Biblical writer, but he recorded what God said as a witness to our time. Over three thousand

years ago God declared: “I, the Lord your God, am a jealous god. I punish the children for

the sins of the fathers to “the third and forth generations” of those who hate me. But I keep

faith with thousands, with those who love me and keep my commandments.” Exodus

20:5&6. Over three thousand years ago, God warned of the perverse affects of life style and

behavior on the body and soul of man which science is only now rediscovering and

confirming through the discovery of epigenetics. The import as is warned is apparently more

severe and pervasive for the human organism than yet fully understood! Of course, this verse

has been generally related to upbringing and behaviors as their affects play out over a

lifetime. Stress, environment, and what and how one eats and behaves, can have either a

negative or a positive affect on an individual and those who eventually inherit those traits.

And the results of these affects are intertwined and inheritable in some positive or negative

way and having either little or no detrimental influence to a profound negative influence on

the recorded messages within the genes.

Now science admits the evidence: “All sorts of changes in cellular machinery have

shown up that have nothing to do with the sequence of DNA but still have profound, and

inheritable impacts for generations to come. For example, malnourished rats give birth to

325
undersized pups.” But there is an even more apropos example: dare I utter the contemptible

by evolution’s corrupt and indignant delusions? After Noah’s Flood destroyed the earth, man

was given permission to eat flesh food as there would have been a temporary though near

destruction of plant life, leaving precious little and even less to eat. During the approximate

next 500 years, the recorded life-span of the human race decreased drastically from slightly

less than 1000 years to a little under one hundred years, and it is likely human stature, and

intelligence drastically decreased in correlation as well. When you think about it, Noah and

his sons would have had a very difficult time of it for a while. Thanks, Smithsonian for

providing a possible solution to this Biblical problem. You may receive some fan mail from

the Creationists, but likely very few subscriptions.

So what are the more recent developments in embryogenesis? “In the very early

stages of embryo development, there are a limited number of master/primary genes that turn

on and control the function of other genes downstream in the cascade of genetic activity….

[These] master genes…only control the initial and earliest events in the process of a

developing embryo. This stage of development is primarily associated with polarity,

orientation, quantity, and position of specific molecular gradients in the developing embryo

that either allow or disallow the function of succeeding genes involved in the finer details if

an embryo’s development.

“…In mutation studies with the Hox fruit fly genes, master control switches in early

development caused legs to form in place of antennas.” The antennae-leg in the fly is actually

just a monstrosity. It neither acts as an antennae nor a leg. The fly with the extra set of wings

cannot use them a they are not attached to muscles or nerves. Those useless appendages only

interfere with the functioning of the normal pair of wings, and the mutant flies can barely fly.

326
“In other studies with vertebrates, the number of vertebrae was increased, causing lengthened

tails. However, a new type of creature was never created, just some odd-looking creature

with an appendage out of place or an increase in the number of some type of body segment.

In many cases, embryogenesis was halted and the organism died.

“Scientists have determined that these master genes primarily control the location and

orientation of major body features; they don’t determine the finer details of how each specific

part or organ develops. It is these types of fine-level developments, and not necessarily the

master genes, that make organisms unique in all their features. These later developments in

embryogenesis involve complicated interactions between thousands of different genes. Much

less is known about how these later expressed genes fit in the overall scheme of development

because things quickly get too complicated past the initial stages and become difficult to

research….

“The stark fact is that there is no viable molecular genetic mechanism for evolution to

occur. Advances in systems biology research do not support any concept of evolution.” Acts

& Facts, Institution for Creation Research.

Is it possible evolutionists have been outwitted by sheer blind chance alone, which has

gotten such a vast head start, they will never catch up no matter how intelligent they imagine

themselves to be ─ or there was never even a blind chance they could catch up with? This

increases the odds of the God explanation improving exponentially. The reality is that no

epigenetic switching system can transform or switch an organism into a different type of

organism any more successfully than can mutation and natural selection which lacks an

operational physical mechanism!

327
 SIGNITURE IN THE CELL

More so in the developments of science than in any other profession, theoretical

constructs receive far greater critical acclaim than the startling fall of truth caused by the

ruthless gravity of error exerted against it. Fame is the incomplete estimate of a moment of

history corrected by the less hasty judgment of time. What makes it to the brink today, falls

by the wayside tomorrow. On April 20, 2010, I was watching the National Geographic

Channel explaining the Big Bing theory of which the famous Physicist, Hawkins, has been the

foremost author. The narrator went on to say near the end of the program: “Like many of

Hawkins discoveries, there is no proof.” If there is no proof, than how can it be described as a

328
discovery? Generally, a theory is a contrived lie and rarely the predecessor of solid fact.

The processes of theoretical evolution defies the testimony of evidence and logic.

The film went on to confess other probable fallacies of science such as String Theory

is “speculation without any proof.” So what is truth? What are its proofs No one is against

it and everyone is for it and few agree on a fundamental premise. So truth is the most agued

over concept in the world ─ instigating wars, disagreements, and all too rarely, produces

general peace, tranquility and agreement. Yet, not even for a moment does anyone believe it

is not the most important subject in the world. Notwithstanding, we are no closer to a

consensus then we ever were. That maybe slowly changing. Most of the debate breaks down

into two distinct disagreements, particularly in science, and is a conflict over the origins of

matter and life and the implications of those origins. This is where Stephen C. Meyer’s book:

SIGNATURE IN THE CELL; DNA AND THE EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN is

perhaps the best, and the most brilliant work, so far, in defense of that position. I ordered my

copy from a Barns and Noble Book Store. I couldn’t find it on the science shelf, and when I

asked the clerk about it, she said, “that’s not a science book.” I immediately corrected her

ignorance that indeed she was mistaken ─that it was a science book; which discusses the

profound issues implicated by DNA discoveries. She was a victim like millions of others of

evolution’s heavy-handed, pathological propaganda, and anti-social agenda.

Quoting the outside back cover of the book: “Meyer has provided no less than a

blueprint for 21st Century biological science… After this book, readers will wonder whether

anything more than sentimentality lies behind the continued association of Darwin’s name

with modern biology.” ─ Dr. Steve Fuller, professor of sociology of science, University of

Warwick, and author of Dissent over Descent.

329
 A delightful read… Meyer has marshaled a formidable array of evidence from fields

as diverse as biochemistry, philosophy, and information theory. He deals fairly and

thoroughly with even the most controversial aspects and has made a compelling case for his

conclusion.” ─ Dr. John C. Walton, professor of organic chemistry, university of St Andrews,

Scotland.

“This book is a landmark in the intelligent design debate and one which accurately

draws together all relevant scientific research and information. It is elegantly written in a

style that is accessible and laced with interesting historical and personal anecdotes. Signature

in the Cell will pay rich dividends to everyone who turns its pages.” ─ Dr. Norman C. Nevin,

professor emeritus in medical genetics, Queens University, Belfast, Fellow of the Royal

College of Physicians.

“A decisive case based upon breathtaking and cutting edge science.” ─ Dr. Philip S.

Skell, member, National Academy of Sciences; Evan Pugh Professor Emeritus at

Pennsylvania State University.

“Not a science book”? Than what do clerks know about science or anything in

particular?

It’s her word against theirs. This is perhaps the second best book in the world. I

don’t believe anyone in this day and age can claim to be educated unless they have purchased

and read this masterpiece of logic and dramatic discovery from cover to cover.

A sample from the book:

The function of the cell “is profoundly mysterious. Apart from the molecules

comprising the gene-expression system and machinery of the cell, sequences or structures

exhibiting such specified complexity or specified information are not found anywhere in the

330
natural ─ that is, the non[living] ─ world. Sequences or structures exhibiting either redundant

order or mere complexity are common in the chemical substrate of nature (such as in rocks

and minerals). But structures exhibiting specified complexity are completely unknown there

apart from DNA, RNA, and proteins.”

“As Yockey has pointed out, what needs explaining in biological systems is not order

(in the sense of a symmetrical or repeating pattern), but information, the kind of specified

digital information as found in software, written languages, and DNA.”

“Besides transcribing and translating, the cell’s information–processing system (the

RNA) also replicates the DNA. As with the process of transcription and translation, the

process of DNA replication depends on many separate protein catalysts to unwind, stabilize,

copy, edit, and rewind the original DNA message. But the proteins that copy the genetic

information in DNA are themselves built from that information. This again poses what is, at

the very least, a curiosity: the production of proteins requires DNA, but the production of

DNA requires proteins.” This is in essence: what came first: the chicken or the egg?

Just as the digital information on a disk is useless without a device for reading the

disc, so too is the information on DNA useless without the cells information-processing

system. As Richard Lewontin notes, “No living molecule[i.e., biomolecule] is self-

reproducing. Only whole cells may contain all the necessary machinery for self-

reproduction…. Not only is DNA incapable of making copies of itself, aided or unaided, but it

is incapable of making anything else….The proteins of the cell are made from other proteins,

and without that protein-forming machinery nothing can be made.” Other words, both

systems of DNA and RNA haft to co-exist simultaneously.

“Both the transcription (DNA) and translation (RNA) systems depend upon numerous

331
proteins, many which are jointly necessary for protein synthesis to occur at all.” As Jacques

Monod noted in 1971: “The code is meaningless unless translated.”

Furthermore, “the genetic code ensures that information can flow without

‘degeneracy’ or loss of specification, in only one direction, from DNA to proteins and not the

reverse” other words, proteins possess no self-organizing chemical laws. Of course, as some

had argued, ‘the first proteins arose directly from amino acids, but now it (is) clear there (is),

at the very least, no evidence of that in the sequences of amino acids in known proteins.”

Natural selection occurs only in organisms capable of reproducing themselves or

tural selection occurs only in organisms capable of reproducing replicating

themselves. Yet, in all extant (living) cells, self-replication depends on functional and,

therefore, sequence-specific DNA and protein molecules. As theoretical biologist Howard

Patte explains, “There is no evidence that hereditary evolution [natural selection] occurs

except in cells which already have…. The DNA, the replicating and translating enzymes, and

all the control systems and structures necessary to reproduce themselves.” So for natural

selection to occur, the cell with its DNA and translation and replication system had to be

already in place! This not only limits evolution, it all but excludes it in its entirety as to the

nature of the finished product.

“The newly discovered molecular mechanism for storing and transmitting information

in the cells,” discovered during the biological revolution of the 1950s, and 1960s, “confirmed

for many biologists that the distinctive properties of life could, as Francis Crick put it in 1966,

“Be explained in terms of the ordinary concepts of physics and chemistry or rather simple

extensions of them.” As Richard Dawkins later wrote, “the discovery of DNA’s role in

332
heredity “dealt the final, killing blow to the belief that living material is deeply distinct from

nonliving material.””

“But was it really? Even if biochemists were no longer looking for some mysterious

life force, was it really clear that living things could be explained solely by reference to the

laws of physics and chemistry?

“Polanyi’s answer turned the classical reductionism-vitalism debate on its head. He

did this by challenging an assumption held by reductionists and vitalists alike, namely, that

“so far as life can be represented as a mechanism, it [can be] explained by the laws of

inanimate nature.” Whereas vitalists had argued against reductionism by contesting that life

can be understood mechanistically, Polanyi showed that reductionism fails even if one grants

that living organisms depend on many mechanisms and machines. To show this, Polanyi

argued that even if living organisms function like machines, they cannot be fully explained by

reference to the laws of physics and chemistry.” For example, “The physical laws that govern

the flow of current in electrical machines do not determine how the parts of the machine are

arranged and assembled. The flow of electricity obeys the laws of physics, but where the

electricity flows in any particular machine depends upon the arrangement of its parts ─ which,

in turn, depends on the design of an electrical engineer working according to engineering

principles. And these engineering principles , Polanyi insisted, are distinct from the laws of

physics and chemistry that they harness.”…

“Thus Polanyi concluded, communications systems defy reduction to physics and

chemistry for much of the same reasons that machines do. Then he took a step that made his

work directly relevant to the DNA enigma: he insisted that living things defy reduction to the

laws of physics and chemistry because they also contain a system of communications ─ in

333
particular, the DNA molecule and the whole gene expression system. Polanyi argued that, as

with other systems of communication, the lower-level laws of physics and chemistry cannot

explain the higher-level; properties of DNA.

“Polanyi went even further, arguing that DNA’s capacity to convey information

actually requires a freedom from chemical determination or constraint, in particular, in the

arrangement of the nucleotide bases. He argued that if the bonding properties of nucleotides

determine that arrangement, the capacity of DNA to convey information would be destroyed.

In that case, the bonding properties of each nucleotide would determine each subsequent

nucleotide and thus, in turn, the sequence of the molecular chain. Under these conditions, a

rigidly ordered pattern would emerge as required by their bonding properties and then repeat

endlessly, forming something like a crystal. If DNA manifested such redundancy, it would be

impossible for it to store or convey much information. As Polanyi concluded, “Whatever may

be the origin of a DNA configuration, it can function as code only if its order is not due to the

forces of potential energy. It must be as physically indeterminate as the sequence of words on

[this] … printed page.”

Polanyi’s conclusion about the information in DNA transcending physics and

chemistry,” also convinced me [Meyer] that self-organizational theories invoking bonding

affinities or forces of attraction would never explain the origin of the information that DNA

contains.” Other words, for evolution and natural selection to be true, DNA as it exists, could

not exist.

“As Lewontin asks, “What makes the proteins that are necessary to make the protein.”

As David Goodsell puts it, this is one of the unanswered riddles of biochemistry: which came

first, proteins or protein synthesis? If proteins are needed to make proteins, how did the

334
whole thing get started? The end result of protein synthesis is required before it can begin.”

Stephan Meyer discusses numerous other areas of genetic studies and applications,

such as, Chance Elimination and Pattern Recognition, discussing mathematician Dembski’s

famous formula as to how the human mind differentiates between design and random

processes

Mr. Meyer writes about The Symposium at the Wister Institute, where “During a

picnic lunch the discussion turned to evolution. Several of the MIT math, physics, and

engineering professors present expressed surprise at the biologists’ confidence in the power of

mutation to produce new forms of life in the time available to the evolutionary process. A

vigorous argument ensued, but was not resolved.” So Mr. Meyer goes on a quest why there

was such a strong disagreement.

“For The evolutionary process to produce new forms of life, random process must first

have produced new genetic information for building novel proteins. That for the

mathematicians, physicists, and engineers at Wister, was the problem. Why?

“The skeptics at Wistar argued that it is extremely difficult to assemble a new gene or

protein by chance because of the sheers number of possible base or amino-acid sequences.

For every combination of amino acids that produces a functional protein there exist a vast

number of other combinations that do not. And as the length of the required protein grows,

the number of possible amino acid sequence combinations of that length grows exponentially,

so that odds of finding a functional sequence ─ that is, a working protein ─ diminish

precipitously.

“How rare, or common, are the functional sequences among all the possible sequences

of amino acids in a chain of any given length?” “The probably of achieving a functional

335
sequence of amino acids [ or several known (roughly 100 amino acid) proteins at random is

still “exceedingly small,” about 1 chance in 10 to the 63 power (to put this in perspective,

there are 10 to the 65th power of atoms in our galaxy.” “A 150 amino-acid sequence that

confers antibiotic resistance on bacteria has an mutagenesis experimental ratio of 1 to 10 to

the 77th power, requiring [a chance of self-organization of functional proteins of greater, or]

more atoms than are found in our galaxy. Functional proteins are exceedingly rare among all

the possible combinations of amino acids.” Mr. Meyer describes in very embracing details

how mathematicians arrive at their calculations. But, as it is known that amino-acids cannot

self-assemble, this fact alone, drops any chance of self-organization of amino-acids to a

negative absolute zero. [A symbolic negative, or an impossibly low number]

These are only a very few of the concepts explored on the subject of Intelligent Design

in this intriguing masterpiece without a dull page anywhere. When you start reading, you

may be surprised when you find yourself at the end, much more knowledgeable than you were

when you started out on the first page or the first few chapters. And you will wonder how

evolution will ever survive as a viable hypothesis of origins due to the discoveries of modern

science. Escaping the obvious indicators of Intelligent Design in nature is neither intuitive

nor rational.

In addition, correlating scientific research such as that produced by Sanford prove

conclusively by dispelling any illusions there is any contributable mechanism of natural

selection undergirding the exceeding complexity of nature as obstinately conjecture in

mythical fashion by Darwinanism. Natural Selection has envision a fictional world of biology

which has no scientific underpinnings in modern science and does not exist in reality!

336
 CRAIG VENTER & INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Title of Article

Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome

Science July 2, 2010

Critique

For the first time scientists claim to have created a “living organism.”

Whether this is more hyperbole than fact, the creation of the first chemically

337
synthesized functioning genome was a technical feat though amazing in many facets, does not

live up to its headlines. However, it does raise profound questions about the essence of life,”

as one news report stated. Remember a number of decades ago, it was Watson and Crick

who claimed, “We have discovered the secret of life.” Both of these claims involved DNA,

first the discovery of DNA and its structure, and now the manufacturing of an exact copy of

pre-existing DNA [genome] from one of the very simplest strains of bacteria ─ a replica or

facsimile to describe it of its DNA.

The techniques employed here and already widely used involved a likely DNA

polymerase, cutting or splicing and pasting techniques honed to extreme efficiency, and the

techniques of insertion of sections of DNA removed or added into the cytoplasm of other

organisms. Essentially, a summation of conventional techniques applied to new explorations,

pushed current technology to its potential limits. What was unconventional was a complete

bacterium genome was reconstructed, copied and inserted into the cytoplasm of a slightly

different bacterium organism deprived of its own functional DNA, and the inserted DNA took

over cell reproduction. However, this was accomplished with a DNA genome many

magnitudes less complex than that of the higher mammals.

If the reader needs to know what a DNA polymerase is, the discovery was made in

1976 of a DNA double Helix purified from the Thermus aquaticus bacterium, which lives in

hot environments such as hot springs where it was discovered in Yellowstone. The

bacterium’s DNA is able to withstand the high temperature of 194 degrees F required for the

separation of, or the unzipping of the DNA double Helix in a process referred to as melting.

At lower temperatures, the DNA polymerase enzymatically assembles a new DNA strand, or

copies other shorter DNA strands from DNA Building Blocks, the nucleotides, by using each

338
single-stranded DNA as a template and DNA primers, which are required for the initiation of

DNA synthesis.

The researchers “accurately copied the exact required sequence of [*] 582,970 DNA

base pairs, then precisely synthesized the DNA segments which were then added together, the

synthetic genome transferred ” in four stages to a single cell yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae

for final sequencing. These yeast cells are commonly used in laboratories and contain

enzymes which maintain DNA, and accurately copy long sequences of DNA. [The

researchers] “developed a strategy for assembling viral-sized pieces” likely in a DNA

molecular editor called a DNA polymerase into larger DNA segments in combination with

yeast sequencing which enabled them to assemble the synthetic [bacterium] genome in four

stages from chemically synthesized DNA cassettes which were then added together and

grown in Saccharomyces cerevisiae single cell yeast. Each step of [chemically synthesized

DNA] “was accomplished through a combination of [ ]enzymatic methods and [ ] re-

combination ” The whole synthetic genome of 582, 970 base pairs was stably grown as a

yeast centromeric plasmid. Note, other life forms, the organic DNA was manipulated by

cutting and pasting and copying viral-sized pieces of its DNA in the beginning process using a

DNA molecular editor called a DNA Taq polymerase or another DNA polymerase to

reassemble viral sized pieces in stages as larger cassettes and grown successfully as a yeast

centromeric plasmid, a circular DNA structure.

The experimental cell grew and multiplied in the laboratory. The resulting cell was

not wholly synthetic ─only its DNA was ─ and that came from the original bacterium DNA

molecule, copied and sequenced as a complete genome [* and checked by computer

simulation] to determine accuracy, than reduced and added together in viral size pieces by a

339
chemical processes mimicking but separate from that of the natural process inside the original

bacterium cell, hence the nomenclature, a chemically synthesized genome. The cytoplasm

into which it was inserted was original. But the inserted DNA was an exact copy of an

already functioning bacterial genome. The processing of the synthetic DNA required the

assistance of other life forms, the original DNA reduced into viral-sized pieces, yeast, and a

DNA polymerase into which the DNA was copied in smaller sections, including a

semisynthetic dnaA repair. These comprised a chemically synthesized manipulation of DNA

by a method other than inside its own cell wall and its own cell processes, other words, the

researchers were able to take this DNA out of its usual environment and reconstruct it outside

of the original cell wall and reinsert it into a slightly different cytoplasm successfully. To

simplify even further, the experimenters broke down the original DNA into smaller viral-sized

segments by basically standard cut and paste and copy methods and reconstructed them out

side the original cell’s wall and its own cytoplasm, using molecular editors, and additionally

removing genes which did not appear necessary to the cell’s reproduction process, with added

water marks to identify the synthetic genome as their own, than inserted this synthetic genome

into the donated cytoplasm of a slightly different bacterium.

The success of this entire experiment and foregone experiments, gives rise to a host of

new questions most of which can not yet even be provoked. But a few can be.

A simple living cell can be deprived of its DNA and still be living?

Is it accurate to say, a simple living cell can be described as a cytoplasm deprived of

its DNA, but to grow and to multiply and to repair vital parts and continue living, it needs its

own DNA, or the DNA of a comparable simple organism?

DNA can be removed from a cell and remain viable for an undisclosed amount of

340
time?

Assertions can be made concerning irreducible Complexity. This project was

critically dependent on irreducibly complex levels of function where only a slight error would

ruin the resulting cell. This places an irreducible restriction on the accuracy of both the

original bacterial sequences and the copied or synthetic sequences. The researchers

discovered this firsthand, when their “success was thwarted for many weeks by a single base

pair deletion in the essential gene dnaA.” This experience established that certain base pairs

are irreducibly essential to the organism’s reproductive survival. Some portions, however,

tolerated errors with no observed effects and some segments were eliminated from the

selected necessary genes to create a reproducible genome. Similarly, the researchers were

able to add their own water marks which precisely identified the synthetic genome as their

own.

The proceeding reference to “some portions tolerated errors” and some genes could be

deselected makes it appear the genome is carrying around useless parts? But could seemingly

useless or damaged parts negate or interfere with, or prevent or even promote appropriate

functionality at some later point and time in the organisms life simply because researchers do

not understand the mechanism involved? Or could the evolution of life’s negative events or

lethal mutations, dismantle information which non-the-less gets carried on in a negated form?

The known useful information for the reproduction of a minimal genome appears to be very

restricted. It is not known other than the laboratory conditions imposed on the organisms to

accomplish the end in sight, whether those deselected parts would be either useful or vital

under other unpredictable or undetermined conditions. And if those conditions existed what

would be the response? Other words, they may not be necessary for the cell to reproduce an

341
irreducible organism, although those additional genes have been obviously carried over in

previous generations, so it appears they have some undetermined value which their disruption

or removal could later have some negative effect on undetermined processes or a need of the

organism?

The reference to “deletions in non-essential parts of the genome had no effect on

observable viability” and “the demonstration that our synthetic genome gives rise to

transplants with characteristics of M. mycoides cells implies DNA sequence on which it is

based is accurate enough to specify a living cell with the appropriate properties.” But this

stunt is also accomplished by a large potential of lost information which is not likely clearly

understood whether that former information might hold a key component to an unknown and

vital function. This may be like the Junk DNA debacle as newly discovered and valuable

processes of an organism and the protein producing sections of the DNA is contained in those

once thought to be useless strands of DNA. Furthermore, The emphasis in these experiments

are hypothesized solely on the irreducible complexity of the genes necessary for a minimal

reproduction process and not on the reproduction of the entire organism which may govern a

more complex uniqueness lost by the reduction of total information.

To the chagrin of evolutionists, this laboratory loss of information may further weaken

the already severely inadequate Natural Selection processes. Check: John Sanford.

The more relevant question is, if the mechanism of Natural Selection is either non-

existent, incomplete, non-functional, or insufficient to overcome genome deterioration on the

molecular level, than the mechanism of Natural Selection is insufficient to make phenotype

improvements, than evolution cannot occur. Resultantly, evolution is eliminated as a

functional process of nature by either one of the following determinations, irreducible

342
reproductive parts cannot exist separately, but may not comprise a complete genome, and

Natural Selection cannot overcome the deterioration of the genome. It appears that what has

been unrealistically left out of the evolutionary theory, is that organisms are not advancing but

are losing function, except now that loss of information has been accomplished by laboratory

experiments on a more dramatic scale.

Again, unnecessary genes maybe similar to the problem of junk DNA where more of

the once thought be a useless part of the genome is being discovered to have a necessary,

survival roll. The problem is not with the readily inexplicable, the problem is with our

thinking that if we can not understand or explain a process or structure determines its lack of

usefulness. Thus ignorance becomes a kind of proof we are not ignorant.

Genes which can be eliminated because they are not necessary to the reproduction

process, could trick us into a philosophical and scientific fallacy if they are deduced as useless

under all conditions? With an organism reduced to what are hypothesized as irreducible parts,

do we have a complete organism? The question as to what is necessary for the complete

organism is wide open? Other words, what is irreducible for reproduction, may not be

entirely distinctive for the original organism, and have we therefore produced a less unique

and distinctive and weaker organism, in spite of the fact that the cell survived and

reproduced? As we have seen and will discuss farther, one frameshift in an important

reproductive gene could knock out the entire synthetic and likely organic organism.

The success of the actual research brings the often derided Intelligent Design concept

to the forefront of science in the modern world. By encountering the specificity which these

bacterial cells are constructed, investigators can get a closer look at the genius of the original

Architect who designed a whole reproducing genome without a pre-existing template. An

343
ingenuity which exceeds by orders of magnitude, what is even imaginable in future human

discoveries. Ecclesiastes 1:10 declares: “Look! This is something new”? It was here already,

long ago; it was here before our time.” If the genetic code wasn’t here before our time, we

wouldn’t be here at our time! We can not create ourselves!

The preceding raise very difficult and profound moral and scientific questions, but it

simply leaves the question unsettled for all higher, far more complex life forms with advanced

genomes magnitudes in light years more complex. In fact, the human genome is 1000 times

more complex than that of the least complex genome on earth. And this is only a vague, and

likely conservative estimate. Beyond this is the accumulated, specific complexity of the

creature itself that separates it from all others as not only daughter types, but as a separate

type of their collective variables.

The researchers ask a very starkly honest question at the beginning of their article:

“Efforts to begin to understand all this new genomic information have spawned numerous

new computational and experimental paradigms, yet our genomic knowledge remains very

limited. No single cellular system has all its genes understood in terms of their biological

roles. Even in simple bacterial cells, do the chromosomes contain the entire genetic

repertoire? If so, can a complete genetic system be reproduced by chemical synthesis starting

with only the digitized DNA sequence contained in a computer”? Obviously, this has not as

yet been done or may not be possible or the question would not have been conceded? And yet

on page 5 of the article, it is implicitly stated contradictorily: “This work provides a proof of

principle for producing cells based on computer-designed genome sequences is likely a

reference to water marked genes. But “ a proof of principle” as used in the context of an

entire genome is limited by the demonstration of actual proof and is a basic philosophical

344
assumption forming a grand sounding scheme for a ‘theory.’ A theory is not a fact, and can

not be treated as a fact until the empirical fact is produced. A race they could lose for

jumping the gun.

There were several concerns about mutations. “The production of viable colonies

produced after transplantation confirmed that the synthetic fraction of each genome contained

no lethal mutations.” Initially, an error-containing 811- 820 clone was used to produce a

synthetic genome that did not transplant [ to the recipient cytoplasm]? “This was… because

the error was a single base pair deletion that creates a frameshift in dnaA, and essential gene

for chromosomal reproduction. We were previously unaware of this mutation. By using a

semisynthetic genome construction strategy, we pinpointed 811- 900 [a section] as the source

for failed synthetic transplantation experiments.” This mutation was fixed by apparently two,

with one of these an implied method, “reassembling an error-free 811- 900 assembly, which

was used to produce the sMmYCp235 yeast strain” of dnaA. The dnaA-mutated genome

differ[ed] by only one nucleotide from the synthetic [dnaA] genome in sMmYCp235. The

dnaA mutation was also repaired at the 811-900 level by genome engineering in yeast.

Only one deleterious mutation can wreck havoc on an entire experimental process, and

this is worth noting, a single mutation can be a threat to research projects and in natural

processes. In Nature, deleterious mutations outnumber beneficial mutations one million to

one, all but dismantling Natural Selection as a viable process for evolution to occur and

producing insurmountable odds for Natural Selection to overcome.

Richard Dawkins, the world’s most widely known atheist, I imagine, realizing this

with other recent discoveries, was a major blow to the Darwinian theory of Natural Selection

which has no demonstrated mechanism in nature, and is under attack, and realizing this was a

345
major victory for Intelligent Design adherents, traveled to the United States and visited Craig

Venter at his laboratory in Washington D. C., with some reluctant and challenging questions.

Their discussion while touring Venter’s research facility was videoed.

Craig Venter and Richard Dawkins are viewed strolling through the laboratory,

frequently referencing Darwin with admiration as though Darwinian influences contributed

markedly to modern discoveries which set at naught Darwinian theories. But then, these self-

professing gods, where most would be satisfied referring to themselves merely as geniuses,

with vain self-glory can do that which the rest of mere mortals dare not test the forbearance of

the true Divine from whom the researchers extrapolate more than Divine permission ─ the

plagiarizing of a Divine prerogative. They bragged about new creatures they dreamed of

creating and not about infractions of nature’s laws which might endanger humankind. They

were laissez faire in the face of human error becoming the curse of their and our planet.

Neither entertained the thought all this might go wrong and endanger every living thing by

getting irretrievably out of control and exacerbating Eden’s original curse and mankind

becoming extinct thereby. Is this a triumph, or a disaster about to unfold? It may take

decades to know the unwanted, and perhaps, the unneeded answer, conceding that medical

marvels for the good of all may come out of these discoveries. Knowledge is always good,

until it is acquired by malignant design, by dictators and the scavengers of empires.

Obviously, conceited imagination was tottering on the brink of irrationality over the

incomprehensibleness of their scheme. This token accomplishment in the overwhelming took

15 years and consumed 40 million dollars, if taken to the level of a cockroach or a swamp

frog, would bankrupt the world’s economy. And they still haven’t created life, they only took

advantage of it for their interesting experiments. In the video, Dawkins appears nearly

346
stunned to awed on his perch of evolution by the implications, but former atheist, Anthony

Flew, flew the cuckoo’s nest sometime ago, and is a much more honest man for it. Dawkins

appears to be leading Venter on, who seems a bit half hearted in their praise.

The research wasn’t a completely successful theft of a Divine invention ─ not like a

botched job either, but more like rank amateurs to which the article readily admits. None of

this would have been possible if Someone hadn’t pre-written their script. Sure, I have copied

poems and other’s remarks, but nothing like a Divine Language, or thought God’s thoughts

after him so well intentioned in my deed, as of another man’s thoughts. Truly, we might be

like the Divine made in His image without ever becoming Gods ourselves, because if evil

ever did became divine, we could all perish in the conflagration of the universe because evil is

ultimately and totally destructive.

This accomplishment proved how a relatively non-complex DNA molecule can be

chemically synthesized with the aide of other life forms by cutting and pasting and inserting

that DNA into the living cytoplasm of a different bacterium which in turn reproduced cells. It

proved intelligent design is not an alternative method to accomplish such things but the only

method available. More than 150 years of research has established that sheer Darwinian

blind chance and Natural Selection is ultimately incapable of achieving anything near the

stature of these researchers achievement. In fact, it is incapable of accomplishing anything it

is alleged to have accomplished which can be substantiated by modern research. Stanford:

Genetic Entropy. Dawkins asked Venter near the end of the lab tour, “So real

intelligent design works”? “Absolutely,” replied Venter [in a four second audio

clip of the video]. And this is the main story of the decade. What was copied, however, was

pre-existent. The original is the most complex and still nearly inexplicable. Dawkins’

347
question is an admittance and recognition of the fact affirmed by Venter that intelligence is

the only known process capable of synthesizing a pre-existent DNA structure, or creating it

originally, itself implicating a pre-existent design of the original molecular structure which

processes still are not clearly understood by human ingenuity. The problem persist even more

evocatively without a pre-conceived and vastly complex concept as to how the original

function and structure of living things could have first been conceived and created through

these molecular subscripts ─ there is no understood mechanism other than there was

intelligence behind it all as the only demonstrable explanation. The word “real” is probably

Dawkins’ feeble search for an escape clause as he must have been compelled by curiosity of

the outcome of the answer by confronting the question? He will probably later regret it and

deny it, or create a different context to drop it in as a distraction, I am sure, but he was caught

red-handed on video and it has spread all over the internet. It is doubtful Dawkins will ever

recant his rantings and railings, and for that, he may some day be held accountable and have

to repay his debt to the Almighty, but God is in control.

So where is all this research taking science whether it wants to go there or not!

Combining Paleontology Dinosaur DNA discoveries with Sanford’s Genetic Entropy,

plus Craig Venter’s findings of the necessity of design in living structures forces

abandonment of long ages, and shows that evolutionary mechanisms are entirely missing from

the code of the biological record, and argues persuasively intelligent design is the only

possible explanation for how organisms have obtained the functions and fascinating structures

they rely on and which makes various kinds of life possible.

Survival of dinosaur DNA argues for short age deposits, Sanford’s research agues for

a degenerating human genome due to the inadequacy of a Natural Selection mechanism, and

348
Craig Venter’s Chemically Synthesized Genome argues for the intelligent design of Nature’s

Grand Scheme.

This is an intelligently designed world, and not a sheer, inexplicable fluke.

THE DOVER, PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL

I have only seen a reenactment of the Dover, Pennsylvania trial put out by Nova as

portrayed, and only recently obtained several articles pertaining to one of the so-called

evolutionary discoveries as brought up in the trial. But I have already spoken to the inherent

trickery of many fossil finds as evolutionary deceptions. I also obtained a transcript.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State got into the fray on the side of the

evolutionists by opposing any advocacy of religious affiliation with the state interpreted by

349
the antiquated concept of “the Separation of Church and State defined as a Wall of

Separation. As it stands, The Wall of Separation between Church and State is a national gag

order. A Separation of Church and State alone is an inexact approximation of the non-

establishment clause. And any world view embraces the attributes of a religion including

evolution! I have already argued extensively a wall of Separation is a total misconception of

the Constitution or a misinterpretation, on anyone’s part even of that of the Supreme Court.

As presented from a strict Creationist’s point of view, there were a number of troubling issues

as to the twist given to alleged evidence during the Dover trial. One evolutionist, in trying to

steal an extravagant degree of evidence from the preponderance of uncertainties, on the verge

of the hearing, claimed he had confirmed by using an electron microscope a miraculously

important, recent discovery relating to chromosomes. Perhaps an evolutionist would argue

this is an intentional misuse of the word miraculous; then magically, in the nick of time

confirming the discovery before the hearing, therefore his interpretation should be suspect. I

first described this event to an acquaintance whose name is Nick. This supposedly scientific

discovery, apparently, along with another of evolution’s dubious fossils, were for all intents

and purposes officially announced in court with little previous scientific currency and

therefore safe from contradiction or falsification by the lengthy review of critical scientific

analysis. The argument sounded rational by the mere ambience and trickery of the

suggestion, and as long as one only smelled the roses along heart-ach lane, it seemed as good

as any other path though it lead astray ─ but then I begin to ask questions and realized it was

not a map of the undeniable proofs of logic towards which it misled.

The following is a partial transcript of the trial in sequence. Some content or speakers

will be skipped as mostly repetitive or not adding much to content or argument, and in one

350
instance, I give the name of the speaker with no dialogue or the amended dialogue if

indicated…. I will make comments printed in CopprplGoth Bd BT font ,which will be

inserted after specific testimony.

From the Nova Dramatization and Transcript: BEGINNING OF THE TESTIMONY I

WROTE DOWN IN A SEQUENCIAL MANNER: Taken from the Dover Evolution ID Trial

in Dover, Pennsylvania

“Dr. Miller would you agree that Darwin’s theory of evolution is not an absolute

truth? Then it is not a law.”

“Well, I certainly would, for the very simple reason that no theory in science, no

theory is regarded as absolute truth. We don’t regard atomic theory as truth, the

theory of friction as truth. We regard all theses theories as well-supported, testable

explanations that provide natural explanations for natural phenomena.”

Comment: Why are most explanations for phenomena

considered theories instead of laws or truths by evolutionists? A

theory always has a lower threshold of certainty than a law, and

requires a lower threshold of evidence, but if a theory has

supporting evidence, than it is more probable than a concept

lacking evidence, and the atheists are going to try to trip up the

evidence so it will fall deliberately in their direction. Notice:

Science is defined as a concept which provides only natural

explanations for natural phenomena.

A theory may have to be discarded or revised, given to new

evidence, but Supernatural explanations are disallowed by

351
atheist’s definitions! And the court is going to be tricked into

accepting atheistic standards as defining science! Besides, if one

accepts the insinuation that a Divine Entity is like all other

concepts to be equated with theory, then evolution is purported

to be as legitimate as any other concept and more so if the

evidence can be construed in a manner that appears to support

evolution. Not withstanding, it must be pointed out, it is more

likely science is mostly ignorant on the point of contention and is

providing an incorrect interpretation, particularly when

experimentation has not duplicated what can then be observed,

or known chemical properties cannot be demonstrated to

duplicate the phenomena, then a naturalistic interpretation fails

for proof.

However, people are more often persuaded by the

shrewdness of an argument than by its truthfulness, and those

who are mislead often include judges, scientists, and people like

ourselves. This is the aim of the evolutionists by Design. Dr.

Miller has designed the definition which must be employed by the

court. His definition means a theory of science is allowed only

naturalistic explanations of phenomena as coming about with only

naturalistic origins as opposed to being explained by intuitive

evidences of Design. Note: both the trial and this critique were

written BEFORE MANY OF THE RECENT DISCOVERIES IN GENETICS

352
HAD BEEN DISCOVERED OR REPORTED. ID was sent to the gallows

without an effective trial. Judge Jones was duped and rational

intuition strangled! But a naturalistic definition is a philosophical

concept, not a scientific one. Theorized natural phenomena have

comparable unknowns and miraculous turn of events comparable

to Creationism that are beyond experimental replication as is

discussed throughout this book. “Spontaneous Generation of

life disproven by Louis Pasteur in the 1840’s was revised by the

Darwinists and has been consistently defeated by 150 years of

subsequent unproductive research which has virtually proven it

has never been an operational force in nature. Scientists have

discovered thousands of ways Spontaneous Generation cannot

occur, but a single method has never been discovered by which

life can arise out of inanimate matter. If there is more proof in

the known universe that something will not work, it does not exist

outside of this fact! Only an idiot persists against the obvious!

Yet, the arrogance of evolutionary theory mindlessly persists to

save their double face of wedded bliss to a spurious claim to the

scientific method united to an antiquated philosophical construct

of theoretical damnations that excludes the acceptance of

science’s own observations, experimentations, and mathematical

analysis and data. After 150 years of exhaustive scientific

research, evolution has not creditably advanced science any

353
further in the arena of knowledge than it was in Darwin’s day!

There is a whole lot more data to date and far less evidence for

evolution than in Darwin’s own time! The concepts of science

have far less philosophical integrity than they had well over a

hundred years ago. This is a total scientific collapse into one of

sciences black holes from whence science may never reemerge,

corrected and amended by a more rational reality that the only

remaining possibility is that only design in nature is a viable

option! And if America continues to blow out science in such a

spectacular fashion ─ than American science will eventually cease

to be creditable and other nations will defeat us for the

supremacy in technology and science!

Dr. Miller’s implication is that naturalism somehow explains,

perhaps magically, a vast majority of known phenomena, whereas

Intelligent Design and Creationism does not? However, this

implication is only a delusion inserted into the definition designed

by his own cunning and the ACLU. New data, as I predicted then,

may revise or toss out old, ailing and accepted and cherished

incorrect concepts: so nothing is invulnerable as an absolute

liturgical litany of evolutionary explanations. in spite of claims

that evolution has any actual credibility, Francis Collins attest in

his recent Book: The Language of God, “The word ‘theory’ is not

intended to convey uncertainty, for that purpose a scientist would

354
use the word ‘Hypothesis.’” But Mr. Collins definition does not

agree with Webster’s, because a theory harbors uncertainty as

long as it remains unproven. Hypothesis is a synonym for

Theory. This is the definition of a Hypothesis from Webster’s

College Dictionary: “an unproved theory, proposition, supposition,

(unproved theory? This means a hypothesis is a theory; a proved

theory must mean a theory which has graduated with honors into

a law and is unassailable and beyond doubt, etc. (the etc. has

been placed there by insurrectionists like myself) tentatively to

discourage certain ‘disparities in definition.’” A theory is defined

as follows: “A speculative idea or plan, apparent relationships…

verified to some degree. Under SYN. ─ implies considerable

evidence in support of a formulated general principle explaining

the operation of certain phenomena.” But none of this means a

theory can, or has been proven, and a theory has every right to be

wrong unless it can be proven right! A theory could break down

into little more than circumstantial evidence. However, an

explanation cannot be used as evidence. A theory is

“speculative, apparent,” verified to some degree” verses a law

that has been proven as an unchallengeable absolute. Than any

certainty in the unproven is the same as faith. Belief is a theory

which supports a particular dogma, and as such is an article of

faith. If a concept is a theory, than a leap of faith is imperative

355
to accept a philosophical construct as anything other than the

evidence alone presents an overwhelming conclusion of what may

constitute the unknown facts, which by admittance is decidedly

the unknown because conjecture unsettles a concept! Therefore,

evolutionary faith can be defined as any belief brought to bear on

what is theoretical such as an assumption, axiom, postulate, or

conjecture. That a concept is, or could be wrong, denies it

graduation honors! A theory simply means faith in an unknown

degree of uncertainty reckoned as potential factualness still

unproven. But if there is a conspiracy to silence the opposition,

this is an indication the truth is recognized by its opponents to

reside in the opposite point of view. Therefore, a theory is

unproven when arguments are logically brought to bear against it,

or the same evidence can be construed in an entirely different

light. A theory that would be indisputable would graduate into a

law, and If it remains unproven it is a theory. And if the evidence

is misconstrued to a wrong conclusion, that conclusion is useless

to science. There have been a number of notable and aggrieves

criminal cases in recent years, where someone was wrongly

accused and convicted of a crime by what was thought to have

been proof, or at least a preponderance of the evidence at the

time, but were later found to have been innocent after years of

incarceration. This problem exists both in courts and in science

356
in trying to establish the ‘truth of the matter.’ Evolution defined

under any statue of theory establishes it as unproven and justifies

serious doubts!

The intent behind Mr. Miller’s argument: Evolution is an

overwhelming fact fortified by proofs in the way they define it:

and they are not responsible and proven entirely wrong if

something backfires or goes amiss, the escape clause; and ID

doesn’t even rise to the level of a theory, so they are ahead of the

game, perhaps, by a step or two is the scandalous insinuation.

“Critics of intelligent design have decided the best way to

combat ID is to define ‘science’ as a materialistic enterprise with

the goal of arriving at solely naturalistic explanations. Given that

an intelligent cause is a non-natural explanation, ID is thus

removed from science by definitional fiat.”

The theories mentioned as equating with the theory of

evolution such as “Atomic theory” is accepted by both sides, so

is “friction theory”, and “gravitation” is later mentioned. Why

these phenomena exist and how they came about as phenomena

in nature is the key issue in the trial ─ not how they operate. By

Dr. Miller’s definition, almost everything that happens to you is

theoretical. But if you fall out of a tree, the theory of gravity

won’t break your leg but the law of gravity will. Theory only

attempts to explain how the law works and does not adequately

357
address what is also crucial: how these forces came into

existence. Here, the obvious is usually the most logical answer.

Frank Collins has stated, “I cannot see how nature could have

created itself.” The Language of God pp.67. There is not one

shred of evidence that nature ever could have self-evolved even

with billions thrown into the coffers of science to prove that it did.

No wonder our economy is nearly in ruins!

What the atheists really want is an excuse to deny what they

are unwilling to accept and that is ─ a superior moral authority to

which they maybe held accountable if their scheme of

godlessness fails. This is why nothing evolves into a law which

might hold them accountable ─ keep everything tentative, take no

chances and sound pleasant to those you would like to “rise and

kill,” said to the Apostle Peter in the book of Acts.

R. Maise: Should we regard Darwin’s theory as tentative?

Kenneth R. Miller: We should regard all scientific explanations as being

tentative, and that includes the theory of evolution.

This is a strategy, not an admission. Evolutionary theories

are tentative and therefore hypothetical. He does not define

what cannot be regarded as scientific and why, but it is difficult to

see what appears as reasonableness as stiff-necked. You can

always apologize for a delusion withdrawn politely. What other

part of that inclusive “All” is he not addressing which “includes”

358
something else scientific other than evolution. He certainly has

no intention it should be interpreted as ID or he would have never

shown up in court. Then what other competitive alternatives are

out there? I can’t think of anything other than Creationism so

the argument is a fraud, because he wouldn’t be present in court

if he were willing to allow the same tentativeness for the position

of the opposition as he argues is appropriate only for his position.

Obviously he wants to restrain another’s freedom of speech. As

you will see, if the court’s expectations can be lowered by not

requiring that the argument is over absolutes, than a strong

surprise in the purported evidence will spring like a trap and

place the opposition suddenly on the defensive. This is a

psychological battle of wits and lies rather than a battle of

substantial facts and truths. That I will deal with shortly. The

chess rules being made up is that if a concept of origins cannot be

defined as having a naturalistic origin, then it cannot be even

tentative and has no legitimacy in a court of law or to be taught in

schools. This is a sadistic trick of an illegitimate refinement and

is a non-scientific definition strutting error as the guide. The

Inquisition resorted to such low life tactics to deprive truth of its

sacred freedoms. A majority of scientists from Newton on, and

some before ─ if and when, the Inquisition and modern seculars

could have gotten their corrupt and bloody hands on them, would

359
have been stifled or strangled. Is this planned as next for the

United States! Why did Einstein flee Germany, which was an

evolutionary dominated and controlled, Nazi regime? Science

could have been set back so far that if the Protestant Reformation

had never occurred and Nazism had later succeeded, Einstein

might have had to invent Newton’s laws instead of his own! The

precedents of history have been dealt with or will be further dealt

with in the last chapter delving into the upstaging of Constitutional

Laws.

Alan Bonsell: Maybe Darwinism is the prevalent theory out there today, but it is

a theory. It isn’t, you know, a fact. It is a theory.

Bill Buckingham: We just wanted alternative views talked about, too. We

weren’t saying, we weren’t saying, “Don’t talk about Darwin. Talk about Darwin, it’s a

theory. But that’s what it is, it’s not Darwin’s law, it’s not Darwin’s fact, it’s Darwin’s

theory.

Comment: A theory is not a law and therefore is not a fact,

that’s what he admits. This is a strange twist when an

evolutionist is telling the truth? He along with Mr. Miller admits

truthfully that evolution is a theory, not a law, not a fact! If

concepts are tentative as is a theory, than alternative concepts do

not violate that rule by their definition. That God can be

intuitively perceived, could be interpreted as tentative like their

theory and by that fits in the crack under the door. What begins

360
as intuitive leads to the insightful and then the obvious and is the

most fundamental of all the empirical evidences leading towards

proof.

Bill Buckingham claims: We want alternative views talked

about, too. We weren’t saying don’t talk about Darwin. But this

is a misleading and outright lie. Had Mr. Buckingham wanted

alternative views talked about, he wouldn’t have shown up in

Court, so he’s lying under oath. It is as though Darwin is never

talked about, or is being stymied by resistance. Pity poor

Darwin! The fact is that the entire trial was an attempt to keep

any mention of ID out of the curriculum, and leaving evolution

with a crushing grip on the educational system. It was the

evolutionists who sued. This is an outright, blatant admittance

that the evolutionists do not want alternative views discussed.

Mr. Buckingham committed perjury and could be a well-dressed

dictator in disguise waiting for a favorable opportunity to seize

and destroy!

Robert Eshbach…. By leaving him out of the criticism, I hope he won’t feel hurt.

Kevin Padian…. A theory, in science, means a large body of information that’s

withstood a lot of testing. It probably consists of a number of different hypotheses and

many different lines of evidence. Gravitation is a theory that’s unlikely to be falsified,

even if we saw something fall up. It might make us wonder, but we try and figure out

what was happening rather than immediately just dismiss gravitation.

361
 Comment: remember, Mr. Collins defined evolution as a

fundamental principle underlying science, or art; but Evolution is

not an underlying principle of nature if the theory of evolution is

wrong. What is incorrect is not fundamental to anything but

error. Has anyone seen anything fall up? This is science fiction

mythology and that is going to define science? Something falling

up violates “unvarying uniformity” of a law of gravity, and has

never been observed, only theorized in the manner just described

as illustrating nothing more than an fictitious explanation. A law

cannot be nullified, or modified by a linguistic supposition of the

fanciful. Gravitation is a theory? Not according to Webster’s

College Dictionary Fourth Edition. Under Webster’s definition of

“law 8 a) a sequence of events in nature…that has been observed

to occur with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions

(often law of nature) b)the formulation in words of such a

sequence [ the law of gravitation,…]” Why did Webster illustrate

its definition with : “ the law of gravitation”? Either the

evolutionists are lying, or Webster is lying! Than what motive

impels this definitional scam by the evolutionists? They know

evolution is an unsupportable conjecture or why lie about the

definition of laws and theories. They conspired to employ the

same hypothetical interpretation of uniformity in the ranks to

demote the uniformity of law as theory. According to Webster, a

362
synonym listed for theory is law, but these words do not have quit

the same meaning. Law implies an exact formulation of the

principle operating in a sequence of events in nature, observed to

occur with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions.

What is going on? Remember, “Critics of intelligent design have

decided the best way to combat ID is to redefine ‘science’ as a

materialistic enterprise with the goal of arriving at solely

naturalistic Atheistic explanations. Given that an intelligent

cause is a non-natural explanation, ID is thus removed from

science by definitional fiat.” However, intelligence is a natural

cause as intelligence populates the earth in every man, woman

and beast. So science by default is obligated by the evidence to

accept this possibility even on a grandeur scale. But science’s

refusal to go there and is causing a devastating disarray among

the sciences. This turned the trial into a conspiracy and a farce of

definitions! When Newton first conceived of the concept of

gravitation, it was theory. Subsequently, he and others proved

gravity is a law deeply embedded into the nature of the universe.

But where and how a law originated may be far beyond the

pale of science’s ability to fully explain it. A theory often gets

the cart ahead of the horse. “A theory implies considerable

evidence in support of a formulated general principle explaining

the operation of certain phenomena.” But as we have already

363
noted, evolution lacks sufficient evidence to commend it as a fact

to be taught in the public domain and violates the “considerable

evidence of a general principle” and is not a law by its lack of

confirmed proof. As we have noted, ‘explaining’ is an

interpretation open to entirely different conclusions. If the

evolutionists are implying a law is held together by speculation,

then there is even less reason to accept a theory as correct, and

even less to trust in a theory than in a law. However, Atheists

are afraid of laws because, if there are laws, they are obligated to

accept them as final; such as: if there is a God with moral

authority to which their actions would be held accountable. So

they prevaricate as a theory demands a lower threshold of

evidence than a law which demands indisputable facts. They

demote laws so they appear to be on equal authority with theory

and promote theory as having equal status to a law. This is

clearly a fraud! And there is another double standard: a theory

may have little or no initial data to support it. Darwin admitted

to such in his ‘Origin of Species’ that there should be numerous

missing links in the fossil strata that as yet had not been

discovered. His theory was based entirely on faith in his personal

insight. It was a theory without any supporting evidence, and

remains without that supporting evidence, but it is and was no

more than a conjecture. At least, a theory is what the

364
evolutionists call evolution. They do not call it a law. The truth

can often trump error even when the truth is lied about ─ that is

the certainty of the power of truth.

But calling evolution a theory is still inaccurate. Evolution is

more correctly defined as a hypothesis. A “hypothesis implies an

inadequacy of evidence in support of an explanation that is

tentatively inferred as a basis for further experimentation.” Try,

try again, or presenting only the evidence which agrees with

one’s point of view and tossing out and not reporting the rest. I

have already dealt with this considerable problem in some length.

A hypothesis fits the definition of evolution with greater

accurately, with one exception: evolution is not tentatively

inferred by evolutionists. To them it is a kind of Holy Grail

regarded as an unquestionable absolute believed in as firmly as a

cornerstone of faith. Recognizing that something has not been

demonstrated as a fact is not the same as believing in it as

though it were an absolute. Evolution is not a fact on the basis it

cannot be proven, and is therefore a persuasion of faith.

“A theory… consists of a number of different hypothesis and

many different lines of evidence.” Padian. If a theory is a

compilation of hypothesis, this implies an inadequacy of evidence

equal to the total sum of compilations and is a presumption in the

assumed inference of the unknown many times over!

365
 It all gets very sticky when you are trying to prove a

hypothesis instead of a truth. “The truth” may not “set you

free.” The fear of disgrace for supporting a wrong cause can hold

many in bondage to a lie. When unable to lie convincingly,

present a theory instead.

“Gravitation is a ‘theory’ that is unlikely to be falsified.”

But Gravitation is a law, not a theory. This is a significant

misrepresentation because it discloses an intent to deceive a

court of law and to regress science from law to theory. Is this

good science, No! and he is suppose to be an expert?

Gravity is a law that is accepted by most everyone except

for a few, unconventional scientists, apparently. The theory

comes in as to how gravity operates? But Mr. Padian has argued

the Law of Gravitation is instead, the theory of gravitation which

has not been entirely proven and could be falsifiable. That is why

in his delusional thinking, something might fall up instead of

down? However, gravity as a law would not be disproven if what

we theorized as one of our interpretations of its processes were

demonstrated to be in err or in partial error. The law remains but

the theory does not, because we were wrong as to how we

thought some element of gravity operated. The law is embedded

into nature and is an intricate part of the cosmos ─ but this

explains very little as to how the law and the universe came into

366
being. Intuition suggests the Law of gravity derived from

something beyond and outside of the normal laws of physics and

could not have created itself.

Is there a law which commands you have to be able to prove

something in order to believe in it ─ obviously not. Remember

what Crick claimed: “biologists must constantly keep in mind that

what they see was not designed but evolved,” denying the

empirical evidence of observation. One must repudiate the

evidence of one’s senses, but to deny our intuition denies

empirical evidence necessary to science and discovery. And one

must constantly deny the obvious. It isn’t easy. One has to work

on it with a great deal of unsatisfactory zeal and effort! But the

unfalsifiable obviousness of a truth is the strongest evidence we

may have! But Crick argued one must dismiss the obvious ─ in

this case the obviousness of design. But Einstein would disagree.

He believed in a Supernatural Intelligence was behind the

structure of the Universe, though he was not a spiritual

individual.

The contention is: what evidence can be allowed into a

courtroom and what cannot? But is a courtroom a competent

arena in which to decide what is ultimately truth and what is not?

Pilot sneered, “what is truth”? The state since time immemorial

has been an inefficient guardian of truth and more often than not,

367
has been its spiteful enemy. History is littered with the wreckage

and carnage of civilizations prompted by every conceivable false

modality of constitutional theory. America was the first to depart

radically from this age- old inadequacy of governments to govern

morally and responsibly. But we sometimes fail and that failure is

growing more common.

The Declaration of Independence declares God as the

supreme insurer of this nation’s fortunes. Have we suffered

grievously because of this manifest? If we repudiate those

principles enshrined within the framework of our founding

documents by prohibiting mention of the “Creator” who has

endowed all men” with certain unalienable Rights, that among

these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” we may very

well fall from the pinnacle of world prestige never to rise again on

the privileged scene of greatness? If we compromise our ultimate

ideals for those uncertainties which have signed the sad fate of

many other nations ─ then we shall deserve their fate, and

perhaps, their destruction. We cannot but with danger to our

very existence repudiate those principles which embody our

national greatness. We must never forget those great ideals

which have made us the greatest nation in the history of nations

on earth. Any departure from those vital principles of moral

rectitude which have made us the greatest nation ever to exist,

368
would be a self-inflicted disaster of suicide and destruction

directed by the malice of our own hands.

When we drive “a Wall of Separation between Church and

State,” do we derive it from a Constitutional framework or from

Our Declaration of Independence? Where not both documents

intended to work as one inseparable and undivided? Neither

were intended to work against the other, nor were either intended

to work contradictorily against its separate and combined

provisions as does a ‘Wall of Separation between Church and

State,’ a delusional interpretation which violates the freedom of

speech and of the press and allows other dogmatic paradigms to

suppress or contrarily breach that imagined wall, which I will be

discussing in the last chapters? A Wall of Separation between

Church and State abridges the non-establishment clause by

establishing something far more critical and hostile as usurping

the place of Biblical beliefs. Any judge who tries to sever the

Constitution from the Declaration of Independence and to severe

both from the history of the Protestant Reformation should be

impeached!

Kevin Padian: Facts are the minutiae of science. By themselves, they can be

right or wrong. But a theory is something that has been tested over and over again,

built on, revised. It continues to be reworked and revised.

Comment: Maybe this long process of reworking and revising

369
and testing over and over again indicates something is wrong

with the theory. The only fact about something that is wrong is

the fact that it is wrong. If you can’t get it right the first time,

try, try again: a definition of a theory in crisis. A theory may have

a good work ethic but seems overly and heavily subjective and

unintuitive. It is not the theory that decides right from wrong, the

correct from the incorrect, it is the law. But how can a fact be

wrong? If it is wrong, it is simply not a fact! Here it is argued: a

theory can take precedence over a fact. Is this what he actually

said, if so, he must be crazy? A fact decides whether a theory is

correct, a theory does not decide whether a fact is correct!

Neil Shubin….

Narrator: Virtually every cell in every living thing contains chromosomes, which

are made of densely packed strands of DNA that functions as a blueprint. During

reproduction, chromosomes from each parent replicates and shuffles their parts to

produce new chromosomes. Then, each parent passes chromosomes to [the] offspring.

But the process is imperfect. Along the way, DNA is subject to random mutations, or

mistakes…. But occasionally, the process gives rise to a beneficial trait. For example, a

butterfly whose coloration mimics another species of butterfly that taste bad to birds….

Comment: What he is describing is an inbuilt variable trait in

the genes and is not due to mutations? What functions do

mutations perform? Nearly 4,000 diseases are caused by

mutations in genes is suppressed from publication. One example

370
“of genetic mutation is cystic fibrosis, which is inherited in

autosomal recessive fashion, meaning that both of the relevant

inherited genes are mutant… Sufferers of cystic fibrosis are

usually sterile, and may die in young adulthood even with expert

medical care.” Mutations cause damage, not repair or new,

radical improvements.

“The recent decoding of the human genome has allowed

scientists to determine that cystic fibrosis is caused by a random

change of three nucleotides in a gene that codes for a 1480-amino

acid-long ion transport protein. The human genome has three

billion nucleotides, or base pairs, in the DNA. Since the random

change of three nucleotides in a three-billion-part genome is fatal

(0.00000001%), how is it remotely possible that a chimp could be

the evolutionary cousin of a human? The lowest estimate of the

genetic difference between our DNA and that of chimps is at least

50 million nucleotides (some estimates of the disparity are much

higher). [ Newer statistic: One hundred and 50 million

nucleotides] Quantitative information in genetics today is proving

evolutionary theory as simply a man-made and irrational

philosophical distortion of how nature operates.

“One top geneticist recently conducted a computer analysis

to quantitate the ratio of “beneficial mutations” to harmful

mutations. Only 186 entries for beneficial mutations were

371
discovered ( and they have a downside), verses 453,732 entries

for harmful mutations. The ratio of harmful mutations is

0.000041! Thus, even if a vary rare mutation is “beneficial,” the

next 10,000 mutations in any evolutionary sequence would be

fatal or crippling, and each of the next 10,000 imaginary

mutations would bring the evolutionary process to a halt.” Acts

and Facts. September 2007.

Therefore, the variables in a species as described by the

narrator must be ascribed to a separate origin and a vast

repertoire within the genes and are not caused by mutations

which could prove fatal or bring about the extinction of any

particular species.

The question is not whether a butterfly can flap its wings

often enough it will evolve into a bird, or an ass can be born a

man, which would be shear non-sense! these evolutionary

delusions of species change are nothing more than a wild, full-

blown fanciful extrapolation of questionable interpretations ─

mumble if you must, just another theory laid next to another

theory laid on top of another until it looks like a sandwich,

something you could eat and digest, but gives you ulcers and

diarrhea and which is assuming far more than is indicated by

evidence? Job 11:12 asserts: “Can a fool grow wise? can a wild

ass’s foal be born a man”? Obviously the fools still don’t know

372
and the asses still don’t get it! In Matthew 7:16, declares, “You

shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns,

or figs of thistles”? Each kind produces after its own kind. This is

a law embedded so deeply into nature as is gravity that evolution

will never be able to dislodge it.

Miller: [A] Genetic paper produced about a year ago before the trial, confirmed

what had [been] the most inflammatory part of Darwin’s theory, the common ancestry

of Humans and Apes.

… The cells of all great Apes … contain 24 pairs of chromosomes. If humans

share a common ancestor with Apes, you’d expect us to have the same number. But

surprisingly, human cells contain only 23 pairs.

Comment: His up and coming claims to human ancestry are

only an assumption like the man on the moon speaks English, But

there are other unexpected twists to his logic and we already

know about the fatal outcome of mutations. So is something else

actually going on? The fact is, bio-chemically he won’t be able to

prove anything he lays a claim to. The inflammatory part of

Darwin’s theory still is. The implication of his tone is that it now

isn’t ─ doesn’t however, prove or change anything in the overall

scheme of things. Many wouldn’t agree at the beginning or at

the end of this analysis that he has made his case or has begun to

prove anything he lays claims he has proven.

“Typically, on the ends of every chromosome, you would find special genetic

373
markers, or sequences of DNA called “telemeres.” And in their middles, you should

find different genetic markers called “centromeres.” But if a mutation occurred in the

past, we should find evidence in those genetic markers: telemeres not only at the end of a

new chromosome, but also at their middles, and not one, but two centromeres. Finding

a structure like this in our chromosomes would explain why humans have one pair fewer

than the great Apes….

Comment: “Perhaps the observation is a misleading miracle

like the Egyptian serpents? They looked like the real thing, acted

like the real thing, than got swallowed up by the real thing.

“Lo and behold, the answer is in chromosome number 2. All these marks of

fusion of these chromosomes predicted by common descent and evolution, all those

marks are present on human chromosome number 2. So the case is closed in a most

beautiful way.”

END OF MOST OF THE TESIMONY I WROTE DOWN

Comment: “Lo and behold, The case is closed,” or is it? And

beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If the case is closed in the

way he describes, it would have proven fatal for our species and I

will be discussing why?

Remember other similarities that are not alike: a potato and

an ape both have 48 chromosomes. Therefore, should we declare

that an ape and a potato are members of the same species and

derived from the other?

374
 A watermelon and a cloud are composed of 98% water.

Should we conclude: a watermelon is a cloud and a cloud is a

watermelon? These are obvious fallacies of logic, of course, we

instinctively know the conclusion is wrong. This is like the man on

the moon inference. A claim can be easily forged by the selection

of facts presented.

Let’s group some other facts Under the heading of X –RAYED

PLANTS and abnormalities:

“ As with animal life, so with plants; it was found that most

mutations resulted in harmful effects and semi-sterile life forms.

Many of the plant mutations involved splitting and re-attaching

chromosomes, and most were found to be lethal.” Pp. 349. The

Evolution Handbook.

Horse and Mule:

“A mule is a cross between two species, the horse and the

donkey. In a few instances, crosses between two species occur.

But it is a cross, not a cross over. The horse can produce more

horses, the donkey can produce more donkeys. But when a

female horse and a male donkey are crossbreed, the mule that is

produced is usually sterile. But in those rare instances in which a

female mule does have offspring, they revert back to the horse or

donkey species. Pp.299.

“[F]alse breading takes place when the presence of male

375
sperm stimulates the egg to begin production on a new life form,

but the sperm is rejected because it is from a different species.

Scientific analysis has established that this false breeding across

true species works in exactly the same manner as described

here.” Pp.387.

Acrosome is defined by Webster’s as: “a thin sac usually at

the head of a sperm cell containing enzymes which dissolve the

protective layers of an egg cell.” “The acrosome is coated with

the protein ‘bindin’ that will adhere only to special species-

specific receptors on the egg, ensuring that only sperm from the

same species can fertilize the egg.” Acts&Facts, Institute for

Creation Research.

It is significant that mankind can never successfully breed

across with any other species, including the great apes.

“There is no evidence of the origin of a hybrid between man

and any other mammal.” Edward Coln, Elements of Genetics,

1946, pp. 222-223.

“One careful researcher (Frank Marsh) spent years tracking

down every report of crosses… (between) true species. Each time

he found them to be hoaxes. One instance was of bird feathers

sewn to a stuffed animal skin. It made good copy for a newspaper

article, so it was printed.” Pp.387.

“Most spontaneous Abortions or “Miscarriages appear to be

376
due to major Chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus.” Grolier

Encyclopedia, pregnancy and birth, Spontaneous Abortion.

These are the summations we can make:

A. Laboratory Mutations are most often lethal.

B. Breeding between two similar species is a cross, not a

cross over and the offspring are usually sterile. In rare instances

were the female of such a cross does have offspring, the offspring

revert back to one or the other of the two original types with no

net gain in evolution!

C. Miscarriages are due to major Chromosomal

abnormalities in the fetus. This point will be particularly

important.

Under the heading of Carcinogenesis, and internet article by

Maria A. Blasco, entitled Telomere epigenetics…; She states on

page 2 of 11, 3rd paragraph, “When telomere function is lost, the

ends of chromosomes become susceptible to fusing to other

unprotected chromosome ends and/ or to double strand DNA

breaks (DSB), leading to end –to-end fusions and other types of

chromosomal aberrations. At the end of the paragraph, she

concludes: NHEJ (repair) machinery detects and signals the

presence of dysfunctional telomeres as damaged DNA and repairs

them, leading to end-to-end chromosomal fusions and other

377
chromosomal rearrangements. Mutation of telomere binding

proteins in the absence of significant shortening also results in

dysfunctional telomeres and end-to-end telomere fusions, which

are also mediated (repaired) by NHEJ machinery.” No where does

she mention she has ever witnessed a change of species resulting

from these events.

Dr. Bruce Ames, Queens College Cambridge, England,

explains that “The telomere cap…protects the genetic information

from being damaged….Every time a cell divides, (in humans about

50 times during a life time), a short stretch of the chromosome

ends, telomeres, do not replicate and thus get shorter.

Eventually the telomeres become so short that the genetic

information in the chromosome is no longer properly protected,

and the cell loses its ability to divide, and” apoptosis occurs.

We can extrapolate that:

1: Repair of the damaged telomere of the parent or off-

spring, and rejection of a foreign body, or recognition of a

mutation as a damaged strand of DNA.

2: Spontaneous abortion of a damaged or aberrant

chromosome prevents a cross-species or species change or a

severely handicapped individual of the same species from being

produced.

3: False breeding takes place when sperm stimulates the

378
egg to begin production of a new life form, but the sperm is

rejected because it is from a different phylum.

What Dr. Miller is proposing is the male and the female of

the same or of a different or a cross-species produced the

offspring of a different species, but there is no evidence of a

hybrid ever being produced or existing in medical records or in

the fossil record! In spite of a 150-200 year search! It appears

any tampering with the genetic code produces lethal

consequences or malformed or sickly organisms rather than an

evolutionary advancement. If this new Chromosomal

arrangement was an advancement towards a new species, it

would have been recognized as an abnormality by the female’s

immune system and would have been aborted. The genetic code

is set up to reject evolutionary advances and will produce only ‘its

own kind.’ Mr. Miller can not explain or illustrate from genetics

or chemistry, how the process he describes came about as a

function, or what actual beneficial affects this new chromosomal

arraignment could have produced in the organism, other than a

detrimental one, or that these mechanisms are related except in a

most superficial way. and it is only conjectured they could have

ever occurred or that they did occur as he describes as producing

processes for which he can nether describe nor explain, nor that

his conjecture has anything to do with the actual state of

379
processes as he assumes them to be. None of These questions

has he even come close to answering. His hypothesis raises many

more questions and doubts than answers. There is no evidence a

phylum can change into a different phylum in this manner or by

any other evolutionary process. His assertion has no more

chemical, scientific physiology credibility than the man on the

moon is a man.

Dr. Roth at Loma Linda University gave me some good

suggestions:

“The number of chromosomes is not very important. The

number and kind of DNA bases on the chromosomes is much more

significant. If you are going to make a point of the number of

chromosomes, you need to see if there is a significant difference

in the DNA of the combined chromosomes in man that according

to evolution may represent the two chromosomes of apes that

combined to form it, if that is what is claimed. If the combined

chromosome is the same as the two that were joined to combine

it, your point may be subject to serious criticism because

chromosomes and parts of chromosomes can be moved around

much more easily than we would expect…. You may also want to

look into two telemeres chromosomes combining to form a

centromere type of chromosome.

“The number of chromosomes do not seem to indicate

380
advancement. Ferns can have several hundred chromosomes, and

some amphibians have very high numbers also. Dogs have 78,

ducks 80 and a toad has 22. Cancerous cells in man can have

very high numbers that result from multiple replications of small

parts. Some organisms have double sets of chromosomes.

Anyway, the number of chromosomes is not as important as the

particular DNA that is represented or missing, and if you knew

that, I suspect that you could make a strong case one way or the

other.”

Ariel.

I want to add one more organism to the list: The pond

dwelling microorganism, Tetrahymena, has roughly 20,000

chromosomes!

This was about what I was expecting, to be honest. But it

does bother me that man maybe only a cancer or the opposite of a

cancer or something unpleasant and in between. The

unpleasantness can be proven! It almost seems the fewer

chromosomes the more complex is the organism. What would you

get with only twenty- two chromosomes ─ panacea! No─ a toad.

There you have it: 24-23 chromosomes an advanced mammalian

species, 23-22, degeneration? Although a toad probably wouldn’t

think so if he is able to think abstractly. This doesn’t make a

whole lot of sense. I was scratching my head so hard, a flea

381
climbed onto my head to get his back scratched.

Remember this list of Chromosomes:

: A Potato has 48 Chromosomes

: Apes and Chimpanzees have 48 Chromosomes

What is all this strutting and crowing about man being

superior to everything else on the planet? Counting

chromosomes: man appears to be a fairly simple machine

compared to ferns or ducks and particularly microorganisms ─ and

what about potatoes? You could probably get only one good

quack or bark out of man’s chromosomes. But they are not

complex enough, according to our theory, to become a potato. So

the number of chromosomes cannot be the most important factor!

If they are, than man has been given the shift and the shaft by his

ancestors  or by scientists. There are, however, a correct

number of chromosomes for any particular species and if that

varies, severe deformities or death will occur.

Recently, I was able to get hold of my landlady’s Sunday

newspaper before she did and found this intriguing tidbit entitled:

Ask Marilyn. “I read that the mapped genetic code for a rice plant

contains about 38,000 genes, yet the genetic code for a human

contains only about 25,000 genes. Does this mean that rice is

more complex”?

─ John Beam, Baltimore, Md.

382
 “No. Genes are only the beginning. The human genome (and

the genome of mammals) has turned out to be far more flexible

and complex than anyone had ever dreamed.

“One reason is alternate splicing, a process in which genes

are active at differing times. This produces a vast number of

distinct substances (proteins). Some of the substances interact

with the genes and make even more intricate patterns possible.

The complexity just grows and grows,” and continues to grow and

outdate the above description!

An article I got off the internet entitled: “Human

Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes,” goes

into more detail, then did the transcript, as to how “the

analogous chromosomes (2p and 2q)in the non-human great apes

can be shown, when laid end to end, to create an identical

banding structure to the human chromosome 2.” Alec MacA… is

the author.

As I suggest below: this process is going to have to repeat

itself multiple times to get anything as functional as a human

reproduction system and a human family. What if the Ape

descended from man. A human chromosome split in two to make

24: Evolution in a literal reverse? But getting through the

minefield of birth will have serious problems either way.

The article gives a brief description of somatic cell division.

383
The author describes mostly the similarities between these

analogous chromosomes in the chimp and human as proof; and

say almost, or nothing about their dissimilarities, which seems to

give considerable credibility to Dr. Roth’s contentions, which

makes a lot more sense than the following evolutionary scenario.

And remember, even vary slight variances in chromosomal

mutations can be fatal.

What Mr. Miller’s and Alec MacA’s explanation of evolution is

trying to accomplish is something quite out of the extraordinary,

quite unnatural, you might say. Evolution would have had to get

this new creature born and up and running and reproducing.

Since it is claimed naturalistic scientists can identify these fused

chromosomes in a human with the original prototype found in a

chimpanzee, after, according to them, millions of years, these

chromosomes must be remarkably similar to the original

chromosome structures which enables evolutionists to be so

accurate in their identification of the parent. And this argument

supports millions of years are able to produce hardly any change

in genes and chromosomes in order to produce huge phenotype

changes. There is no evidence for this, only speculation. This

incredible retention of genetic information suggest little or no

change has transpired in the genetic code, which repudiates to

some extent, the entire scenario as they have suggested it. And

384
here is the reason why. The assumption argues the

chromosomes of the new species are in some ways analogous with

the chromosomes of a different species parent, while it is not

stretching the analogy too far to speculate, however, that the

infant was a full-blown embryo of a modern human with little

change to the present: only fusion of two ape telomeres, little

comparative change to the scaffolding of its chromosomes or

change in its DNA, but this development still would have been

identified as an abnormality in the reproductive system of an ape,

because man is an entirely different species to the extent any

such mutational revision in the genes would have been lethal to

the new species in a foreign reproductive system and would have

triggered an abortion. Abnormal human chromosomes in human

reproductive systems are aborted, and decidedly so in the

immune system of an Ape. We are adding to this evolutionary

scenario the burden of another species in the womb of different

species to pull off a doubtful success. Remember, evolution

proposes gradual changes, not Cambrian explosions as this

suggest for their new hypothesis to work. So then, why are

chimpanzees not human, or humans chimpanzees as they have

basically the same chromosomes fused at their telomeres into

one, and not in the other? Telomeres are capping structures at

the ends of chromosomes, which protect the DNA, constructive

385
hetero chromatin domains (regions) that typically consists of

repetitive DNA and have very low gene count. Junk DNA? Just

asking. This suggest there is much more going on than is

understood. Is the argument a case of one species carrying

another species and its genes in its womb full term as the theory

goes? In the end, would man’s progeny have simply evolved back

into another chimpanzee? The difficulties are endless with such a

theory. This scenario alone without other complex genetic

changes in the DNA for which there is no evidence, and perhaps

more complex factors scientists still don’t understand, or perhaps

don’t even suspect, wouldn’t create anything other than a very

confused and mixed up ape and not a settled in human being in

his right mind. A man and an ape should share many more

common characteristics, or traits and abilities than they do and

many more complex differences in the DNA than are suggested by

this new evolutionary scenario. What theorists are describing is

not the slow and gradual changes of evolution but something

explosively unexpected. an evolutionary metaphor has jumped

the gun and confused our theoretical creatures. This new human

genome would have had to develop somehow successfully and

inexplicably, in the body of a chimpanzee first as a ovum and at

fertilization into a zygote in the uterus and gone full term in its

mother’s womb, so it is claimed. Something wrong has gone

386
right to develop in a wrong system. The infant was an entirely

different species from the mother. Now, evolutionists are going

to have to get their precious, and at this point, abnormal embryo

through a minefield of immune rejections. This difficulty creates

even more problems: immune system rejection of the zygote, or

the fetus if it miraculously gets this far. But this original

mutation to produce a new creature may not be enough as the

chromosome is an aberration. If you believe in the ratio of

impossibilities, or in more ‘freak show’ type of evolutionary

miracles, as explained to us, to have any chance at survivability,

this miracle in an embryo would have had to reproduce twins with

its own set of problems, one female and one male so they could

reproduce. Then again, they might be sterile, if they survive

childhood at all, after hanging from trees and performing other

stunts and wild acrobatics with only two hands instead of four as

has an ape. And if they are not sterile, would their offspring

revert back into monkeys as in B. And if it really was human, we

know humans can not mate with apes, so another equally

miraculous birth is called for. Clearly, Evolutionists don’t know

and probably don’t want to know! They are pushing their

guesswork to new unknown limits of extreme theory crunching

and theoretical modeling and new casualties pile up and are

twisted like wreckage upon the wreckage of critical theories! In

387
addition, the eventual licentiousness has serious, degenerative

genetic implications for posterity. Is man’s existence due to a

birth defect? You might think so because man has developed a

moral code which proves he often acts in ways which are far

inferior to those of his purported and supposedly inferior

ancestry. For example: Man is the only animal who for sordid gain

goes out to destroy his own kind, and is less than kind and

resultantly becomes a willful menace to his own existence and

those around him and can suffer from dementia which still makes

him a higher creature than an ape.?

In modern human societies, sodomy is against the law to

protect against birth defects. And if this isn’t enough, if you

didn’t get twines, you would have to get a repeat performance of

siblings of both sexes in later births. The whole scenario sounds

crazy and beyond the impossible. It defies everything we know

today about the possibilities of living organisms. Remember the

evolutionary slogan is yesterday is as today and today is as

yesterday ─ things don’t change or “each after its own kind”?

Evolution proposes gradual changes not Cambrian explosions ─

that is a Creationist insight into living things. But didn’t I just

formulate or describe an evolutionary theory which falsifies their

theory coming and going. Telling lies is easy, telling the truth

requires knowledge and skill. With so many liars in the world, it

388
takes skill and accuracy to tell the truth convincingly. Even then,

most people are inclined to disbelieve the truth in direct ratio as

it is the truth and what they are in the habit of telling.

This subtle change in a complex molecule as alleged ─

requires thousands, perhaps millions even billions of them is the

opposite of catastrophe? This is the triumph of living things – the

trump card of a Divine shroud over humankind! The formulation

of a species at the Creation is an event which can never be

duplicated and is beyond the power of modern science where so-

called sophisticated scientists with complex laboratories are

trying to produce complex molecular miracles that occurred

millions, upon millions of years ago, it is claimed, without

scientists with their advanced laboratories, and before science

ever entered the competition. Evolution is the quotient of an

interpretative power taken to its absolute lunacy to the

hundredth power and beyond magnitudes of insanity.

The author of this article described the process of somatic

cell division in its first stage, “The genetic material is duplicated.

At this stage, called interphase, the DNA strands are extended

and invisible.” I wonder how much more is invisible which we

know little or nothing of. I think science is in for some incredible

surprises. I don’t think we will ever began to know entirely. If

the strands are invisible, how does he know they are extended? A

389
more powerful microscope than he is using? Or, are the DNA

strands really invisible and become extended after being invisible

which leaves us at, what were they doing when they were

invisible? He didn’t explain. I have been told, the DNA is still

there and in order. His choice of wording wasn’t accurate or his

observations or his description of them. I hope the rest of his

thinking is tidier than this. I don’t want to get caught washing

and ironing someone else’s disheveled linen. Unfortunately, the

evidence has already suggested my hopes will be dashed. But

scientists do know how chromosomes are formed, or so I have

been informed.

In mitosis, cross-over chromosomes reverse their parts ─ lots

of re-combinations are possible and these possibilities are what

make each of us individuals. But these are observable

developments limited in each specific species acting upon pre-

existing genetic information and instructions. A cross-over

aberration creating new information for new phyla, or that would

change pre-existing classes into new classes, or macroevolution is

not observable in the present tense nor found in the fossil record.

A constant parade of tens of thousands and millions of

transitional forms should be represented and far exceed the half

dozen or so disputable finds. The lack of evolutionary evidence is

further authenticated by the genetic record where there are no

390
living fossils, no hidden museum pieces in the genes. No genetic

junk, that will eventually disappear in science, unless it

represents decreasing genetic viability, or the gradual entropy of

the species, or the ignorance of researchers who haven’t figured

out what valuable function these parts of the genetic network

perform! No mutations have ever been discovered capable of

producing new, advanced genetic information or new life forms

producing a different phyla or class. Mutations cause only

increasing mortality. No known naturalistic, causal mechanisms

can generate complex specified information! This means that

DNA, and the many multiple enzymes required to translate and

transcribe its coded information, must already be in place in the

gene. If DNA, and the many multiple enzymes must be in place

preceding evolution, than evolution could not have produced the

coded information which preceded it, which leaves evolution

without a viable mechanism.

American Journal of Human Genetics, August 2002,

Molecular Characterization:

“Only the fusion event that gave rise to human chromosome

2 has been characterized at the molecular level… As a result of

this fusion event, some telomere-specific hexanucleotide

391
repeats… mark fusion at the sequence level, without an obvious

alteration of neighboring genes on either side”! This hints at no

new scaffolding of the chromosomes, only a fusion at the

telomeres, and no new genes and DNA of a different species to

perform new miracles of ancestry! Our Ape ancestry just

evaporated. Without innovational revision to the genes to define

the specific and spectacular characteristics distinguishing a

species, there doesn’t seem to be convincing evidence this is the

defining engineering of a new species. If there is some unknown

advantage to this new arraignment below the species level, why

cannot God be a more viable possibility of its origin than that of a

preposterous and repetitious séance into a spontaneous

generation of a naturalistic miracle of sorts that defies all

explanation.

If there are no significant changes to the genes as

described, how would the fused chromosome 2 impart a parabolic

jawbone to humans, the gift of speech and language, impart

mathematical abilities of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity,

artistic license, insight and the ability to sing instead of grunting,

have two hands instead of four, have an inner ear that allows one

to stand upright, and the intelligence to follow and make up

recipes, invent gadgetry, and comb one’s hair and put on make up

before going to work, and contemplate one’s self and God or deny

392
God’s existence altogether, and to contemplate one’s own self-

awareness. “How did the multitude of connections in “our” brain

get programmed so that we can think logically ─ask questions

about our origin, create languages ─ compose operas” such that

all this is traceable to chromosome 2? Ariel Roth. The list is

endless but the foolishness this unique and impossible event

could have inexplicably occurred is even more so!

There are other points I have reserved mentioning until

now: Downs syndrome in Humans: “A carrier will have

45Chromosomes instead of 46 but they have all the genetic

material of a person with 46 chromosomes”:

http://www.downsyn.com/whatisds.php. In another form of

Downs syndrome, the victim has an extra copy of chromosome 21.

While an extra copy is entirely lethal for larger chromosomes, and

extra copy of the smallest human chromosomes is not always

lethal. But the result is a mutant form of the parent. Does 45

human chromosomes suggest a loss of one of the smaller, not

larger chromosomes in a human? we do not know by cross

species inference whether one or the other or both 2p & 2q were

large chromosomes or not in their alleged original context as the

information was not brought up. But if you applied the simple

implications/ scenario of the proceeding information to Dr. Miller’s

conclusions to Chromosome 2p & 2q as a species cross

393
comparison to chromosome 2, man would have been a

chimpanzee with down syndrome, not a stunning intellectual! The

same genetic material on fewer chromosome(s) suggest severe

abnormalities or retardation will occur, and random duplication of

chromosomes are either lethal or cause irretrievable damage,

deformation or retardation. Could two fewer chromosomes with

all the same genetic material create a jackpot for the recipient is

extremely unlikely? This strange zygote in the immune system of

an Ape would have been an abnormality and would have been

aborted. So is man actually an abnormality? Some think so, and

sometimes I and others are inclined to agree. Referring to

human chromosome 2 as is claimed, you have the 2p & 2q

chimpanzee chromosomes fused in human chromosome 2; two

fewer chromosomes in the human but containing the same genes

of the original two, so is man a confused Ape who thinks,

mistakenly, he is smarter than an ape? In spite of this, a serious

aberration in a different species zygote’s is almost certain to be

aborted in another specie’s immune system. Perhaps, the

evolutionists have gotten evolution backwards, because

chromosome 2 may have split off from a human progenitor and

produced the first true Ape with relatable species-specific

developmental problems similar to what the first humans

experienced (alleged in this application) but this unlucky creature

394
would still have to get through the human immune system in

order to survive to become an Ape. Evolution usually digresses

rather than progresses, so this is the most likely route of any

evolution?

The rule which is always forgotten is in order to assure the

stability and authenticity of the gnome, demands an all or nothing

result.

Man, according to this evolutionary scenario, should be an

aberrant Ape, not the more modern and intelligent species the

evolutionists are looking for. This is not the great discovery they

were after!

There is one last, major problem, and evolutionists will not

like me mentioning this again. In the last 150 years, there is not

one single experiment ever done which has illustrated

spontaneous generation of life from non-living material.

Evolutionists have to get their first cells, and their millions of

individual parts into existence before they can set their theory up

to accomplish anything else in the entire realm of nature. That

means everything they have thought up to explain could have

never happened by evolution unless this underlying breakthrough

is accomplished! Get it! This is an evolutionary IQ Test, they

have flunked out below that of the ameba. Sorry to be so blunt,

but it’s a fact!

395
 Are genes the only explanation for observed or unexplained

phenomena, or are there other more complex phenomena than

genes involved? Remember my story about the reappearing gene.

Since the mapping of the human geneo, many new discoveries

have been made: one is termed Epigenosis. Webster’s New

Unabridged defines Epigenosis as “The approximately stepwise

process by which genetic information, as modified by

environmental influences, is translated into the substance and

behavior of an organism.”

It works something like this: small taggers, called epigenos

travel on the surface of the genes, switching genes either off or

on. These taggers are modified by environmental stresses, by

poor diet etc; causing them to make mistakes? when switching

genes off or on must serve some inbuilt purpose. And these

affects can be inherited by the offspring. But if a switch is turned

off or on, is this an error, or are the instructions to the gene

turning a switch off or on provide some advantage for the

organism under available circumstances?

This may explain what could be a scientific statement in

Exodus 20:5&6: “I the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing

the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and forth

generations of those who hate me, but showing love to a

thousand generations of those who love me and keep my

396
commandments.” God has designed us to function in a certain

way, and when we break the mold, we suffer the consequences

physically, mentally, spiritually and morally!

There is one more testimony given in the Dover trial that I want to bring up.

Witold “Vic” Walczak: “You know, when you loosen the rules around what is

science and permit the supernatural, permit deities, you are really destroying what

makes science so vitally important to the progress that our civilization has witnessed

over the last four or five hundred years. You’re going back before the Scientific

Revolution. And you know, that is a pretty scary thing.”

Comment: Anything that is “scary” is not “pretty.” But Mr.

Walczak’s statement is scarier than what he has labeled as scary

because if his statement is false or misleading: it is deceiving and

that intent is scary. Mr. Walczak’s testimony is no closer to

hitting the truth than a cannon ball missing its mark by a dozen

miles. And that is scary, because a lie is an ass-as- sin of the

truth.

Agreed that civilization has progressed over the last 400-500

years in a great era referred to as The Scientific Revolution. For

any concept to take credit for the advancement of a particular

era, it would have to exist and to act as the prime mover of that

achievement. 400-500 hundred years goes back to the 1500 and

1600’s hundreds. Evolution primarily got its thrust from Darwin’s

1859 book entitled, ‘The Origin of Species.’ Before Darwin’s

397
publication, evolution was barely a byword in the mind of most of

the human race when the Scientific Revolution took place. And it

was sometime before it had any marked influence on science

other than the sudden cold chill of its cruel wind. Mr. Walczak

wants to credit to evolution what it cannot be credited with. That

first 300- 350 years of civilization ensuring the enlightenment of

science, progressed quite well without input from evolutionary

dogma. The enlightenment in science came quickly upon the

heels of the Protestant reformation which gained most of the

necessary freedoms for any enlightenment in science to take

place. Today those freedoms are being quickly eroded away and

science may have advanced even farther if evolution had never

came to the forefront. We might be making discoveries that will

be delayed for another 100-150 years down the road! I will give

an example which has stymied science to the present and will into

the future, unless evolution is abandoned: Louis Pasteur, (who I

have mentioned previously) was a great French chemist born in

December of 1842 and died in 1895, is considered the founder of

Microbiology. Among his famous achievements, “fermentation

studies led to Pasteur’s battle against the doctrine of

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. Pasteur demonstrated microbes

arise from other microbes and do not spontaneously develop in a

sterile medium, and any evidence to the contrary was the result

398
of careless technique and experimental artifacts.” Grolier

Encyclopedia. What followed next was one of the greatest

setbacks, and most certainly the most devastating setback in the

advancement of human knowledge in all of human history,

because, for Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution to work,

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION had to be correct. You cannot

advance until you get started. What cannot start cannot go.

Fortunes have been spent and lost and entire lives wasted in a

fruitless search for that panacea start up switch for evolution that

refuses to be found! Fanaticism is a fixation on a certainty

wagered on the improbable and the impossible.

“Biologists agree that all living things arose through a long

history of changes that are still taking place. It is plausible that

all organisms can be traced back to the origin of life from

inanimate matter.” Grolier Encyclopedia. This is accepted as

indisputable in the 20th century evolutionary world. “The origin of

life from inanimate matter” is an alias for “Spontaneous

Generation.” But because something seems plausible does not

make it causable. There have been hundreds and thousands of

attempts to shore up evolution, but none of them have worked in

experimental frameworks and have been tossed out. The 1953

Miller-Urey experiment was the most credible and the last

remaining archaic remnant of those failed attempts, an

399
“experimental artifact” left to rot in current textbooks. Icons of

Evolution, chapter 2. In that chapter: Jonathan Wells quotes:

New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade in June 2000:

“Everything about the origin of life on Earth is a mystery, and it

seems the more that is known, the more acute the puzzle gets.”

“So we remain profoundly ignorant of how life originated.

Yet the Miller-Urey experiment continues to be used as an icon of

evolution, because nothing better has shown up. Instead of

being told the truth, we are given the misleading impression that

scientists have empirically demonstrated the first step in the

origin of life.” But this is a deliberate, intentional scientific Lie.

Refer back to the statements of Dr. Paul Giem, regarding the

fallacies of the Miller-Urey experiment.

That “long history of changes that are still taking place”

have no current references, observations, evidence of any kind in

fact; it is an accepted “faith [which] makes [evolutionists] certain

of what they do not see and can not demonstrate,” is as true of

the evolutionists as they say of their opponents. Hebrews 11:1.

To re-direct the evolutionists’ terminology, the belief in evolution

is an act of “faith and not science or reason.” The evolution of

one phylum changing into another is not an observable and

therefore spectacular event in any current or past phyla, kingdom

and class in anything living or dead! That Spontaneous

400
Generation could never have occurred is an unfalsifiable fact.

Spontaneous Generation contradicts naturalistic explanations as

has been demonstrated by thousands of laboratory failures.

Therefore, the origin of energy and matter by naturalistic

mechanisms is both implausible and unachievable and could have

never produced the after effects of causality. “Chemical

Predestination is impossible.” Dean Kenyon. One hundred and

fifty years of cunning, but exasperatingly unsuccessful

experiments have proven it. Dean Kenyon, is one of the world’s

leading biochemical researchers into the discoveries that amino

acids can not of and by themselves form into proteins and

preexisting digital-like coded DNA hold the key, and where did

these miraculous instructions come from? Certainly not by any

activity of evolution! evolution could have never occurred ‘in the

beginning.’ The Evolutionary conjecture is a fatal collapse of

reasoning, taught only by charlatans and madmen left adrift on a

raging sea of damnations and lunatic illusions.

Spontaneous generation is the foundation of the entire

scenario of evolution. If spontaneous generation fails, the entire

superstructure propped up on that, collapses with it!! Why do I

say if, as it is already a known, proven failure, save for the

irrational of their immensely incalculable egos? Not only is

science unable to produce matter from absolutely nothing, time

401
and again and thousands of experiments have proven science

cannot produce life from preexisting matter! Evolution has gotten

us nowhere in our quest and understanding of the origins of

anything in the Universe. In trying to answer a few very

fundamental questions, science has produced the crowning

edifice of the greatest fundamental failure in human history.

During the trial, these evolutionary charlatans in conspiracy

wore tie clips made of mouse traps to smear Dr. Behe and the

argument of “Irreducible Complexity,” which is sometimes

illustrated as a machine or mouse trap which can not perform its

function of catching mice without all its functional mechanical

parts working in unison, refuting evolutionary theory that

numerous small gradual changes could have ever produced

complex working mechanisms which could achieve an aim or

survive without all their parts working simultaneously together.

Could a car go 60 miles an hour up a steep mountain road without

an engine? Even the simplest cell is comprised of numerous

individual complex small parts or biological machines or

organelles dependent on the other for the activities and

production of life. And these numerous microscopic machines are

dependent on other machines inside their structures. Irreducible

complexity is encoded into even the simplest cells. The

evolutionist’s refutation: the mouse trap could be put to other

402
uses than simply catching mice. But this is just the redundancy of

a defeated argument. If these evolutionists couldn’t come up

with a sound argument, they could at least poke nonsense at

irreducible complexity. They wore tie claps made of mouse traps

during the trial! Their cynicism produced an unintended effect.

Their cleverly devised satire has backfired! Their sarcasm proved

a mousetrap could go one step farther, it can catch a rat with, or

without a tie on! Either way it can catch a rat. Therefore, a

mouse trap is irreducibly complex!

How many billions of dollars will be wasted by government

expenditures and private investments to prove the unprovable is

again unprovable? Evolution without a beginning is a stillborn

radical departure from reason. Mr. Walczak’s display of

ignorance is an attempt to rewrite history ─ a deliberate attempt

to misconstrue the facts? Remember he was testifying in court.

He was not sworn in to lie or to express his ignorance!

Let me throw one more ringer into the gears of naturalism.

In 1850, Rudolf Clausius, a German physicist, stated the First Law

of Thermodynamics. “In any process, energy can be changed

from one form to another form, but can never be created or

destroyed.” Einstein later added to this his famous formula

E=mc2. Energy and mass cannot be created or destroyed, they

only change forms. This echoes Louis Pasteur’s conclusion that

403
life cannot be created by spontaneous generation and modern

science has added through any experimental process. It follows

life as a form of energy cannot be created by spontaneous

generation according to the First Law of Thermodynamics! Life is

pre-existent and comes only from life. If life cannot be created by

reactions of nature alone, than the creation of life is not

explicable by any known law, than evolution cannot explain the

origins of anything of significance and consequence we see

around us! When energy explodes, it changes into another form

of energy or mass. You simply don’t know where everything has

disappeared except for residual radiation. Everything is

conserved in another form and nothing is lost by the re-circulating

system of nature. Naturalism has as huge a gap in its

understanding of origins more often alleged to Creationists by

evolutionary propaganda. Using the evolutionary template,

nature is an enclosed system where naturalism doesn’t produce

anything! And the evolutionists have proven it. However, if

nature is an enclosed system, than neither God, and certainly no

process outside of God can interfere with the state of affairs. This

argument is confounded by the existence of things which cannot

exist by any known law! They can be explained by naturalism

only if they are construed by wildly illogical conjectures, by the

magic of evolution instead of the miracles of Devine actuation and

404
design!

“Critics of the theory of intelligent design claimed that advocates of

intelligent design have failed to publish their work in peer-review scientific

journals… Critics of the theory of intelligent design made this argument

before and during the Dover trial in support of the ACLU’s case against the

Dover school-board policy. Barbara Forest, a philosophy professor from

southwest Louisiana State university and one of the expert witness for the

ACLU, claimed there are no peer-reviewed id articles in which id is used as

a biological theory in mainstream scientific databases such as medline.

Judge Jones apparently accepted such assertions at face value. In his

decision, he stated not once, but five separate times, that there was no

peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting intelligent design.

“But Dr. Forest’s carefully qualified statement gave an entirely

misleading impression.” Mr. Meyer states that in 2004, a year before the

trial, he had published a peer-reviewed scientific article advancing the

theory of intelligent design in a mainstream scientific journal, the

proceedings of the biological society of Washington. After the publication

of the article, the Smithsonian’s museum of natural history erupted in

internal controversy, as scientists angry with the editor ─ an evolutionary

biologist with two earned Ph.D’s ─ questioned his editorial judgment and

demanded his censure.” As mr. Meyers explains later: By 2005, (the year

of the Dover trial) Intelligent design theorists had already developed the

empirical case for id in peer-reviewed scientific books published both by

405
trade presses and university presses . Michael Behe’s groundbreaking

Darwin’s black box was published by the free press in new york.

Dembski’s the design inference was published by the Cambridge

university press. Both were peer-reviewed. Johnathan Well’s, Icons of

evolution – science or myth? was copyrighted in 2000, and was widely

distributed and discussed. In 2007, Behe published another sensation:

The edge of evolution. As mr. Meyer points out, “Clearly, there is no

magic number of supporting peer-reviewed publications that suddenly

confer the adjective ‘scientific’ on a theory… if there were a hard and fast

numerical standard as low as even one, no new theory could ever achieve

scientific status. Each new theory would face an impossible catch-22; for

a new theory to be considered ‘scientific’ it must have appeared in the

peer-reviewed scientific literature, but anytime a scientist submitted an

article to a peer-reviewed science journal advocating a new theory, it

would have to be rejected as ‘unscientific’ on the grounds that no other

peer-reviewed scientific publications existed supporting the new theory.”

for all intents and purposes, this requirement would put and end to

science.

Any conspiratorial excuse considered as a justifiable reason to

abridge the freedom of the press or the freedom of speech, not only is the

activity illegal, it is substantively criminal by the inherent intent which is

involved in violating Federal law.

The demand that a publication must be peer-reviewed as a way to

406
enforce an all too successful conspiracy of silence against opposing

viewpoints, and is a conspiratorial abridgement of the first amendment of

the freedom of press, and the freedom of speech. It is the nature of a

totalitarianism to crush any and all opposition.

This conspiratorial intent can be drawn from my second chapter on

Radiometric dating under the heading of climate warming scam, a scandal

which went so far that Michael Mann, an internationally known climate

warming evolutionary scientist, as well as other evolutionists, discussed

ways on the internet of the necessity to put pressure on, and rein in or get

rid of ‘offending’ editors, and how to squash dissenting viewpoints, and

destroy journals which publish skeptic papers. Not only is peer-review

conspiratorial, but these hacked internet releases went on to discuss how

to prevent the looting of constitutional protections from coming to light.

And these are the same people who gloat: to quote the acerbity of Mr.

Schwartz, a confirmed editorial evolutionist, “ we have the purpose of

preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the

education of the united states.” are we to trust the education of our

next generation and the future fortunes of democracy to such crazed

activists? He states emphatically, the purpose and the individuals against

which their purpose and acerbity is aimed. And it can only be advanced as

a conspiracy of “we.” Thus, confirming evolution is a conspiracy! Then

where in history, and at what moment has truth concealed itself as a

conspiracy? Only deceit is a lie which at all costs must be hidden from

407
revelation by its attempt to conceal the truth! These conspirators have

every intent to use a Christian derived and founded institution of

government, its founding documents written almost exclusively by

Christian statesmen and its institutions constructed out of Biblical

principles of tolerance and freedom as the instrument to be used against

itself to destroy democracy’s building blocks. We must suffer from some

sort of national insanity if we let these unscrupulously mad philosophers of

science get away with their intent to destroy democracy and its protection

of inalienable rights and freedoms! If we do, we become equally guilty of

their crimes of high treason and collaborating with our enemies in the

narrowing of freedoms as acceptable.

The question of delving into the source from which were arrived the

fundamentals of American democracy is thoroughly discussed in my last

chapter.

A Final Analysis of the Dover Pennsylvania Trial

Judge Jones has been hailed as an innovative and masterful legal expert based on his

careful and independent analysis of the evidence. Is this true? We have already seen this

could not be true, but let us continue and enlarge on the scope of issues involved.

As I have already clearly shown, the case was riddled with misrepresentations of facts,

stretches of fantasy, theatrical and misleading claims, unbridled assumptions,

misinterpretations of what constitutes an ideology of science, and a persuasion of outright

408
fraud to mislead the court, etc. Remember: “Natural selection can favor … cheating and

exploitation,” and of course, all related evils too numerous to count. Dobzhonsky. The same

should be expected of their unscrupulous tacticians. The extreme wing of the ACLU is the

modern equivalent of McCarthyism which should be censored, discredited, and broken up as

an anti-American Nazi-gang-like extremist franchise of the evolution agenda. Their aim is

not only prosecution but persecution of the religious beliefs of the majority for the sole

protection of a brazen, obtrusive, extremist minority ─ the philosophical have-nots, who want

to steal the emperor’s cloths. Of course, the Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents

lost because Judge John E. Jones was one of the most profound judiciary minds of the 21th

Century? Is this a joke? Remember the ACLU has threatened virtually every state

government in the United States with a lawsuit if they try to give equal time to the alternative

view of Creationism? This is extortion by threat and dedication to despotism and is not

democratic! A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs’

Proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law was summed up in an Executive

Summary:

“In December of 2005, critics of the theory of intelligent design (ID) hailed federal

judge John E. Jones’ ruling in Kitsmiller v. Dover, which declared unconstitutional the

reading of a statement about intelligent design in public school science classrooms in Dover,

Pennsylvania. Since the decision was issued, Jones’ 139-page judicial opinion has been

lavished with praise as a “Masterful decision” based on careful and independent analysis of

the evidence. However, a new analysis of the text of the Kitzmiller decision reveals that

nearly all of Judge Jones’ lengthy examination of “Whether ID is science” came not from his

own efforts or analysis but from wording supplied by ACLU attorneys.” As stated

409
previously, … 90.9% (or, 5,458 words) of judge Jones’ 6,004 word section on intelligent

design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of

Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his

ruling! Judge Jones even copied several clearly erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU.

The finding that most of Judge Jones’ analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the

product of his own original deliberate activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge

Jones’ examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design.” Discovery Institute, 2006.

This infamous decision in context was probably one of the worst and most damnable

unconstitutional decisions ever provoked against reason in all of American history other than

the crimes of slavery itself!! This was judicial tyranny and gutless partisanship and outright

stupidity rolled up all in one grand muddle of entrenched corruption! This cannot be a day to

be proud of America! Such a fallacious decision is not about why we are Americans, and it

is not why we will stay Americans.

Who is God, whose presence in the universe seems to create so much schism and

rancor on our infinitely small planet in comparison to the vastness of the known universe.

Evolutionists cannot and will never be able to create life from of the dust of the

ground or from natural selection which must have some pre-existent entity to select from plus

a beneficial mutation which science cannot prove, whereas God not only created the dust and

the mass of the universe out of nothing, but then crafted life from inanimate dust. Genesis 1:

states parenthetically, “he made the stars also. By Him all things were created: visible and

invisible. The atom and the visible object made up of its atoms, we would say today.

Hebrews 1: 16,17. Psalms 102:25 declares: “In the beginning You laid the foundations of the

earth.” Psalms 104: 5 “He (God) set the earth on foundations; it can never be moved.” Isaiah

410
40:22 describes the “circle of the earth.” “God stretched out the heavens.” Isaiah 42:8; 45:12;

Jeremiah 10:12. “(God) hangs the world on nothing.” Job 26:7. Job explicitly stated this

thousands of years before Galileo’s discovery. If God had waited for Galileo, or Newton, the

world and the universe would have never been formed. If men had been reading scriptures,

they might have had it figured out correctly from the beginning! The heavens are ancient.

Psalms 68: 33. This belief was held thousands of years before the dubious aide of modern

science. Would not the heavens be considered as ancient in a time when it was believed by

Hebrew writers, who held concepts of eternity and immortality that life on this planet was

recent, perhaps no more than a few thousand years old in comparison to the age of the

universe? The existence of the heavens represent a long age before life on this planet was

brought into being, therefore the heavens are truly depicted as ‘ancient.’ John 17:5 & 17:24.

Before the earth existed, there was the glory of God. And what was that glory that we know

nothing or little of? The heavens must have existed in time and eternity and in space with

God as a creation from his hands, or God would have been terribly bored for long ages with

nothing exciting to do, God, who alone is immortal and eternal and who lives in

unapproachable light. I Timothy 6:16. You actually believe God was lonely and bored for

billions and trillions of years, so he decided he had to do something even if it were a desperate

attempt at creating something to be entertained by ─ man may have been only a last ditch

effort to create something useful and entertaining ─ man, a glimmer of star dust in God’s

mind before the rest of the universe was experimented on? Your creation prevented God from

feeling useless and restless and bored, before everything went wrong, which goes to show that

challenges don’t accomplish very much and can never last for vary long before the next state

of boredom and inactivity and mistakes sets in. So, you really think God created the rest of

411
the universe on the 4th day. Than the universe which is far more immense and extensive than

this single planet, must have had a very unfinished look as it took six days to complete the

earth. God should finish or start another project if he has left the other one unfinished. This

is Nonsense! The statement is a parenthetical remark identifying the same God is the creator

of everything in existence, as I have in pervious chapters supported. But some people argue

against this possibility as though they have been given the key to the kingdom and the

steering wheel to the universe. Only God has the power to remove the earth from its

foundations. In judgment, God proclaims: “I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall

move out of her place” where He and no other had placed her. This is not a contradiction

except to our limited knowledge. [From off her foundations = gravitational path] Isaiah

13:13. I will do what no other can! “I will create a new heavens and a new earth wherein

dwells righteousness! 2 Peter 3:13. The earth and everything in it will be recreated, then it

will be inherited by God’s people for eternity! Revelation chapters 21 & 22. Revelation is

transformed into the new Genesis. If “the elements will melt with fervent heat” (2 Peter 3:12)

in the recreation of a new earth,” how long will hell last that Revelation says will be

destroyed? Revelation 20:14 (King James Bible) Here is a possibility: likely not more than

7 days and likely no longer than one or two days at most, as it took only the first 2 days to

prepare the first earth for life. The creation made famous in Genesis will be duplicated in the

final Revelation and the saints will watch from the walls of the New Jerusalem the re-creation

of planet earth where no evil and therefore no evil doer will ever dwell. Revelation chapter

20: 4-6 & chapters 23. John 5:28-29. 2 Peter 3:7 predicts, “the earth will be consumed by

fire on the day of judgment, when ungodly people will perish.” Do you think God wants to

burn his own children alive for eternity, though they often misbehaved, in an eternal burning

412
hell fire when he wept over the anguish which the death of Lazarus had caused to himself and

to His friends, Mary and Martha, Lazarus sisters; and Lazarus had been dead for only four

days? I believe it is far more probable, everything will perish quickly. The evil doer and the

wicked will be swept away rapidly. How will God “wipe every tear from their eyes” in the

new earth if He and his saints are weeping over the eternally prolonged anguish of the their

loved ones? “There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of

things have passed away.” Revelation 21: 4. Hell cannot exist where there will be no

mourning for loved ones who are being eternally tortured in hell. There will not be any more

pain, how could this be possible if the wicked are being tortured. There will be no more

crying, how is this possible if you are suffering the pain of your loved ones suffering and

screaming in an eternal torment. For there to be no more death or mourning or crying or

pain, hell and death will have had to come to an end and life triumphant ever after will be

eternal for those who serve and love God!

Let me join the evolutionists and do some theorizing outside of space, time, energy

and matter: what might the Bible be suggesting about God’s eternal, all-powerful, all

purposeful, omnipresent, omniscient Being: Energy existed in a Divine intelligent form

without a beginning or end, before or without the expression of matter as we can conceive of

it, and in another dimension as God is described as spirit dwelling in dimensions we cannot

conceive of. ( John 4:24). Energy and intelligence are expressed outside of any matter

known to us in another realm, perhaps, not in anything implied by the limitations of our minds

or of dimensions? Dark matter ─ but then we are back to matter? And all is light and space

without time. And what matters does not matter if it is wrong. “We have not conceived of, or

ear heard, or eye seen the wonders God has prepared for those who love him.” But our world

413
and the universe is still a dark and mostly unknown entity to finite beings as ourselves. In

God’s superior Being, He can express Himself in matter to create us and the universe,

whereas our existence is confined and limited to three dimensional matter as a lesser form of

His powerful and eternal being? God remembers that we are dust. Psalms 103:14. We

came from the dust and return to dust? Ecclesiastes 3:20. We are made in God’s image, but

not in the express image and the exact likeness of His Divine Being. “Are not all angels

ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation” and eternal life? Hebrews 1:

14. Are Angels made more like God as spirits and therefore superior in power and

intelligence to humans? You have made him [man] a little lower than the angels. Hebrews

2:7. Some Biblical translations translate angel as God, but Lucifer the mighty Angel who

became Satan in sacred scripture, was God’s crowning creation who once stood next to the

thrown of God himself where no mortal man can go. Ezekiel 28: 12-19. Exodus 33: 20.

God’s existence is not confined to the loathsomeness of man’s fallen existence. “The

earth well wear out like a garment and its inhabitants die like flies” Isaiah 51:6: The earth may

become subject to increasing disasters of what life is like without God’s sustaining and

renewing power against which man rebelled. The more life reproduces the more it atrophies

and dies. Birth, the triumph of our existence is a death sentence. My radiologist kept telling

me, “Don’t breath, don’t breath.” I was getting tired of this, so I told him, “I would come

back. That eventually, someday, it would be easy for me not to breath, but I would try not to

hurry back.”

What I have offered I am sure is very inadequate, certainly, one I won’t entirely

swear by as to what comprises God’s Divine Nature, but it suggests an equation beyond

physics, “His face (the Face of God) was like the sun shinning in all its brilliance.”

414
Revelation 1:7. Yet He is a living creature. “Isaiah 33:14-15 exclaims: ‘Who among us

shall dwell with the devouring fire? Who among us shall dwell with everlasting

burnings? “He that walks righteously, and speaks uprightly, he who despises the gain of

oppressions, he who will not accept a bribe....” [ the man who will not commit evil!] It

is the righteous, not the wicked who will dwell with everlasting burnings. “The fire…had

not harmed their bodies, nor was the hair of their heads singed; their robes were not

scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them.” Daniel 3:27; 16-27. In verse 25, King

Nebuchadnezzar exclaimed: I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and

they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” This term: Son of

God was not used again, that I am aware of, until the New Testament time. Again, it is

not the wicked who will dwell with everlasting fire, but the righteous.

In Revelation this````````` old earth is transformed into the new earth, and Heaven

is removed to earth where the seat of God’s presence and the thrown of the universe is

found here. “I John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from

God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

“And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is

with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God Himself

will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe every tear from their eyes; there

will be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying, and there shall be no more pain, for the

former things have passed away.” Revelation Chapter 21.

Compare the alternative of evolution evolving into the death of every living

creature on the face of the earth. Tears and crying are going to increase, death will

multiply, pain will continue, sorrow will find no end, and all former things will evolve

415
into man’s worse nightmare until extinction! Is this the ultimate triumph man is doomed

to look forward to? Then the earth is truly a planet of Horrors!

To God dwelling in fiery, eternal energy, mortals are as consumable dust! We

know energy exists in a material world, God dwells in a spiritual world of

unapproachable light: E=mc squared ( but this reality goes infinitely beyond anything

humanly conceivable) as a creative, intelligent Being dwelling in the immortal,

immaterial world of an unknown form of energy which can neither be created nor

destroyed. Man = matter and the breath of God combining to make man a living soul;

God = a Divine Spirit of indestructible energy and power that would make the speed of

light run backwards in comparison, for He as God is infinitely beyond our imagination

and comprehension. If we got too close to the sun, its light and heat would kill us, but

this is the outward and inward example of God’s Divine nature and character, energy and

power with infinite purity and perfection; for in the city of the new earth there will be no

need for the light of either the sun or the moon to light it, because God’s glory gives it

light”: E=MC squared x the exponent of Revelation 2:16 x Revelation 21: 23. He lives

in the eternal fire and energy of an inextinguishable eternal existence. How God created

matter out of the energy of his eternal being is a total mystery to us? But because it is a

mystery does not mean it should be denied and that denial become the substance of a kind

of faith in a negative belief. We cannot explain God. He is vastly different from us and

more relevant and meaningful to life and existence than we could ever imagine. We

cannot rid ourselves of God by our ignorance! Why would anyone in this right mind not

want to have a personal, firsthand and loving acquaintance with the most compelling

personality and marvel in all the universe, is beyond me! God who came righteously into

416
this blighted and sinful, and grief stricken world and touched the likes of sinful and

mortal men who, in faith touched Him in whom inwardly dwelled all the resources of the

universe! For scripture says, we are the sons and daughters of His Divine Being, for He

give His only begotten Son to the world to win His fallen children back to His love. This

is God’s exceedingly kind and gracious and exceedingly wonderful gift to us, the miracle

of a Divine love and His perfect character shines before the whole world as we are

accepted back as God’s redeemed children which He is nearly desperate not to loose. We

are to Him much like what our own children are to us. In the words of another, Angels

will place babies separated by death, back into the arms of their mothers. That is indeed,

a divine vision.

But does God hate atheists and evolutionists? Not even half so much as I do!

And he actually loves all human beings even those who reject Him. I and God are still

working on my problems. But God is forgiving to all of us. Remember the story of the

Prodigal, God’s lost son. Luke 15: 11-32. God couldn’t restrain himself from running

out and throwing his arms around his lost but returning son with tears of intense joy.

[God] “is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” 1

Peter 3:9. God loves to throw huge parties. All of Heaven rejoices over one sinner who

comes to repentance. Luke 15:7 NKJV. Heaven is going to throw very large and

extravagant parties with no expense barred for sinners who repent and their lives were

turned around. An exceptionally good time will be had by all the gracious guests who are

invited to that grandest and greatest of all celebrations in the ages of eternity that will not

entirely suffice even with eternity. The more that is received, the more that will be given.

And the more that is given, the more that will be received. And greed will never be

417
found or granted entrance there. “Blessed are those who are called to the marriage

supper of the Lamb. Revelation 19:9. Luke 15: 22-24. God throws an extravagant party

that cannot be compared to anything imagined on earth. I hope we see each other there!

The Beginning of the conclusion

Review: Homo-sapiens, us, have twenty-three chromosomes, Apes have 24. What

did I say about evolution in reverse? Pp. 269. Here is where less is more making complexity

doubly important. It is claimed: two chromosomes from an Ape fused, in some inexplicable

manner which remains a mystery of imagination at their telomeres, producing the 23

chromosomes of the human genome. The source of this mysterious alteration was assumed,

of course, a mutation of evolution, (explaining the unexplainable) although other denied or

overlooked possibilities are just as credible: an Intelligent Designer who is God, or the source

employed was an abnormality of evolutionary regressions. I added the word mysterious as it

was not chemically explained, or remotely suggested or understood how any of this process

could have evolutionarily transpired. And if processes are not completely understood, you

risk serious, biological reprimands of credibility. A further explanation is rarely given if one

does not have one, and uncertainties are glossed over by the seeming endless assumptions and

explanations. Nonetheless, this information came to me as not a relief that it is now claimed

our genes differ by similarities, although no one has any real idea of the actual significance,

from that of the Apes, but things do not differ by similarities but by differences. How our

species actually got to be so vastly different is were the battle in origins comes in. That the

interpretation of chromosomal fusion might have at first appeared rational, however

insufficient to prove the conclusion drawn, is logically incorrect “as appearances are

deceiving,” and nature does not necessarily perform as prescribed by the overly strained

418
imagination of science. The proof is not proportional to the evidence. “An infant who

inherits an extra large chromosome is not viable and if it survives at all, will die shortly after

birth.” What about an infant which loses a chromosome ─ mental retardation as we have

already learned? I have already presented numerous other problems. To prove this is

nature’s way to create a human from an Ape, would be to fuse in laboratory experiments,

(possibly lethal) if it is at all possible in the same manner as in nature’s or God’s laboratory,

the corresponding telomeres from an Ape’s cell. And see if the experiment will develop into

a full-blown human being in the womb of an ape ─ and then brought to full term. Explain

grandmother and grandfather to this child. It would have to be adopted and lied to so it

would be able to endure the explanations and their implications. Success proves the theory,

failure leaves the evolutionary model in shambles (crumbling exponentially by explanation to

absolve the contradictions with the known quantities of fact). Cutting fused human

chromosomes to separate them (likely lethal) to create an Ape, could led to jail time,

assassination, or scandal, and leaves out the delights of sex, so the approach I have suggested

seems politically less hazardous and troubling, or is it? One might save all this trouble by

studying history. The Nazi’s likely tried experiments similar to this. The creation of

humans from an Ape in laboratory experiments without sex is the only scientifically and

clinically naturalistic way, or is it, and smacks of opportunism to manipulate our own

evolution and create something better by redirecting the nuances of evolutionary development

in a way to our own liking, perhaps, skipping the next step ─ ourselves. Until this is

accomplished, nothing has actually been proven by any vast body of assertions; and what little

evidence I dare say evolutionists may have, bears little more weight than that of a forgone

conclusion denied the ultimate resolution of fact. Nature is far more complex than what any

419
scientists have anticipated. Depending on which side you are on, this could be a comforting

thought. I will give you an example of this argument from mathematics, which plays, of

course, an important roll in genetic studies and dating processes and science in general.

In the January 2004 Volume 25, Number one, Discover Magazine, (not published by

the Discovery Institute) pp 36 is an article:

2003: Mathematicians Face Uncertainty.

“Mathematicians finally had to agree that their prized notion of ‘absolute proof’ is an

unattainable goal… achievable only in relatively simple cases”! Unbelievable? I took my

glasses off. That didn’t help. It read the same way when I put them back on. Perhaps if I

sneezed, it would clear my head. I couldn’t sneeze. But my eyes jumped to the third

paragraph. “In late 2002 the Russian mathematician Grigori Perelman … claimed he had

solved the Poincare conjecture. If he is correct, he will collect $1 million dollars in prize

money offered for its solution.” “But after months of examining the argument,

mathematicians are still unsure whether it is right or not.” Perelman is still not a millionaire!

I have suffered a lot like that. Perhaps my situation is similar to his, and that is why I am not

a millionaire? I can sympathize with losing a fortune that was never attained.

But then everything gets worse ─ “pity poor Thomas Hales, an American

mathematician who has been waiting for five years to hear whether… his 1998 proof of...

Kepler’s 390 year old conjecture” is correct. … “The prestigious journal Annals of

Mathematics finally declared that, whereas they had not found any irreparable error in the

proof, they still are not sure that it is correct. The journal agreed to publish Hale’s proof, but

only with a disclaimer saying they were not sure it was right.”

“Even the experts find it almost impossible to be sure if some arguments are correct.”

420
 “But as the German mathematician David Hilbert pointed out in the late 19th century,

many of these arguments are logically incorrect.” If one can be logical but wrong, than truth

may often be much stranger than fiction and there will always be undecipherable

phenomenon.

What is Mr. Hood going to due if his computers malfunction or if the physics fed into

them are logically incorrect even to an imph- degree. I would hate to break the news to him.

I know what disappointments are like, and I don’t want to hurt his feelings unnecessarily.

Anyhow, he may be right in a hundred thousand years from now, and I would have hurt

everyone’s feelings for nothing. This all sounds like a mathematical nightmare and it is. If

logic can be illogical, so to speak, we are in irreparable trouble. Have we become so smart we

can no longer be certain as to how smart we actually are and that could unsettlingly suggest

the other alternative: that we are not nearly as smart as we arrogantly think we are, and,

perhaps, we are arriving at the end of where we can logically stretch our understanding and

imaginations? That is a very troubling and profound question; my blood pressure went up. If

we as humans are not smart enough to ever figure out highly complexly important and

troubling questions and problems: it becomes a personalized failure that adds insult to injury

if you are not believe in God. The only solution maybe in the ultimatum: there is an

incomprehensible God, a God with a vastly superior intelligence to man’s. A mind so

incomprehensibly brilliant it is infinite as the universe is infinite in its infinite expanse of

reason which trashes all human Intelligence as outrageously imprudent insults imprisoned in

denials. Experimenters on intelligence should try for greater accuracy among the unfortunate

creatures less perceptive than humans who don’t understand the inflammatory devaluations of

professionals and their humbling results. That concept will drive some panicky people crazy

421
with desperation and humiliation, so they will try and solve riddles with riddles, and theorize

non-sense and proclaim it an extraordinary achievement in the advancement of human

knowledge as they fall flat on their face in total scandal.

Are we entering a new age of scientific irrationalism and the inability of science to

answer important, fundamental questions? “From Hollywood to the academy, nonbelievers

are convinced a decline in traditional religious belief would lead to a smarter, more scientific

populace.

“The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won’t create a

new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually

encourage new levels of mass superstition (and hysteria). And that’s not a conclusion to take

on faith ─ it’s what the empirical data tells us.

“What Americans Really Believe, a comprehensive new study released by Baylor

University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in

everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology….

“The Gallup Organization, under contract to Baylor’s Institute for Studies of Religion,

asked American adults a series of questions to gauge credulity. Do dreams foretell the future?

Did ancient civilizations such as Atlantis exist? Can places be haunted? Is it possible to

communicate with the dead? Will creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster someday

be discovered by science?

“The answers were added up to create an index of belief in the occult and the

paranormal. While 31% of people who never worship express a strong belief in these things,

only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did…!

“While increased church attendance and membership in a conservative denomination

422
has a powerful negative effect on paranormal beliefs, higher education doesn’t. Two years

ago two professors published another study in Skeptical Inquirer showing that, while less than

one quarter of college freshmen surveyed expressed a general belief in such superstitions as

ghosts, psychic healing, haunted houses, demonic possession, clairvoyance and witches, the

figure jumped to 31% of college seniors and 34% of graduate students.

“We can’t even count on self-described atheists to be strict rationalists. According to

the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s monumental U.S. Religious Landscape Survey

that was issued in June (2008), 21% of self-proclaimed Atheists believe in a personal God or

an impersonal force. 10% of atheists pray at least weekly and 12% believe in heaven. The

Wall Street Journal, September 19, 2008.

Atheists are 1.6% of the American population and Agnostics 2.4%. A few Americans

are diffidently a gambling breed. Some of these heretics must be trying to hedge their bet,

hoping the Almighty won’t notice?

Notable names who helped found and advance modern evolution, and who took part in

spiritualism: the worship of demons, participation in witchcraft, and communication with the

dead include, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Adolf Hitler, Herbert Spencer, Sir Arthur

Doyle, and Russel Wallace. All are discussed briefly in the subsequent chapters.

Add to this uncertainty and confusion, the fact that, Paleoanthropologists and

mathematicians are uncertain as to their particular disciplines capability of determining the

correctness of their analytic research. And these disciplines have their weighted affects on

fields such as genetics, biology, astronomy, ad infinitum. This nearly takes my breath away,

so I am going to stop briefly and allow you a chance to come up for air, but you will have to

gulp your breath quickly……………………………………………………………………….!

423
I gave you a little extra time.

Evolution is less science than dogma held in the violent extremes of the irrational and

bloody history of Two World Wars, and by evolutionary fundamentalists, who with the

swelling pride of arrogance refer to themselves in dogmatic and delusional assertions as

scientists, as though a scientist is someone important to the function of the Universe. Their

self-importance is a fairly tale for adults who have not yet learned to read the trifling evidence

of science, and a reckless agenda of those who hate their fellow men but love their assumed

ape-like ancestors for whom no indirect or direct relationship has ever been discovered in

spite of 150 years of fruitless efforts, endless frustrations, and damnable speculations and

billions of dollars in research monies spent wastefully and all for naught! America may have

bought and spent its way into second-rate world power status when it comes out of

bankruptcy. Of course, Darwin assumed the evidence for his theories would be found. But

Darwin is, was, and will be reprimanded by time which is far less than anything he ever

imagined! And he is now decaying into a worthless fossil himself ─ an old dry bone

wrapped up in his dried up parchment of dead skin stuck in the dust with only a resurrection

of damnation to come. Revelation 20:5&6. Proof of evolution has never been found and will

never be found! No matter how much lying is used to produce the elusive effect of a hopeful

triumph of irrationalities undergirded with tainted evidence! Any claim lacking proof, let

alone any creditable evidence for over 150 years in any other genre should never hold up in a

court of law and before the public brow. But I say “almost” because American courts have

made a damnable exception that can be backed up only by trickery, fraud, deceit and asinine

stupidity. California allows a decision to be reversed because the winning side resorted to

fraud, trickery, deceit, surprise or other unscrupulous and unethical tactics. But that stops

424
very little of it. It is simply too easy to get away with. Repeat it and you will probably get

away with it. It’s almost as though some authorities want fraud to succeed. That it could

even happen is bad enough, but at least there is some shallow but unremorseful hope of

corrective measures. Evolution lacks even good circumstantial evidence, that, if all else fails,

may have to be tried and convicted by the jury of public opinion and their overly tried

exasperation! When lying is elevated to the pinnacle of truth, damnation is as sure as a fact!

But the ACLU along with their fellow co-conspirators: Americans United for the Separation

of Church and State can reformulate facts into figures in such a way that everything becomes

so disfigured, no one will be able to put a restraint around any waist that can be found!

Evolution has lived far beyond its irrational and almost supernatural lifespan of insanity!

A reminder: a Poll of Citizens and Parents (1973). A survey of 1,346 homes found

that 89% said Creation should be taught in the public schools. In a separate survey of 1995

homes, 84% said scientific evidence for Creation should be presented along with evolution.

(‘A Comparison of Students Studying.. Two Models,’ in Decade of Creation, 1981, pp.55-56.

A more recent 1999 Gallup pole: “Creation along with Teaching Evolution in Public

Schools” has “regularly found that the public favors the teaching of multiple perspectives on

the issue in the schools…. Roughly two-thirds of American’s favor adding creationism to the

school curriculum!... And when offered the choice between having evolution as required

instruction or having it offered as an elective but not required, just 28% said it should be

required; 49% supported offering it as an option, and 21% opposed offering it at all. The

same alternatives were offered for creationism and responses were similar. Poll of Biology

Teachers (1988). A survey, conducted by the University of Texas, found that 30% of 400

high-school biology teachers believe in Biblical Creation and only 19% believe in evolution

425
(Waco Tribune-Herald, September 11, 1988). [The majority in between these statistics, either

don’t know, don’t care or more likely won’t dare say or they might get fired if someone

accidentally looked over their shoulder and spied their ballot.] [This is no triviality. If

anyone under evolution’s totalitarian administrative and educative authority, which

evolutionists clearly consider they are in absolute control of, even merely burps the

unpardonable phrase “Intelligent Design” without even the intent to teach anything conatively

about it, they are immediately fired and stigmatized. (Based on an actual case). This is a

belligerent challenge to our Constitutional rule of law. This is in radical defiance of the

Constitution. What are these thugs and traitors, distinguished as evolutionary scientists,

doctors, professors and administrators going to do next, help terrorists to invade our borders

and attack us from within. Are they not somewhat disinclined terrorists at this point? This

would be no less of an act of treason than their deliberate attack on the Constitution by

denying free speech] and then punishing the victim apparently to dam the Constitution!!

Perhaps, these evolutionary bullies should be thrown in jail where they would no longer be a

threat to the Nation’s Constitution! Show me a traitor who has done more harm? There are

other more recent polls that come out with similar results to those previously mentioned. I

remember one pole stated 40% of biology teachers believe in a Biblical Creation. Americans

are a Religious Nation controlled and educated by an essentially atheistic power. What was

not good for Russia and Germany, will not contradictory be proven to be good for America!

MORE REVEALED ABOUT DARWIN

AND DARWINIAN HISTORY

”Who was Darwin Newsweek asks?” The following is not the answer Newsweek was

426
looking for.

“Charles Darwin was born into wealth and able to have a life of ease. He took two

years of medical school at Edinburgh University, and then dropped out. It was the only

scientific training he ever received. Because he spent the time in bars with his friends, he

barely passed his courses. Darwin had no particular purpose in life, and his father planned to

get him into a nicely paid job as an Anglican minister. Darwin did not object.” Other words,

Darwin had a bar education like so many today.

“But an influential relative got him a position as the unpaid ‘naturalist’ on a ship

planning to sail around the world, the Beagle.

“It is of interest that, after engaging in spiritism, certain men in history have been

seized with a deep hatred of God and have been guided to devise evil teachings, that have

destroyed large numbers of people, while others have engaged in warfare that have

annihilated millions. In connection with this, we think of such known spiritists as Sigmund

Freud and Adolf Hitler,” (who participated in numerous séances).” Handbook of Evolution &

the “National Geographic Channel, Hitler and the Occult, Oct. 5, 2010.” “Herbert Spencer,

and Sir Arthur Canon Doyle, and Russel Wallace who like a variety of other evolutionist

leaders and theorists before and after, were avid spiritists pps. 24, 25-26, 31, 37). Handbook

of Evolution. But “it is not commonly known that Charles Darwin, while a naturalist aboard

the Beagle, was initiated into witchcraft in South America by nationals. During horseback

travels into the interior, he took part in their ceremonies and, as a result, something happened

to him.” “After taking part in witchcraft ceremonies, not only was his mind affected but his

body also. He developed a chronic incapacitating illness and went to his death under a

depression he could not shake.” (Random House Encyclopedia, 1977, pp. 768). The

427
Evolution Handbook 2001, pp. 25-26 & 28.

Christ taught “by their fruits you will know them.” By the rotted fruits of past

Darwinism we can anticipate the inevitable terrors awaiting the world’s future. Darwin’s

fruits fermented into the drunken wine of Nazi madness.

But what is the significance of spiritualism? The Bible condemns those who call up

demonic impersonators of the dead. “A man or woman who has a familiar spirit, or is a

wizard, shall be put to death: They shall stone them with stones.” Leviticus 20: 27. “(King)

Saul died for his transgression against the Lord… for asking counsel of one that had a familiar

spirit, to inquire of it; and not of the Lord: therefore He slew him, and turned the kingdom

over to David the son of Jesse. 1 Chronicles 10: 13 & 2 Samuel 28. Scripture teaches “the

dead know not anything,” Ecclesiastes: 9: 5. So the spirit of Samuel which appeared unto

Saul was a satanic impersonator, and was “not of the Lord.”

“Hitler rightly believed he had established communication with Lucifer, from whom

he openly coveted possession.” (Secrets of the rainbow, p. 101).

The belief that the soul lives after death extolled even by many Christians, is contrary

to the repeated denials of scripture such as, when a man returns to the earth, ‘in that very day

his thoughts perish. Psalms 146: 4. How can he scream from torment in hell, or rejoice in

heavenly bliss? It is an established medical fact that a lack of oxygen to the brain causes

permanent brain damage in only minutes. If the victim lives, he will suffer disabilities both

catastrophic and documentary. When a person dies, his brain is permanently denied oxygen

which produces brain death and death of the entire organism. Do you really believe that once

the brain is dead, that person becomes more alive and intelligent than he was before he died or

if he had been only brain damaged! This is contradictory to both logic and to the irreversible,

428
morbid brain damage supported by scripture which declares everything that dies never

recovers life except by a Biblical resurrection.

Spiritualism is tied to evolution by a single doctrine that “supposedly dead spirits” are

an advancing rung in the ladder of evolving that form a three-fold union of damnation, an evil

trinity of a united empire which could destroy civilization if the history of the 20th Century

repeats itself in any succeeding century! That Man has evolved from nothing and his spirit is

evolving after death into godhead is one of the great social and spiritual lies which directly

contradict the teachings of scripture. Evolution evolves into the spirit realm where both

dogmas are amalgamated into blasphemy!

Hitler claimed: “Creation is not finished. Man is clearly approaching a phase of

metamorphosis. The earlier human species has already reached the stage of dying out…. All

the forces of creation will be concentrated in a new species… (which) will surpass infinitely

modern man….” Only the strong and chosen elite would survive in Hitler’s new world order.

The serpent may have whispered in his ear: “You shall be as Gods.”

“The inmost circle was privy to the hard core Gnostic teachings of the Grail:

immortality and Godhead.” A Livingstone music.netartick… Hitler and the Nazis.

“It is a fact that Hitler and his occult associates found their inspiration from the same

esoteric sources New Agers do today. That should make anyone pause and think.” (Hitler’s

Spiritual Master Maitreya, letusreason.org/Nam%2037.htm. The worst of history always has

an alluring enticement that repeats itself in man’s lowest nature and damns the future of those

it is associated with!

On February 14th, 2008, I found this on the internet:

“I cannot think of a better task than to unite religions with science and with each other;

429
to bring religion into the sphere of modern thought; to demonstrate that ‘nature’ is slowly

trying to reshape the human brain for a multi; ─ dimensional future consciousness, and that

we should cooperate with this process, not damage our brains by defying it….

“In some way, [ ] man becomes a cooperator with nature’s evolutionary processes…

… “The race is evolving to a higher state of awareness” and so on and on.

Almost sounds like Adolf Hitler, doesn’t it ─ similar to his belief in an “approaching

phase of metamorphosis” that brought him to suicide and a fiery, bone charred death. It

sounds chilling, a psychosis losing touch with reality, without any conscience and empathy

for those not advancing about them. In this case, the whoever, wants to integrate science and

religion to arrive at this higher plane of existence. Fortunately, this fanatic or madman seems

to have no idea as how to achieve his or her aim, and that, at least, allows there are at least, a

few mercies however benignly begotten. But here is nothing benign if they, or him should

attempt to bring about these reforms in much the same way as did Hitler, if they had the time,

the means, and the fortitude and the gift necessary to lead the world astray into self-

destruction and error.

Religion is not enough ─ as it is archaic and needs to be brought into the modern

world, science is not enough on its own terms. There is a better way and “somehow” it is

going to happen ─ to believe this requires lots of presumption mixed with madness. Why

does religion have to be changed and improved or that Christ’s solution for sin and salvation

is insufficient and should be accomplished in a more effective way, is to Christianity a

damming blasphemy?! Why does the responsibility fall so heavily on science to help achieve

this end of transcendent enlightenment? A convincing reason is never a given. No thesis of

religion or science is thrown in, but does the presenter’s delusion hold an enticing inference

430
subtler than that of a viper curled around the evolutionary tree of death and of the knowledge

of … evil? Do Hitler and Darwin speak from the grave?

On page 54 and 55 of the Newsweek article, there is a two page explanatory

illustration or diagram of Darwin’s Finches and on page 54 is a burp included within the

illustration in bold letters that state: Origins of an Idea: “Darwin was amazed by the diversity

of finches on the Galapagos: each species has a unique beak tailored to its specific diet. He

theorized that the dozen or so variations arose from a single ancestor whose descendants

spread out and adapted to different conditions, eventually evolving into separate species.

This idea became a cornerstone of his theory of evolution.” Josh Ulick. Nothing could be

farther from the truth! What has evolved here is the explanation not the facts, which is how

evolution generally works. Newsweek, apparently, has no idea who Darwin really was or

what he proposed or knew at the time, or Newsweek is guilty of gross misrepresentation?

Remember, Darwin’s finches have been discussed previously, but little and almost nothing

stated by Ulick is true! In fact, the truth trounces the Holy Grail of evolutionary demagoguery

and wild propaganda. To quote various selections from Jonathan Wells’ book, chapter

entitled Darwin’s Finches pp. 150. “(T)he Galapagos finches had almost nothing to do with

the formulation of Darwin’s theory. They are not discussed in his diary of the beagle voyage

except for one passing reference, and they are never mentioned in The Origin of Species….

Except in two cases, he failed to observe any differences in their diets, and even in those cases

he failed to correlate diet with beak shape…. Only after the Beagle returned to England did

ornithologist John Gould begin to sort out their geographical relationships, and much of the

information Darwin provided turned out to be wrong. Eight of the fifteen localities he

recorded are in serious doubt, and most had to be reconstructed from the more carefully

431
(italics supplied) labeled collections of his shipmates.” Pp.162 end of first paragraph:

“’Indeed, the confusion surrounding the geographical labeling of Darwin’s specimens made it

impossible for him to use them as evidence for his theory. Lack’s 1947 book, Darwin’s

Finches, more than Darwin … imputed evolutionary significance to the Galapagos finches….

Page 164: According to Sulloway, ‘Darwin was increasingly given credit after 1947 for

finches he never saw and for observations and insights about them he never made.’”

But old, sticky legends die hard. A cat and a lie each have nine lives, but a lie has

much longer lives than a cat, because a lie is much harder to kill. John Grant becomes a

whistle-blower in his book “CORRUPTED SCIENCE,” 2007. But maybe the title to his

shocking book should have read” Corrupted Critics. The premise of the book is: “A panoply

of scientific greats… faked their results.” Interesting and certainly true. But before making

depreciating and extravagant claims, a writer should be certain the evidence he presents to

support his views, (John Grant is an evolutionist) is also not a fake! Unfortunately, lack of

careful and critical substantiation discredits his attempt to expose some science frauds in his

book. This failure corrupts science even more, and he does it in quick, successive ignorance

and gets it wrong in both accounts. He presents a panoply of facts mixed in, and stirred up

into a frenzy of information that the uninformed will miss and then he makes some of these

same mistakes himself. When you reproach a behavior or an attitude, you shouldn’t be found

guilty of it yourself. This is a crucial mistake and discredits your tactics. Raising false hopes

are as false as are the deceptions. Here are two of his inaccurate explanations: one has

already been dealt with previously:

“One criticism of Darwinian evolution often made by ID proponents (and orthodox

Creationists) is that, if evolution by natural selection is a reality, why don’t we see evidence

432
of evolutionary changes going on all around us? In fact, there is plenty of such evidence

(Darwin’s) original Galapagos observations showed the effects of evolution over a relatively

short period, which was what spurred him to propose his theory in the first place.” We

already know this epic legend is just that ─ a fictitious but serviceable myth the evolutionists

love repeating. The more fictitious a story is proven to have been and the less useful it is in

supporting an evolutionary claim, the more it seems to excite some liar’s capricious

imagination and wild and scheming fantasies to retell it to shore up the Grander Lie. Mr.

Grant hardly has gotten a single fact correct in his repertory of arguments.

“As an example of evolution visibly in action, the ‘standard’ wing color of various

moth and butterfly populations can be observed to change over a very few years in response

to environmental factors like soot-laden urban air, the wings darkening in response to the

darkening of the places an insect might perch.” This is a tacit and inaccurate referral to the

Peppered Moths in Great Brittan. “Most peppered moths were light colored in the early part

of the 19th Century, but during Brittan’s industrial revolution, the moth populations near

heavily polluted cities became predominately ‘melantic,’ or dark colored.” British physician

and biologist Bernard Kettlewell performed some famous experiments, “which suggested that

predatory birds ate the light colored moths when they became more conspicuous on pollution-

darkened tree trucks, leaving the dark-colored variety to survive and reproduce.” There were

two possibilities proposed to explain the evolutionary mechanisms involved. Kettlewell

concluded that predatory ‘birds act as selective agents, as postulated by evolutionary theory.”

The second mechanism proposed was that “the rise of melanism was due to the

darkening of tree trucks following the loss of their lichen cover from pollution, then a

reduction, it was believed, in pollution should bring lichens back to trees and lead to a

433
reversal of industrial melanism.”

Never explained in textbooks is that this iconic story has serious flaws. The most

serious is that careful and extended studies over the years have clearly shown that peppered

moths in the wild don’t even rest on tree trunks, nor do they land on tree trunks. They rest

overhead in the canopies and branches of trees. The textbook photographs were staged. Dead

moths were glued or pinned onto the tree trunks which is not their natural habitat. This, of

course, discredited the theory of predation acting as natural selection. But in the meantime

the claim had taken on the grand unsuspectedness of a counterfeit icon of evolutionary

science.

Than what about the moth’s loss of lichen cover due to industrial pollution?

“Compiling data from 165 separate sites in Britain, R.C. Steward found a correlation between

melanism and the concentration of sulfur dioxide north, but not south of latitude 52 degrees

N. He concluded that ‘in the south of Britain non-industrial factors may be of greater

importance’ than camouflage and bird predation.”

“After the passage of anti-pollution legislation, the proportion of melanics north of

London decreased as expected, but inexplicably increased in the south.” Jonathan Wells,

Icons of Evolution, science or myth? Chapter 7. So the prevalent theories failed to explain

how and why the changes came about as a result of natural selection.

The Newsweek article continues, Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson claims: “His

(Darwin’s) enemies … say they are fighting ‘Darwinism,’ rather than evolution or natural

selection. (From this writer’s point of view they are basically one and the same, baptized by a

lively hand of deceptions). He goes on: ‘It’s a rhetorical device to make evolution seem like a

kind of faith.’ pp.52. At this point, Wilson appears to have departed from the faith of

434
Schwartz who doesn’t seem to know he has departed from anything which might be called an

idea. However, Wilson’s rhetorical argument lacks clarity as to how the argument agues

anything or actually quotes anyone, but it is clear that he is against faith, like “Maoism,” or

maybe he should have added ‘evolution.’ He at least picked a philosophy his readers would

regard as a sure loser, not one they might disagree with him on. He hopes the reader will

make the expected inference with his own beliefs as if the reader is to regard his own beliefs

as tantamount to those Mr. Wilson disagrees with.

On page 58, the writer quotes Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project,

identified as an evangelical Christian as stating, “If science does figure out [how the eye

evolved] ─ and I believe it is very likely that science will… then where is God?” Remember,

we have already discussed this misconception in a chapter on Mr. Collins recent book. But

an adage says, “Pride goes before a fall.” Is Mr. Collins an Evangelical Christian, or an

Evangelical Evolutionist? (More about Evangelicalism in a later chapter) You cannot hold

two conflicting beliefs and be of one mind! “A house divided against itself can not stand.”

On page 58, last paragraph beneath Mr. Collin’s remarks, it is asked arrogantly in the

Paragraph head: “Where is God?” as though anyone could challenge God concerning His

existence! I, personally, believe God revels himself rather than He can be discovered by

human intelligence, because, if man could decipher God’s wisdom and ingenuity by human

reasoning, then man could brag he is as clever as his Creator because he can bring God down

to his own level of insufficient logic. The writers of the article contend that the Bible has

nothing to impart about…genetic relationships, but what about the Genesis account God

“made each after his own kind.” An ancient enigma which has stumped every theory of

modern evolution. God is the life-giver of the Universe. This is my belief which I share with

435
millions of others ─ a clear majority of the world’s population. Nietzsche claimed, “God is

dead.” I would like to know if Nietzsche was buried next to God, because if he was: that

tomb next to Nietzsche’s has been empty for 2000 years! And why resurrect an atheist? He

would not like not being in control of his own destiny and everyone else’s. If you believe in

God, then eventually you accept with thankful relief that God in His marvelous grace is in

control of this otherwise mad and runaway planet earth and will bring it to a final judgment of

the wicked and salvation for the righteous in faith and works. To an atheist, to admit he was

ever wrong is worse than accepting damnation! To be wrong is a type of damnation for those

who deserve that kind of damnation. “Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal.” Tolstoy.

On page 54, the writers admit in an apparently truthful way, a commodity which

seems suspiciously difficult for those who support the evolutionary theory to come by, “that

most of the species alive now are descended from one or at most a few original forms about

which he (Darwin) like biologists even today ─ has little to say.” Variations within a species

is clearly illustrated, but divergence of one species into an entirely different type can not be

proven even with vast multitudes of lying and hypothetical uncertainties without number and

circular reasoning which all come up short like a cheap shot at the mark in the dark and

shorter on reality and sanity. The result is evolution has achieved virtually nothing other than

abundant peaks of turbulent speculation during the last one hundred and fifty years with no

road leading to anywhere but to a dead end and those who contend otherwise are not being

straightforward and candid with the public ─ they are belligerent, professional liars who think

people like you and me are so stupid they won’t get caught covering up the truth. But many

of us are smarter than they are. Evolution by definition is driven by the accumulation of

many small changes, culminating in the emergence of an entirely ‘new species’ is a

436
dysfunctional and degrading fairy tail which has no credible evidence anywhere on this planet

or elsewhere in the universe with only the conjecture of a drugged ego to support it. This is

what should be meant by “having little to say” because they have precisely nothing

informative or worthwhile to say! Just because an alleged discovery creates sensational news

print and illusions among the mentally unstable, repeating a fiction doesn’t enhance it with

accuracy. Is Charles Darwin less creditable than God? The indecent descent of man the

naked ape and devolving shameless primate clearly without a conscience, let truth and sanity

forbid?

Truth is an extreme form of blasphemy, and the evolutionists have their limits of

endurance for the desecration of their sacred idols? Evolution’s spurious claim to the

appearance of design by accident is scientific irrationalism and natural selection is continues

error by unprovable assumptions and unsupportable claims and wild exhibitions of vividly ill-

functioning imaginations. We have already heard the evolutionists screaming from their

dungeons of outrage and despair.

Why has it been claimed ‘Natural Selection saves up all that is good and rejects all

that is bad’ when Natural Selection is a blind force without any creativity of ‘mind.’ That it

can save up what is good and reject what is bad is by the Intelligent Design and the Intelligent

Selection of Charles Darwin who was the intelligent selector of what he imagined the

evidence would produce. Without that evidence produced over the last 150 years to support

Darwin’s antiquated and outdated theory of Natural Selection after hundreds of thousands of

failed experiments, even faked discoveries and colossal misrepresentations, why wouldn’t it

be far more rational to argue from the strength of the evidence that natural selection rejects all

that is good and saves up all that is bad, or produces an unpredictable dichotomy, or a queer

437
diversity of ill formed or normal or dead creatures and non-functional and useless parts as

representing the evidence more fittingly. It is all but a scientific norm that mutations are

harmful to the organism and rarely if ever produce any beneficial affect [in fact, a beneficial

mutation has never been observed or demonstrated as mentioned in an earlier chapter] and

biological loses far exceed what could ever be recovered over time. It is an indisputable Law

of Nature that every living thing atrophies and dies and “no mutation which increases genetic

information has ever been discovered” or any which prolongs life and enhances its vitality!

Variation is an adaptation already built into the organism’s genes digitally coded in its DNA.

It is now known, biological systems do not behave or function in the manner predicted by

Natural Selection and evolution. Biology is not indebted to theoretical fallacies, and operates

only by the pre-set and pre-coded rules in its DNA and not by the artificial rules of technical

fantasies. The next idiot who claims man is constantly becoming biologically superior and is

advancing and advancing and evolving and evolving into the eternal future of some vastly

superior specimen [specimens are usually dead] should have his head examined and after his

death his corpse loaded on a nuclear warhead and exploded on the moon as an epitaph,

preferably blowing up the ‘man on the moon,’ or the one on Mars! This way we could get rid

of nuclear weapons on earth and make the world a safer place for rational beings to exist!

Question: “About the nuclear fallout from the moon”?

Imprecisely answered with a question: “Perhaps, they had a nuclear bomb on Jupiter?”

Back to where we were: The last paragraph on page 54-55 states: “Darwin wasn’t

merely contradicting the literal Biblical account of a six day creation…His ideas, carried to

their logical conclusion, appear to undercut the very basis of Christianity, if not indeed all

[italics supplied] theistic religion”! Remember Mr. Schwartz like a smart-god on earth has

438
declared, “WE HAVE THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING BIGOTS AND

IGNORAMUSES FROM CONTROLING THE EDUCATION OF THE UNITED STATES.”

There you have it ─ evolution’s stated agenda revealed in all its appallingly hateful truth: all

religious people are bigots and ignoramuses even though it was out of the Fundamental

Precepts of Protestant Christianity and the Reformation, and not that of evolution, that the

Institutions of this Nation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution plus our

modern Scientific Revolution were forged. Would he destroy these as well? Where does he

draw the line ─ at treason! Freedom is safely guarded in his hands? It is easier to believe in

the devil than that! Mr. Schwartz appalling and inexhaustible list of “bigots and

ignoramuses” must include Albert Einstein and Wernher Von Braun and certainly Sir Isaac

Newton. It is very difficult to feel insulted by this unintentional but monumental compliment.

I am still basking in the light!

But so-called Christian non-fundamentalists who deny the Biblical account of

Creation can not believe in the miracles of Christ who performed numerous of His miracles in

precisely the same manner in which He brought the creation of life into existence by speaking

the miracle into existence as in the Genesis account. The evolutionary position is a direct

attack on the life and teachings of Christ. The evolutionary agenda is not merely a charade

but a deliberate frontal assault on every belief and practice of Christianity and all theistic

religions! And when the state takes sides, it can only be inferred that the state is set out to

challenge Christianity to the death!

Most evolutionists draw a derogatory curvature of religion which drastically

misrepresents its fundamentals, particularly as clearly and undeniably presented in scripture!

They should slam their dumb mouths shut and their Evolutionary Conspiracy Catechisms of

439
what they feign Christianity believes and open a Bible to learn what scriptures actually teach.

The New Testament would be the best place to Begin. John Chapter 1:1-4, “At the

beginning.” You need to know and understand your enemy and where to begin your

argument. If you don’t understand your enemy, maybe it is because you are afraid to

understand or trust yourself, or are afraid to know what you don’t know might help your

enemy to beat you, or you might be convinced in their favor.

Evolution believes everything can be rationalized into explainable, naturalistically

defined facts, but this gets evolutionists into serious trouble with all the unknowns which are

hidden and tucked away in nature’s purse and lurking unsuspectedly to disrupt their

arguments! Neither a belief in God, or the devil is an obvious delusion, but misconstruing an

observable and testable fact is. That the concept of God’s existence persists to our senses

with what some may regard as only a remote possibility remains the most tantalizing, enticing

though unsolvable riddle in all the universe because it may very well be true. Resultantly,

belief in a Devil is not a provable delusion, therefore the possibility he could exist. Though

you cannot prove or disprove a possibility, if you twist a fact around a lie, or a lie around a

fact, all you get is a discreditable claim. Evolution is based on what you can observe

experimentally and therefore this makes the evolutionary theory particularly vulnerable. Is it

an irony that it is often easier to disprove an idea than to prove it? When it is easier to

conceive of the rationalism of a Designer than disprove his existence, the validity of the

counter claim never actually exists. Christians do not by their belief in extraterrestrial powers

called the God of the Genesis, or the God of the Universe, exhibit or demonstrate the

characteristics of mental illness, but quite the opposite ─ a conundrum for evolutionary

apologetics. Evolution has made irrevocable predictions and the growing evidence against

440
these predictions is becoming ever more difficult for them to withstand! All that is needed to

discredit evolution is to discredit the ICONS of evolution and evolution is finished.

For millenniums and for centuries men placed their faith in the God of the Genesis, to

whom it acquaints us, and did not concern themselves that their beliefs would be savaged by

extremists . It is the evolutionists more than the creationists who have made the Genesis story

more creditable by the falling edifice of their evolutionary claims. That is the conundrum of

ultimate ironies; maybe, there is more science in the faith of a believer in a Special Creation

than there is in mere humanistic speculations and theoretical constructs of fantastic illusions.

Then why should anyone stake their trust in a concept of evolution which has such an

overwhelming predilection to manufacture evidence out of nothing and mass-produce lies? It

is the ultimate degradation as proven by its theories ─ man is only an Ape that can lie.

IS THE WALL OF SEPERATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE

UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

The US Supreme Court has ruled the Union of Church and State is unconstitutional,

441
and the Constitution has institutionalized and immortalized this concept in the First

Amendment’s non-establishment clause. And it is very clear this concept has a religious

origin foraged out of a long history that a union between Church and State is detrimental to

and dominates and decimates society. This understanding supposedly protects the state from

religious interference and religion from government interference. However, is this

interpretation correct, defined as it is as a Wall of Separation between Church and State ─ a

phrase that is not used anywhere in the Constitution or in the 1st Amendment. As Glenn Beck

has noted in his book entitled: An Inconvenient Book, Thomas Jefferson commented favorably

that three or four denominations who couldn’t afford to build their own church edifices took

turns using the courthouse. But there is more to this story. Jefferson attended and perhaps

started the first church in America and it was in the Capital Building, held in the House of

Representatives. Jefferson and Congress also raised money to send missionaries to the

Indians. Bob McEwen, former Congressman from Ohio.

Obviously, Jefferson had a different meaning for the phrase “A Wall of Separation

between Church and State” than we have today, and it was Jefferson’s historical

commentators who have popularized the phrase. The question today is: if it is constitutional

to teach evolutionary dogma from public platforms, as it is interpreted by Supreme Court

mandate, than is government guilty in aiding and abetting open hostility to religious beliefs

and practices under the guise of so-called constitutionality? Government opposition against

religion has seeped under the wall of separation, bursting open a breach in that wall which has

become a gush of continental proportions! Perhaps, a flood like Noah’s!

The teaching of evolution’s presuppositions by government mandate is government

interference into religious affairs and is not a separation, and is therefore prohibited, and is a

442
direct involvement against religion as government’s old rival. You cannot have separation by

controversial engagement and conflict that is fundamentally confrontational! Government has

usurped the right granted it to keep these two antagonists, itself and religion, apart and has

brought them together in conflict with government investing itself with new arguments to do

to religion what religion once did to it and has found itself no better in policing these

antagonists then did the other. Either government must give an equal and fair hearing in all

public facilities and forums that Intelligent Design is a rational alternative to Evolutionary

Origins or the state cannot give hearing to either, or Government ceases to be a democracy as

it becomes more of a dictatorship. The primary object of government is not to determine the

absolute value of competing ‘truths’ which it usually does very poorly, but functions better at

protecting against excessive and intolerant expressions of either which intent is to infringe on

another’s conscience. Whether, we have a tyranny of a single small fraction or a corrupted

democracy of a million tyrants, it is tyranny nonetheless and all the more so where freedom is

acclaimed and disavowed all in the same breath!

Teaching evolution “prohibits” the free exercise of religion when one is taught by

relentless government support religious beliefs are tantamount to stupidity and “bigotry” and

adds insult to injury by prohibiting the free exercise of religion in the public form.

Apparently, according to practice, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are

no longer held in high esteem or are enforceable in sectors of education where religious

beliefs are penalized in ways tantamount to those inflicted for criminal or moral misconduct!

Thus, we have entered a dangerous arena of educational dictatorship that could or has

virtually split the nation apart.

Government is enforcing a particular belief system as did the Inquisition, with the

443
state’s own exacting Inquisition of evolutionary dogma and bureaucracy and expulsion of its

opponents─ and that is intrusion and interference in matters of religion which makes

government an antagonist to religious beliefs and practices and is unconstitutional. There is

no separation where there is continuous documented interference. There is no extreme

ground constitutionally allowable, but only middle ground or no ground at all. There are no

other constitutional alternatives. If a democracy chooses to wage war on the religious beliefs

of its citizens, than it has betrayed the foundation upon which it was formed and hazards

annihilation by sovereign discontent.

Belief in evolution is protected by the freedom of speech and of press, but religion is

specifically protected by the first clause of the First Amendment with guarantees of other

freedoms contained therein, including the right “to petition the government for redress of

grievances.” Rights are not circumventable by government casting a vote to produce a

majority of power. The right to believe in evolution does not replace the right not to believe

in it! You cannot force its belief on another as is done in our schools.

If the courts and Congress refuse to curb government intrusion into religious matters,

then amendments could and have been called for to be ratified by public referendum to

redress the imbalance of power even to superseding other Federal Powers! However, this or

similar action comes with an extremely disturbing warning: Opening up the forum of a

Constitutional Convention could be extremely dangerous and could overthrow the

Constitution and catapult the nation into civil war. In reality, such a convention is entirely

unnecessary. “The primary danger with calling a constitutional convention is that it could

become a ‘run away’ convention exceeding its mandate, possibly creating a new form of

government altogether” and sealing the declining fate of the nation. Our present difficulties lie

444
with those who are purposely confusing the straightforward meaning of the Constitution.

“The real problem is not the Constitution itself; the real problem is that the

Constitution is being systematically ignored, violated, and misrepresented. The solution,

therefore, must focus on getting back to the Constitution, not ‘fixing’ it.” Who Needs A New

Constitutional Convention? New American, June 7, 2010.

Where Republicanism has succeeded, despotism has always failed. Where despotism

has succeeded, Republicanism has failed. Therein lies the hopes of despots.

The first AMENDMENT to the Constitution is to quote: “Congress shall make

no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or

abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right to peaceably assemble, and to

petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

What does the clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion,” actually mean? It does not mean an obliteration of either church or state. Let

Madison who drafted the Bill of Rights, define it. In notes for his speech introducing the

Bill of Rights into the First Congress on June 8, 1789, “Madison indicated his opposition

to a national Religion. Most Americans agreed that the federal government must not pick

out one religion and give it exclusive financial and legal support. Madison proposed an

amendment to assuage the anxieties of those who feared that religious freedom would be

endangered by the un-amended Constitution. According to The Congressional Register,

Madison on June 8, moved that “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of

religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the

full and equal rights of conscience be in any manor, or on any pretext infringed.” Library

445
of Congress: Religion in the Founding era. America as a religious Refuge in the 17th

Century, is one of numerous web sites. An August 15, 1789 entry in Madison’s papers

indicates he intended for the establishment clause to prevent the government imposition

of religious beliefs on individuals. The entry reveals: “Mr. Madison said he apprehended

the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce

the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner

contrary to their conscience.” Even if this meant not to worship. Other words, a

particular religious group cannot control or impel government to restrict or persecute in

any why, another group or individual with different even contrary or opposing views.

Than how has the non-establishment clause trumped the sequent freedom clauses?

This would seem to be against the intent of the writers of the Constitution, who were

writing directly from the experience of history and of foreign lands dictated by

despotisms. Furthermore, The Wall of Separation between Church and State prohibits

the free exercise thereof.

So what does a “Wall of Separation Between Church and State” actually mean? It

is not part of the language of the First Amendment. And Jefferson referred to it only

once in his lifetime. “A Wall of Separation Between Church and State may or may not

prohibit an establishment of religion depending on the definition of religion in use at the

time. As such it would be far too promiscuous, yet ironically far too restrictive in that it

prohibits the second clause of the 1st Amendment from being exercised, because “A Wall

of Separation walls in and walls out one religious belief or another, this is the

abridgement of that which none should be abridged, and prohibits that which permits “the

free exercise thereof .” The Amendment recognizes that religious differences exist. So

446
how does one resolve the problem? Mr. Madison defined the 1st Amendment better than

Jefferson did in this comparison. “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account

of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the

full and equal rights of conscience be in any manor, or on any pretense infringed.” “Mr.

Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not

establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to

worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.” In this case, even Jefferson

failed to get it right by trying to condense a broader concept into an overly simple phrase.

Jefferson’s phrase is, unfortunately, a political oxymoron. Jefferson used the phrase,

which he did not coin himself, likely as a play on words as the opposite of a “Union of

Church and State” compared to the antonym of a Wall of Separation Between Church and

State. Jefferson’s unfortunate metaphor has become a canonized gloss on the First

Amendment, even though Jefferson’s phrase ‘is not truly analogous with the 1st

Amendment that Government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Specifically,

only an establishment of a national religion is strictly prohibited by the 1st Amendment.

There are no other prohibitions against religion! A strict wall would eliminate practices

which even supporters of strict separation now take for granted: for instance, Military

chaplains and tax exemptions for religious organizations and prayers in Congress and the

Senate, and the Pledge of Allegiance under God. Do these practices betray our

countries’ trust? Are they treasonable. How were these religious associations in the

Constitution of an illegitimate origin if they now insure our freedoms? “It would be

outrageous to ask legislators to leave their religion at home…; the Bible is not Mein

Kampf, although the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and

447
State might sooner allow the latter than the former to be read in Congress. The wall also

tends to undermine the proper idea of freedom of religion, which should be like the

freedom of the press: A free press is protected from government interference,” not so

with a Wall of Separation, which infringes on free exercise.

Jefferson believed strongly in state rights, but as President of “the Whole

American People,” and as the writer of the Declaration of Independence, he also

believed fiercely in the rights of the individual. He believed the Federal Government was

a duly constituted Federal power advocated by all the people and enacted by their

individual representatives, the separate states. It could not follow otherwise but that

Federal law stood supreme. By logic, as the federal Constitution was created by the

‘mandate’ of a “whole people,’ it then followed that separate state totalitarianisms lying

within the framework of a Federal Democracy, could not continue as such ─ states

concepts which prohibited the practice of individual freedoms guaranteed by the Federal

Constitution. It would be absurd to work for the federal government during the day

protected by the rights of the Federal Constitution and go home at night within your

state’s domain and lose all those rights? It would be an eventual no-win for the states

which protected nonfederal practices. How else was the Federal Government to enforce

the rights embedded in the Federal Constitution if it did not have both the intrinsic right

and the power to demand such from the states?

Jefferson was trying to assure some of his Presidential supporters ─ the Danbury

Baptists, who were suffering under harsh regulation from the Congregationalist

established state church in Connecticut, that the 1st Amendment and the Federal

Government would stand like an impregnable wall prohibiting an established state

448
religion from being enforced by a state, and which would in principle neutralize the

practice. Therefore Jefferson was applying the metaphor as to how federal law would be

applied to itself or the states in a strict sense, and how federal law could be applied more

narrowly to the states. Jefferson meant to apply the construct of federal law to the states,

as he was speaking to a specific instance of state abuse. The law stood as a wall

prohibiting the state from employing a particular religion, or a religion from employing

the state to infringe on another and demand uniformity of beliefs contrary to the

conscience of another. This applied as much to logic as than any specifically perceived

powers which had been allotted specifically to the federal government to compel the

states. He was trying to explain the concept which hadn’t formulated as clearly in his

mind as it had in Madison’s. Otherwise, why did Jefferson allow and attend a church in

the Nation’s House of Representatives if he really believed in a wall that excluded the

free exercise of religion? His phraseology was more restrictive than his general

application and thinking on the issue. Unfortunately, Jefferson’s choice of phraseology

did not serve his explanation of constitutional law well, and certainly has not served his

nation well. It was catchy, but too cryptic when applied to the whole of the Amendment.

It does not fit well with any part of the amendment and when interpreted as law,

dismembers the entire Amendment. It is notable, Jefferson never used the phrase again

and was only trying to explain that such abuse as experienced by the Danbury Baptists

would come to an end.

The First Amendment is a check and balance amendment prohibiting the

domination of one philosophical dogma or bureaucracy, whether religious or secular in

such a way they interfere with the other. Neither can the non-establishment clause

449
interpreted as a Wall of Separation be used as a flanking clause, as it is currently used, to

out flank and out maneuver or outwit the other freedom clauses contained therein, which

would render the Constitution null and void and effectively useless, thus abridging the

other rights granted. It can be ascertained from history that all despotisms, whether

secular or religious, rule by a cynical and equivalent “divine right’ with an inherent and

arrogant triumph of evils that inevitably resort to force to establish its sanctity of errors.

Where democracy has succeeded, despotism had failed. Where despotism has succeeded,

Republicanism and democracy have failed. Therein lies the hopes of tyrants!

Law by exclusive interpretation is a tyrant of certainties and rules by dispute or by

default. A Wall of Separation between Church and State is an extreme interpretation of

the Amendment whereas the none-establishment clause within the Amendment might

better be understood as an example. This means government cannot make any law which

respects the superiority of any secular or religious dogma over any other that possesses in

its inherent appetite the domination of social order at the expense of all others such as the

holocaust of the church-state anachronism or the genocides of ‘the survival of the fittest’

of the 20th Century. This is why wars begin, and revolutions culminate, and governments

are overthrown and civilizations vanish.

At the time of the writing of our Constitution, the American compatriots knew of

only one primary, historical threat to their freedoms and that was religious intolerance

from which many of them had fled. But today, there are different threats not within the

scope and discernment of those living at the time of the American Revolution. These

threats apply in principle as well.

450
 Therefore, the non-establishment clause is better understood not as a strict

prohibition or exclusion clause but as a restraint clause as well, or all the other freedoms

contained therein within the first amendment would be unenforceable and contradictory.

The Wall of Separation of Church and State is generally used as an annihilation strategy

which undermines or eliminates for instance: the freedom of speech and of the press, and

religious beliefs where expressing what belief one espouses is as an example ─ being

deprived of the primary means of livelihood for held religious beliefs which is recurrent

by the firing practices in numerous public universities toting that evolution is by an

unchallengeable definition an unarguable truth. What is truth? Truth is the most

dangerously misinterpreted concept held as the gospel by all men of differing creeds and

opinions. Knowledge is infinite, science is finite and only ignorance could have it any

other way. Any government which takes definite sides is history’s worst nightmare.

Those who fled to America’s shores were escaping the religious intolerance and

dictatorships pervasive of the old world. But times always change! Our freedoms of the

first Amendment face new threats which would extinguish those rights crafted in

language so eloquently inspired ─ a masterpiece of inspiration! Those freedoms are

challenged and threatened by the implacable henchmen of evolution who are seeking

evolutionary, atheistic mind control of society and domination of the state as their dogma

succeeded in accomplishing in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia during the 20th

century! If we acquiesce, then we are right back were the juncture of the American

Revolution began and two World Wars! If government enforces evolutionary doctrine in

public schools and forums, than government has deconstructed the Wall of Separation

between Church and State, creating in its stead an establishment of religious

451
discriminations wherein one religious construct is the winner, as whichever creed accepts

a divine spark set in motion long age evolutionary developments or denies the Genesis

verdict of origins is the victor over those who believe in the short Genesis chronology.

A case in point will be made as we proceed. Catholicism officially denies the Genesis

account and supports the process of evolution! What is good for Atheism in this case is

good for Catholicism as well? You don’t believe it! You will have to believe it when

they admit it themselves! I won’t leave any doubt ─ I will quote them! Confession is

the perfect soul of the truth if not coerced. The Roman Catholic Church by accepting the

long processes of evolution as essential in the development of all life and human life on

earth, has turned the concept of “a Wall of Separation Between Church and State” into a

non sequitur. As a result, the “Separation of Church and State” establishes a “Wall” of

religious protections for Roman Catholic dogma denied to other religious entities which

are walled out and instates a despotic, religious discrimination as indefensible as sending

a saint to hell or an innocent man to jail! The state by teaching evolution, is teaching

Roman Catholic doctrine and atheism disguised as religion as though atheism and its

deceptions had never been a religion in itself!

Even the Pope must spend time in Purgatory! Webster defines purgatory as

“those who have died in the grace of God expiate their sins by suffering,” as “temporary

punishment” for what, if the Pope is infallible which would require him to be without sin

in his life? What the Catholic Church really believe in with all their heart is in a shorter,

fiery hell for a select few which likely doesn’t mean you! And what do these radicals

mean by ‘temporary,’ while purgatory’s flames last millions of years longer than man’s

‘temporary’ life on earth. Is this some kind of cruel, sick, eerie sort of impassioned joke.

452
I thought God has forgiven our sins by his grace and our faith in his provision of

salvation! Instead, what these radicals really mean is God is unforgiving and still out for

a savage revenge which even they themselves are unable to entirely escape? No wonder

they believed during the Inquisition in burning ‘heretics’ to the stake. This was being

Godlike. That way they could get purgatory over with quickly and introduce the soon to

be deceased to hell with pomp and festivities. Apparently, they saw something cheerful

in these activities. I wonder if the evolutionists are glad to welcome Roman Catholic

clergy into their camp.

News flash October 17, 2008. Los Angeles, California. Authorities are looking

for two suspects who dowsed a homeless man with gasoline and burned him to death,

then drove off. His relatives are pleading with the public for help in catching the

criminals. Everyone is beyond appalled. We cringe at such crimes today and will

execute criminals who commit such heinous acts which are not directly related to

religious activities!

The Wall of Separation between Church and State is the wrong formula as how to

achieve the protections of the non-establishment phrase. The herein described

evolutionary charade of facts is a true religion in de facto, is a direct contradiction of the

Constitution and a condemnation of the non-establishment clause as currently interpreted

as a Wall of Separation, as evolution is nationally protected as an antagonist of

fundamental theistic religion, thereby infringing on the free exercise thereof. Evolution

taken to extreme is what makes Dawkins claim, “evolution is what makes him a fully

fulfilled atheist.” Ironically, does evolution make some religions more fully fulfilled

belief-systems by expounding some of Darwin’s extreme views? That maybe a personal

453
matter as it is with Dawkins. But atheism taken to its extreme paradigm is the violent

anti-thesis of all Biblical assertions and the meaningfulness of the resurrection and life of

Christ as the Supreme Creator of all things in the universe and as the inspired author of

the Genesis account. Evolution denies John 1:1-4 and Genesis Chapter 1. Do some self-

proclaimed Christians deny God spoke the Creation of life on this planet into existence

and that it was finished as described, Genesis 1, but profess to believe Christ is God’s

exact Being, who resurrected the dead instantaneously with his voice, and that He

Himself was resurrected by His Father’s command? Of course, we don’t have any idea

how this was accomplished as we have no idea what science will be like in 50, or 100

years from now or what science and art has achieved in a place like heaven? He spoke

and it came into being! John 11: 43; Luke 8:53; Matthew 8:26; 4:4. Psalms 33:9 sings

out: “For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm”! Defending

contradictions is sour in the mouth and bitter to the soul. An asserted belief as in

evolution by a supposed Christian is philosophical suicide by contradictions.

Evolution is the ultimate slogan-flaunting assassin of all theistic religions whether

a particular religion compromises with some of evolution’s claims or not. Such a

conflict, which cannot but inevitably end in bitter destruction and freedom will die an

anguished death! There should be a mandated Wall of Separation between Evolution

and the State, joined or re-enforced by a wall of religious separation. It is dangerous to

allow either to dominate! Remember, Lincoln warned: “A house divided against itself

can not stand.” Can two adversaries cling together in conflict as a wedge is driven ever

deeper between them? Exasperation is a predictor of civil conflict and disorder. “One

step beyond democracy is chaos and anarchy,” said Socrates or Plato. The more an

454
element of society feel they are being treated unfairly without a voice, without a right to

the political process, the more dangerous the situation becomes. Democracy is a

counterbalancing of competing forces so that dominating and persecuting power is denied

to either! Otherwise, government will become a confrontational, constitutional,

democratic dictatorship as we had in this country during the advocacy of slavery with its

tragic results! But history repeats itself, proving that men do not willingly learn from it.

And those who do not learn, could with modern weaponry and tactical warfare, and the

overwhelming cruelty and the madness of the human heart, end history and therefore all

of civilization with it.

The aim of evolutionary dogma, that red flag of cultural domination is its

proclamation of damnation: “the survival of the fittest,” a slogan of discriminatory evil on

the rise, the supreme capacity to rewrite history through social engineering that slashed

the blood of the 20th century across the irrevocable page of history. Evolution was the

murderous paradigm that pervaded the 20th century’s wars, aggressions, and

exterminations. Extermination mutated into the war cry of that violent generation of

extremists and madmen. Has evolution reformed, become a kinder, gentler thing

disenfranchised from its philosophical extremes, or is it crouched to kill like an ambush

waiting for the forgetfulness and forgiveness of time. That is what the disestablishment

clause was designed to protect us from such extremism as underlined by the sad epics of

history.

Beyond these associations: theism and evolution are competing worldviews

addressing the origin of life in such a way they translate into contradictory conclusions

that affect principles of moral aptitude. Both are ardent evangelists at winning adherents

455
to their worldviews and function and perform as religions. That they are in perpetual

conflict proves they are competitors in ideology and audiences and are therefore in

competing aspects, religious in form and function, disagreeing primarily on how origins

began. Thus, one has a Creator God, and the other leaves the question open to chance.

To apply prohibitions or restrictions against one not applied to the other, violates the

equality process of democracy and unbalances the rule of law which is the strict function

of a democracy. Evolutionists, as do all religious adherents, proclaim “faith” in their

views, a concept which has been mistakenly and strictly associated only with recognized

theistic religious worldviews. Evolutionary key words for faith are cloaked in terms like

theory, hypothesis, postulate, supposition, axiom, and so forth. These concepts require

unwavering faith in the presumption of the certainty of the unproven, or the unprovable

in order to believe in them dogmatically? Atheism is a religion built on a faith system

founded on the assumption there is no God and is the most extreme and radical religious

world view on the face of the earth. Someone quipped, “Cosmologists are often in error

but seldom in doubt.” An attitude which certainly proves something ─ need I define it

further?

I found this very clear definition of religion in a World Book Encyclopedia which

would certainly be inclusive of Evolution.

RELIGION: “There have been thousands of different definitions of religion. But the

many religions in the world cannot be defined by simple, neat statements, and usually

persons who write about religion are in favor of a particular one. Many scholars have

been inclined to define religion as a belief in god or supernatural beings. But this by no

means includes all of the religions, because religion has often meant a way of living

456
rather than a way of believing. And there have been many who have denied or been

indifferent to any kind of God.

“Most scholars today think that religions have been concerned first of all with the

values which (are believed) to give the most satisfying life.”

That is why Dawkins claims “evolution makes him a fully fulfilled atheist” with

“its hedonism, lying, cheating and deceptions” etc., etc., etc., with history as an accuser!

“Every religion of history is made up of three elements. There is first of all the

ideal, which consist of all the values which the group tries to obtain.” Evolving into a

higher state of being is a dogma of evolution which are “the values most important” to

the survival and improvement of the ideal. “There is second, … the practices … by

which these values are thought to be won:” (like taking “control of the educational

system of the United States” as an act of the survival right and wisdom of the fittest!)

“Third, there is the theology or ‘world view,’ which connects this search for values with

the forces of the universe around man.” “The survival of the fittest” fulfils this

requirement forcibly. “All of the underlying, driving desires of men in society to reach

out for fulfillment are the power that shapes religion.” So it can be established any

philosophical world-view is fundamentally at its heart and core a religious point of view.

And evolution is a domineeringly bigoted and terrorizing world view.

[Darwinism and Marxism, which was derived from Darwinism are] “a religion.

To the believer it presents, first, a system of ultimate ends that embody the meaning in

life and are absolute standards by which to judge events and actions; and, secondly, a

guide to those ends which implies a plan of salvation and the indication of the evil from

457
which mankind, or a chosen section of mankind, is to be saved.” Capitalism, Socialism,

and democracy [1942], ch.1, Joseph Alois Schumpeter.

A case can be clearly made that the loudly proclaimed dogmas of evolution’s

systematic creed are competitively practiced as opposing other religious worldviews:

“Survival of the fittest” is an absolute standard that is a fundamentally critical worldview

of evolution embodying the meaning of life where only the fittest should survive and the

unfit are not worth saving. “Faith [in a Creator] is one of the world’s great evils”

evolution strives to save mankind from” Dawkins. That evolution has “the purpose of

preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States,”

“Schwartz,” implies a system of ultimate ends that are a guide to save us from the harm

that could be caused by a belief in “the golden rule ─ of doing unto others as you would

have them do unto you.” The desire and attempt of evolution to destroy and overwhelm

other religious points of view seems to me to be a strikingly religious bigotry dispensed

straight from hell by the world’s most radical and fanatical zealot and religious bigot, the

devil introduced as Mr. Dawkins bringing his kind of judgment on the earth.

Dawkins declared like a bolt of evolutionary lightening, “I think a case can be made

that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the small pox virus but harder to

eradicate.” Than by what does he compare his faith in evolution to: the small pox virus?

Which by the rules he has set up should be eradicated? What is fair in his exclusion is fair in

the inclusion. Is he, if only inadvertently or carelessly, including his faith in evolution and

his own belief system and world view in the unprovable hypothesis of evolution as the

appropriate authority and guide for the extermination of others? I quoted this from Hitler

before, but it seems as appropriate quoted here: “ I regard Christianity the most fatal,

458
seductive lie that has ever existed.” Hitler was a Roman Catholic, and this was his attitude

towards Christianity! Quoted in Larry Azar, Twentieth Century in Crisis. In this quote:

Hitler did not say Christianity should be entirely eradicated and destroyed, but Dawkins does!

But Dawkins is not finished with making a madman out of himself! He claims in his

delusional “The God Delusion,” “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most

unpleasant character in all fiction: “Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust unforgiving

control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist,

infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously

malevolent bully.” As I read these rants, I became increasingly convinced who Dawkins was

psychoanalyzing is not God, but himself and his murderous consorts of history. Dawkins is

reflecting the same genocidal, evolutionary mental disorders as did Hitler and Stalin in his

own uniquely inhuman way. They all belonged to the reptilian species. There are countless

volumes written to the long regret of the human race over these monsters damning, blood

curdling, soul sickening accounts compiled and catalogued during the First and Second World

Wars, proving what jealous, greedy, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freaks, vindictive,

bloodthirsty ethnic cleaners (where the phrase came from) ─ misogynistic, racist, infanticide,

genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent

bullies summed up in their militant slogan of a world-wide peace movement torturously

wrapped in the disguise of “the survival of the fittest” and their “… megalomaniacal,

sadomasochistic…” fulfillment by war and the murder of millions of innocent victims. Their

crimes are summed up and forever condemned in the voluminous monuments of shame in the

memories of our race.

459
 The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the new Testament, stands in

stark contrast to Dawkins false and widely inept and insane charges, saying “I, the Lord,

do not change. Malachi 3:6. And what does not change? The Divine character of God is

being falsely accused and misrepresented, He “so loved the world that he gave His only

begotten son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but will have life eternal.”

John 3:16. “I did not came to condemn the world. but to save it.” John 12:47. “Your

attitude should be the same as Christ Jesus, who, being in the very nature of God, did not

consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing. Taking

on himself the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness,” Philippians 2:7.

Christ was God formed after the flesh and likeness of a man, who taught us by his life

and example: “Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you.” An attitude

of nobility never so starkly contrasted as with the darkest evils as those of Stalin or

Hitler, or the nearly incomprehensible crimes of the Dark Ages as that is why they were

titled the dark ages. And for God’s unmatched nobility of character and for the healing

of the nations, he was murdered by religious fanaticism … megalomaniacal,

sadomasochistic… demoniacs and thugs like Dawkins himself. Demonstrating that all

evil men deserve the confrontation of Divine justice for their evil deeds because they are

in rebellion against, and would wipe out everything noble and good in both heaven and

earth were they afforded the opportunity and the power. But God does not forsake the

righteous, or fails to reward their faith. Dawkins is not telling the truth about GOD!

And if God exists, he is slandering an all-powerful Deity. But the real argument is not

actually whether God exists or not. Dawkins’ argument is only a distraction hiding that

Dawkins does not want to admit there may be a higher being who might hold him

460
accountable for his own rebellious behavior and contempt. If he is wrong, his own

regrets will one day punish him far more than any other fate or fear of hell or any

actuality of a lake of fire for the disobedient should he stand before the judgment bar of

the ruler of the universe without a defense. Obviously, if God did create reptiles with the

help of evolution, Dawkins has become one ─ a madman like his philosophical

predecessors of genocide by supporting the destabilization of society as a natural

consequence of the “Law of Survival” as exemplified by irrefutable historical records!

EVILS ARE OF THE SAME SPIRIT: AS A MAN THINKS IN HIS HEART, SO

IS HE! “FROM THE HEART PROCEED EVIL THOUGHTS,

MURDERS, ADULTERIES, FORNICATIONS, THEFTS,

FALSE WITNESS.” Matthew 15: 19. Against these things there

stands the guilt and conscience of man and the Law of God

condemning man’s evil. Against love for your neighbor, there is

no law or judgment of wrongdoing to come. If I come to the aide

of my neighbor in a crisis and save him from a fire or an attempt

on his life, there is no law against that! It is not the “survival of

the fittest” we need to better our world, but the survival and the

acclaim of human generosity and kindness as sacrosanct laws of

society and of the heart that only this kind of behavior can justify

461
itself. “All mankind loves a lover” and an act of self-forgetfulness

and concern for others. These are the rules which shape and

form a society and civilization into a better and safer place

for all men to live.

October 2008, CBN News reported that an “Atheist soldier sues because he did

not have religious freedom.” Apparently, the only individuals stupid enough not to

realize atheism is a fanatical religion are those who are not atheists and who hold some

important position in government. Almost everyone else gets it!

Some believe the courts get it, or do they? “A San Francisco based Federal

Appeals Court rescinded its ruling, invalidating the 1954 law that inserted the words

“under God” into the pledge but upheld its ruling that reciting the pledge in public

schools is a violation of religious freedom.” But if freedom of speech is guaranteed by

the Constitution than any attempt to abridge it in favor of another, is to deny explicitly

that right to another. Concepts ordinarily implied to be strictly secular in their context

can have religious freedoms and connotations. “Michael Newdaw, an atheist, sued the

Elk Grove, Calif. School district, claiming his daughter’s religious freedom was violated

by having to recite or listen to the pledge.” If a violation of an atheist’s religious freedom

is a defensible right, than it would seem rational that someone of a recognized traditional

religion should find that a violation of his or her religious freedom is an equally

defensible position. However, that is not the case if such a parent argues his or her

child’s religious rights have been violated by being forced to listen to or answer questions

in the affirmative supporting evolution being taught in the classroom, or is forced to fill

462
out lessons supporting evolutionary concepts in order to graduate. This is a type of

coercion practiced by the state of California and other states that is not even allowed to be

questioned. This is a double standard, a direct double barreled attack on the

Constitution’s First Amendment and the equal protection clause. Other words, an atheist

has certain religious rights that a Baptist or Methodist is denied! As my grandmother

and mother use to say, “What is good for the goose is good for the gander.” If there is

any dispute, shoot both of them? Let us be fair, and if not fair, let us have a democratic

despotism where one side is always wrong and we won’t even have to decide ─ just aim

and shoot at those we disagree with, and at those who are in power! The obvious

beneficial affect this could have on courts of law, and legislatures, and presidents and

governors, and unpopular and disliked parliamentarians could make this an extremely

popular proposal. The lack of even common sense in the courts in the 20th century has

not improved significantly on this entirely careless and senseless form of 18th and 19th

century duel-ism. To preserve the peace, shoot the patriots. A despotism and a

democracy are only a heartbeat apart so why try and keep them apart? Declare yourself

so your opposition will have a reliable target, and then both sides can declare war and

suicide.

The New York Times: Science: A free for all on Science and Religion

By George Johnson November 2006

… “A forum at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calf. , which

might have been one more polite dialogue between science and religion, began to

463
resemble the founding convention for a political party built on a single Plank: in a world

dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take an evangelical role, vying with

religion as a teller of the greatest story ever told.

“Carolyn Porco, a senior research scientist at the Space Science Institute in

Boulder, Colo.,. called, half in jest, for the establishment of an alternative church, with

Dr. Tyson, whose powerful celebration of scientific discovery had the force and cadence

of a good sermon, as its first minister.

“She was not entirely kidding. ‘We should let the success of the religious formula

guide us,’ Dr. Porco said. ‘Let’s teach our children from a very young age about the

story of the Universe …. It is already so much more glorious and awesome… than

anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.’” This is the Evolutionary

Evangelicalism I referred to earlier.

Perhaps, it was half in jest and half in earnest, but what concerns is not the jest.

Where a person is in earnest, there is where most lies his wit.

Is “the greatest story ever told” about a man descended from an ape and is it true?

Screeching, scratching, scratching fleas and eating bugs right off the trees. Does this

have a noble theme, is it something to hold in high esteem ─ and should we brag, or is it

just another tediously told refrain, a nasty tale which never truly bears repeating and

makes one want to puke again?

It sounds as though this country may one-day end up (that may be where our

freedoms end) with an Evangelical Evolutionist Political-religious Party to counter

dangerously charged ideologies, vying for political seats in government. Who are these

dangerous ‘ideologists’ who are evolution’s fearful opponents? So frightful is the

464
situation, in order to defend itself, naturalistic science needs to wake up and take up a

powerful evangelical role to spread the evolutionary gospel so it can vie with and

overwhelm its foes, which have a 75-80% statistical chance of being you and me. We

are radically dangerous if we are in any way perceived as religious. Even a swear word

─ you know a familiar one ─ might get you into trouble with both sides as either too

religious or not religious enough! Will they do to us what they did to the Jews in

Germany? Doesn’t this sound like a roll call to arms, a mustering of the troops, a

strategy to fight back. “We have the intention of preventing bigots and ignoramus from

controlling the education of the United States,” still rings stingingly in our ears. “Let’s

teach our children” ─ the atheists are mostly in control of our schools. There was a

program years ago where people who had killed Jews during the Second World war were

interviewed. They were asked: “Don’t you feel guilty”? “No,” they relied! We didn’t

see them as human. You see a rat and you kill it.” That is the moral unction of atheism

and Romanism in its purist and most reprehensible form, the perceived unfit are not fit to

survive. So killing the harmless and the “meek in spirit” and “pure in heart” is justified

so the ‘fittest’ killers can survive.

I have demonstrated throughout this document that Evolution is a tantamount

religious entity in that it shares the same religious predisposition of some religions to

persecute and dismember its opponents. The monolith that houses the National

Academy of Science, an evolutionary institution, is boastingly referred to as the “Temple

of Science.” The National Academy of Science has become an Evolutionary

Bureaucracy and stronghold that in combination with America’s educational system

threatens democracy, and I challenge anyone at the end of this book to prove me wrong.

465
Rail at America’s institutions of evolutionary learning ─ at those monoliths strutting like

destinies of doom, gleaming marbled-like temples soaring into the national blue while

concealing destruction and disaster ─ white washed sepulchers full of dead men’s bones

of the 19th and 20th Century where the survival of the fittest is taught as destiny! Need

we any further evidence when religious terms are employed and defined by the actions

and claims of evolutionists which are religious in both nature and concept? Will the

First Amendment build a second wall, like a dike in the breach that will hold back the

flood of evolutionary extremisms, or is our Government using a mortar of damnations

and deceits to harden the Wall of Separation between traditionally viewed Church and

State while allowing that momentous void to be refilled by an opportunistic evolutionist’s

worldview agenda and propaganda?

In trying to keep the jackal out, we have allowed the hyena to slip in chased by

the lion. Tyrants always thirst for power and the abused have little or no power with

which to defend themselves. When the sheep are left to be guarded by the wolves, the

fate of the sheep is certain.

The problem with Evolution is one of arithmetic; obviously not limited to it:

summing up the total admissions made by subtracting all the lies.

1. Faith can be deduced from many of its assertions and assumptions.

2. Faith is often admitted to.

3. Naturalism has a Temple at the National Academy of Sciences

and many others on numerous state and private campuses!

4. Evolution behaves and performs like a religion.

5. It vies with the same potential-political social audiences.

466
 6. Evolutionists can be envious of another religion’s success.

Evolutionists are permitted philosophically to deny any of the above. Envy is a

scoundrel’s praise. Few, if any Creationists envy Naturalism’s impeccable if you are

them and despicable if you are us, accomplishments.

What did the Dark Ages tell us:

Pray for your enemy, then kill them. This is evangelism: semper eadem Roman

Catholic style ─ later adopted successfully by some Protestant groups for reformation. This

is best illustrated by a tombstone in England. On one side of the tombstone is engraved the

name of the Protestant martyr, and on the other side is engraved the name of the Catholic

martyr. This is proof of democracy as everyone was being treated equally.

What the 20th century tells us:

“The survival of the fittest” eliminates the unfit, so only the fit can survive and

advance? This is evangelism: Evolutionary style. Yet you wonder how the masses could

ever believe in such a gospel as they most likely would be the unfit as few are privileged

enough to be the elite and would, therefore, be allowed to survive.

Judgment Day for the first group is generally, eternal hell fire for the mistakes of

“three score and ten years.” But this dogma is in striking contradiction with the teachings of

their scriptures that hell will burn itself out: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for

the first heaven and the first earth had passed away.” Revelation 21:1. Hell itself is thrust

into The Lake of Fire and burnt up in the recreation of a new heavens and earth wherein

dwells righteousness forever! Revelation chapters 20, 21& 22.

Judgment Day for the second group, there is no judgment day of sorts. “Eat, drink,

and be merry for tomorrow we die.” But “the unfit” will not be allowed to survive to “eat,

467
drink and be merry” before they die, because they do not deserve it.

Cross-breeding produces amalgamated offspring of a sterile gospel or more of the

same.

If the “Wall of separation between Church and State’ is irrevocably stuck in the

unconstitutional consciousness of some weak Federalist minds, then enforce a Wall of

Separation between Evolution and the State, or get out of the business of governing

before you are asked out, but not limited to ─ I hope the political laggards are catching up

with the meaning.

It is said, “Political power is merely the organized power of a class to oppress

another class.” This can be expressed in varies ways such as political power is merely

the organized power of one social agenda or master race or idea to suppress or supplant

other contenders. This is a definition of tyranny easily discernable by the frailest of

intellects. But what was quoted is actually part of the “Communist Manifesto.” It is the

mastery of deception that men thrust off one form of bondage and welcome another,

exchange one master for another, only to discover they are enslaved to as harsh and cruel

a bondage as before. Democracy and Republicanism are a privilege of equals, not a

tyranny of a monopoly of contending non-equals and special interests! What is not just is

a tyranny of whatever definition as describes the situation! To the extent that we are a

tyranny, to that extent we are not a democracy. Than should we rise up in arms and fight

the insatiable lust of an absolute or partial or exclusive tyranny: the only solution

available under the crushing weight of despotism? Is there any government which

should not be overthrown and trampled into the dust by its victims? The revolutionary

right to dispose of a tyrannical government overrides any constitutional right to preserve

468
it. But no government in the event its people should lose faith in it, has provided a

mechanism for its own peaceful extinction. But as rational men, can we again act

rationally, or must we resort to history’s failures. But in the sum and storm of history,

men are rarely rational? A predatory Wall of Separation entrenched like a fortress to

keep evolution in and various other religious beliefs out, is in and of itself, an incitement

to conflict and disintegration of the state by a backlash of public dissention. One of the

first signs of a growing dictatorship and downfall of a society is the proclamation that a

known evil can be conceived of as discriminated against! An example: the word

homophobia morphs an intrinsic evil into the straight and narrow.

I have been informed by an old childhood friend that only 545 people: 100

senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices control the

affairs of over 300 million people in the United States (plus several thousand special

interest groups who do not have your interest at heart). “Those 545 human beings spend

most of their time convincing you that what they did is not their fault.” Charley Reese.

They appoint someone else to act in their stead, construct all the policies of the state, and

therefore are responsible for everything which happens as a result of their incompetence

or deceit. With three hundred million of us, we don’t have to vote for people who refuse

to work for our interest but only for their own. All we have to do is storm the national

palace of evil and tear down its Walls that Separate your will from their self-interest.

Of course, I am not really serious unless they have a reason to be paranoid about

the rest of us. But maybe we should instill a little paranoia about what we might do

should our elected officials betray the public trust; they might act less like corrupt

political bumpkins and more like responsible representatives trying to escape the gallows.

469
We should keep this threat ever before their minds. We should take down Statuary Hall

on Capital Hill, which honors the Great Men and Women of this nation and put up

gallows to hang the hooligans and despoilers of our nation’s honor as such has become

the times. Then maybe we could expect responsibility from our nationally and state

elected officials. A kind of do or die national policy! Too many of them have become

so arrogant and out of touch with reality and those they serve, they treat the military as

their own private army, the government as their own private butler, and privilege as their

private special interest!

“About the time our thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787,

Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to

say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier: ‘A Democracy is

always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.

A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote

themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.” Sounds up to date.

‘From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise

the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will

collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. This is a

very serious, up to date warning. A warning that is terrifying to a thinking man.

‘The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of

history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations have progressed

through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual freedom.

2. From spiritual faith to great courage.

470
 3. From courage to liberty

4. From liberty to abundance

5. From abundance to complacency

6. From complacency to apathy

7. From apathy to dependence

8. From dependence back to bondage.’

Following is “Teaching About Evolution in the Public Schools: A Short Summary

of the Law.

By Prof. David K. DeWolf, J.D., and Seth L. Cooper, J.D. Discovery Institute June 20,

2006.

“The Constitution permits scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories.

.... “ the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that criticisms of the theory of evolution

may also be made part of the curriculum. In the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), the

Court explicitly stated: “We do not imply that a legislature could never require that

scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.”

“The Constitution prohibits the censoring of scientific ideas.”

“In Epperson v. Arkansas (1967), the Supreme Court stated that while shaping

public school curricula is within state’s power, that power ‘ does not carry with it the

right to prohibit, on pain of criminal penalty, the teaching of a scientific theory or

doctrine where that prohibition is based upon reasons that violates the First Amendment.’

…The same principle could be applied to the prohibition of teaching any criticism of

such a theory.”

471
 “ In his analysis of Epperson, Dr. Francis J. Beckwith stated the following:” ‘The

Court is not saying that publicly supported criticism of Darwinism (or of evolution) is

unconstitutional, but rather, that the prohibiting of public discussion of these issues in the

classroom ─ discussions necessary for the advancement of human knowledge ─ is

inconsistent with the First Amendment if the prohibition has the effect (italics supplied)

of advancing sectarian religious or antireligious beliefs.” (Francis J. Beckwith, Law,

Darwinism, and Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the challenge of

Intelligent Design (Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), p. 12.) From the Discovery

Institute.org web site. Can one forget atheism is diabolically opposed to theism and has

the intent of advancing antireligious beliefs and has incited two world wars to promote

and advance its dogmatic priorities?

The prior arguments bear a direct connection to the National Academy of the

Sciences, where the evolutionists have gained a struggle-hold. The NAS and its institute

of medicine released a new document entitled: “Science, Evolution and Creationism.”

“The report released Thursday, January 3, 2008, … takes swaps at creationism and other

anti-evolution theories.” The charge can be leveled that the NAS by Congressional

Charter, has dragged the entire Federal Government into the fray of a proactive attack on

religiously scientific fundamentalism in violation of the 1st Amendment.

In effect, the NAS is an evolutionary-atheistic bureaucracy, and all bureaucracies

are by their very nature anti-democratic by taking provocative special-interest sides and

this violates the First Amendment, therefore the NAS has become an enemy of

republicanism and democracy and of the majority of the national interest!

History of the NAS from Wikipedia Encyclopedia:

472
 “The organization of (The NAS) was planned, bypassing Joseph Henry, who had

already made known his reluctance to have a bill for such an Academy presented to

Congress in the belief that such a resolution would be “opposed as something at variance

with our democratic institutions.”

“Agassiz, Davis, Peirce, Benjamin Gould, and Senator, Wilson met at Bache’s

house and hurriedly wrote the bill incorporating the Academy…. During the last hour of

the session, when the Senate was immersed in the rush of last minute business before its

adjournment, Senator Wilson introduced the bill. Without examining it or debating its

provisions, both the Senate and House approved it, and President Lincoln signed it.

Although hailed as a great step forward in government recognition of the role of

science in American Civilization, the National Academy of the Sciences at the time

created enormous ill-feelings among scientists, whether or not they were named as

incorporators. Later Agassiz admitted that they had “started on the wrong track.”

“The Act States: [T]he Academy shall, whenever called upon by any department

of the government, investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of

science or act, the actual expense of such investigations, examinations, and reports to be

paid from appropriations which may be made for that purpose, but the Academy shall

receive no compensation whatever for any service to the government of the United

States.” Act to incorporate the National Academy of the Sciences.

“The National Academy did not solve the problems facing the nation in Civil

War…, nor did it centralize American scientific efforts.” Wikipedia.

Criticism A: The National Academy of Sciences holds the purse strings to finance

scientific research appropriated by the United States Government, literally with billions

473
of dollars it can influence, it has a virtual kick back to support itself by the enrichment of

those institutions and personages by which it is supported by their influence. And with

such a mass amount of monies to spend into the billions, it can prejudice scientific

endeavor to its own presumptuous illusions and crony biases. Money always attracts

piranhas of greed and lust for power. Science is as corrupt as any other activity of

human existence. Is an evolutionist sworn by his morality to be honest? Absolutely

not! Remember: “Natural selection can favor egotism, hedonism, cowardness…,

cheating and exploitation.” What a resounding resume for a position of power and

influence in the world! The devil within must have sent them! Human nature too often

is inclined to dissoluteness, but to hold such behavior up as the transcendent distinction

of life ─ is sheer madness! History has proven “the survival of the fittest” is a delusion

of the unfit and the even more unfit ─ the murderers, the liars, the unscrupulous; the

cheaters, the egotists, the hedonistic, …. I am sure you get it again.

Criticism B: At its inception, there were serious doubts as to its democratic

legality! That is now demonstrated by its proactive engagement against creation science

and all theistic religions that are a major segment of society, and its attacks thereby, are a

presumptuous and rash discrimination against religion and the masses of American

society!

Criticism C: It was passed by unscrupulous intrigue that denied an involved

democratic vote.

Criticism D: This is perhaps the most serious criticism of all. With the powers of

influence invested in it, and without democratic oversight, that means: by the American

people it directly trounces, the NAS has been the perfect target for an unscrupulous take

474
over of the scientific community in the United States toting evolutionary demagoguery as

occurred in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and elsewhere. History has already done

the empirical experiments to prove what the intent and result of evolution is with

damming recall. But history repeats itself proving men do not learn from it. And should

history repeat itself with evolutionary demons at the helms, it may spell damnation and

destruction for the entire human race.

When America hiccups, the rest of the world sneezes and often violently. What

is done in America is done with America’s immense influence around the world,

compelling as of sorts, an International Conspiracy to Control Science and virtually

stacking the stakes against any other compelling view of science from taking hold. That

is a deliberate attempt to control the mind of the entire world. A New World order? An

eureka for the winner take all. And we maybe only an eureka, Archimedes’ exclamation

of triumph, away from another era of genocide and tyranny and conflict and disaster as an

International Foundation for a One World Government of terrorism. Dictatorships

always wind up as a global disaster.

To Review: The National Academy of Sciences is considered a private

organization that receives, as discussed, its charter from Congress. “It is considered a

select, private body of distinguished scholars in the field of science and engineering ─ is

dedicated to the furtherance of science and its use for the general welfare.” A now

entirely dubious claim as to the general welfare or as to a representation of the whole.

The NAS is regarded as a private body, but is at times very public, and very vocal in its

opinions and its undermining of the 1st Amendment and is, therefore, unduly influential

by violating the trust of fair scientific representation that upholds a democracy. Their

475
position does not transform them into, or qualify them as experts on morality or the

establishment of peace from an unassailable position of a disputable science. Remember,

science capitulated to committing genocide in Nazi Germany. The NAS takes its charter

from the Federal Government comparable to private organizations which take financial

aide subject to Federal guidelines and controls undergirded by the public domain of a

democracy.

The NAS charter passed by Congress and signed by President Abraham Lincoln

on March 3, 1863, stipulates the academy should also act on request as official advisor to

the federal government on scientific matters. However, this is no longer a sufficient

concept that is rationally infeasible and has grown archaic to the destructive. The NAS

by attacking the fundamental scientific beliefs of Christians and other theists, has used its

considerable influence granted it by the Federal Government, to become a spokesman

and symbolic Darwinist and therefore Marxist, for the fundamental tenets of evolution

and therefore of the Federal Government. I again remind you of what Mr. Schwartz

declared: “WE HAVE THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING BIGOTS AND

IGNORAMUSES FROM CONTROLING THE EDUCATION OF THE UNITED

STATES!” This is the mobilization of a conspiracy supporting an evolutionary

bureaucracy and agenda?! He states the purpose of the evolutionists as well as any Nazi

ever stated the purpose of Nazism. If these BIGOTS and IGNORRAMUSES can be

prevented from gaining control as he alleges, than who is left in power and in control: he

and his philosophical cronies so that they can start their own Nazi-like revolution in the

United States?! He has obviously stated he is in favor of control, just not in the

democratic opposition’s favor. But control as is his notion is a tyrannical, genocidal

476
concept and not a democratic principle undergirded with academic freedom, or any other

freedom should he be able to lay his guilty hands on it ─ democracy which should be a

balanced equation of opposing conflicts and ideas where different concepts can be freely

discussed and accepted, and on individual basis freely rejected. If opposing ideas cannot

be openly expressed, than we are not a democracy, and we certainly are not a free people.

The evolutionists have gained an upper hand ─ a monopoly of mind control in the

education of the United States in line with their sick and greedy agenda, and as with any

insidious monopoly of power, and especially one that has as its history demonstrated

murderous and tyrannical tendencies to exploit and destroy various sectors of mankind, it

must be held in check by a careful balancing of opposing powers that counter-reacts with

defined restraints. That is the genius of how a democracy works. To think we have lost

the genius of our democratic way of governing, sends a chilling wind to blow against the

frontiers of all freedoms. To Mr. Schwartz, who could have kept, proverbially, his stupid

mouth shut until nearly everyone was irretrievably fooled, and when it was too late for

mankind to save itself, and the time was ripe for evolution to strike, this is, undoubtedly,

the hard knock of the disclosure of democracy to his displeasure. He needs

enlightenment on the subject that like any other bully, he can not have everything his

way. Because of the documented history of bigoted and slanted censorship by the NAS

against opposing views, the NAS has as a result, overstepped its bounds by becoming an

evolutionist’s movement “advancing anti-religious beliefs,” and its charter should be

revoked by Congress and the President or THEY should be impeached. The NAS has

never succeeded in centralizing science fortunately, which it is attempting to do

unConstitutionally, since it helps to appropriate government monies by its power of

477
influence, nor can it attempt to remain in any way a democratic institution, which it has

not been in any imaginable reality. However, it is no longer a matter of if, as it has acted

upon its own prerogatives as an aggressor. By removing its charter, the NAS can then act

solely out of its own non-federal views without mandated undue influence which violates

the Constitution of a Democracy; otherwise, both the President and Congress fall prey to

substantially serious charges they are in conflict with democratic principles of the

Constitution, while supporting the NAS, and they, inclusively, are not treating all sides

equally nor fairly and should be impeached or turned out of office. Another solution to

the problem is as the NAS has accepted a charter from the United States government and

gives advice on appropriating research monies, than it must also be representative of

opposing viewpoints or its has a serious conflict of interest. No grandiose excuses or

specialized interests allowed. There are numerous, both prominent and brilliant

scientists, who have been fired for upholding opposing scientific views of human origins

in America’s Universities and other Academic institutions, an unconstitutional tactic of

suppression that is destroying academic freedom of speech and of the press in America.

In today’s milieu, Sir Isaac Newton would be fired in today’s Inquisitional climate. A

deeply devout and religious man, he wrote theological treatises and scientific thesis,

helped build 50 churches and gave out Bibles to the poor. In fact, Isaac Newton wrote

more on religion than he did on science! How much damage did Sir Isaac Newton do to

science, or how much did Einstein who believed in a superior cosmic intelligence was

behind the staggering complexity and superstructure universe, suppress scientific

discovery? So the attacks on Creationism amount to a fly-in-your-face, offensive fraud

against design research and discovery.

478
 The takeover of science by corrupt and devious agendas have reached epidemic

proportions that if not apprehended, will undermine science to where it maybe

unrecoverable and give the edge and future of science over to other nations who are or

could become our enemies. The Federal Government should be mandated to seek advice

of opposing views such as the Discovery Institute, Institution for Creation Research, and

others or other prominent short agers. If we continue to push an entirely evolutionary

agenda which during the past one hundred and fifty years has produced nothing of

worthwhile enlightenment in science, with the emergence of India and China poised as

academic leaders and competitors who could potentially take the lead away from

America in science and research, and as a result of the billions of dollars and vast

resources wasted by evolutionary research for no gain to show for all of it, if Hood’s

“vision of research driven by the search for data rather than the formation of hypothesis”

were to gain prominence and dominate the engine of research elsewhere, than American

science could be left far behind to strangle in the rising dust of its own death throes.

If you don’t think this is a distinct possibility, if you have thought at all, than

think again: This appeared in the June 8, 2008 Parade Magazine, A U.S. College in Abu

Dhabi, subheading: Does the U.S. attract enough global talent?

“Of the world’s 50 top Universities, 40 are in the U.S. Ten years ago we had a

steam of talent flowing here for higher education. Now, both among faculty and

students, a smaller share of talent is coming. Europe and Australia have pulled off

students. China and India are building their own universities. And post 9/11, the U.S.

has made it more difficult for foreign students to come here.” What is our reward for our

reaction to being attacked: we can’t allow their students to come here so other nations

479
build competing universities! This means that the future competition in science, art and

industry is going to become far keener than it ever has been in the past. If we continue

to waste billions on evolutionary pseudo-science, then we are going to lose and lose

badly. If this is our strategy, than we have already been outsmarted and out maneuvered

by the enemies of democracy? India already has more scientists than America, albeit,

they may not be as well trained at this point, and fortunately for us, they are mostly a

democratic nation. But I’ll tell you one thing, they are just as smart as we are!

After writing the preceding as what I believe is a threat to our national interest, I

found this December 1995 Reader’s Digest article: “America’s Brain Drain Crisis”: Here

are some quotes highlighting this emergency:

1. “In the disciplines underpinning our high-tech economy ─ math, science and

engineering ─ America is steadily loosing its global edge.” A. “In 2000, 56% of China’s

undergraduate degrees were in the hard sciences; in the United States, the figure was

17%.” B. “China will likely produce six times the number of engineers next year than

we will graduate. According to Mike Gibbons of the American Society for Engineering

Education.” I don’t know whether his prophecy has materialized, but it underlines the

extreme seriousness of the situation. Albeit, “Japan, with half our population, has minted

twice as many in recent years.”

If present trends continue, 90% of all the world’s scientists and engineers will be

living in Asia by 2010, according to Nobel laureate Richard E. Smalley, professor of

chemistry and physics at Rice University.” Whether the timing is accurate, it is the trend

that is troubling.

480
 “China, for instance, has set a national goal of turning 100 universities (The US

has 40!) into world-class learning centers….. Most of the top ministers in China’s

government have degrees in science, points out Zhong Lin Wang, Professor of

nanotechnology at Georgia Tech and a visiting professor at several universities in China.

That’s quite a difference from a government made up of lawyers,” he says. True, lawyers

treat democracy like a sick patient who is due a settlement before recovery.

Under the subheading: “The Crisis We Created: “In January 2001, the Hart-

Rudman Commission, tasked with finding solutions to our major national security

threats, concluded that the failures of our math and science education and our system of

research “pose a greater threat… than any potential conventional war”! I will make a

brief comment after one more quote from this article.

“The whole world is running a race,” says intel’s Howard High, “only we don’t

know it.” “No one knows whether or when the United States will relinquish its lead in

that race. Or how far back in the pack we could ultimately fall.”

The major point I have been making in this book’s entirety is that evolution will

never be a scientifically proven hypothesis, but constantly frails against the beliefs of a

major portion of our population in the United States. Why would anyone who does not

believe in evolution want to subject themselves to the constant ridicule and harassment of

colleagues and institutions who are diametrically opposed to a differing scientific

viewpoint. Remember, the evolutionists claim to “Control the Education of the United

States” and they will control you or fire you. Science in America has betrayed the

respect and treaded on the fundamental core beliefs of the majority of Americans, and

have become enemies of freedom and democracy and this has produced a nation of

481
opposing enemies and rising cynicism and suspicion. So why subject yourself to the

constant harassment of domineering colleagues and wacky theorists no matter how

scientifically brilliant you may be. You could be the next Einstein or Newton, but why

subject yourself to withering criticism, become a handy man instead. Science in

America is rapidly becoming the enemy of free speech, freedom of the press, and of the

freedom of religion and the right to peacefully assemble. This may be one very important

reason why science could be falling behind in America. Continue to challenge the

Constitution, and war and revolution may ensue. Anyone who wants to suspend the

Constitution or change or rewrite it, is a traitor and as much of an enemy as those arising

as terrorists from other lands! But remember, insurrection can not be controlled.

Rebellion wins by murder and assassination and intrigue where the devil usually takes all.

I decided to do some additional research. What I discovered was far worse than

what I had imagined.

National Science Foundation:

On January 8, 2008 report: PRESIDENT SIGNS OMNIBUS APPROPRIATION

BILL.

“NFS is funded at $6. 065 billion for the fiscal year that began in October 1. 2007,

and ends on September 30, 2008. The funds are provided in the $473.5 billion

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008…. Until President Bush signed the

Consolidated Appropriations Act into law on December 26, 2007, NSF was funded by a

serious of continuing resolutions.

“For the current fiscal year, NSF’s Research and Related Activities (RRA)

account is funded at $4.8 billion, an increase of $56 million over the FY 2007 funding

482
level.” This is not to imply that every single dollar goes directly into evolutionary

funding, but there is no implication that other highly lucrative means are not used to fund

evolutionary concepts: the NAS Charter being one example. But guess who gets to

advise the National Science Foundation on how to spend it. The NATIONAL

ACADEMY OF SCIENCE: The ACT…. of betrayal. If this is not a promiscuous

relationship, than such relationships are indefinable by definitions of fact when the NSA

has never been able to centralize science in this country, which would be a totalitarian

concept if it could!

I have heard that the total funding in the United States for Creation research is

probably no more than a million dollars a year, not even a drop in a huge barrel ─

gigantic in comparison, because Creation research is regarded as unconstitutional, not

because it is bad science as these frauds, the evolutionists try to create the illusion in

everyone’s mind. Remember, it was Currey, who with a National Science Foundation

grant may have cut down one of the oldest trees ever found. And it was and is an

unbridled scandal. His action was as obscene as if the United States Government were

caught dropping its pants with all the rest of the evolutionists, and as scandalous as if it

were of neither sex! If it were of either sex, you could ask where is its mate of rationality

that would more likely represent a democracy! No, evolution is clearly not the opposite

sex. It is just another fake. In fact, the United States Government is a little old man of

three sexes. No wonder, no one gets along.

This $4.8 billion is a giant, scientific boondoggle, the Goose that laid the golden

egg that cracked and spilled its spoiled contents over a nation. If Evolutionists argue that

Creationists are doing little empirical scientific research, guess what, the evolutionists

483
have seized an unconstitutional monopoly of government funding and greedily control

everything else. This is an outlandish, out and out, in your face financial coup d’etat.

We fought the American Revolution over “Taxation without Representation,” and these

sums appropriated to research represent sums far exceeding anything our forefathers

could have ever imagined! This is a Tax paid out of the sweating brows and nearly

empty pockets of a majority of Americans who oppose, or disagree with the evolutionary

agenda, and they are taxed to a sweat without representation. In effect, these billions

avail an extremist attack on the beliefs of the fundamental core values and views of the

American people. This predicament is increased by an unelected unrepresentative special

interest influence against America’s fundamental core beliefs and a misinterpretation of

the 1st Amendment ─ and worse, an unconstitutional misinterpretation of a Wall of

Separation between Church and State that is fraudulent and defies the conscience of the

non-establishment clause! An interpretation develops into a precedent, and a precedent

is the justification for not recognizing an error. Democracy is not a separation or a throat

grappling exchange, but a compromise of mutual respect and when respect is lost

democracy is the center of destruction and revolution. There is no Special Interest

Protection in the Federal Constitution, or we could not call ourselves a democracy.

Evolution is a Special Interest carcinogen on the body politics that militates a malignant

cancer of multi-destructions! This is treasonable and a virtual declaration of war of

attrition and assassination by the Federal government against the core values of its own

people. What else is left except a call to arms unless reason prevails? Voting seems

useless, arms are destructive beyond human revulsion, but where one looses the other

prevails but most often the truth rarely prevails in either case? Remember, Americans

484
agreed at the time of the framing of the Constitution “That government must not pick out

one religion and give it exclusive financial and legal support.” Madison.

What is the solution to this seemingly intractable problem? The lie that evolution

is an exclusive fact finding science is an unconstitutional trump card of scientific lies and

abominations, iniquities and stubborn ambitions. If America is a democracy, then the 1st

Amendment must be enforced ─ as it has come to that point ─ to allow men to think,

speak and publish what they believe freely, and to make discoveries and advances in both

faith and science and not be intimidated and told what they cannot believe or can believe

by a de-facto, maniacal tyrant of doctrinal and scientific corruptions and inquisitions

where truth can no longer progress and democracy is defeated and disillusionment and

anarchy reign! You can legally critique opposing arguments of evolution and creation,

you can teach neither as a dogmatic, absolute truth without pulling the revolutionary

trigger! Either these two formidable opponents co-exist, or they will destroy each other

and democracy altogether! You can put a cork in the bottle. But if the pressure explodes,

the bottle can become a bomb given the necessary ingredients!

We live under the concerns where every evil is dangerous and every freedom

uncertain ─ the dilemma of a democracy’s restraints from being overwhelmed. But the

alternative is even more unthinkable by the proven history of totalitarianisms.

Democracy is a dilemma with encroaching ironies and contradictions lurking on every

side, and if a subversion is allowed to encroach with dictatorial suppression of the others,

the dilemma with its opposing conflicts will perish altogether in the flames of conflict, a

contagion sweeping to lands afar as crimes far worse. The nature of every form of

government tends towards despotisms, and the dogma which subverts and eventually

485
undermines a democracy is the most seductive, dangerous, and destructive of all enemies

of freedom! The United States is increasingly becoming a land of two nations as it did in

the era of the Civil War ─ divided, separate, opposed and no longer United, and

therefore, two opposing nations formidable and unconquerable in their rising forms and

their potentially destructive world-wide consequences! Has not freedom from want and

fear and intimidation, and the freedom to speak and act freely and worship as one desires

been one of the most persuasive and marvelous triumphs of human history? And dare

we thrust it aside by betraying it? The Wall of Separation between Church and State

“prohibits the free exercise” of religion in the divided United States because a wall

divides and separates and creates enemies not neighbors or patriots! Democracy rules by

compromise and equality, or rules not at all, and lives or dies by the inevitable flames of

conflict which history must hope never re-ignites itself and will never transform itself

into a promising and enlightened expectation of domination and murder? Would this not

be hazarding our future to destruction? Must we start over when we have come so far ─

are we not wiser than we once were, or does history repeat itself as we die by our own,

suicidal hands, as the history of freedom is too often scripted in human blood?

All too often, the history of freedom has been scripted in the blood of tens of

millions of martyrs, poured out like massive floods upon the blood soaked ground of the

nations of Europe. Its murky mists raining down like thick drops out of an angry, blood-

soaked sky over a darkened continent. And in the winds of trouble were carried the seeds

of change from the sinews of fate and tears of sorrow across a great ocean to where

beyond the distant horizon seeds of freedom sprung up in a new land brought forth in the

hope of a nation different from all others, founded on principles of tolerance and freedom

486
and change and concern for one’s neighbor. Today that change is threatened by change,

which is not real change but old evils revisited and restored to the orthodoxy of tyranny

and hovering like a threatening storm over us. Is it possible to have change when history

constantly repeats itself? Perhaps, in time, little has changed for the better and only for

the worse.

Catholicism officially denies the Genesis account and supports the process of

evolution! What is good for Atheism is good for Catholicism as well? You don’t believe

it! You will have to believe it when they admit it themselves! Confession is the soul of

truth if not coerced. The Roman Catholic Church by accepting the long processes of

evolution as essential in the development of human life has turned the concept of “a Wall

of Separation Between Church and State” into a non sequitur. As a result, the

“Separation of Church and State” establishes a “Wall” of religious protections for Roman

Catholic dogma denied to other religious entities and instates a despotic, religious

discrimination as indefensible as sending a saint to hell or an innocent man to the

gallows! The state by teaching evolution, is teaching Roman Catholic doctrine and

atheism disguised as religion as if atheism is not a religion in itself!

Even the Pope must spend time in Purgatory! Webster defines purgatory as

“those who have died in the grace of God expiate their sins by suffering,” as “temporary

punishment” for what, if the Pope is infallible which would really require him to be

without sin in his life? What the Catholic Church really believe in with all their heart is

in a shorter, fiery hell for a select few which likely doesn’t mean you! I thought God has

forgiven our sins by his grace and our faith in his provision of salvation! Instead, what

these radicals really mean is God is unforgiving and still out for a savage revenge which

487
even they themselves are unable to entirely escape? No wonder they believed during the

Inquisitions of the Dark Ages in burning ‘heretics’ to the stake. This was being Godlike.

That way they could get purgatory over with quickly and introduce the soon to be

deceased to hell with pomp and festivities. Apparently, they saw something cheerful in

these activities. I wonder if the evolutionists are glad to welcome Roman Catholic

clergy into their camp.

News flash October 17, 2008. Los Angeles, California. Authorities are looking

for two suspects who dowsed a homeless man with gasoline and burned him to death,

then drove off. His relatives are pleading with the public for help in catching the

criminals. Everyone is beyond appalled. We cringe at such crimes today and will

execute criminals who commit such heinous acts which are not directly related to

religious activities!

Saturday, June 28, 2008, The Press-Enterprise of Riverside California Published

an article entitled: Closing science vs. religion gap.

“Catholics are more likely than other Americans to believe in evolution. A survey

conducted last year by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found 58 percent of

Catholics believed in evolution compared with 48 percent for the nation as a whole.

“Influential Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna, who had been speaking

about evolution and faith, has affirmed that the Catholic Church rejects creationism”!

Did I read that correctly? Catholicism is the largest religious body in the world. I was

not entirely surprised, but I was still stunned by this bold and rather somber admission of

callous Scriptural treason. I would have thought they would keep this religiously non-

biblical, heretical belief tucked away quietly in the catacombs under Rome with the bones

488
of the martyrs. With my heart pounding rapidly and my mind now thoroughly focused on

every single word, I continued reading. “In a 2007 speech in New York, he said that

“the first page of the Bible is not a cosmological treatise about the coming to be of the

world in six days.” He also said “the Catholic faith can accept” the possibility that God

uses evolution as a tool. But he said science alone cannot explain the origins of the

universe.” If you stand by Genesis as described in scripture, than Cardinal Schoenborn

is a heretic set against scriptural doctrine, a blasphemer of God, and at heart a religious

totalitarian fanatic and atheist wrapped up in one infamous red cloak of the martyrs and

saved from such a deserved fate himself by only a “possibility”. Unfortunately, he has

stated straight forwardly the Roman Catholic position on Genesis. Is this an instance

where religious faith prevails by capitulation to scientific error?

Catholicism claims “The Church is above the Bible.” Catholic Record September

1, 1923. Such a claim is presumptuous, arrogantly and defiantly unscriptural. “The Pope

has the power to change times, to abrogate laws, to dispense with all things, even the

precepts of Christ.” Decretal De Trandat. Espiscop. Cap. If Lucifer were unable to

establish his thrown above that of God’s and defy the law of God in heaven where he was

thrown out, how does the Roman Catholic Church think they can accomplish a similar

feat while confined here on earth where the devil is?

“Confronted with the Pope, one must make a choice. The Pope is considered the

man on earth who represents the Son of God, who ‘takes the place’ of the second person

of the omnipotent God of the Trinity.” Crossing the Threshold of Hope, The Popes, A

Scandal and a Mystery. p.3 John Paul II. I am satisfied the Church of Rome recognizes

who Christ really is because they are therefore without excuse whatsoever in their denial

489
of Christ’s living authority, and therefore, they should understand the seriousness of the

charges of the scandal and blasphemy brought against them by heaven! He who

represents God and is head of the Church on earth, must be both God and man as is

Christ. Here is my own profession: When that” man on earth,” contradicts the “The Son

of God in heaven who in every aspect is head of the church here on earth, the second

person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity,” I will follow only what our Living Lord,

the Son of the Almighty God, commands me to do, not some heretical Pope or pontiff!!!

If God and man contradict the other as they often have done in doctrine, than that “man”

is the liar, and I will believe and obey God rather than men. They admit they know who

Christ is, and if the Pope could truly dispense with the precepts of Christ, than why hasn’t

he, a mere mortal, overthrown Christ and taken His place and thrown in heaven! This

was the blasphemy of Lucifer! Than why not entirely follow Christ, not a Pope, or,

Lucifer, the fallen cherubim of heaven? And what is the Catholic explanation for this

affirmation of scripture: “God is not a man, that he should lie”? But the Pope is a mere

mortal and a man! And scripture says man lies. Numbers 23:19, or Titus 1:2 “God…

can not lie.” So to dispense with the precepts of one who cannot lie, is to lie flagrantly.

Jesus proclaimed, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father

except through me.” John 14:6&9. A believer does not come for forgiveness to the

Father through the priests and ministers of the church, but only through Christ. And,

“Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” John 14: 6&9. The writer of the Gospel

of John testifies, Christ is the Word of life: “In the beginning was the Word, and the

Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John Chapter 1. And Isaiah the prophet

testifies: KJ Chapter 8, verse 20, “If they do not speak according to this Word, it is

490
because there is no light in them”! If the Pope thinks to abrogate and sabotage the laws

of God, to dispense with the precepts of Christ, he who is a mere man is a liar, and a liar

can not represent God to the church as a whole or to the world at large. This constitutes a

virtual admission by the Church of Rome that the Pope is in fact a liar!

Did the Pope create the heavens and the earth, the sun and the moon and the stars

in their places? Did he create man with a rational consciousness to think and to do, and

the phenotype and genotype of every species? Did he come from heaven to die for our

sins and returned to heaven where God dwells. No, according to church teachings, the

Pope goes directly into purgatory, not to where God dwells. Has the Pope said in his

heart: “I will set my thrown high above the stars of God” Isaiah 14: 13? I will subjugate

the Almighty to my own dogmas? In no way is the Pope God, not even in a most

deficient and ineligible substitute for The One Who Alone is Perfect and Immortal. His

blasphemous announcement is a direct theft of a disastrous prediction for mankind from a

prophecy in the book of Daniel 7:25. “(The Beast in Daniel = in the book of Revelation a

Beast or the Anti-Christ) He shall speck pompous words and blasphemies against the

Most High, Shall persecute(or literally wear out) the saints of the Most High, and shall

“intend to change times and laws.” Up to one hundred million lives were destroyed by

the Inquisition during the Dark Ages lit only by the fagots of the martyrs can fit this

prophecy with damming accuracy. Catholicism changed the 7th Day Sabbath

commandment law, or the 4th commandment written by God’s own finger in stone to be

for man a Cathedral in time from the Creation ─ an Everlasting Memorial of the Genesis

Account, to Sunday, the day of the sun, and the Catholic Church admits this open

defiance against the Creator of Heaven and Earth! “You may read the Bible from

491
Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of

Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we

never sanctify.” Cardinal Gibbins: Faith of our Fathers, pp. 111, 112. “Sunday is

founded not on scripture but on tradition, and is a distinctly Catholic Institution.”

Catholic Record, Sept.17, 1893. The church…after changing the day of rest from the

Jewish Sabbath, or seventh-day of the week, to the first, made the third commandment

refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord’s Day.” Catholic Encyclopedia,

Vo 4. p.153. So they rewrite Scripture to agree with their treason against heaven The

third Commandment condemns and forbids the worship of idols an ancient pagan

practice, has been eliminated for obvious reasons in Catholic versions of scripture. Refer

to Isaiah 44: 9-11. The Converts Catechism states: “We observe Sunday instead of

Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.”

Thus Rome has thought “to change (the) times and laws” of the forth Commandment of

God the Almighty, the Creator of Heaven and earth who dwells in immortality as foretold

and you are witnesses to the fulfillment of this ancient prophecy of scripture. Christ

condemned those who follow tradition instead of God’s laws: “Why do you transgress

the commands of God by your traditions”? Matthew 15:3. Scripture states

adamantly :“To the law and to the testimony. If they do not speak according to this

Word, it is because there is no light in them.” KJ Isaiah 8:20. “I warn everyone who

hears the words of this prophecy of this book: if anyone adds anything to them, God will

add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from

this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the

holy city, which are described in this book.” Revelation 22:18-19. “See that you do all

492
that I command you; do not addd to or take awy from it.” Deuteronomy 12: 32. The

Law of God is not optional or multiple choice. “Every word of God is flawless… Do not

add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.” Psalms 30: 5,6. “Do not

put your trust in princes, nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help.” (Man’s) breath

departs, he returns to the earth, in that very day his thoughts perish.” Psalms 146:3,4.

Can man challenge The Almighty and win were angels have lost? Why should Christ

have transferred His Divine Authority and Power to Peter alone, or any mere mortal, or

others such as to Lucifer, the once Covering Cherubim thrown out of heaven for rebellion

in trying to overthrow God and place himself on the thrown of the Universe, so that the

pretender can contradict and change God’s ‘Word’ who by the same Divine power and

authority of his word “Created all things” when Christ declares, “All authority in heaven

and earth has been given to me” ─ Not to a Pope, nor to an Apostle, nor to any mortal

man or to an angel. Matthew 28:18. “For I am the Lord, I do not change.” Malachi

3:6. But Popes have often contradicted each other and the laws and precepts of scripture

and created endless confusion. God is not a God of confusion but a Lord of order and

reason in the unmatchable wonders of His Creation as modern science is beginning to

expose.

Does the Pope stand in the place of Christ Eternal, who sets on the

thrown of the Universe next to His Eternal Father, and claim he, the Pope, a mortal like

ourselves, has the authority and the power to dispense with all things in heaven and earth,

even the precepts of Christ as Almighty God, and he, the Pope alone can overrule and

subjugate God who rebellious angels could not overthrow. The Pope is challenging God

with blasphemy!

493
 A lie God hates. “Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.” Proverbs 12: 22.

“A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who speaks lies shall perish.”

“He who says, ‘I know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and

the truth is not in him.” 1 John 2: 4. The Catholic Church claims to have changed

the Sabbath. And what has God commanded, that we keep His

10 Commandments and all His teachings and His 7th day Sabbath Holy as a

memorial of The Creation of the earth. So it is no surprise that evolution and atheism is

an attack against the Creator.

How dare any man claim to set himself in God’s place, who alone possess

immortality, and man, a mere mortal, claim to be the same as the Divine Creator and use

his stolen authority to supersede the commands of God. Did not the whole world see

Pope John the 11 dead as a nail in his casket unaware of the masses around him? Was

the dead Pope up and around and talking with anyone? It would have taken a

resurrection for him to have appreciated the terrors of purgatory. Revelation 20:14,

“Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second

death. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the

lake of fire.” Is this the Pope’s purgatory?

Romanism is a radical, blasphemous pagan theology taken to every extreme

conflict against heaven and earth!! Man is to cooperate by faith and its resulting actions,

and through the grace and the forgiveness of God when man is in complete cooperation

with God’s will, man’s faith will be blessed and rewarded by the God of heaven. Then,

“whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what ever you loose on earth

494
will be loosed in heaven.” A promise given by Christ to all of his followers ─ not to just

one disciple, to one man! Matthew 18: 15-20. Peter for most of his New Testament

History was a much smaller, delinquent stone another man could easily slip on and fall, a

rolling pebble that would surprise a man and throw him, a shifting bar of sand like Peter

the history of the Roman pontiffs: borrowing and compromising Christian doctrine and

integrating pagan influences like a shifting pebble and not a sure rock─ before Peter’s

tardy conversion to the solid Rock of Christ.

The fact that Peter rather than Christ is represented as the head of the church on

earth is not supported by any scripture or by the history of the New Testament. This

belief came about by a deliberate corruption in the interpretation of a text with a

calculated ambition to declare the Pope in Rome as head of a universal Church. This

Catholic doctrine is based solely on the deliberate misinterpretation of three texts of

scripture: Matthew 16: 17-19. Claiming Peter was the rock upon which Christ would

build his church. The usual contradictions placed on these verses is based on some clever

assumptions, but only assumptions that this rock Christ refers to is Peter, and not to

Christ Himself.

Verse 19: And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever

you bind of earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be

loosed in heaven.” Verse 19 is repeated to all the disciples and may have been, or may

not have been the original source for Matthew 18:18 as this same promise is made to all

of Christ’s disciples. What is the key of the kingdom of heaven? The key is Christ. He

is our only sure and certain way to the Father in heaven.

495
 I am going to do a little explaining as I recite the text where the centrality of

Christ’s messiah-ship is declared to Peter so we don’t overlook anything, and you have a

chance to get use to the proper sense of the text: Christ ask Peter, “Who I am I”? And

Peter answered, You are the Christ”! Christ replied “You are Peter”; this was likely a put

down after Christ had just said “Blessed are you Simon of Jonah, [not the name Christ is

generally quoted as used for Peter as Christ himself had renamed him, Peter], for this was

not revealed to you by man, [Christ in the image of both God and man was not enough to

inspire Peter’s confession which had been impetuously dragged out of Peter] “but by my

Father in heaven?” Although true in a sense, this was an ironic opposite to Christ’s

teaching, “those who have seen me have seen the Father.” Peter was still indecisive after

spending three and a half years observing Christ’s teachings and miracles. Peter was still

halting between two opinions of faith and hope, trust and doubt. Peter had a vacillating,

unstable character like a rolling, bouncing stone who would soon deny his Lord 3 times.

Than comes the contrast: This is a ironic play on words and on facets of character:

Peter who is vacillating is contrasted to the solid Rock of Christ. “Upon this Rock

[Christ declares Himself to be that Rock] , I will build my church and the gates of hell

will not prevail against it.” Why? Christ’s death and resurrection are vividly predicted

because the gates of hell and the grave could not hold Him. Upon this, the Church of

God would be established forever. Referring to the Old Testament history of Israel, The

apostle Paul declares “That Rock was Christ” connecting Christ to the Old Testament as

well as to the New Testament.

496
 Another of Christ’s prayers for his disciples was “ …that they may be one as we

[the Trinity] are one…. That all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I

am in you. John: 17, 11- 21.

There is one body (the true church) and one Spirit, just as you were called in one

hope of your calling,

One Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and

through all, and in you all.” Ephesians 4: 4-6. There is only one agreement of truth!

This is the meaning of binding and loosing in heaven and earth because we will all be in

agreement with our Heavenly Father.

“The Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.” John 15: 16. Because

we will not ask for what we know Christ could not approve of ─ and if we ask for what

Christ would not approve of, maybe it will not be given except as a punishment.

“This is the entitlement of Christ to be God”: “In the beginning was Christ, and

Christ was with God, and Christ was God. Christ was in the beginning with God. All

things were made through Christ, and without Christ nothing was made that was made.

In Christ was life, and his life was the light of men.” John 1: 1-4. Was the Pope in the

beginning with God? Has the Pope existed from eternity with God? Did the Pope

create all things as in the Creation of this world and that of the Universe? Were all

things made through the Pope, and without the Pope nothing was made that was made?

Before there was any Pope, without the Pope, none of these things were done? Can the

Pope create life as God created Life “by forming man out of the dust of the ground, and

breathing into man’s nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul”? Genesis

2:7. “Where (was the Pope) when I (God) laid the foundations of the earth?” Job 38: 4.

497
Paul, the apostle, ups the ante even further. Colossians 1: 15-18. “He (Christ) is the

image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all Creation. (How is he that firstborn:

Listen) “For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and

invisible… all things were created by him and for him (as John has declared). He is

before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the

church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything

he might have the supremacy.” Colossians 1:18. The head of the church is Christ in

heaven, the body of the church is his people here on earth. The resurrected Christ is not

just an image in the likeness of God as is a mere man, he is the express and exact being of

the invisible and divine God for he himself is God. He is the beginning, which arises

from His being, because all things had their beginning in him before the world begin.

John 17:5, 24. Is the Pope the firstborn of the dead when Christ was resurrected before

there was ever a Pope, and therefore Christ is declared by God to have the Supremacy?

Only Christ is the first born of the dead by whom all others are resurrected, who was

resurrected by the power and majesty of the Father and His own Devine Entity and is

living again for evermore. He, Christ alone, is qualified to take the supremacy of all

things including the head of the church. “All authority in heaven and on earth has been

given to me, declares Christ!” I am the First and the Last, I am the Living One, I was

dead, and I am alive forevermore. Revelation 1:18. “For (God) raised Christ from the

dead and seated him above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title

that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.” Matthew

28:18, Ephesians 1: 17-23. As there have been many Popes, the Pope must rise from the

dead before Christ was raised and be seated at the right hand of God in heaven,

498
displacing Christ himself in the heavenly tabernacle, if he is to take the primacy and

supremacy away from Christ as head of the church. And who can compete with God?

Christ is declared by God as the only head of the body, the Church, and given supremacy

over everything in heaven and earth and over the Church here on earth by God, because

Christ was the firstborn from the dead. How could the Papacy have the supremacy,

when God declares that Christ alone has that supremacy, and Christ was resurrected and

ascended into heaven long before there ever was a pope ? And how could the Pope have

ever gotten into heaven before Christ, when the Pope has to first descend into purgatory

to burn for long ages and Christ died and was resurrected 3 days after His death on the

cross approximately 2000 years ago and soon after ascended into heaven? And Christ

was seen by many going into heaven! Because the Pope is only a mortal man and not the

first born from the dead. Therefore, if the Pope can not meet these requirements, or do

any of these mighty acts and was not any of these things, he is not God, he is a lying

pretender like Lucifer, to the power and authority of God and to the thrown of the

Universe! “I am the First and the Last, there is no other God. Who else can tell you

what is going to happen in the days ahead? (Prophecy) … Is there any other God? No!

There is no other Rock ─ not one!” Isaiah 44: 6-8. NLT, Darby, ASV, NKJ, NIV.

“They (the Children of Israel, Exodus 17: 6-7) drank from the spiritual rock that

accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.” 1 Corinthians 10: 4. The Pope is not a

rock, but a stumbling block who tried to destroy the children and saints of God who hid

in the wilderness for a thousand years, whose smoke from the terror of the stake ascended

condemningly to heaven, the saints of God who found no rest day or night because of the

tribulation of their souls. No wonder the catholic church does not want you to believe in

499
Genesis or in scripture, or be aware of their own heretical history, because scripture

exposes the anti-Christ they are! They would rather make an atheist out of you, than a

Bible believing Christian!

If Catholicism is a religion, and I know of absolutely no one who would argue

otherwise, especially when the “Influential Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna…

“has affirmed that the ‘Catholic Church’ rejects creationism” as does the Pope, does

anymore need to be said? Obviously, Catholicism rejects scripture because scripture

shows Catholicism is nothing more than a pretender to the Christian faith and to the truth

of Christ and His Cross. No wonder Catholicism rejects scripture, because scripture

rejects them.

From the very infancy of its history, Rome has claimed its decrees are above the

Authority and the Commands of God and those of Scripture. For over a millennium,

Rome had effectively hid away the sacred scriptures in the secret dungeons of the papists

and persecuted millions who held to the teachings of Christ alone as sacred. During the

French Revolution and the Reign of Terror, the atheistic power that ruled France

abolished the worship of the Deity. Bibles were collected and burned with every

manifestation of scorn. Baptism and communion were forbidden and the lives of tens of

thousands were cruelly destroyed, and France’s most gifted writers, artisans and

intelligentsia were forced to flee forever from her barren lands of atheism. The atheists in

France did for a time what Rome could no longer do for a while. From the inception of

the Roman Catholic Church to this very day, it wages unremitting and uncompromising

war with scripture and for the control of the mind and the human race with deadly

consequences. The Church of Rome is historically on record as denying the authority of

500
scriptures. Therefore, no Pope can claim he has inherited Christ’s authority as authority

cannot be derived from what is clearly denied or entirely rejected as in error. As Rome

has joined allegiance with Darwinism; will Rome if given the opportunity, do as during

the Inquisition with twice the furry and double the infamy of the past? Catholicism has

united the worse of both worldviews into a single mega-monster of potential atrocities.

If it were not for the arising of the Reformation and the dawning of Protestantism,

would Catholicism have nearly wiped out the human race, all but themselves, in concert

with the plagues of Europe and Asia which decimated approximately ½ of those

populations? And civilization, once again, wants to trust Rome with their lives and

survival! Not unless the entire world goes mad and mankind purposely seeks its own

annihilation and destruction!

The Romans had the cross.

The Papists had the flames,

Evil is ever driving in the nails,

Truth is ever on a cross.

As the teaching of evolution is “mandated” in our public institutions of learning,

Catholicism and Atheists have gained decided political and financial advantages over

their Design and Short Age Opponents by a slight of interpretation that has overthrown

the First Amendment of the Constitution. I’ll quote Madison’s First Amendment rule

again, “that the Federal government must not pick out one religion and give it exclusive

financial and legal support.” To do so is treason and a seizer of the government by

corrupt and illegal means!

501
 Remember, what has this to do with what I have already said: The Supreme

Court’s interpretation of a “Wall of Separation between Church and State” is a clever

spoiler of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom, freedom of speech, and

the freedom of the press, as already discussed extensively, and has effectively trumped

alternative views of human origins and favored Atheism and Catholicism as the official

Federal Religion of the United States by granting an establishment of religious

protections and tolerances and finical support to Catholicism and Atheism in the research

laboratories of the nation, a religiously scientific advantage which are explicitly denied to

all other core religious beliefs such as Protestantism and Evangelicalism. Is this a

conspiracy? Is the Constitution being high-jacked by the interpretation of political

traitors? The non-establishment phrase has been restricted and twisted by the Wall of

Separation between Church and State into a National Gag Order! The Supreme Court

with its 6 standing Catholic Jurors are positioned on the brink of treason by splitting the

nation if they seditiously warrant the current interpretation without a fair counter

balancing of equal protections for all religious viewpoints ─ and such a Supreme Court

decision favoring the current status quo should be punished by impeachment, as this Wall

is not a law enacted by Congress, while the non-establishment clause is deeply embedded

in the inner sanctum of the Constitution which would have then also put Congress in the

wrong.

We now need to establish some startling facts: The following is a quote:

“Ever hear of the Inquisition, from 1200 A.D. to 1800 A.D…? (A few paragraphs

previously I briefly referred to it and more statistics will be given following) It’s never

mentioned any longer. We hear a lot about the Jewish Holocaust when [at least] 6

502
million Jews perished under Hitler [but this does not include over two and a half million

of Germany’s brightest intellectuals who were destroyed by the German Reich and why

Einstein, already had two strikes against him under the 3rd Reich, he was both a Jew and a

leading intellectual of the world, and had to flee to America]. But most people don’t

know that Hitler was a Roman Catholic and an essential instrument of the Holy Office.

Hitler was never ex-communicated for his crimes against humanity and causing the

deaths of millions of people; whereas Martin Luther was excommunicated for translating

the Bible into German.” I added Italics for emphasis.

In the land that produced Luther, “In 1933 the Vatican signed a Concordat with

Germany making Roman Catholicism the only recognized religion in that country.”

Thus the un-Holy See of Rome, and its dragoons of crime over centuries of time,

triumphed, if only for a while, over the Reformation in Germany. These events occurred

less than 80 years ago! The question might now be asked, is “Catholicism the only

recognized religion in” our country, since only its doctrine of evolutionary origins and

processes can be taught as public education? This is a sneak attack in stark denial of our

Constitution which intent was to prevent one religion from dominating another, but the

Constitution has been traitorously set up to enforce that Catholicism has a right to

domination over all other religions as she has always claimed she has. Has America been

attacked and surrendered without a fight in a bloodless coup by a satanic interpretation

which could still bring conflict and war? http://www.reformation.org/inquisit.html

“The Vatican and the Nazi government signed the Concordat, confirming the

alliance between the Catholic Church and the Nazi state. Article 16 of the Concordat,

published (in the subsequent border), required that Catholic bishops swear to honor the

503
Nazi government, to make their subordinates honor it, and to shun acts that would

endanger it.”

ARTICLE 16

Before Bishops take possession of their dioceses,

They are to take an oath of fealty either to the Reich

Representative of the State concerned, or to the

President of the Reich, according to the following

Formula: “Before God and on the Holy Gospels I

Swear and promise as becomes a bishop, loyalty to

The German Reich and to the [regional – EC] State

of … I swear and promise to honor the legally

constituted Government and to cause the clergy of

my diocese to honor it. In the performance of my

spiritual office and in my solicitude for the welfare

and the interest of the German Reich, I will

endeavor to avoid all detrimental acts which might

endanger it.” ( Emphasis by – Jared Israel)

The Pope signed the Reichskonkordat agreement with the Nazi dictatorship.

“The Vatican committed German bishops to ‘honor the legally constituted government.

The Vatican was publicly asserting the Enabling act, which could not have passed absent

Catholic Church-controlled votes, [and which] made the Nazi dictatorship ‘legally

504
constituted.’ So first the Catholic hierarchy fights to get the Center party to vote for the

Enabling act… thus giving the dictatorship a pseudo legality and then the Vatican orders

the German Church from bishops on down to honor the Nazi Reich because…it was

legally constituted!” http://www.tenc.net/vatican/cpix.htm

Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pope Pius the X11, and the Roman Church, played a

central role in making Hitler the dictator of Germany. This as history was so bloodedly

recorded by the Holocaust, was not even by the wildest stretch of the imagination a Pius

act, but was in every conceivable way, one of the most contemptible, disgusting and

degenerate decisions and creative evils in all of human history! To concede nothing

missing as fact: is this why the co-conspirators of the Holocaust nicknamed the Pope

chiefly responsible as Pius the X11 in an attempt to conceal his responsibility in the

murder of millions and thus condoning it? He was just another of Hitler’s henchmen,

another one of histories infamous killers. Kill one person and you are a murderer, kill

millions and you are one of the saviors of the world! And if your infamy is largely erased

by the leniencies and forgetfulness of history ─ time morphs into the trespass of mercy

given whatever your wrongs.

Are the evolutionists willing along with the Roman Catholic Church to recognize their

philosophical comradeship and responsibility and active role in the Holocaust? Man’s

inhumanity to man is man’s most heinous crime defacing the image of God in man and is an

attack on the holiness and righteousness of God himself! Murder is in itself an act of

blasphemy against God!

ABC News on 1/26/09 reported: “The Roman Church acknowledges the Holocaust” ─

which happened less than eighty years ago. They acknowledge it, but do they condemn it as

505
they were active participants and supporters of Hitler. Confession is good for the soul, if they

have one.

Has the Roman Catholic Church signed a “Concordant” in principle with the

American people and our Republican government “to avoid all detrimental acts which might

endanger it.” Not that I am aware of, or have ever heard of, because the Church of Roman is

a centuries old enemy of freedom from which the Founders of this nation fled from Europe.

Signing such an agreement to assure the American people of Rome’s good intent would

contradict what they did in Germany and are we so stupid, we have no idea why such a

statement, which history guarantees would never be honored, should come from them?

Rome signed the agreement with Nazi Germany committing Rome to playing a major

role in establishing the German Reich, the Church of Rome had almost no say whatsoever in

the Founding of our American Constitution. The German Reich, and the American

Constitution were polar opposites as far apart as evil is from good.

Hitler justified the holocaust by pointing out the Roman Catholic Church had always

persecuted the Jew, but that his methods were more effective in eliminating the problem in his

“Final Solution.” Thus, Catholicism had locked arms with the Nazi oppressors in terrorizing

the World.

The following statistics are distributed by Way of Life Literature’s Fundamental

Baptist Information Services:

“It has been estimated by reputable historians of the Catholic Inquisition that 50

million individuals were slaughtered for the crime of ‘heresy’ by Roman Catholic persecutors

between the 6th and the middle of the 19th century. (This is a conservative estimate, however).

This does not include over twenty million killed in the 20th century at the hands of

506
communists, Nazi’s, and Islamic regimes.” End of quote.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/catholiccommission.htm Most of the Nazis were Roman

Catholic. Refer to Islam “Cruel and Usual Punishment” and other sources. This might cause

some of us heretics to reason: You don’t have to be a good person to be a good Catholic. In

fact, you are a better Catholic if you are not a good person!

The wrongs of the past have their inescapable and damming history. Other estimates

of the number of so-called heretics destroyed by the Roman Catholic Church during the dark

ages go as high as 100,000,000 million individuals. “For professing faith contrary to the

Church of Rome, history records the martyrdom of more than one hundred million people.”

Brief Bible readings, page 16. “That the church of Rome has shed more innocent blood than

any other institution that has ever existed among mankind, will be questioned by no Protestant

who has a complete knowledge of history…. It is impossible to form a complete conception

of the multitude of her victims.” W.E.H. Lecky, History of the rise and influence of the Spirit

of Rationalism in Europe, vol. 2, page 32, 1910 edition. This was written before both World

Wars. “It is estimated… an average of 40,000 religious murders for every year of the

existence of popery.” John Dowling. The History of Romanism, pages 541-542. This is

infamy beyond the mere comprehension of human revulsion.

For approximately 1500 years, the Church of Rome has been on the side of the

persecutors and murders of historical Protestant and apostolic Christian groups. Multiply

40,000 murders of heretics per-year x 1,500 years and this sum equals 60,000,000

victims, add to this the holocaust less than eighty years ago and the sum total of Rome’s

cruelty is unimaginable and indescribable in the most descriptive human terms. But we

need a picture to even vaguely comprehend such atrocities: “Great numbers were driven

507
from their habitations with their wives and children, stripped and naked ─ many of them

inhumanely massacred.” The History of the Popes, V.2, p. 334; and Fox’s Book of

Martyrs.

“Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, the mass killing of French Protestants by

Catholics, begin on Aug. 24, 1572, and is remembered as a crime against humanity. It

was preceded (August 22) by the attempted assassination of Admiral Gaspard de

Coligny, a prominent Huguenot in Paris. Many other Protestant nobles had come to the

capital to attend the wedding of Henry of Navarre (later Henry the IV) and Margaret of

Valois. Catherine de Medicis, who feared Coligny’s plans for war with Spain, was

probably implicated in the murder plot, and when an investigation threatened to expose

her role in the scheme she persuaded her son, Charles the IX, to order the death of the

Huguenot leaders in anticipation of a supposed Protestant plot. The killing begin in Paris

and was extended to the provinces, continuing until October. There were approximately

13,000 victims. Grolier. Other accounts of victims are much higher. Another source

confirms that 70,000 of the noblest of France perished. Tens of thousands of word

pictures like these exist as a result of the terrorisms of the Inquisition of the dark ages,

and likely existed in the tens of millions. Conceivably, the Church of Rome has gained

more power and advantage by murdering its victims than it has by any number of

conversions. Psychotics of whatever breed or religion are particularly dangerous as

despots and marriage partners. My ex-wife would get upset with me and accuse me of

thinking of things which had never even crossed my mind. And when I refused to

confess to what had never been on my mind until she had suggested it, she would become

outraged that I denied her accusations. I have been familiarized with Catherine de

508
Medici’s psychotic hallucinations, but that does not forgive her the condemning verdict

of History. I am glad my ex-wife’s psychotic episodes did not lead to murder however,

or I would not have been able to have written this book. This may be disappointing to

some of you, and satisfying to the rest of you. And I am going to unsettle the few of you
i
who are left.

What did Abraham Lincoln say about the Papacy’s involvement in the American

Civil War and which inevitably lead to his own assassination? To quote: “ The common

people hear and see the big noisy wheels of the Southern Confederacy cars, and they call

him Jeff Davis, Lee, Thompson, Beauregard, Semmes, or others. They honestly thank

that they are the motive power, the first cause of our troubles, but it is a mistake, the true

motive power is secreted behind the thick walls of the Vatican ─ the colleges and schools

of the Jesuits; the convents of the nuns, the confessional boxes of Rome.”

“There is a fact which is too much ignored by the American people and which I

am acquainted only since I became President. It is, that the best and leading families of

the South have received their education in great part, if not all, from the Jesuits and the

Nuns ─ hence the degrading principle of slavery, pride and cruelty, which are as second

nature among many of the people.”

And continuing Mr. Lincoln analyzed the Roman psychology which played its

part in his own murder, when he said:

“Hence that strange want of fair play for humanity; that implacable hatred against

ideals of equality and liberty, as we find them in the gospel of Christ ─ It is true that we

bought Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, New Mexico and Missouri from Spain, but

509
Rome had put her views of her anti-social and anti-Christian maxims into the views of

the people, before they became Americans.” Abraham Lincoln.

Do you want me to take time to prove Rome was behind the assassination of

Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln’s assassin, John Wilkes Booth, was shown to have been a

convert to Catholicism. John Surratt, the Arch Conspirator in the assassination of

Lincoln and the 19 year old son of Mary Surratt, a Roman Catholic as well, absconded

after Lincoln’s assassination, his trail following through the extended rat lines of Rome’s

protective custody from Canada to Europe to Italy where he was eventually discovered

and extradited from the Vatican guard, to where he had escaped and was under protection

by Rome, and was arrested under preset conditions that he would not face the death

penalty when prosecuted in the United States! And when the case went to court, he was

defended by the best lawyers Rome could supply. This is only a snapshot from a vast

album of historical facts! And Rome has had another 150 years since that time to

practice her vile intrigues. Sources: “50 years in the Church of Rome,” by Reverend

Chas. Chiniquy; “The Suppressed Truth about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln” by

B. McCarthy;” General T. M. Harris, who, as I remember, lead the investigation into the

Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, and his report of, possible, fifty plus or minus pages,

which I was fortunate many years ago to have read.

But worse, as though anything of such a staggering nature and overwhelming

debauchery of crime could ever get worse, the Roman Catholic Church does not believe

“the Bible is ( ) a cosmological treatise about the coming to be of the world in six days,”

and accepts “the possibility that God uses evolution as a tool.” Thus, God is delegated to

some minor role in the universe by Rome. Therefore, it follows by their logic that God

510
uses the survival and struggle of the fittest as a tool for developing a species and societies

and thereby Catholicism always justifies the murdering of so-called heretics who

disagree with her fanatical and anti-scriptural dogmas as doctrinally unfit to survive.

Rome’s position seems to make God out to be an evil suspect blamable for all evil in the

world as it evolves. Catholicism arrogantly rejects the Genesis’ account that Adam was

created in God’s own image after His own likeness on the 6th Day of Creation.

Catholicism cannot be a Christian religion, but rather is a self-serving, self-deceiving,

self-promoting corruption of ancient but modernized paganisms cross-bred and inbred

with modern atheism in a God defacing and blaspheming mythology of pretenses to

Christianity. If you don’t believe the scriptures, than who or whom do you trust? Hitler

was a Roman Catholic who was never excommunicated for his crimes against the human

race ─ nor was any other Nazi under Hitler’s abominations. Hitler was a signature

dogmatic who claimed: “Creation is not finished. Man is clearly approaching a phase of

metamorphosis. The earlier human species has already reached the stage of dying

out…” [So Hitler rationalized he could speed up the process of evolution by killing off

those whom he imagined were the inferior and the unfit of society]. “All the forces of

creation will be concentrated in a new species…. (which) will surpass infinitely modern

man.” And this insanity and accord reverberates like screaming madmen in our public

institutions of higher learning. But the species of man is still here and Hitler has been

dead these many decades soon to turn into a century! By buying into the evolutionary

scenario, Catholicism rejects the authority of scripture, is a creature of the fittest who has

survived by its own cunning, and hand in hand has participated in or was the direct

511
initiating force in most of the damnable and soul numbing degradations of human history

for the last 1500 years.

Recently, the Roman Catholic Church has acknowledged its predilection to re-

establish the Holy Roman Empire in Europe in the 21st Century ─ to re-establish an

empire which was neither Holy, nor Roman, but was in every sense of the word the most

murderous assassin in human history, and by every excessive means the oppressor of the

innocent and who would again exert that same immense and unequaled power to destroy

the lives of those who oppose her. Because that is what the Roman Catholic Church

does most efficiently when it has been in power ─ call it arrogant anti-scriptural or God

damning while damning the image of God in man and the structure of any organization

which audaciously calls itself into opposition! Man was created in the image of God and

Rome would repeatedly destroy it. The Roman Catholic Church’s method of

metamorphosis is murder! The Inquisition of the Dark Ages, the terrorism of World

Wars proves this very fact set starkly against the shadowy depths of the Dark Ages.

Rome never changes!

Are we then as a nation, to allow evolution to take seed and grow into a damnable

Tree of the knowledge and Good and Evil with a permanent root of damnations to attack

scripturally based concepts of origins in our public institutions of Lower and Animalistic

Learning while prohibiting the free defense of true Christian concepts as a fair and

competing alternative in society? The Constitution has been outflanked and hijacked by

a predatory Wall of Separation that has kept out others while retaining a biased notion of

rights and privileges denied to all others. Such is not a democracy when the Constitution

is made to form an obeisance to dictatorship. This has essentially declared “a

512
constitutional revolution by interpretation [that] exercise[s] sweeping powers to override

the right of the people to determine how’ they are governed.” As it stands, atheism, and

evolution ─ a cardinal Roman Catholic doctrine, how ironic is that word!, is the

officially supported and protected position of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of a

Wall of Separation between Church and State which unfairly keeps out other religions

and poses fictionally as Federal Law. The Constitution has been virtually declared

insolvent. Other words, you are mandated to tolerate and accept evolutionary, Roman

Catholic doctrine, like it or not, legal or not, with all hell and damnation as your reward if

you oppose it! Remember, “the Vatican signed a concordat with [Nazi] Germany

making, Roman Catholicism the only recognized religion in that country.” And Rome

would do the same here! But they don’t have to, because they have already constructed

a great Wall... from the bricks and mortar of our Constitution to protect their fortress of

treason! So what is to be done? Jefferson held that resistance is justified only when a

consistent course of policy shows an unmistakable design to establish tyranny! And that

is clearly discernable by the hardness of the bricks and mortar of that Wall. If you put up

a wall, who or what are you obstructing? And who are you opposing? Who are you

keeping in or out? The position taken by our nation’s forefathers on the First

Amendment was a lot more moderate and not nearly so extreme as we have eventually

defined it. Democracy works by moderating uncomfortable extremes so they are unable

to dominate society and take over!

Our liberal “opposition likes to quote ‘the Wall of Separation of Church and

State’ as the reason for forbidding Christian speech or practice, but the truth is this phrase

never appears in our Constitution. Our Founding Fathers established freedom of religion,

513
not [enforced] freedom from religion.” Christian Examiner. And if freedom of speech is

forbidden by whatever excuse, it is forbidden by the exercise of practice and law contrary

to the Constitution. Again the First Amendment specifically states: Congress shall make

no law prohibiting the free exercise [of religion], or abridging the freedom of speech, or

the press, or the right to… [left out] assemble. If government is going to intentionally

and diabolically leave out portions of the Constitution by miss-interpretation to disavow

our allegiance to the Constitution’s restraints on government, then I am going to leave out

words that limit our obligations to that government. The First Amendment ends with

this: Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right “to petition the government for

redress of grievances.” Hold a petition in one hand and a large club in the other hand

and be ready to use that club and strike upon provocation if necessary! [Christians]

“should be allowed to integrate our religious beliefs into our life, but we have seen the

exact opposite happening ─ as we are stripped of our right to practice Christianity in our

daily lives.” Christian Examiner. Our forefathers established an army and fought the

British. Are these people in our government any better to us than the British were to our

forefathers? They are far worse! Think about it, and decide what should be done!

If we as Christians are not allowed to exercise our rights under a Constitution

largely established by the Protestant Reformation, than we have a right to take back our

Constitution from the government whose actions pronounce its actions illegal and find

new representatives who will adhere faithfully to the Constitution. And where are all our

difficulties issuing from? Is Rome secretly behind a multi-tiered and many faceted

political liberalism in our country, in order to destroy Christian morality and our

Christian heritage in modern society, so she can pretend to save us from ourselves when

514
the appropriate time and crisis arrives? The “Law of the survival of the fittest” is her

doctrine, not that of Protestantism. She sanctions the teaching of Darwin’s evolution,

Protestantism overwhelmingly adheres and subscribes to the Genesis account of origins.

And according to the Pew review, 42% of Roman Catholics apparently accept the

Genesis account. If evolution collapses, will the Pope be infallible? Don’t ignore where

power originates. President Reagan with the aide of the Pope, or it may have been the

other way around, schemed together the successful demise and overthrow of the Soviet

Union. In light of the fact that Rome seeks power through global government and

treaties, with no indicated intent on initiating Republican Principles of government if she

succeeds, and the protection of human rights which she is on record as having always

opposed, then she must be fishing for even bigger game! And that leaves only the United

States which can be worth the risk and the reward. In crisis, with Rome in control, I

don’t think the Roman Catholic Church would be adverse to using nuclear weapons if

Rome got their hands on them to enforce her doctrines internationally. If this scares you,

it should terrify you and every heretic, Protestant, and moral patriot and observer around

the world.

I will provide a list of the religion of each of the Supreme Court Justices. Roman

Catholics saturate the positions of our government. It may be entertained they are

trustworthy individuals of outstanding character who are loyal to the Constitution and do

not question the good intent of other American’s religious convictions. It must be

remembered that there are millions of good Catholic people in the world. It is the intent,

claims and system of their church which must be called into question, not that of every

individual who are members. But if we consider religious affiliation would act as their

515
primary motivator, six of the Supreme Court Justices are Roman Catholics, a decided

majority, have a vested interest in preserving the present Wall of corruptions between

Church and State which decidedly favors Catholicism and Atheists over other religious

persuasions. Are these Justices loyal to America, or to Rome. Rome is an independent,

totalitarian governed, persecuting and dominating hierarchy throughout its long and cruel

history through the dark ages, who would willingly turn the rest of the world into such a

monster as she is. In a very real sense, these justices posses a duel citizenship ─ a duel

loyalty to opposing concepts as a conflict of interest and irrevocable by Rome’s doctrinal

entrenchments and status as a corrupt city state among the nations of states.

“A House divided against itself cannot stand.” But does such an insight prevent

that house from being plundered in its weakened state, or divided by deceit into extremes,

and that former union doomed to dissolve and collapse. While Americans stand divided,

separated, and opposed ─ the breach is widening. Has a Wall of Separation between the

Church and the State carved out a breach, a secular sphere clearly absent of religious

influence and affiliation, and the answer to that is a clear, resounding absolutely Not!

The Wall of Separation has been twisted into a Tactical Strategy to dissolve and strangle

the Constitution! We say to the Supreme Court, tare down that Berlin like Wall of

religious iniquities and assaults on our freedoms, or declare open betrayal as warfare on

democracy and freedom, and on the America people: freedom’s appointed guardian and

see what God wills! For the awesome Day of the Lord Almighty will be revealed in the

heavens and earth and judgment from God will arise! Matthew 24:30-31 & Revelation

20: 9.

516
 The First Amendment’s non-establishment clause forbids the union of the church

state political heresy which we now have. The presiding link in that “Wall of Separation

between Church and State” has gone a step further and entrenched a Federal Religion of

Evolution, Catholicism, and Atheism wrapped up tightly all together on one strengthened

side of the wall into an uneasy and powerful Trinity of Damnations to destroy American

Democracy in a direct confrontation against the non-establishment clause. Evolution is

on one side of the wall and falsely defined expertly and deliberately as not a religion, and

government is on the other side, reaching hands illegally across the gulf to shake hands

with Catholicism and atheism with Protestantism no where to be found in the breach.

Evil can never be clever without being fully deceitful. But we now perceive evolution is

a religion as Catholicism is the largest religion on earth with full government support!

This is nothing short of treason! Mark my words if this is not treason, than there is no

such thing as treason! Whoever thought that the Roman Catholic Church was ever a

friend of liberty or else Christianity has been gravely deceived and betrayed by his own

credulity! “Some might draw the conclusion that Darwinism encourages agnosticism.

Far from it: “… Darwinism impels us to atheism.” And that seems the direction Rome is

headed! “It is not merely that evolution erodes the explanatory potency of God; it

eliminates God altogether.” Dawkins. And Dawkins is right! The question remains, will

Dawkins and Rome eventually find themselves incredibly and agreeably on the same side

of a compromise of corruption and evil and every intent deceitful.

Pope John Paul II stated, “New knowledge leads us to recognize the theory of

evolution is more than a hypothesis.” Pope John went even farther in stating ─

“evolution as a serious hypothesis, (is) worthy of a more deeply studied investigation on

517
a par with the opposite hypothesis” ─ other words, the only other concept known as the

opposite hypothesis, is Creationism and the account of Genesis. The Pope’s encyclical is

Not A Biblically Supported Doctrine or a Bible study ─ the Beast of Biblical prophecy

has been unmasked and it is Rome denying the Creatorship of God!! In one fell swoop,

Atheism and evolutionism has become the largest church on earth!

Against Pope Paul’s assertion, I found this internet comment: “Either evolution is

a theory, or it is a fact, there is no middle ground with respect to the origin of man.

Either God created man directly from the dust of the ground or He didn’t. It is just that

simple. The Pope has declared evolution to be a fact, and in the process he dismissed the

Biblical account of Genesis as fable.” Even an accredited atheist could hardly deny more

truths of scripture than did the Pope in only a very brief statement!

Pope John Paul II quoted the following from and in support of the view of Pope

Pius XII, the same Pope Pius, who helped establish and legalize the Nazi regime which

began World War II. To quote Pope Pius XII, “If the human body takes its origin from

pre-existing living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God.” As Pope

Pius explained it, “if man did evolve, the same is not true for the soul. That he claims,

God created directly and put into man. Man himself though, is presumed to have evolved

from “pre-existing” matter, rather than being created by God in one day from the dust of

the earth. What Pope (ImPious XII) meant by this is that man evolved from the apes in

accord with Darwinian theory! [And by the survival of the fittest, the papacy can justify

imposing its dogmas on the human race]. “What a predicament!! What an

embarrassment for Christianity! At a time when Protestant churches in America are

fighting to reintroduce the teaching of creationism into the public schools, Pope John

518
Paul II stuns the world and declares Darwin was right after all, and man has descended

from the apes! He is dismissing Genesis as fable and actually accepting Darwin’s Origin

of the Species as fact! Absolutely amazing”!

“Stunned” is another commentator’s reaction.

“It is unadulterated blasphemy for Pope John Paul II to declare evolution

compatible with Christian faith.”

“Did God create mankind in his image as the Bible says, or did humans evolve

from animals as Darwin theorized nearly 150 years ago?”

According to Pope John Paul ΙΙ “evolution may be a better explanation.” U.S.

News & World Report, Nov. 4, 1996.

But Protestants should not have been stunned or surprised! We all should have

seen it coming.

Should we be surprised by anything of a tyrannical nature, or when an attack on

the authority of God and scripture comes directly from Rome. Why would any rational

individual think that the Roman Catholic Church and its Popes are not decided enemies

of our Constitution and of any other religion but her own when a third of our

Constitution’s novel ideas came from scripture which Rome has always tried to discredit

at a time when Rome actively claims to seek world dominance, which inevitably implies

US as well.

The Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian institution, but a pagan political

institution rising out of the dusty, old paganisms of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and

Barbarians, and has always historically attacked Christianity while pilfering a few

principles from Christian concepts to cloak her deceptive intent of world domination and

519
assassination and thirst and greed for power! To think otherwise is to deceive one’s self

on a dramatic scale with history as proof.

In 1517, when Martin Luther posted his famous 95 theses on the Wittenberg

Castle Church door against indulgences and other church abuses, the Church of Rome

was sponsoring claims that “If a pilgrim were to venerate every single relic in our church,

he would be forgiven of his time in purgatory 1, 902, 202 years plus 270 days.” This

means of course, purgatory lasts much longer because it wasn’t absolution entirely,

because it couldn’t be escaped entirely until the church eventually got even more greedy.

So what were a few minutes of burning at the stake? The igniter of purgatory and hell for

the non-deserving? The logic is inescapable: The Catholic Church is deeply indebted to

countless millions of years in her theological doctrines of terrorism. Therefore, the

church’s strategic investment on long evolutionary ages which support her definitions of

long ages of punishment in purgatory and hell. But in so doing, she has to deny the

inspiration of scripture, the meaningfulness of the resurrection of the living Christ, and

the Creation of the world in 7 days. Thus taking her side firmly with atheism.

Rome has a lot to lose in her present and future theological battles with Biblical

Protestantism if her current doctrines are proven wrong in any aspect in her past or

present arguments. How can she, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS, the Mother Church as

prophesied, be infallible if she has ever been wrong. Revelation 17:5& 6. She has to

tightly wrap up all of her claims for over one thousand and five hundred years and

present them without fault and conflict, and as Popes have often disagreed amongst

themselves. Surviving this last test will be like preventing the Second Coming of Christ.

520
Thus Rome is obligated beyond her power to retract, in order to support her doctrine of

evolution!

He who claims he can dispense with the dictums of Christ is against Christ is anti-

Christ. Like Lucifer the devil, the Pope boosts, “I will rise my thrown above the stars of

God…I will make myself like the Most High”! Isaiah 14:13-14. On April 30, 1922

Pope Pius the XI said, “I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the

Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth.” This is the perjury of heresy

as there is no honor among thieves. Scripture declares, “In the pride of your heart you

say, “I am a god… but you are a man and not a god. Ezekiel 28: 2. The Devil and the

Pope should fight it out among themselves for such a high distinction and authority which

will never exist in reality. If this treason failed in heaven, it is going to fail on earth. The

Almighty in his vengeance will one day dispense with both and their arrogance against

heaven. Can the Pope succeed where Lucifer failed? Is the Pope mightier than Satan

who could not overcome the Almighty in heaven? God says, “I will make “a fire come

out from you…and I will reduce you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who will be

watching.” Ezekiel 28: 18. God is going to create a lake of fire into which hell will be

cast, and not one day of its punishment is planned for the saints, it is only temporarily

brief for those who have joined an exclusive club called the Perfecters of Wickedness

[they “did not live again until a thousand years were finished/ the preceding event is the

time of the second coming of Christ and the first resurrection followed by the thousand

years]. The second death is to take place after the thousand years and to quickly bring

about the judgment and the complete destruction of the wicked and their rebellion ended

by being denied eternal life and justly rewarded and judged for all their evil with eternal

521
death without hope of another resurrection. Rev. 20: 12-15. Genesis 3:22. This is the

second death referred to in scripture. Revelation 20. Central to understanding the theme

are verses 5&6. “These [the righteous] came to life again and reigned with Christ for a

thousand years, though the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years

were over.” Also read other chapters of Revelation to get a fuller understanding what the

Bible teaches. The second death and resurrection is also referred to in Acts 24: 15,

Daniel 12:2, & Christ himself refers to these events: John 5: 28-29. The scriptural

depiction of God’s Final Judgment is God’s only act of cleaning up the universe, and it is

quick and efficient, and the Judgment Call is not made by a man but by a God of love and

infinite mercy who cannot tolerate the cruelty of evil to go on forever! The righteous will

be spared but the wicked will be destroyed. But Rome’s hell will supposedly burn for

eternity so the wicked can suffer for eternity. Is the Pope a kind of hell flinging demigod

terrorizing the earth who understandably would make Dawkins want to be an atheist like

the Pope? Dawkins had better decide. Even one day in heaven is better than a day in hell

and the Bible teaches none will escape either punishment or reward. Not believing in hell

will not keep you out of it, but not believing in heaven will keep you out of it.

Remember the Biblical prophesy: “He is given a mouth speaking great things and

blasphemies…. And it was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome

them. Revelation 13: 5 & 7. “He shall speak pompous things against the Most High,

Shall persecute (or wear out) the saints of the Most High. Daniel 7: 25. This

condemning segment of history is referred to for 1500 years as the Dark Ages with the

massacre of up to 100,000,000 of GOD’S Saints as prophesied! The Pope’s excuse, a

sneering silence of incrimination underlying God’s prophecy? Mass murderers such as

522
the unapologetic un-Holy Roman See, make a calculated decision a hundred, two

hundred years in advance to seize power and eliminate those considered to be the unfit or

the heretic, knowing the international community can not or will do nothing to prevent

the unthinkable ─ a certainty if they are in power and in complete control. History is an

infinite reference to this proof!

Daniel the prophet foretells what will eventually happen to these destroyers of

the earth and of God’s people: “ [T]he court [in heaven] will sit, and his [the beast’s]

power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. Then the sovereignty,

power, and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the

saints, to the people of the Most High. And His [God’s] kingdom will be an everlasting

kingdom….” Daniel 7: 26-27 “Fallen is Babylon the Great”! [Rome is represented as

Babylon] Revelation 18:2. In God’s final fulfillment of end prophecy, it will be better

to have suffered defeat with truth, then to have triumphed with error!

“And I saw the woman, [a woman in Biblical prophecy represents either a false or

true church] [ the Mother of harlots/ the Mother Church as she calls herself in our day as

referred to in verse 5 & described in Revelation 17:18 as “the great city that rules over

the kings of the earth] drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the

martyrs of Jesus.” Revelation 17: 6. This was predicted hundreds of years before the

events described begin their infamous history on earth.

“And I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the Word of

God and for the testimony they held.”

And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long , O Lord, holy and true, until

You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell in the earth.” Revelation 6: 10,11.

523
 And God heard that loud cry. I, John, looked and “There was a great earthquake.

The sun turned black like sackcloth…, the whole moon turned blood red, and the stars in

the sky fell to earth… The sky receded as a scroll, rolling up, and every mountain and

island was removed from its place. Then the kings of the earth, the rich men, the

generals, the mighty men, every slave and every free man, hid themselves in the caves

and the rocks of the mountains, and said to the mountains and rock, “Fall on us and hid us

from the face of Him who sits on the thrown and from the wrath of the Lamb” For the

great day of his wrath has come, and who is able to stand.” Revelation 6: 14-17. Who is

the Lamb but Christ? The lamb of God slain from the foundation of the earth for the sins

of the whole world. Revelation 13:8 “He choose us in Him before the foundation of the

world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love.” Ephesians 1:4.

This is a far nobler and far superior God to the none-existent God of evolution whose

paths inevitably lead to extinction, compared to a God who cares and rewards the

righteous with eternal life, opposed to a god who can not care and is mankind’s worst

nightmare! Who in their right mind would want to serve such a god as atheism.

This time I have to stop and catch my breath. I already knew these scriptures, but

it just came to me, perhaps, as a possibility. The plan for human salvation was already

made before the foundation of the world! What I am going to suggest is not directly

taught in scripture, and should not become a part of anyone’s doctrine; but the

ramifications and the hint of such a possibility seem to be there in scripture. It is almost

as though Satan knew what God would do out of love for His creatures, and Satan

imagined it would be His only chance to attempt to destroy God and dethrone Him

forever from the universe. Today we term this pre-meditated murder foisted by the

524
insanity of self-exultation. If this possibility even remotely existed, than evil is far more

diabolical than we have ever imagined.

I went through a kind of conversion experience when I thought of such an

awesome and courageous act on God’s part. I will never again question my own value or

that of another’s value to God. This thought has, indeed, sobered me up a great deal with

the realization of what God’s sacrifice to save the human race has meant to God and what

were the conceivable consequences and the chance of failure to Himself He took for each

one of us, but then, that is why we are Christians and will stay Christians no matter what.

God took a chance for us, and we will take all of our chances with Him.

Our God in Christ, “is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even

those who pierced him; and all the people of earth will mourn because of Him.”

Revelation 1: 7. Those who were martyred and all those who died in Christ “come to life

and rein with Him for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the

thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has

part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be

priests of God and of Christ, and shall rein with Him for a thousand years.” Revelation

20: 5&6. “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven, with a loud shout, with the

voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the

clouds to met the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord Forever.” 1

Thessalonians 4:16&17. Someday, everything on this earth is going to change

dramatically beyond anything we can imagine even after being described to us and

forewarned.

525
 Back to this ugly and unfortunately dark and very real world of evil designs and

conscious threats to the freedoms of inalienable rights. This revealing article appeared in

the Sunday, July 13, 2008 Riverside, California: The Press-Enterprise. The article was

entitled: The poXwer of Four/ Now Six!

“On most of the big issues ─ abortion, school segregation, capital punishment,

voting rights ─ [and often I agree with the positions taken] Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth

Bader Ginsberg, David Souter (replaced by Sotomayor), and John Paul Stevens are

routinely outvoted by the court’s conservative majority.” Did you notice something very

curious? The court’s conservative majority, implicated by omission, are the five now six

Roman Catholics Jurists, set against two Jewish Justices and one Protestant who has

retired. There are no other qualified non-Roman Catholics available to balance the

proportion of the Court? However you want to describe it, the Supreme Court does not

reflect American Society numerically and in varieties of belief and diversity of opinion.

The representation is lopsided and stacked; and the article suggests by implication the

Roman Catholic Justices generally vote as a block. You include all factions in governing,

or you only have factions to govern. Unfortunately, Catholicism prescribes to the

antiquated, tyrannical dogmatisms of mind control and persecution of opponents; as do

the Darwinists, and Rome never reforms in spite of the generosity of even a few of its

individual adherents.

John Roberts: Catholic

(Chief Justice)

Stephen G. Breyer Jewish

Ruth Bader Ginsberg Jewish

526
 Anthony M. Kennedy Catholic

Antonin Scalia Catholic

Sonia Sotomayor Catholic

John Paul Stevens Protestant

Clarence Thomas Catholic

Samuel Alito Catholic

One more Roman Catholic to the rescue of evolution: Joe Bidden. He has called

Creationism “useless nonsense.”

Sotomayor is the sixth Roman Catholic jurist on the Supreme Court. President

Obama declared the vote to confirm Sotomayor, by an overwhelming 68-31 Senate

Majority, “moved America yet another step closer to a more perfect Union.” (Or a more

certain dissolution). He deceives himself and may have sold his country out to the most

ubiquitous and highhanded of all traitors ─ Rome, who is slowly concentrating her power

to overthrow the United States and then declare only they can save US. Obama’s

position is ill-informed and naive of the somber and repeated warnings of history.

Sotomayor’s nomination may have “moved America yet another step closer” to

destabilizing the Nation, and forming a potential Supreme Court majority allegiance

against the First Amendment that would destabilize American Law altogether and

endanger the entire world without impeachment taking place!

The accolades before her nomination concerning gender and race as good as these

maybe, may have been only a ploy to divert attention from stacking the Supreme Court

against the First Amendment. Rome has tightened its noose around American law, the

intent to strangle is not unintended.

527
 The scales of justice may already tip dangerously towards Rome. The bench is

loaded with men and women who possess, in principle, a duel citizenship of divided

loyalties. “None can serve two masters.” Will these respect the rights of others whose

beliefs and practices differ from their own while preserving a true republic where men are

secure in their persons to believe as their conscience dictates or pull the rug out from

under their own respected status and have more enemies than numerous states can muster

as a population. Only with respect for an individual’s conscience will peace ever be

preserved, and only time will tell the uncertain tale? Whom do we trust, Rome or the

evolutionists, when they are essentially two heads cramped uncomfortably onto one body

of dangerous propensities? As the hand that holds the sword guards the heart: Eternal

vigilance is the price of liberty!

The non-establishment clause of the 1st Amendment prohibits the Union of

Church and State, whereas, A Wall of Separation between Church and State prohibits the

free exercise of religion, the right to assemble, and the freedom of the press and speech

which is frequently denied, and permitting all sorts of iniquities to seep under that wall,

and therefore is unconstitutional, unlawful and is a direct frontal assault on the

Constitution to destroy it by making the Law of Survival the supreme Law of the Land!

An establishment of a religious world view now illegally exists as Federal Law and if

Congress has not enacted such a law, then the existence of such an establishment would

be illegal on either account, and if the infraction remains unresolved by subjection to the

Constitution, then it can be opposed with civil disobedience to the point of rebellion as

having every moral justification against the traitors against the Constitution. If the non-

528
establishment clause is eliminated ─ that would be treason. If the Wall of Separation is

retained ─ that is treason. There is only one clear course to steer in order to do neither.

“Before I built a wall I’d ask to know

what I was walling in or walling out

and to whom I was like to give offense.

Something there is that doesn’t love a wall, that wants it down”

to quote the wisdom and simple elegance of one of our greatest poets, Robert Frost. So

tare down that “high and impregnable” Berlin-Wall, that wall of endless spite and

conflict. “Good neighbors” prefer a low New England style stone wall, where good

neighbors can speak and commiserate. “An amicus brief filed in Everson warned against

turning the wall of separation into an iron curtain. Others have suggested the images of a

wall with doors or guarded gaps, like the great wall of China, a barbed wire fence; and

even a prison wall. The fact that all these conceptions of a wall with their conflicting

legal corollaries can be (and are) drawn from Jefferson’s wall demonstrates how

problematic the metaphor is.” A wall restricts parties on both sides; but the First

Amendment was meant solely to restrict the federal government and the church from

interfering with, and aiding each other, and instead, to promote the progress of those

sentiments of freedom which tend to restore to man all his natural rights. Jefferson was

referring “to the eventual disestablishment of the various churches in the states from

participating politically, to match the rules of the federal government..” This was

accomplished by the 1830’s. “Rehnquist said in 1985 of the wall of separation: [It] is a

metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to

529
judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.” Book review from Catalyst

March 2003). I firmly agree as long as it is not forgotten that abandoning the wall of

separation which is not a written part of the Constitution does not disband the non-

establishment clause of the First Amendment. It should be noted, there are many both

good and honest Roman Catholics and many who have helped to preserve our individual

liberties. It is the conniving leaders of their denomination which threaten the integrity of

our Constitution, and threaten disaster for US all to whatever responsibly they may hold

which may never be fully known are at least partly to blame! Obviously, for them, it was

a bird in the hand for the simple price of stealing a gift. Which leads one to wonder why

so many individuals, institutions, courts and legislatures so rarely publicly use the actual

and official clause in the Constitution, but resort almost exclusively to a different phrase

of a Wall of Separation between Church and State, and therefore a variance in

Constitutional interpretation from the original intent given to the First Amendment by our

forefathers, if it were not perceived by at least a few that some questionable advantage

could be gained by doing so.

Charles Darwin published an abstract of his theory of evolution, the Origin of

Species, on Nov. 24, 1859. The Origin of Species was very controversial as it is today,

and upset many established patterns of thought, and contradicted firmly held religious

tenets. We generally know the rest of the history. The Origin of Species was published

seventy years after the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The signors

were not prophets, but they were gifted with justice and intelligence. Evolution has

disguised its religious propensities almost innately as a different paradigm of truth.

530
Scientifically, 150 years after Charles Darwin published his theory, we know his theory is

wrong, and its continual promotion has taken on the distinction of a fraud as a religion.

The causes leading to our current Constitutional crisis is premised on two grand

errors: (1) “A wall of Separation between Church and State” is an ancillary phrase that

represents a classic misinterpretation that can be interpreted almost any way that is useful

to different, almost opposite agendas.

(2) The second error is the definition that evolution as a worldview is not a

religion while other worldviews are, is nothing more than a logical artifice to squeak by

on a superficial scrutiny.

The result is that a Wall of Separation between Church and State has established

a National Law of Religious Doctrine in clear Violation of the First Amendment’s non-

establishment clause and is therefore unconstitutional as a governing phrase. Resultantly,

the Constitution has been torn up and ripped apart by whoever is responsible for this

conspiracy! Someone knew what they were doing while others may have not!

There are two hurdles which stand in the way of Rome’s ultimate triumph, and

our subjection to her cruel and inhuman tyrannies! The Wall of Separation between

Church and State which has both breached and out-flanked the non-establishment clause,

giving Atheism and Rome an unfair advantage, must therefore be eliminated and

dismantled because it has done the opposite of the intent of the Constitution. Once this is

out of the way, only treason can eliminate the non-establishment clause which is at the

real heart and core of the Constitution. If Rome is going to commit treason, then let her

commit it, not by an inch here or an inch there, here a little or there a little, creeping

531
stealthily upon her prey unnoticed in the shadows of conspiracy. Let her commit treason

openly before the whole world, so that all will know who their real enemy is!

Furthermore, This pseudo-Federal law has been gradually formulated and

hammered into shape almost entirely by court rendering and interpretations and by

practice and imposed custom, and not by a Congressional vote, which in that case, would

have also defied the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

On deciding the legal fate of the dysfunctional phrase, “A Wall of Separation

between Church and State, and when offsetting the unintended results and damage this

faulty interpretation of the non-establishment clause has created, by looking at what exist

by de facto as the functioning law of the land, affirm that it was not established by

Congressional act, and would have, even if established by that elite body, violated the

Constitution by either means of its conception, Congress could strike down the teaching

of evolution like Mordecai by confirming that Congress never made such a law

sanctioning the teaching of evolution, thus restoring and enacting the freedom of speech,

and the freedom of the press! Essentially, Evolution has been serving in de facto in place

of another religion which establishment of would violate the First Amendment. If

prayer, or the phrase “under God” in the pledge of allegiance can be stuck down because

an atheist doesn’t want to repeat it, than the enforcement of homework assignments

supporting the dogma of evolution to graduate, which would be equally repulsive to a

theistic belief, should also be struck down. Besides, an atheist does not have a gun stuck

to the side of his head if he simply leaves the prayer out in comparison to a textbook and

a whole course, out. The provision in the Amendment to protect the minority from the

majority, has as its intent to protect the freedom of conscience of both sides and not

532
single out and hand cuff the majority or the minority. People should not be forced to

make up their minds between two equally demanding worldviews, but instead should be

allowed to make up their own minds without government interference, and a government

mandate enforcing one or the other. When government chooses sides, it has become the

enemy of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the freedom of the press, and

the right to assemble and therefore loses all legitimacy to govern. Nor is any known

wrong protected by rights such as an inalienable right by an allegedly theoretical right of

another. If the Constitution is merely a museum piece, then there is no legitimate

restraint and we can declare and wage war on each other. As I argue, there are covert

organizations waiting for that precise disaster to occur. And while we are working

diligently at our own self-destruction, we can return government and social order back to

the dark ages and restore their equivalent evils and set back enlightenment by

millenniums, if not permanently.

But there are alternatives. Time will tell the tails not yet enacted. Those who are

unafraid are ungovernable by fear. And when a people lose their fear amazing results

begin to transpire. When hundreds of thousands of people assemble in public places and

discover they are a civil society, they find the repression and exploitation they had long

endured were intolerable, and they find they are the overlords of the despots who must be

vanquished at the behest of their will. No armies need march, no superior weaponry need

decide the countries fate, no one may need to be forced from power by armed might. The

intolerable fixtures of wrongs yields solemnly like clay to the undauntable will of a free

and united people to set at naught intolerable abuses. But authorities who stubbornly

refuse to recognize the vote of a sovereign, independent and free people, can themselves

533
be removed from power and force by the will of the people. Should the state become the

enemy of the people by its abuses and tyranny, a people have nothing other than their

resolve to remain free and to be governed with equality and justice as the moral

imperative that should govern the course of their actions from civil disobedience to

armed conflict to forcing the removal of the injustice as the very last resort.

If the American people, in order to abolish the establishment of evolution from

amongst their midst and end government support and abuse, find determined and armed

resistance to their Constitutional Rights ─ the revolutionary right to dispose of a

tyrannical government overrides any Constitutional right to preserve it. But the problem

may resolve itself not from the institutions of the state, but by the very last resort of

physical removal of the despots seemingly impervious to the inalienable rights and

solemn dictates of individual rights collectively by action protecting the rights of the

people as a whole.

Do we have nothing to fear? Chris Korzen of “Catholics United” said, “There’s a

legitimate conversation to be had how best to translate the teaching of the Catholic faith

into public policy.” To have employed the word ‘translate,’ is spine-chilling when

recalling the history of the fiery means by which the Inquisitionist employed it against the

so-called heretics in the past. Many a “MARTYR” was ‘translated’ by a fiery send off

which should never become a part of “public policy.” Refer to: Fox’s Book of Martyrs.

Yet in spite of Rome’s vast history of past crimes, reprisals and abuses, “(John

Paul 11) insisted that men have no reliable hope of creating a viable geopolitical system,

unless it is on the basis of Roman Catholic Christianity.” Malachi Martin, a Jesuit and

Vatican insider, Keys of This Blood, page 492. Is it Christian to burn your opposition to

534
the stake, or being like Christ stirring up a gang of thugs and priests to bring about and

enforce God’s love for your fellow man by killing them? Than you must be mad. Can

you really imagine Christ as God on earth doing such a thing while he was here on earth.

Remember, he was made a victim to demonstrate evil at its worse by the thugs of the

Roman Empire who employed the cruelty of the cross to illustrate how fare evil would go

given the opportunity and power. But the Pope claims to be God on earth and Christ’s

representative. How do you explain this dichotomy of character. God was hung on a

cross, ancient Rome hung victims on a cross and Modern Rome tied them and burnt them

to a stake. Rome’s boost is a boost of terrorist murder! So what would that Roman

Catholic geopolitical system be like extenuating the shadow of the Dark Ages over a

modern world as an international Inquisition, a world-engulfing holocaust of

assassination and murder to spread the Roman Catholic gospel under the banner that

might makes right and power to destroy all who fall under Rome’s dubious definition of a

heretic or an enemy of Rome, Rome the enemy of who ─ our Christ? Evil is insane or it

would not be evil. Rome can never be trusted no matter how advanced civilization

develops ─ cruelty and ambition do not become more humane, and civilization is not

advanced by the mere education and the enlightenment of tyrants, they become only far

worse than dread can ever anticipate.

“Willing or not, ready or not, we are all involved in an all out, no-holds-barred…

global competition. Most of us are not competitors, however. We are the stakes. For

the competition is about who will establish the first one world system of government that

has ever existed in the society of nations…. The competition is all-out because, now that

it has started, there is no way it can be reversed or called off.” Jesuit Malachi Martin,

535
Keys of This Blood,1990, page 15. Did Malachi claim this government should be

democratic or a republic or an unrestrained tyranny? Democracy can be ruled by what

can become a majority of tyrants as opposed to a republic where the rights of the

individual take preference. Under a world government, if you are perceived as a threat,

the threat will be eliminated, meaning you. Enjoy Republicanism while it last before

your skin is scrapped off of your body or you are impaled on a lance, or shot through the

brain, world governments have no concerned for your welfare but only for their quibbling

damnations of sophistry. In Keys of This Blood, Malachi Martin revels how the Roman

Catholic Church plans to impose what is nothing less than its chilling Globalized Roman

Catholic inquisition on the entire world. What they intend to do with you may be

specifically indexed and indicated in one of its pages somewhere. Either submit, or be

destroyed! Like the Nazi’s, not euthanizing opponents is what Rome has always done

best.

On February 17, 1950, James Warburg, Lobbyist member for the private interest

group, Council on Foreign Relations, which advises and lobbies the President, and both

the house and Senate, while testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,

echoed a similar sentiment, “We shall have world government whether or not you like it

─ by conquest or consent” or why didn’t he admit, by treason’s subterfuge. Why should

we be seized by conquest if his schemes were not against us, or forced to consent to

ideals we already agree on? Because this madman knows we will not go gently into that

evil night.

536
 Remember, setting the ground work for a global government was secretly on the

agenda of the 2009 Copenhagen global warming treaty which collapsed partly to do with

this discovery.

All this competition is about who will have the right to shot you first for some

infraction of just being human and having something someone else doesn’t want you to

have.

“The dream of order and unity once embodied in the Rome of the Caesars lived

on through the Middle Ages not only in the Roman Catholic Church but in the Holy

Roman Empire.” Time, October 6, 1961. That unity and order was always bought at the

price of peace with the coinage of warfare.

If our Roman Catholic Supreme Court rules against Intelligent Design or

Creationism as the scientific equivalent and philosophical opposite of atheism and

evolution ─ that could signal the fate of this nation to revolution and demise. If we are

not ruled by the entire Constitution, than perhaps we owe no allegiance to the

government which assaults any of its promised freedoms! Treason’s zealots are then fair

game and they themselves are endangered. Notice: Protestantism wants to reinstate into

public policy the exact opposing view of that of Catholicism which accepts evolution, and

in this conflict, who is going to win will not be the United States or the world if

Catholicism wins. Who has the strongest grip around the jugular hold of fate?

Catholicism will not relent because it does not believe in the predicted disaster and

judgment at the end of the world depicted in scripture, nor has She ever denounced the

crimes of Her Inquisition or Her unholy, terrorist participation in the holocaust! Rome

would reestablish her power as a geopolitical system ruling the world with the

537
viciousness of the Caesars and that of Rome’s Vicars of the dark ages. A renewal of that

flaming madness which lit Rome’s Inquisition will spread into a conflagration destroying

the whole of civilization and the earth with it. The intent of Rome repeats itself as does

history. America ruled by Rome would be the greatest act of demonic cataclysmic

terrorism in the history of the world. Where has Rome changed? Where has Rome

reformed? Rome can only rule the world by the conspiracy of a terrorist plot and

disintegration into world-wide destruction! Every day of Rome’s existence carries the

rebuke of history. Even their music hasn’t changed in nearly a thousand years ─

tragically fugue like then melancholically harmonically progressive, liturgically

exhausting and deafening, monotonously drilling without any melodious line of joy like a

death march, giftedly unsatisfying, soul condemning and soul numbing, chanting instead

of enchanting in their approach to god like a soulless dirge memorializing the death of the

Almighty making the punishment of their hell unnecessary.

Every Sunday Rome’s ancient and worn-out liturgical music is played dully over

our classical music station, and every Sunday, I turn it off after a brief interval of the

triumph of hope over experience that the station will play something more soul

inspiringly triumphant in our thankfulness to God, but why should I expect anything

better to commemorate the Biblically wrong sabbath day of the week? The Pope gets

more respect than the Almighty as he gives the Almighty only disrespect and blasphemy

celebrated with gloomy, nearly tone death music.

Ever notice how many Roman Catholics are found on both sides of “A Wall of

Separation” while some support the counter position of “the non-establishment clause”?

In the lower and hidden agenda and the vast reaches of Roman’s mind boggling

538
catacombs, Rome probably thinks she can take US by shrewdness either way, by

government infiltration and majority power to change the Constitution, or by

constitutional misinterpretation!

I know of a Protestant evangelist, who is Jewish, but his father sent him to Roman

Catholic schools and later he converted to Protestantism. He has testified on TV that

those same Roman Catholic schools taught him evolution as has another Protestant

Evangelist who was also raised on the teachings of evolution in Catholic schools. If

Roman Catholic schools teach evolution, and evolution is sworn to as a fundamental tenet

by their hierarchy as I have clearly shown, than it is a Roman Catholic doctrine as I have

already clearly confirmed. Than evolution is both a religious tenet and a religious issue

of the largest church on earth with devious relational concerns with American’s

1stAmendment. Therefore, the exclusive teaching and support of evolution in our public

schools and institutions, creates an illegal establishment of religion expressly prohibited

by the non-establishment clause that “Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion! A decisively religious point of view can not enforce its

acceptance by law which conspires its teaching! As a result, Rome has by trickery and

deceit imposed her concepts of doctorial absolutism on society by covert and nefarious

design, by disguising her dogmas as scientific absolutism and non-religious and directly

disassociating her obvious support of them as religious, so she might undermine

Protestantism and Constitutionality in a single blow in the United States. Arguments

that evolution is not a religious concept are a fraud, and at worse, a deliberate

undermining of the First Amendment’s non-establishment clause to destroy American

democracy. This means only two legal and logical outcome’s are feasible, either

539
evolution must be thrown out of our public curriculum and domain and totally

abandoned, or both views, Design and Evolution must be given equal representation and

equal footing and status and taught as equal alternatives and evolution countermanded

where money is squandered into the hundreds of millions for questionable research and

dubious grants where there are other alternatives, all else assaults the Constitution as an

enemy. Ask yourself this: If Rome “rejects creationism” and accepts Darwinism which

“doesn’t merely contradict the literal Biblical account of a six day creation, but carried to

its logical conclusion, undercuts the very basis of all Christianity” and theistic religion,

can Rome not be expected to be other than an enemy of our Constitution and of

Christianity as a whole?

Catholicism with its twin assassins of atheism and evolution, have breached that

Wall of Separation with clasped hands with government to form an alliance, a Union of

Church and State which is strictly forbidden by the Constitution’s 1st Amendment with

Protestantism nowhere in sight. This is a revolution, the overthrow of the 1stAmendment

of the US Constitution. That breach must be repaired by Congress tearing down that wall

of offenses and overthrowing this Unholy Alliance of Church and State by severing the

bond that unites them ─ not by metaphor but by first Amendment law.

The First Amendment explicitly states word for word: “Congress shall make no

law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free excise thereof….”

Madison said he apprehended the words to mean: “Congress should not establish a

religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship [or

not to worship] God in any manner contrary to their conscience.” Suggesting that by

respecting an establishment of a particular religious persuasion by Congressional

540
endorsement, or an endorsement by de facto means would form an illegal establishment.

Notwithstanding, if an establishment of religion already exist by de facto means other

than by a direct and illegal enactment of Congress or by a de facto of court rulings

creating unconstitutional mandates and illegal Constitutional precedents, and even if an

enactment explicitly contradictory to the Constitution where enacted by Congress, this

would be in either case illegal and therefore unconstitutional. Congress is to make no law

respecting the establishment of religion, but if Congress discovers an establishment of

religion already exists by various de facto renderings and interpretations or by unlawful

tradition or by even long custom as Congress itself and the courts are expressly

prohibited from creating, than Congress is obligated not to respect it, but must tare it

down and dismantle it with punitive laws if necessary to undergird, underline and enforce

precisely the First Amendment of the Constitution making the teaching of evolution

either illegal or taught as an alternative set against other points of view as all world views

are intrinsically religious in aspect. But science cannot, neither can religion which has

definite scientific implications be taught exclusively without some controversy of rival

views being taught with the freedom to express equally their ideas or to freely disavow

them. This is what democracy is all about and does better than any other form of

government, it provides divergent points of view with equal opportunities to express their

differences, provides freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and the right to

assemble peacefully for the discussion, for the practice and the promulgation of ideas

without the fear of reprisal, censor and restraint ─ concepts which have forged the

powers of freedom as the dominate force in the world. But Congress cannot establish or

enforce a legal observation of any religious worldview by law. The only solution in

541
deciding a conflict is a compromise of equal protections and equal restraints, without

allowance of either to domination with government support.

When a majority of 58% of Roman Catholics [Pew survey] believe in evolution

which is taught in Roman Catholic Schools as a cardinal Roman Catholic doctrine, is

also taught in public schools, enforcement in public venues obviously and clearly violates

the non-establishment clause of the Constitution and is an attack on the First Amendment,

but in both essence and principle, this general or the fundamental argument is always shot

down in courts as unconstitutional! The religion of evolution has been granted special

licenses, privileges and rights denied to other equally or possibly superior or more correct

points of view. If a state or county decides to teach intelligent design, what happens?

The ACLU jumps into the fray and funds its defeat by appealing to a pretended and

artificial Wall of Separation forcing the continual Federal support of evolution as a

mandate of Federal law. I would like to know how many ACLU attorneys are Jesuits

and Roman Catholics in disguise or out of disguise? Notwithstanding, the Courts of the

United States are equally guilty if not solely and entirely guilty of undermining the non-

establishment clause by pseudo court renderings and misinterpreted mandates of

Constitutional law in clear contradiction and violation of the First Amendment of the

Constitution that government is strictly forbidden to establish a state supported or a state

run religion as is evolution. Such court findings and rulings supporting a particular

worldview are defiantly against the clear mandates of the First Amendment! Definitions

of what constitutes a religion is half of the crime if defined and dissected closely. The

teaching of evolution is the teaching of Roman Catholic Church Doctrine in public

Schools. Over decades, this Roman Catholic tenet has by de facto stolen billions of

542
America’s research dollars to undergird and support Rome’s doctrines in public and

private institutions in opposition to short age evidence and to thwart the very strong case

for intelligent design and Biblical tenets. These huge amounts of stolen and fraudulent

research dollars must run into the countless billions of dollars which need to be repaid to

the empty coffers of the US Treasury to help even out the damage done to the

Constitution in fines and punishment for Rome’s covert attempt to destroy the opposition

by disqualifying her opponents as solely religious while evolution was disguised as not

religious, and disguising her beliefs as unchallengeable scientific manifestos of truth no

other religion could match. Well, the tables have turned and Rome has picked a dead

horse as a sure loser. The gamble that her trickery would not lose, or America will be

the loser and all the rest of the then threatened world Rome was so arrogantly sure of.

Rome has succeeded in getting her evolutionary doctrines taught in public and

private institutions by de facto mandates fraudulently posing with the enforced legality of

State and Federal law in obvious and contradictory violation of the prohibition of an

establishment of religion by government mandate by all intent and purposes

overthrowing the US Federal Constitution and no one gets upset? If this is not treason,

will some one please enlighten me as to what treason is as I am not an idiot and I would

like to understand this apparently very subtle point. But Rome is, of course, innocent of

all of these charges when she has always tried historically to counter the Protestant

Reformation with Rome’s counterfeit Reformation, to counter the outcome of the

American Revolution and Constitution and the vindication of the American Civil War by

the destruction of slavery which she, in principle opposed through her adherents,

countering Rome’s cunning intrigues, behind the scenes betrayals, and by carrying

543
infamy to every imagined extreme by direct involvement in assassinating the greatest of

our American Presidents, and by stacking the Supreme Court and masquerading Rome’s

deadly intent like the unexpected shrewdness of a viper in the brush until she is ready to

strike and destroy her enemy by subtlety and stealth. Obviously, Rome does not want

her treason to be discovered until she can be sure of overwhelming and overthrowing her

intended victims with the element of surprise ─ the American people! The stupidity of

politicians and policy makers of not being aware of the obvious statements of the intent

by Rome to establish a world government controlled and founded by Roman dogma and

practice seems an entirely inadequate excuse of oversight. The American people have

known nothing of this betrayal by Rome in the most part. But that lack of knowledge is

no longer hidden when resurrected by the discovery of Roman’s hideous intent for our

future under her pathological Banner of international intrigue and terrorism! A word of

wisdom for the unwise: placate the serpent of Rome until she strikes! Then moan with

agony, as it is too late to retract pass actions and die with the rationalization that the

enemy of death can no longer do worse to the dead and dying.

There is always the caution, don’t saying anything alarming or accusatory, don’t

stir up a storm. Hand the prize to Rome on a silver platter lined with gold relief and

welcome your defeat! Why don’t these dissenters, traitors of our Constitution, not

wanting to offend anyone, go out and struggle themselves by their own hands, a rope will

help, a gun will do the job sufficiently, and get their own relief from the struggle to

preserve democracy and placate the country with a false sense of peace and leave the rest

of US alone. There is a general undercurrent, “don’t create dissention and sensation.” I

guess this means: lie and don’t tell the truth at all costs. Silence is always an enabler of

544
evil and that is irresponsible. I am only applying logic to what people and institutions say

and do when comparing our and their notes with history and science!

In the landmark case, Keyishian v. Board of Regents, Justice Brennan in

delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court wrote, “The classroom is peculiarly the

‘marketplace of ideas.’” In the same case he states, “Freedom is therefore a special

concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws, that cast a pall of

orthodoxy over the classroom.” Evolution has been for years the singularly enforced

orthodoxy of science and religion in public education. But there is a definite choice in

science. Than how can the classroom be a market place for ideas if other competing

ideas are prohibited, if you curb the expression of ideas and freedom of speech and of the

press?

An excellent article in a religious liberty magazine stated, “We must remember

that religious liberty is but a subset of civil liberty, which has as its substrate the kinship

of all mankind. To berate other belief systems is to foment strife ─ even civil war!” This

sums up what this book has been arguing all along! But than you would likely say, isn’t

your defense so volatile, it contradicts the essence of your argument? That would be true

if the other side wasn’t trying to so totally dominate the conversation that this is the kind

of reaction we would all prefer to avoid but which cannot be avoided if things continue as

they are! It can be said accurately of evolution: give a man a little bit of evidence, and he

will make a mountain of certainty out of a mole hill of facts. But a theory doesn’t resolve

the problem of missing facts.

Evolution is provocatively anti-scientific and is a clear enemy of the scientific

method. Science deals with phenomena which are testable, observable, and

545
demonstrable, whereas evolution is upheld only by a vast array of hypothetical models

which are neither demonstrable, testable, or observable or reproducible in modern

laboratories, and inevitably, these theories are found to be directly counter to the

scientific evidence or are propped up by few facts and vast theoretical structures.

Evolution is solely the grandiose invention of the imagination held in the illusion and the

ignorance of the last two preceding centuries and is premised entirely on the errors of

hypothesis rather than on critical data, whereas data should determine a hypothesis if a

hypothesis should even be resorted to? There has never been one advancement in any

field of science which evolution has demonstrating aided. For instance: evolution

promoted these and other erroneous hypothesis and fallacies: A. No Catastrophes. B.

Junk DNA. C. The number of Chromosomes determine the complexity of the organism.

D. Amino-acids can self-organize into proteins. F. 98% of human and ape DNA is the

same. G. The eye is wired in backwards. H. The disorganized and frequently dangerous

molecules of the much acclaimed Miller-Urey type of experiment reproduces a complete

array of life sustaining biological molecules. An experiment which in all other

overwhelming aspects produce deadly results that would destroy life or leave some

necessary aspect out all together! Contradictions: [1] “If the genome is degenerating, our

species is not evolving.” [2] Survival of Dinosaur DNA argues for short age deposits, as

opposed to long age radiometric dates for the great beasts, or the strata they are buried in.

And there are incoherent inconsistencies between Mass Spectrometer short age findings

and long age predictions made by outdated and untrustworthy Geiger counters [3] Half of

all radiometric dates in North America are thrown out, either indicating a contradiction

with the Geological column, or are self contradictory and therefore unscientific by their

546
self-inflicted disagreements. [4] The seed of life originated in outer space, evading an

explanation of its origin on earth. [5] The fossil record is full of gaps where transitional

forms were suppose to have been found, but after a 150 year search, and well over

100,000,000, and perhaps as many as 300,000,000 specimens have been examined by

paleontologists, collected, filed and housed mostly in museum vaults, there still have

been no transitional forms found anywhere in the fossil record. This is scandalous!

Demonstrated: [1] No start up switch for living evolution has ever been discovered and

scientifically certified: similar to [H]. Proven: [1] Natural Selection has no functional

mechanism. Similar to [C1]. Therefore, no known inheritance of advantages mutations

can be accounted for. When asked if he could give an example of the transfer of a

mutation to offspring? Dawkins was completely stumped. He couldn’t even think of a

single example. This is on video. He looked totally stumped! Dawkins is a genius at

getting himself into uncompromisingly uncomfortable and unpredictable positions and

writing inflammatory, goofball non-sense. Hopefully, he enjoys what he is doing, or it

would all be entirely pointless. Predicted: There are likely as vast dissimilarities in

organisms genetic systems and functions as there are alleged impossible similarities.

Similar to [F]. Conclusions: [1]. Only intelligence can build, read and form deductions

from pre-existing biological systems. Philosophically: The dogmatic evolutionary cadre

of Darwinism has fomented more deadly strife than any other dogmatic novelty in world

history and is accepted and defended as a legitimate Doctrine of the Roman Catholic

Church! It can only be deduced, that Catholicism intends to impel us towards Darwinian

strife and the overthrow of legitimate Democratic Systems of Government. Darwinism

547
is responsible for two World Wars and looks forward to the future in the prophecies of its

radical convictions.

Darwinism led to class struggle and warfare through communism, to extreme

nationalism, racism, and warfare through Nazism and Fascism. But today, if we hear the

knock of dogma on our the door, we will open it up and invite the devil in, if he charms

and does not overtly threaten and if he smiles he deceives a thousand concerns.

“The greatest authority for all advocates of war is Darwin. Since the theory of

evolution has been promulgated, they can cover their natural barbarism with the name of

Darwin and proclaim the sanguinary instincts of their inmost hearts as the last word of

science.” Max Nordau, The Philosophy and Morals of War, in North American Review

169 (1889), p. 794.

Barzun, a history teacher at Columbia University, wrote an epic book, Darwin,

Marx, Wagner, in which he clearly showed that Darwinism inflamed militarism and

warfare wherever it went.

“In every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party

demanding armaments, and individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an

imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party

demanding the conquest of power, and a racialist party demanding internal purges against

aliens ─ all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, or even before, invoked

Spencer and Darwin, which was to say, Science Incarnate.” 1958

These previous images project a disturbing picture onto the movie screen of our

age, labor unions struggling for bartering rights beyond the reason of the vote, a military

party for the increase of armaments, special interest groups vying for special privileges

548
denied to the masses, capitalism based on the stronger becoming stronger and the weaker

becoming more disfranchised, and socialists and communists creating unrest and anarchy,

their history seemingly forgotten, and religious and political organizations seeking to

dominate not just merely through Republicanism and democracy, but rather through the

domination of a world government, and the movement on the screen into the future keeps

playing on until the players are struggling with each other and this is no longer a simple

game of contest, but a serious and combative and destructive and a more frightening

struggle for domination to control the entire world. This is a fantastic insanity

comparable to that of Marxism and Nazism, yet never before so entirely aggressive or

evilly conceived by even an instant of time in all of human history. This is satanic to

such a vast extent on a scale never before comprehended or seen that the very existence

of the worst of all evils has to be a given by such extremes of radicalism.

Remember Mr. Schwartz, an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine who

swore a vitriol challenge to proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design as he

quoted Clarence Darrow’s proclamation as his own personal banner of hatred and malice:

“We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the

education of the United States,” other words, those bigots and ignoramuses are those who

hold to any belief systems which are not pro-Darwinian and support Republicanism and

not totalitarianism.

And Mr. Schwartz continues his malicious defamation of intelligent design

proponents because they have “attracted support from U.S. politicians [apparently this is

an unforgivable crime [ I almost pronounced the unforgivable word: sin] given his

incinerary criteria?] at every level of government, from the Dutch minister of education,

549
to the Roman Catholic archbishop of Vienna, who has determined that the theory of

evolution is inconsistent with the teachings of his church.” I would like to think the

archbishop was correct about the actual teachings of his church, but unfortunately, this is

not the case as we already know. But in his objection to evolution, the Cardinal joins

Joseph Stalin, who “forbid its teachings in the Soviet Union” according to Mr. Schwartz?

Stalin prohibited the teaching of evolution in Soviet schools? Who is Mr.

Schwartz kidding, is his statement a cruel and twisted joke, the adventure of undeniable

delusions out of touch with reality? To paraphrase that part of Mr. Schwartz’s

acrimonious statement: In his objection to evolution, the Cardinal of Vienna is

denigrated to the malevolence of Stalin. Is Mr. Schwartz being obscenely obtuse, or is

he crazy?! The historical evidence does not bear this out anywhere that I can detect.

“Lenin was an ardent evolutionist and so was Stalin.” In fact, it was the messages he

read in Darwin’s book that turned Joseph Stalin into the bestial creature he became. “At

a very early age, while still a pupil in ecclesiastical school, comrade Stalin developed a

critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an

atheist.” E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (1940), pp.8-9 [written and

published in Moscow, by a close associate of Stalin, while Stalin was alive]. Another

person who was in the same school with Stalin, said of what they were taught: “In order

to disabuse the minds of our seminary students of the myth that the world was created in

six days, we had to acquaint ourselves with the geological origin and age of the earth, and

be able to familiarize ourselves with Darwin’s teachings.” [This person was not

identified and may or may not be the same individual as the previous author, but they

relate similar information about their shared educational experience with only the

550
slightest difference in overall context]. We get virtually the same picture from both

authors.

Compare the assertion Stalin would not allow the teaching of evolution in Soviet

schools to, he became a convert to evolution at a very early age while still in

ecclesiastical school, duh! He was an obvious evolutionist, not a Creationist? “In 1918,

Soviet rulers took over all private and parochial schools and colleges.” This action

doesn’t seem friendly to a creationist education I would think. “When the communists

came into power, they created a nationwide system of secular schools.” Grolier. Secular

means in this preceding application neither sacred or religious. I have argued throughout

this book that evolution is not a secular belief, but a tyrannically dogmatic and tragically

religious one. Some mad men throw words around like other men throw baseballs and

their aim is studiously off. But let’s think of the words as they are perceived of as in

Soviet schools are atheistic. Logic seems disjointed if we insist on these two extremes:

evolution and creationism are contradictions in origins: agreed; one happenstantial and

one not, while both are equally and fundamentally religious in every other aspect except

definition by weak logic!

A few more points of evidence are needed before we can decide whether Mr.

Schwartz has only a crippled leg to stand on and must use a cane before tripping.

“From 1930 onward, Soviet policy was more antagonistic toward non-orthodox

denominations than towards orthodoxy[which, itself was nearly driven into extinction by

Soviet persecution], but [since it]had been the established church under the Tsars and was

linked with Russian patriotism [after Stalin realized his astounding losses on the Russian/

German front and needed additional men, orthodoxy was allowed a temporary revival]…

551
The main Arm of Antireligious education was the Society for Dissemination of Political

and Scientific Knowledge, the successor of the league of militant Atheists founded in

1925… Within state apparatus, the Council on Religious Affairs kept tabs on the clergy,

working hand in hand with the political police.” Encarta. Does this sound like a

supportive atmosphere for Creation Fundamentalism or “let freedom ring from shore to

shinning shore ” in the gloomy context of a land of repression ─ as in freedom of religion

and freedom of speech, and the freedom of conscience, and the right to assemble and to

publish dissident viewpoints, to suggest a few that would not have been tolerated?

With overwhelming anti-religious fervor and National Atheistic control of the

country and media, does it even seem reasonable to assume on any grounds that Stalin

would not have allowed evolution to be taught in the soviet educational system? As a

demand course of fundamental study, it may not have been as pseudo-sophisticated as it

is today in the United States. But this is what Mr. Schwartz affirms in principle, and then

to quote, “The Roman archbishop of Vienna, [ ] has determined that the theory of

evolution is inconsistent with the teachings of the church.” Mr. Schwartz has employed

the third person singular, present indicative “has.” So this state of being is in present

tense, enforce. “In his objection to evolution, the Cardinal ?[ unknowingly and certainly

unwittingly, I am sure,] aligns himself with Joseph Stalin, “who forbade its teaching in

the Soviet Union,” according to Robert Schwartz, M.D.&BS. For this rather strange

citation, supposedly exposed as historical fact, the Cardinal is no better of a man than

Joseph Stalin. But Stalin is not demonized because he purposely caused the deaths of at

least 20 million of his fellow countrymen, he is censored because he wouldn’t allow

evolution to be taught in Soviet schools ─ a most likely entirely fictitious charge! A

552
dubious charge which I have not been able to substantiate by any source. Is there any

redemption in Mr. Schwartz’s argument? Evolution and atheism are nearly identical

twines of damnation and destruction! And it is not entirely clear whether the archbishop

received an upgrade in rank, or the archbishop and the cardinal are, or are not the same

individual. And Joseph Stalin is solely demonized because he did not allow evolution to

be allegedly taught in the Soviet Union, which the teaching of would have resultantly

raised Soviet morals to accuse their own evils? Who is this idiot kidding? Otherwise,

their alleged dubious association places this particular archbishop or cardinal, or whoever

at the same despicable level as Joseph Stalin, according to Mr. Schwartz’s acrimonious

disapproval of this archbishop’s or Cardinal’s actions, or whoever had been thus

allegedly guilty of defending a non-evolutionary viewpoint. This whole picture is

screwy. Something fishy, or absurd is going on with Mr. Schwartz’s stone age

accounting ─ it’s called either deception or careless stupidity. We are not given the name

of this archbishop or Cardinal or when his dissention took place. Why do I say

dissention. It contradicts the information I have and I will produce it. Perhaps this

anonymous individual or individuals Mr. Schwartz refers to, was removed by Rome

because he had challenged Roman Catholic doctrinal authority by not affirming

evolution? What I have already quoted in fuller context is the: “Influential Cardinal

Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna has affirmed the Catholic Church rejects creationism.”

This is clearly the exact opposite position and information Mr. Schwartz claims was held

to by the cardinal of Vienna. Here we have the actual name of the individual who makes

this contradictory statement, where he is from, what position he holds, and the original

quote has the year and a general location, New York, where he gave his speech, and at

553
least a synopsis of that speech published in the California, Riverside Press. In fairness it

should be noted Mr. Schwartz published his article several years before Cardinal

Schoenborn of Vienna made his speech, which also gives more credence to an

implication of my argument they may not be the same man as Cardinal Schoenborn. Mr.

Schwartz’s supposed paraphrase has none of the information needed to determine who

actually made the statement he alleges from the information he has provided us with. So

the accuracy of Mr. Schwartz’s information can not be easily checked out! If those

Soviet atheistic, evolutionary flouting demagogues did not teach evolution, then what did

they teach, theocracy and the love of God overrules in the affairs of men? This

possibility ─ no he is certain of his facts, has really upset Mr. Schwartz dramatically

without a reason he can nail down! Did the Soviet Union espouse creationism with a

Biblical 7 day creation while simultaneously operating an arm of Antireligious education

while seizing Christian schools? Being forced to arrive at such an illogical conclusion as

made by Mr. Schwartz defies all the collective and contradictorily conclusions the

information does not lend to empirical support as Mr. Schwartz’s contention would

demand. Evolution was being taught in Soviet schools as Stalin grew up, and it’s

pathogen dominated and corrupted the Soviet System and nearly destroyed Russia in its

wake, it’s irrational psychology took down Germany, Italy, Austria, and Spain,

dominantly Roman Catholic countries! It maybe America’s turn to fall like a domino!

And why ask a Russian anything concerning communism? Russians are constantly

washing their dirty Lenin, but they never come clean. Can you trust anything a Russian

tells you if he is still a Marxist?

554
 Richard Dawkins, whose general frame-up of mind sparks of many

inconsistencies, has stated in essence, Christianity should be exterminated and why

shouldn’t the Pope agree with Dawkins ─ as 58% of the Catholic Church accept[ Pew

report] man’s evolutionary origin? I already quoted Dawkins’ acidic statement. Some

extremists in the opposition might believe Dawkins’ head should be the first to roll. Is he

simply another impotent Hitler without the power and authority to act, and the

opportunity to do so, as he has the malice of forethought? Than he should give his

allegiance over to the Pope! But these kingpins of evolutionary dogma would likely

squabble over some minor point important to neither and break up the relationship. Both

should look before they trip into the deadly strike of a viper. “To berate other’s belief

systems is to foment strife ─ even civil war.” Their heads might be the first to roll in that

roll call of the drums of fate and ever ready destruction. And anyone crazy enough to

believe they could rule the entire world will bring on an epic disaster like none ever

imagined ─ far more deadly and destructive than a starved crazed tiger about to spring

like a viper from the shadowy threats of mankind’s future!

Our Federal Constitution is more than sufficient and adequate for our growing and

governing needs, the threat to freedom is brought on by those who have a nefarious agenda, or

some totalitarian design against our freedoms. As a result, we are increasingly becoming a

nation estranged within a nation, a grim and barbarous gulag spreading deep and far and wide

where the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of conscience are

controlled and abridged and struggled by a brinkmanship of insurgencies of evil against the

conscience of man posed falsely and forcibly as our evolutionary savior, an enemy of

democracy, an enemy which has stolen a threatening advance by throwing up a self-protective

555
wall like a bulwark against our Constitution which science claims only it is privileged to

rescind and has the only right to censor. This is a belligerent, outright totalitarianism waging

a war of attrition to bring about liberty’s demise where each of us in this vicious and nefarious

warfare are the high stakes. True, there is Academic freedom if you are on the politically

correct side of that wall. If you are on the other side, your throat and voice is being strangled.

“Treason against the United States, shall consist [of]… adhering to their enemies, giving them

aid and comfort.” The Constitution of the United States 1787. In the war of worldviews, the

Federal government has given vast aid and comfort to its own enemies, and to the opponents

of freedom. There is no WALL in the Constitution without a conspiracy whereas the Union

of Church and State is a double edge sword that takes offense to any concept of freedom! The

US Government cannot constitutionally establish a religious like world view as it has done!

Notice: both of these various definitions create a Union of Church and State in principle!

Either we defend freedom according to the intent of the Constitution, or we hazard the gospel

of free nations and of liberty itself will fall defeated by the most notoriously treacherous,

terrorist state, vastly nuclear armed, the world has ever faced. This is the path to the future

down which we are being dragged by Darwinism! A Great Anti-Christ crazed like another

Darwinian Hitler arising at the climax of history would give of his might to steer this massive

Ship of State to the brink of disaster and the end of human civilization. He cares nothing for

you. In spite of anything he may claim. If he cannot have it all, you cannot have any of it.

Either we defend the freedom of truth with an unflinching nerve of steel, or we sink cowardly

into tyranny and remit by default the freedoms we have attained all too lightly as they will

certainly be taken from us by force, and life will perish from an earth no longer able to

survive the unrelenting onslaught of evil!

556
 Somewhere in the future, the earth for the first time in its ages is utterly silent and

empty. A tragic tombstone planet circling in its death march in the heavens is all of what is

left of a hope which had agonizingly perished. The race of man is utterly gone and forgotten

with none to recall its tremendous struggle in memoriam of nothing. Only an assumption is

holding up the entire grand scheme and structure of the evolutionary bubble, preventing its

collapse and burst into nothing! That is to be the great end of our age?

Genius fails more spectacularly than others succeed. Evolution has been the most

spectacular failure recorded in human history. You cannot goad, twist, lie, trick, tweak or

force error into becoming a truth, or a truth into becoming an error. Such an accomplishment

does not reside within the realm of spectacular human endeavor. But evolution has been the

most spectacular delusion ever achieved. The only reward of this Great Lie is of

congratulatory regrets all around and scandal on stage before the entire human race and before

God Almighty! Do not misunderstand nor make any mistake whatsoever, there are three great

confederacies of truth I believe are worth fighting and dying for: God and His Holy Scriptures

first and foremost above all others, The Declaration of Independence, and The Constitution of

the United States. Attack any of these three and I am in the fight, and you will be in the fight

of your life that God I trust shall will, you will never win!

IS THERE A CONSPIRACY TO DESTROY FREEDOM IN AMERICA?

Has an evil ever been an evil without being a conspiracy? History lacks examples

that evil can be anything but a conspiracy. The very motto of the falsely perceived

necessity to control the destiny of others by other fallible creatures like ourselves is the

sounding board of nations and history. Civilization is what man calls his misdeeds and

557
mistakes. And history places alert exclamations of damnations to emphasis this fallacy.

Remember Mr. Schwartz ranted with the boom text of oratory in the NEJM: “WE HAVE

THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING BIGOTS AND IGNORAMUSES FROM

CONTROLLING THE EDUCATION OF THE UNITED STATES. Who are the “We,”

the psychopathic challengers of social order indicted by this formal claim as a front for a

formal organization which constitutes a conspiracy necessary to carry out such a complex

and serious design of an intent which is not left to anyone’s doubt? “We are going to

burry you,” threatened Nikita Khrushchev, pounding the desktop at the UN nearly into

the ground. All of this would require a tremendous organization, immensely well

financed and led with an implacable determination fully financed by the full faith and

credit of the United States Government and its citizens the intended victims. You read

that correctly and this has already been discussed. Since “We the People of the United

States” are the obvious Bigots and Ignoramuses who need to be censored and controlled

to save ourselves from our own self-destruction that means putting an end to all personal

liberties as tyrants always think they know better than anyone else. That is the first

adage of a madman, gifted with some special talent of hypocrisy not visible to anyone at

first, and followed by their need for comrades in crime to force everyone else into their

dungeons of wisdom, and racks of learning ─ a virtual inquisition in the waiting for

heretics who need the most correction or should be eliminated. Have you ever felt the

need to be eliminated?

These conspirators have given us plenty of examples of themselves as to whom

they are and what they plan to do with us if they ever get full control. Philosophy always

infers unpleasentries not noticeably alluded to in the beginning, to keep the gullible,

558
unconcerned. Tyrants always have plans, they may not have practical concepts which are

morally acceptable, but they always have plans and they are always threatening and they

only have to be efficient in some way, like euthanizing the unwanted and the helpless,

they do not have to be clever or in anyway moral if enough of the fearful see the light and

it accomplishes an undeniable purpose of controlling others. The Nazis were experts in

these kinds of criminal activities. How rapidly, almost suicidal history desires to forget.

Those who rationalize there is no need for concern may be sincere, they may not want to

stir up unnecessary trouble, but they are deluded and they are ignorant. Stupidity

increases the danger of sincerity by any degree of fearlessness that evil is not a threat!

The abridgment of inalienable rights is regarded as such a serious assault upon the

person and the equable structure of government that their momentous importance is given

the supreme protection of the law of the land. Their infringement and obstruction are

regarded as the most grievous crime committable under the Constitution equatable with

treason. At the writing of the Constitution, many feared that the freedom of religion

would be endangered by an un-amended Constitution. However, conspiracy in hindsight

is always clever at twisting the intent of language and there is always a clever

circumvention around almost anything and “the endangerment fear” justifiably remains

as we further investigate the surrogate clause “A Wall Of Separation between Church and

State” as a violation of the real Constitution which cannot, and does not carry the

weighted meaning of the Constitution’s intent.

The US Constitution was written, particularly the Amendments were based on the

law of peace, the Golden Rule: do unto other as you would have them do to you, not on

the law of the survival of the fittest which always undergirds the rapacity of tyrants. The

559
First Amendment directs: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or

the press, or the right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for the

redress of grievances” is a strategic definition of the Golden Rule put objectively into the

practice of law. Few recognize the flip side of this definition. “Do to others what you

would have them do to you,” meaning, the way you treat others is the way you declare

you deserve to be treated. Traditionally, this is referred to as justice ─ thought unfair by

those who don’t believe the same principles should apply to themselves. If our

Constitution had been written later in our history to reflect the baser instincts of the “Law

of Survival of the Fittest,” our great political system which has brought us international

renown, power and influence unmatched in the rivalry and history of nations, that makes

ancient Rome look like an archipelago, would have already been burnt to the ground, and

a torch taken to any Constitution similar to our own. The birds of prey and hounds of

disaster are waiting in the wing of critical events to bring the climax of disasters to its

beginning, so new disasters can crowd in upon what little is left. So when the great laws

of our national survival are jeopardized and assaulted, the remedy is not to appease the

cause of the imminent danger ─ a tiger’s hunger is appeased at the peril of enlarging on

his appetite! If the tiger springs, you have to shoot, or you will be eaten, and his strength

will grow. However, the wisdom of shooting when he crouches can hardly be lost on

anyone! The time to strike is now, and a few minutes ago. Nothing done right is usually

put off until later! The alternative is why our Constitution provides checks and balances

to throw the tiger off his spring.

560
 The present challenge to the Constitution has been hurled like a missile at its

foundation. Does that foundation have the monumental rigidity to blunt and turn back

the assault. The strength of a nation’s foundation is no stronger than the character of

those who set its foundation in place and those who watch over it. Compromise the

character of the men who uphold it, fight for it, argue for it, believe in it with all their

hearts, and its mortar and foundation is no stronger than the flesh and blood and the

character of those who guard over its liberties. So the first attack against a civilization is

always against the character of its citizens and whether they will betray it.

How is the character of a nation gradually plundered and betrayed?

By social engineering, by attacks on character, you change the structures of government

and the ordinances of its rule. The dynamics of world history are changing and

challenging what has gone before them. What were hectors destroyed in past wars, will

be continents in future wars. Where millions have died, hundreds of millions will perish,

ideologies which formerly destroyed millions will make destructive comebacks and

terrorize the world on greater scales. Evil under the stained banner of deceptions and

hideous truths will go out and deceive the whole world and would destroy it were it not

for the intervention of Divine Providences. The near future is the Advent of Biblical

proportions. Just beyond the horizon is the glimmer of its approaching glory. But man

will destroy man. The whole world is about to go under the control of demonic forces of

evil and no one even the righteous before God will look up to see their coming salvation

so terribly will they be distracted. And when all hope seems lost and evil is about to

triumph forever, evil to its unfathomed surprise will be utterly destroyed.

561
 But there are some things you need to know which rarely make it into the press as

though by an act of conspiracy and evil design. Nothing astonishingly brilliant was

accomplished without design, either good or evil!

Ben Stein, a well known columnist, narrated the film, Expelled, mentioned earlier

in this book, and in which he interviewed a number of well-known atheists and

evolutionists as well as ID supporters and creationists as to why there were so many

proscriptive biographies circling the glob that scientists who didn’t buy into all the

evolutionary rigmarole were being routinely hounded out of science and shin whipped

and blacklisted in the process. If you slander one individual, everyone is offended, but if

you slander a whole group or class of people, no one gives a dam about anything? Ben

Stein came to the conclusion, “Intelligent Design was being ruthlessly suppressed.” And

he brought his evidence with him on screen. The evolutionists and atheists were

attending a virtual cocktail party and the Intelligent Designers and the Creationists were

the Scotch and Brandy of the evolutionist’s debauchery that made them say things they

should have never admitted to an over-attentive public.

Scandalous Statements: satire

Intelligent Design: “It’s just propaganda.” The competition is much worse.

“Intelligent Design is stupid.”

“Intelligent Design stunts educational growth, it stunts intellectual growth.” Has all this

been proven? This is suppose to be science? Where are all the case studies? This

alleges: Sir Isaac Newton would have been a greater scientist had he been an Atheist and

Evolutionist, and he might not have been stupid had he been an Atheist?

562
“Intelligent Design is a racket.” If they can’t be heard, maybe they should raise their

voices.

Dawkins declared, “Intelligent Design people are not real scientists,” but Dawkins is a

“real scientist” because he knows how to pronounce the word ‘intelligent’ and can

employ unrelated expletives and verbal put downs and unsupportable accusations and

claims?

“Science education in this country is appalling, what we don’t need at this time is

Intelligent Design in the classes.”

VS.

Maybe if the classes were Designed Intelligently, science education in this country

wouldn’t be so appalling if the non-sense was thrown out.

“When someone hears about ID, they hear creationism, they hear religious right, they

hear theocracy.”

Vs.

When someone hears about Darwinism, they hear missing links which are still missing,

they hear Nazism, Fascism, Communism, every type of “ism” came ultimately from

Darwin “ism” and his worship of the apes, the survival of the fittest, Hitler, Stalin,

Mussolini ─ a very depressing list of the most infamous characters and theories in

history.

“Intelligent Design is an excuse to get creationism into the classroom.”

VS.

Claiming Intelligent Design isn’t really science is an excuse to keep evolution and its

diabolical twine: atheism permanently in the classroom, in spite of the irrefutable and

563
rapidly increasing genetic evidence for ID and the poor and very questionable evidence

for any scientific rational to promote evolution.

“Science simply makes no use of the hypothesis of God,” but what if science’s

insight into reality is fatally flawed and too biased to apprehend even the obvious. What

if there is an invisible reality in the correct diagnosis of what constitutes a fact, rather

then in what constitutes an alleged fact. In which case, it is the fault of evolution if they

have gotten it wrong, which they cannot blame on anyone other than themselves. After

150 years, evolution has been whittled down to almost nothing. It is as useless as the

effigy of dry bones arguing over the sands they are buried in.

Evolution does not have any corresponding pathway in biology. Behe

“There is no detailed Darwinian account for the evolution of any fundamental

biochemical or cellar system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” Behe. This was

quoted by James Shaparo. It was also further quoted by Franklin Harold. “We should

reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of Intelligent Design for the dialogue of

chance and necessity. However, there is no detailed Darwinian account for the evolution

of any fundamental biochemical or cellar system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

1996. It has been five years since these scientists provided their own “wishful

speculations” nonetheless supporting Behe’s assessment and evolution is still lacking

any credible excuse in support of their so called “matter of principle.” To reject a fact on

principle, is to accept the ousting of a fact by ideology, rather than by a principle.

There was not one objective, scientific argument brought against Intelligent

Design during Ben Steins interviews’, only dogmatic objections lacking any scientific

specificity and merit. Every objection amounted to mud slinging and verbal put-downs,

564
why should anyone expect these scavengers to be any more objective in their research?

Evolution was never defended and theistic religion was constantly attacked. I think we

should leave evolution to this riff-raff of damaged intellectuals. If they open their mouths

any farther, they will blow down their straw houses and everyone will see what little they

both are made of. Their rant was a pound of objections delivered in a pail of spit. I at

least expected a confrontation of Intelligent Design’s most illustrious sins, or common

errors, but the evolutionists apparently couldn’t figure out whether there were any they

could find arguments against and they appeared offended by their own inability! They

were shooting with blinks and missing the target. Truth is not disproved by a host of

denials to the contrary. Corruption bleeds like rats and mice. Only Dawson showed

sensitivity and charm like a smiling Cobra ─ he smiles and smiles ─ the kind of character

Shakespeare would have noted. Manners are educated barbarities deprived only of their

most notable offenses. His philosophy provides the offenses, his science is entirely a

laughing matter.

Who are these demagogues of the underworld who have the gift of the gab,

conceitedly the bogus genius of their own personal insight, and the power to reason

extraordinaire which everyone else by the unfortunate and single stroke of dogma, cannot

equal? They regard every religion a tyrant as are they, God, non-existent, and every

Christian a dumbwaiter between heaven and hell, and God absent on the job without

leave as though they were evolutionary messiahs whose like is not to be seen again for

another thousand years? A blessing not entirely in disguise. Do they think they could

storm heaven and throw God out! Who are these radicals who think they are not equal

but who have evolved as far superior to their fellow man, and who would strike the sun if

565
it offended them. [Moby Dick] When they die, they should be buried with Hitler and the

3rd Reich with extraordinary dishonors! I will take my disgruntled Rottweller into their

cemetery to leave epitaphs, and to treat their tombstones like fire hydrants, and to keep

the grasses yellow with envy of greener places. Their arrogance is absolutely astounding!

In the Marxist history departments of today’s universities, they teach democracies

are run by ignorant, racist, money grabbing capitalists, and religious and political radicals

and fanatics. How many generations do you think can be taught such political

radicalisms before revolution takes hold and our freedoms are destroyed? At what point

does arguments taken out on the same agenda as are actions impose the same dangers as

do commitments. If they are all enemies of freedom and justice and this is the sum of

civilization’s enlightenment.

No one aware of the facts can argue Darwin did not have a few limited insights to

variations within a species, although he only had a hypothesis as to the actual mechanism

involved, but science has advanced over a hundred and fifty years beyond anything Darwin

could have ever imagined in his lifetime. And people who cannot psychologically allow for

this fact, are constantly digging in their heels, and are destroying the methodology, the

reputation and the legitimacy of science. These people are saying in affect, science can be

allowed to go only so far and no farther ─ limited to the point where the implications of

recent discoveries will no longer be psychologically tolerated. Because when truth raises its

ugly head ─ everything must be shut down. And this is the gravest charge which can be

brought against the evolutionists. Exaggerated claims are constantly made: Dinosaurs

strutting about like peacocks without a feather ever being found attached, even when they are

bone dead, and the strangest conclusions can be drawn from the alleged evidence ─ A potato

566
and an Ape both have 48 chromosomes. Therefore, should we declare an Ape and a potato

members of the same species and derived from the other? Remember, this evolutionary

scenario used in the Dover monkey trial? I haven’t heard this thread bear claim reiterated

since shortly after the trial. So they don’t believe their own thunderbolt lies? Then why do

they waste other people’s time by telling them even with entertaining corruptions? It was

claimed the 2p & 2q chimpanzee chromosomes fused in human chromosome 2; producing

one less chromosome in humans but allegedly containing the same genes of the original two

─ so is man a confused Ape who thinks, mistakenly, he is smarter than an ape? Not

withstanding, a lethal aberration as a different species’ chromosome will abort in another

specie’s immune system. Perhaps, the evolutionists have gotten evolution backwards as

human chromosome 2 split and produced two ape chromosomes and the first true Ape with

relatable species-specific developmental problems similar to what the first humans would

have experienced (alleged in this application), but this unlucky creature would still have to get

through the human immune system in order to survive to become a reliable Ape. Scientists

now know that natural selection and mutation looses information and does not create new

information to form new creatures or to improve old ones, and that our stone age ancestors

were genetically superior to ourselves, and we are 98% the same genetically and only

insignificantly superior to our present ape relatives it is claimed. So devolution appears to be

the only clear route to extinction and degradation. Man appears to be spiraling downhill,

slipping and sliding and catching up with devolution and when he splashes into the murky

pond at the bottom of the slippery hill with the awaiting alligator in it, he is done for, whether

there was any more devolution to have gone down hill for. And at the end, each kind

becomes extinct as its own kind. Conversely, if a potato and an Ape both have 48

567
chromosomes, but are not related, why is a species with only 46 chromosomes related to a

species with 48 chromosomes as was deduced in the Dover trial? I know this is suppose to

make sense, but it doesn’t. Even when I tried to assume the answer and they tried to invent

one. It’s a game these people like to play. If the Devil said if, they would bet 20-1 they could

trick the answer out of him. They make the ridiculous look sublime, and the sublime look

ridiculous. It must require a prodigious gift of intellect to accomplish such an astonishing feat

like being able to calculate faster than anyone else, but absent-mindedly forgetting why one

was counting in the first place.

Intelligent Design is struggling to obtain its legitimate Constitutional right to be

heard and take its legitimate place in the discussion of science, while evolution is tying to

preserve far more ground than any of its questionable and fake discoveries have secured

and to define evolution as arrogantly having the only right to question the origin and the

mysteries of the universe. Evolution has had the entire support and ear of the scientific

edifice of Federal Agencies and State and Federal Government and Federal Financial

support for over most of a century, and what discoveries have been made which evolution

can prove? I present this book and any additional information suggested is open for

further investigation, and that the very little monotary returns on evolution have been

squandered for almost nothing, except for philosophical nastiness and constant argument

aloof from fact.

In 1789, “Most Americans agreed that the federal government must not pick one

religion and give it exclusive financial and legal support.” The logic is inescapable that

when one particular religion and philosophical worldview is given overwhelming

financial support, than it has been given overwhelming legal support as well. This

568
violates the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment. As Evolution is a cardinal

Roman Catholic doctrine, wherever and whenever evolution has been given U.S.

Government support, the doctrines of Catholicism have been given government

legitimacy which has established a Federal Religion taught in all government institutions

and educational systems. Obviously, our foundering Fathers could not have anticipated

that a religious entity would claim two various circular routes for ascertaining truth, one

by orthodoxy and one by scientific fraud and government kick-backs and research grants

and loans! Two will always win against one. It takes two to dance, two to tangle, but

only one to be two faced. That dogmas of Catholicism has pushed aside all other

religious groups and inserted itself in their place and into the Federal Government pocket

proves that the teaching and the support of evolution by the Federal government has

violated the Constitution and established this unfortunate and illegal state of affairs. This

maybe why there is so much resistance to Intelligent Design gaining respectability. But it

was not that evolution had an admittedly better scientific argument than Design Science.

This was admitted to as far back as by Charles Darwin himself. “If it could be

demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have formed by

numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” “I

am well aware there is scarcely a single point discussed in this volume on which facts can

be deduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite those at which I

have arrived.” But the scientific facts now support Charles Darwin’s ambivalent doubts

about his own theory.

Intelligent Design was removed by conceptual error from public forums by

political and religious disagreements, and not for lack of scientific merit, but because of

569
the origins content of its implications, and by the bogus argument that a Wall of

Separation existed between Church and State instead of the benign benevolence of each

to peacefully con-existence as demanded by the First Amendment. The belligerent

violation of this freedom doctrine gave evolution total domination to employ the full

resources, wealth and power of the Federal government to prove Atheism’s scientific

superiority which evolution has failed in extraordinary, almost spectacular ways to

accomplish. As a result, the teaching of evolution reflected the same dominance as the

Federal Government did in governing. It was this ill-perceived assault upon the First

Amendment that was evolution’s upswing and design sciences downfall. Other words,

Design Science was replaced by the government demanded public teaching of Atheistic

science as religious worldview, and in effect, atheism, and the entire Federal Government

got relentlessly behind the effort and begin attacking theistic science and religion as

though its existence was a historical error and should be crushed ─ violating with

unconstitutional abandonment the protections of religion instilled into the heart of the

American Constitution. This gave evolution the unbridled arrogance to imagine itself

innately and dogmatically superior by the almost uncannily fortunate position it found

itself in. Thus it was not science but bogus constitutional reasoning that brought about

the demise of Design Science in America. A roadblock was put up against Design

Science replaced by what has been a scientifically unprovable Atheistic world view, or by

the so-called religion of Atheistic science at every political intersection as the attack

continued and broadened and the self-righteousness and arrogance of atheistic scientists

increased! The state has taken up that banner to attack and destroy Protestant religious

credibility at every opportunity. Those who gave the state its original powers have the

570
right to take it back by any extreme and necessary measures, or the state can see its error

and assuage its wrongs. The state has a decision to make and there will be dire and

unpleasant consequences if the wrong one is made. Why the vicious effort to suppress

Design Science? When scientists have spent an entire lifetime devoted exclusively and

intellectually to an unsettled or suspiciously unprovable methodological paradigm and

that entire life’s work is threatened to be discredited by science’s now dysfunctional

explanatory agency, and new discoveries, people will dig in their heels out of frustration

and anger. And since you are the one discrediting them, you are the one they blame, not

that their facts were misconstrued by a strong-headedly interpreted bias. And to cover-

up their exposure, they begin lying. Although, they created their own delusion and tried

to mold embellished facts into the form and shape of that delusion. The reason they are

attacking design science only on the level of insults is their scientific arguments lack the

legitimacy of argument and are being forfeited by the discoveries of modern science. If

they throw out pseudo-scientific arguments into the public arena, public exposure and a

public investigation will most likely ensue, which all Design scientists would welcome.

The opposition has a right in schools of public education to point-out the obviousness of

design where design is a stronger argument than happenstance, and to debate those points

if necessary, or point out a lack of an evolutionary mechanism, or its disproof, or describe

irreducible complexities and contradictions with logic.

Neither side has a right to teach philosophical doctrine and dogma. No one has a

right to force his personal religious or philosophical views onto anyone else. That is not

education but indoctrination.

571
 Ben Stein, a well known columnist, was investigating “why the scientific

establishment is so afraid of free speech”? He had thought any scientists were free to ask

any question? So he poised this question to Dr. Sternberg, a former editor of a paper

affiliated with the Smithsonian Natural History Museum, who had been fired for

publishing a peer reviewed article by Dr. Steven C. Mayer which mentioned ID. Dr.

Stenberg: “There is this fear that if one aspect of the theory is closely scrutinized, there is

going to be a general unraveling.” Why would the powers that be, be fearful of an

unraveling of the evolutionary theory unless they know that Intelligent Design must

threaten something at the core of their theory? And why should they be afraid of ID

threatening something at the core, unless they are uncertain as to whether that core is

secure and stable and might be proven to be incorrect, or outright in error? Maybe they

already know it is wrong and that would explain the acidity of the Darwinists floundering

not only on facts, but their terminology and response is couched in terms of religion,

politics and sociology and they no longer defend evolution as an evidence based science

because they know it isn’t. They don’t dare bring out their relics for a public exposure

and investigation, they hide all the evidence behind arguments of irrefutability and don’t

present a single fact to support their position. Instead, they act as though they feel they

are strong enough to attack traditional forms of religion and leave it bloody and dying on

the pavement of civilization? Then they hide behind the Wall of Separation, for

protection until they believe they have another opportunity to raid the structures of

society, and can make it back safely behind the Wall again. This gorilla warfare and

constant attrition is meant to damage and unravel the order of society they dislike while

the other side has been Constitutionally disarmed.

572
 Those factors, religion, politics and sociology determines whether one is accepted

by his or her colleagues as a good scientist is whether you toe a party line? Not whether

you can research a question and any data associated with it and determine the facts and

do good unbiased research. Your philosophy is much more important to science than your

intellectual attributes, methodology and honesty. If philosophy is more important than

all the scientific methodology for discovering data and uncovering information, and each

enrollee’s philosophy is only allowed to be atheistically Darwinian in nature, than the

qualifications for being a scientist are not scientifically rigorous and are only of

secondary importance to science. This scares me if I should believe anything these

people tell me is the truth. Dr. Sternberg continued on, “They were saying Steven C.

Meyer is a well known Christian, that Steven C. Meyer is an ID proponent. It’s all

couched in terms of religion, politics, and sociology. The way the chairman put it was

that I was viewed as an intellectual terrorist, because of giving Intelligent Design some

moniker of credibility.” A Terrorist? Isn’t this clawing at the heights of gullibility in

name calling? Like someone who blows things up ─ like old, dead, moth eaten theories.

You just can’t believe everything you hear these days from the antagonists of any new

idea. Almost Everyone is a liar. That’s the only way they know how to make their

living.

They were saying “Steven C. Meyer is a well known Christian”! I didn’t know

evolution had an unpardonable sin. Well, I guess they are welling to forgive if you are

welling to forgive. No, these people were as mad as hell and they were so outraged it

physically and visibly transformed their persona. That puts them in a special

classification: Satan has become so unpopular the index said, see the Devil. Nothing was

573
listed under Satan. Maybe a truce has been made with Satan’s mirror image under the

theory of Divide and Conquer. That’s not the way it works in my religion, but apparently

that is the way it works in their atheistic one. But Steven C. Meyer is guilty of an even

far worse evolutionary sin. He has been condemned as a Republican and has probably

been placed under covert spy psychological evaluation! It’s a sin to be a republican,

enough to get yourself ostracized at the Smithsonian. The gallows should be prepared for

the Intelligent Design proponents, although Americans seem partial to firing squids.

Sign an Executive Order to round up all the Pastors and Christian School Teachers and

the most prominent Design Proponents, Baptists, Methodists, Congressional heretics and

myriads of others ─ like the thousands of missionaries to America these days as where

else useful could they go to convert the heathen, and make an example of these do

gooders, first. What these Christians have done is a deplorable crime in an evolutionist

state and these crimes should be prosecuted and eliminated by attacks aimed at the

Constitution against which contempt is held as a scared duty, a sorted moral obligation of

the Darwinists and social democrats. Assumed, because, apparently, the chairman and

none of his cohorts at the Smithsonian complained about the democrats. The democrats

can hang the Republicans and the Christians on the capital steps with the members of the

National Academy of the Sciences standing in assigned places to witness the triumphant

event, with the chairman of the Smithsonian Natural History Museum, one of the new

unelected powers of the state, and the Supreme Court and the Democratic Congress

present to observe and witness and approve of the debauchery. Dawkins’ has declared, “

Science and religion is at war, but this is only a skirmish.” That religious third World

War which Dawkins has declared between the two greatest religions and rivalries on

574
earth: orthodoxy and evolution will produce the casualties and the slaughters and

intrigues and the strategies. I am glad I don’t live in the Washington area anymore, so I

won’t be tempted wasting my time going to the Smithsonian, and having to listen to their

electronic lies and read their self-deprecating placards. Washington is a philosophical

and economic war zone. It is about time to arm Congress and the Senate ─ there is so

much infighting between them. I had better rush down to the voting office and get my

information changed from republican to democrat to eliminate reprisals, but since I don’t

want to offend anyone, and how many of you are going to believe that one, I will just call

myself a liberal, and how many of you are going to believe that one either, you know, it

is awfully difficult to tell the truth these days. All I want to be is politically correct for a

few hours to find out what it feels like so I can sympathize with the people who are. But

then, most people probably don’t want to be sympathized with because they don’t think

they are wrong. What a charming delusion for a mere mortal, but that could qualify me

to be a Pope. But I am too proud of being a Christian to want to take a step down to

become a Pope. Besides I don’t believe in the office. I would give all the Vatican’s

money away to the poor and to many good, chartable causes. I would give a lot of the

Vatican’s money to my own church, then declare the Vatican bankrupt, that would create

a lot of controversy, and then I would shut the office down. So to avoid an insider

assassination, I am going to stay where I am. Some inside traders will be relieved to hear

that. Besides, I wouldn’t come near making a competent god. I am too smart to trick

myself into believing I am a god as I am barely making it on my own terms. That means

I am smarter than the Pope however. I am the only one between the two of us who has

enough sense to know neither one of us would be any good at the job. How busy I would

575
be is too exhausting even to think about: Creating a new planet and light on the 1st day.

Seas, land, and an atmosphere on the second day. I am already so tired, I am going home

and sleep it off for the rest of the week. The Pope was unable to get a passing grade in

Creation, so he is doing financial accounts in an office at the Vatican, at the moment, and

is counting heretics and making plans. He is going to have to make a list.

But there is no humor to be entertained but only horror in the history of Rome

which instigated the death of 10’s of millions under the Inquisition and other terrorisms

in Europe. The millions of victims who fled that besieged continent had faced the

persecutors rack and chain and the torch and the constant threat of death. And the chief

offender for more than a millennium had been the destructive and murderous legions of

Rome. The primary diadems of the New Republic rising on formally uninhabited shores

was a Protestant Reformation and a Republican Achievement without any significant

input from Rome other than she had driven them there. Without Rome, this new

experiment in government demonstrated what men were capable of attaining without the

degrading influences of Rome corrupting everything and standing in the way of

enlightenment. The new freedoms were protected by a Wall of Ocean between Europe

and the New World. And freedom gave rise to the daring exploits of Man’s Free Spirit

which has been the remarkable Genius and Genesis and Greatness of America. There

was a price to pay for all the new enthusiasm, as it harbored in the heart of men a great

desire to remain free as they now were with a memory that grasped the significant threats

to their freedoms of the past. Memory could not be suppressed or appeased, or

unpersuaded of what for a certainty it already knew to be a damning fact.

576
 I submit, that to some extent, why the motto, A Wall of Separation Between

Church and State became popular was because of the genocidal nature of Popery in

Europe. This fear of transferring the evils of Europe to America drove this almost mortal

fear of Rome to eliminate the danger altogether. And the clause stating a Wall of

Separation between Church and State seemed to create a more formidable barrier of

defense than did other interpretations, including the exact wording of the Constitutional

Amendment itself: what I often refer to as the non-establishment clause. There may have

been some self-doubt as to whether the First Amendment actually prevented the tyranny

of a democracy or of a totalitarianism. I’ll put it to you this way. The policies of this

nation have evolved from a Democracy, the protection of individual rights, to a tyranny,

where if 10 wolves and 1 rabbit vote on what is for dinner, the rabbit is a sure loser.

Giem. A democracy can easily degrade into a tyranny of the greatest number, perhaps as

enclaves of power, as led up to the Civil War. That is why I have argued I believe Rome

believes she can take US either by a superior number, or by almost any philosophical

twist to the First Amendment, unless we come to view ourselves strictly as a Republican

Form of government protecting the sacredness of individual rights under all majorities

and drill it into the minds of our children as society has been drilling the opposing view

into our minds. That is what the first Amendment set out to do, to create a Democracy of

guaranteed freedoms in a non-restrictive sense. The only thing which is not protected is

their abridgement.

I am going to give you something really provoking to think about by referring to

one of the cases mentioned previously and below. Dr. Richard Sternberg reveled many in

his department leveled their disdain and dislike at Steven C. Meyer, not only because he

577
is a Christian, but also because he is a Republican. The word Republican came out of the

concept of a Republic, a now illicit form of government in the United States similar to

our troubled democracy which places an equal emphasis on protecting individual rights

and freedoms as were initially intended by the Constitution and out Founding Fathers.

The fact that they bit down so hard on this label suggest something amiss and it should be

worrisome. These government bureaucrats and constitutional wreckers have clearly

shown they have no respect whatsoever for the individual rights protected by the

Amendments of the Constitution, the freedom of speech, the freedom to think for one’s

self, for these, they have nothing but contempt. Dr. Sternberg’s religious and political

beliefs were investigated to find out whether they violated any particular political

correctness, not whether they breathed hell damning attacks on the Constitution. Their

actions in firing Dr. Sternberg as a government employ demonstrates this. Burn the

heretics. Search for fagots or break off limbs. “Burn baby burn.” This has a direct

religious impact as a celebration. Bring a picnic lunch and have a good time. There will

be a choir singing patriotic hymns. You will remember this wonderful experience for

years. Bring the whole family. It will be an object lesson for your children. Drinks and

sandwiches can be purchased on the mall. Sponsored by your National Park Service and

Law Enforcement Agency, there will be a long winded and patriotic speech supporting

our new type of censorship government.

Federal law is not even upheld in government branches and areas of influence. In

principle, is Government suicidal or seeking the destruction of its own Constitution and

in bringing down the Republic and replace it with a tyranny of a Democracy where the

majority holds in contempt and controls the rights of the minority? I have to assume by

578
the fundamental paradigms of evolution and the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church

by canonizing Darwinism, this is the general situation that is encountered and supported.

Not that I have anything personally against democrats or individual government

bureaucrats, but for this, that they are almost always in favor of tighter government

controls and expansion and all that implies as a tyranny as they want to control and force

others into giving up their rights. I hadn’t before thought of constantly referring to

ourselves as a democracy as a conspiracy to deceive ourselves into thinking of ourselves

not as a tyranny but as a democracy.

The Expose: How our education is enforcedly controlled in the United States.

“We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the

education of the United States”! “It is essential for evolution to become the central core

of any educational system.” Sol Tax and Charles Callendar (ed), Evolution after Darwin,

1980. Education becomes most essential when it becomes more obvious the claimed

evolutionary standards are not being upheld. This is the only way to maintain a

falsehood. It constitutes propaganda and control as the only way to protect the political

correctness of an error.

The following cases involve individuals who certainly are not ignoramuses or

stupid. All of them are well educated, with PhD’s and other degrees, they held important

positions in science, but they were all severely punished as though for a crime simply

because they varied, most only slightly, from the politically correct position of those in

power. Is this the way we treat people in a Republic, is this the way we treat people in

science? Has science become so arrogantly certain of its self-classified truths it can

tolerate no dissention, so arrogant it gives science the right to kick the Constitution in the

579
 butt ─ and with the Constitution’s back to the thrust, stabbing is almost certain. And we

worry about terrorists coming over our borders? Perhaps the establishment is showing

kleptomania tendencies to steal our freedoms from US. What need does one have to take

freedom away from someone else? Greed, yes but that is not a need. It is a twisted

desire to have what others have under another heading called “Thou shall not Covet.”

Forbidden by what are called the Moral Law defining right from wrong. And renegades

are trying to kick out those rules as to whether a civilization can exit only by laws and

then we can all commence to fighting and wreck any possibilities that a civilization is

going to exist and continue and be sustained. Obviously, governments need good and fair

laws for all citizens under its jurisdiction. And no one needs power. That is only a

delusion of the deranged. Unless it is to help others to protect their rights. Few of us

need power for ourselves, except when someone tries to cheat us or take away our

legitimate rights, than teamwork is the best defense. So in situations like this, we need to

help get the news out! Because no one knows it all. I was married to someone who

thought she knew it all. And I can tell you, no one is that good ─ not even myself!

The reappearing Inquisition from the dungeons of past holocausts:

The scientist’s name / The scientific crime committed / The Reprisal / The Inquisitor / The Federal Law violated by the punishment

Guillermo Gonzalez Wrote a Book: The Privileged Planet Excuse: Iowa State First Amendment: Freedom of speech and

How our place in the Cosmos is Lacked tenure: Freedom of the Press.

Designed for Discovery Was fired

Published by Regnery

Dr. Richard Sternberg Editor of a paper affiliated with His religious Smithsonian First Amendment: Freedom of speech and

The Smithsonian. He dared publish and political Freedom of the Press.

580
 a peer reviewed paper by beliefs were Additional Explanation: He is an

Evolutionist

Dr. Stephan Meyer. One of the leading investigated. Who believes ID has some good explanations

lights of the He was for how life begin.

Intelligent Design movement. pressured to

Chairman of the Department described resign.

Sternberg as an intellectual terrorist.

Caroline Crocker Mentioned ID on a couple of slides Fired at end George Mason First Amendment: Freedom of speech, and

of Semester. University Freedom of the press.

Blacklisted Washington D.C.

Professor & Read a High School article that Doctors Defamation State University First Amendment: Freedom of speech.

Neurosurgeon don’t need prep for evolution to enter of NY at

Dr. Michael Egnor Medicine. Interview: “There is nothing Stony Brook

to be learned by assuming an accidental

origin of the parts of the brain we work in.”

Professor Was interviewed by Columnist Ben Stein His web sites Baylor University First Amendment: Freedom of speech.

J Marks II for the film Expelled. Supports ID were shut down affiliated with the

where he raises Baptist General

grant money Convention of

Was forced to Texas

return grant money

If evolution came out of its corners and created a national brawl, it would be

immediately in trouble. So its supporters quietly keep control of the situation so it does

not get out of hand because if it does, they, its practitioners are afraid its end is in the

sight of a very substantial crack down. That means giving the other side, at least, the

pretense to some First Amendment rights and Constitutional liberties. And that would be

581
an atheist outrage. Those who have acted like an inquisitor, who have held the reins most

tightly in line with the currently entrenched and intolerant dogmas of evolution, will have

the highest invective price to pay for deceiving the public.

When will history’s notorious Inquisition invade American shores? As yet, no

arrests and imprisonments and executions have taken place. That will require more time.

Whether much or little time is needed can not be predicted with accuracy. You foolishly

think the Inquisition has been extinguished and the holocaust has taught mankind regret?

The evils that laid waste to that embattled world are only lying low until an advantages

opportunity to pounce and destroy! As long as the Inquisition’s perpetuators live on in

the deranged psychic of Rome, the Inquisition is never dead. The holocaust is only a

psychological forerunner of another international Inquisition. The Papacy is striving to

make herself the only legalized religion in present day Germany where the Reformation

was born as she was under Hitler and as she was before the Reformation changed the face

of history! Why should Rome seek sole legalization again in Germany unless her intent

is to eliminate all other religious competition by legislation which is by the use of force!

Thus, the future is reliably predicted by the past and present crimes of Rome. This is

wide spread new in Germany and Europe, why don’t we hear about it here in America?

Because it is a worldwide conspiracy, Germany appears ready to acquiesce, and these

conspirators don’t want frighten the hell out of the Protestants in America. So has the

nature of Rome changed. She is the same vicious and cruel Rome who burnt John Husk

to the stake and millions of others who were pulled apart and dismembered by weapons

of torture. Rome may have become more cunning. However, she has not changed, nor

will she ever change in her conspiracy and tactics and ambition to destroy Protestantism

582
in any land where she takes up residency and to destroy the lives of millions of innocent

people. Has she ever apologized for her misdeeds of the Holocaust or the Inquisition,

more importantly, has she ever repented. No, she has remained silent and therefore

guiltily unrepentant!

From the beginning of the Counter-Reformation 500 hundred years ago until the

present, every Jesuit is sworn to the destruction of Protestantism. Rome still sees this

conflict of wits as a lengthily and drawn-out was of attrition which she is destined to win,

and diplomacy is only a deceptive means to an end. The seat of America’s power is

concentrated in the heart of a Protestant land with its Protestant inspired Constitution.

And that is towards which all of Rome’s conspiratorial energy of vast evils are aimed to

destroy the nation’s freedom inspired Constitution.

Why does one of Catholicism’s most influential Jesuit Universities in the world

reside within the physical domain and heart of America’s power, George Washington

University in Washington D.C. where are located Roman professional Schools of Foreign

Service, training of Diplomats, and the School of Languages and Linguistics where Rome

has trained US diplomats and US Presidents, like Clinton and Bush, while Rome is filling

the ranks of government with her proselyte’s so one day given favorable circumstances

for Rome to act, she will be able to attack and destroy the American Constitution which

has stood for over two centuries as a hated hindrance to her tactics and lust for world

power and dominance, and Rome has made no secret of her political ambitions. Those

ambitions have been written about and attested to by Rome throughout the world like

political graffiti. Ignorance of these matters is not an excuse for ignorance.

583
 When will America capitulate to Rome’s designs? That eventuality will require a

take over of Federal power and a public burning of the Constitution in front of the Capital

Building with hundreds of thousands standing around trying to warm their hands over a

few, very old fragments of parchment, or for histories sake in American’s enduring desire

to preserve the past, in retrospect, not for learning anything useful from the bygone

virtues of our past now viewed only as a curiosity; preserving the no longer useful, time-

worn Document installed in the Smithsonian in a place of remembrance and not of

distinguished honor in a sarcophagus-like monument so long lines of unhappy looking

people, by the millions, can slowly walk by and catch a glimpse of their once more

glorious and happier past. Most of them probably won’t attend the celebration because

they will be hiding-out somewhere. And millions more will be planning to overthrow the

new regime. But from the information we have just looked into, the Smithsonian is

probably building that display piece so they can play at least some small role in

evolution’s take over of the American dream by a Religious Darwinian Nazism fronted

by Rome. P.S. from the future: Facts will not be needed, they will only get in the way of

the truth! Lying is the way reprisals and tyrannies substantiate their right of wrongs.

Note:

How does Mormonism contradict the Biblical account of the Genesis Creation and

side with evolution and Catholicism? In Richard Abanes’ book: INSIDE TODAY’S

MORMONISM in the chapter entitled “Ye Are Gods” and on pp. 204-206: “The Mormon

584
path to godhood received its most popular expression in the famous couplet by LDS president

Lorenzo Snow (which …was quoted nearly verbatim in Battlestar Galactica by Mormon

Glen Larson): ‘As Man is, God once was, as God is, man may become.’ In 1921, LDS

apostle Melvin J. Ballard declared his agreement with this phrase, explaining, ‘It is a Mormon

truism that is current among us and we all accept it, that as man is God once was and as God

is man may become.” Under Mormon quotes on page 205, Joseph Smith is quoted: ‘you have

got to learn how to be gods yourselves.’ Under the subtitle on page 205, “A Closer Look,

LDS president Gordon B. Hinckley revealed that, ‘the whole design of the gospel is to lead us

onward and upwards to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood.’ And near the top

of page 206, “(We) are capable ‘by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a

God.’” This would create a whole canopy of innumerable gods as had the Greeks which

incited the apostle Paul to give a speech about the unknown god, the One true God who had

been overlooked! This blasphemies Christian standards. “As man is, God once was, as God

is, man may become.” By this argument: man evolved and existed before God existed,

therefore God could not have created man as man has no need of being created by God who

man is to become. Genesis is robbed of its elegance and imposing significance ─ and worse,

of its truthfulness and innocence and certainly God is robbed of His Infinite and Divine

Power. And those who rob God will not be robbed of what they so provocatively deserve.

Then how could man and god have come into being, except by evolutionary processes, by

‘Spontaneous Generation,’ which the Miller-Urey experiment, along with thousands of other

unsuccessful evolutionary experiments have proven could have never occurred? For things to

exist, there must be an uncaused first cause who is God, eternal and all-powerful! Evolution

has been unable to answer the conundrum of the origin of life and will never be able to

585
explain it! The dogma of evolution does not allow Mormon apologists room to maneuver into

a position which allows evolution to have been set in motion by God because all these

processes of evolving preceded God and led to him! This is a twisted form of atheism

disguised under the garb of a fanatic religion and excludes Genesis 1 entirely! From any

rational point of view, Mormonism is the culmination of evolutionary processes that over

eons transforms man into a god through spiritualism and is a summation of Biblical

blasphemy! This scenario destroys the entire plan of salvation through faith in the redeeming

blood of Christ shed for our sins. This blasphemous assertion resonates with Isaiah 14:13-15:

Referring to Lucifer: “You have said in your heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my

thrown above the stars of God… I will be like the Most High! Yet you shall be brought

down to hell!” Lucifer’s claim to godhood is where the controversy of good and evil and the

theory of evolution begun. Is this where history is to come full circle, making evil eternal,

according to Mormonism? If Satan, the once crowned prince of the heavens failed to achieve

his spectacular scheme in coveting God’s position, how does any mere mortal disguised as a

Mormon expect to out do Satan and become “like the Most High”? This is blasphemy

Genesis 3: 22. “You (Lucifer) were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till

iniquity was found in you.” Ezekiel 28:15; John 1:1- 5.

From a Biblical prospective, Mormonism “will be brought down to hell” where Satan

well be cast. Matthew 25:41

586
587
588
589
590
 INDEX
Hint: if you are unable to find a subject, add a definite article such as a, or the.
1,000.000 measurements....................119
24-23 Chromosomes..........................381
24-hour period....................................245
2p and 2q............................................383
50 million slaughtered for the crime of \
........................................................506
500 years of night...............................233
500,000 pages.....................................260
65,000,000 years never existed..........156
70,000 miles of blood vessels............261
A 75-80% chance of being.................465
A backlash..........................................469
A cat and alie each have nine lies......432
A chimpanzee with downs syndrome 394
A clever spoiler of the First
Amendment's..................................502
A contagion that sweeps to lands afar485
A conundrum for evolutionary
apologetis.......................................440
A cross, not a cross over....................377
591
A cynic...............................................245
A day is like a thosand years..............232
A delusion of the unfit.......................474
A double standard..............................463
A duel citizenship.......................516, 528
A flip-flop..........................................253
A human Chromosome split..............383
A Language is limited by its rules.....204
A man and a mouse............................203
A mind bogglingly complex city.......203
A mouse trap could go one step farther,
it could catch a rat with, or without a
tie on!.............................................403
A new heavens and earth...................467
A new species will surpass infinitely
modern man....................................511
A new theme......................................229
A panoply of scientif greats...faked their
results.............................................432
A promiscuous relationship...............483
A resounding resume.........................474
A roll call to arms...............................465
A Scottish history professor...............470
A sculptor of modern art....................137
A second description..........................229
A shorter, fiery hell for a select few..452,
487
A smart -god on earth.........................438
A sneak attack in stark denial............503
A tombstone in England.....................467
A travesty...........................................312
A type of damnation...........................436
A Wall of Seperation entrenched like a
fortress............................................469
A Wall of Seperation... is fraudulent and
defies the first Amendment............484
A world dangerously charged with
ideology..........................................464
A wrong system.................................387
Abolition of salvery...........................285
Abortion response..............................385
Abraham Lincoln.................................46
Abraham Lincoln's efforts contributed
irreplacably to................................312
Accumulation of many small changes
........................................................436
Acknowledging the Holocaust...........505
ACLU.........................................305, 309
ACLU threatening virtually every state
........................................................409
Adam lived 930 years........................234
Adam's circadian rhythm...................237
Adaption already built into the
organisms genes.............................438
Adolf Hitler........................................282
Affect principles of moral aptitude....455
Against the core values......................484
Against the intent of the writers of the
Constitution....................................446
Aiding and abetting open hostility.....442
Alan Boyle...........................................22
Albert Einstein.....................................53
Alias for.............................................399
Amalgamated into blasphemy............429
America's Brain Drain Crisis.............480
American compatriots........................450
592
Americans United..............................305
An abundance of lead-208, but no
thorium-232......................................59
An atheist has religious right denied to a
Baptist!...........................................463
An atheist hospital..............................278
An enemy of freedom........................309
An Evangelical Christian...................222
An Evolutionary Bureaucracy............465
An Inconvenient Book.......................442
An insult both to history and..............312
An International Conspiracy..............475
Annals of Mathematics......................420
Another important theme...................230
Antagonistic to religious beliefs........444
Anti-plution legislation......................434
Ape.......................................................13
Apes and Chimpanzees......................382
Apoptosis...........................................378
Apostle Paul.......................................223
are right back where the juncture of the
American Revolution began!.........451
Argon-methods....................................35
Article 16............................................503
AS a wordsmith..................................182
Ass's Foal...........................................372
Assumptions.........................................37
Astrophysics.......................................235
Atheeistic power................................426
Atheistic mind control of society.......451
Attack on the life and teachings of.....439
Attorney.............................................173
Augustine...........................................231
Australopithecus...................................66
Australopithocus..................................65
Bacteria..............................................147
Bambiraptor.......................................149
Basic themes and variations.................26
Beagle.................................................431
Beast of Revelation..............................46
Before the world begin.......................248
Behe...................................................178
Being deprived of the primary means of
livelihood.......................................451
Ben Stein............................................562
Benjamin Franklin..............................298
Big Bang theory.................................135
Bigots and ignoramuses.....................308
Bill Buckingham................................360
Biomass buried in the.........................105
Biomass on earth..................................40
Birth defect.........................................388
Black Death........................................198
Blind evolution...................................180
Blood vessels, red blood cells............143
Blowing up the man on the moon......438
Blueprint............................................370
Body Farm.........................................150
Bone pits............................................270
Bread across.......................................376
Bristlecone Pine.............................14, 43
Bullet hole............................................18
Butterfly.............................................236
By accepting the long processes of
evolution................................452, 487
By trying to keep the jackal out, we have
allowed the hyena to slip in chased by
the lion...........................................466
Cambrian explosion.............................59
Can't do List.......................................138
Cancer, Aids, Flues an colds..............315
Cannot make any law which respects the
superiority of..................................450
Cannot self-assemble.........................255
Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of
Vienna............................................488
Case....................................................374
Catastrophism.....................................109
Catholic Record..................................492
Catholicism................................452, 487
Catholicism is the largest religious body
in the world....................................488
Catholicism offically denies the Genesis
account...................................452, 487
Catholics most likely to believe in
evolution........................................488
Catholics United.................................534
Central core of any educational system
........................................................303
Central-control genes.........................322
Changes in cellular machinery...........325
593
Charles Darwin was the intelligent
selector...........................................437
Check and balence amendment
prohibiting the domination.............449
Children..............................................304
Chlorophyll and Hemoglobin.............180
Christ..................................................454
Christian influence.............................297
Christian world view were ever rejected
........................................................299
Christianity.........................................285
Chromosome 2...................................374
Circadian rhythms..............................236
City does not need the sun.................243
Climategate........................................102
Cloud....................................................30
Coding region.....................................199
Communist Manifesto........................468
Competing worldviews......................455
Competitors in ideology and audiences
........................................................456
Confession is the soul of the truth if not
coerced...................................452, 487
Confirming the alliance between the
Catholic Church and the Nazi state503
Confrontational, constitution, democratic
dictatorship.....................................455
Consistant with a yong world...............64
Constitution........................................286
Constitution permits scientific critiques
of prevailing views.........................471
Constitutional Convention.................444
Control.......................................308, 476
Control the affairs of over 300 million
........................................................469
CORRUPTED SCIENCE..................432
Cosmoclimatology...............................87
Cosmologists......................................456
Could not have passed absent Catholic
Church-controlled votes.................504
Cratons...............................................118
Creation is not finished......................429
Creationists would have predicted.....207
Crick...................................................268
Criminal element in science...............284
Critics are fond of pointing out..........181
Crowning edifice of the greatest
fundamental failure in human history
........................................................402
CRY genes.........................................237
Cuozzo.................................................18
Currey................................................483
Currey tree............................................43
Daniel the prophet..............................227
Dark Ages..........................................491
Darwin........................................279, 424
Witchcraft.......................................427
Darwin was the intelligent selector....437
Darwin's birth.....................................312
Darwin's Finches........................253, 431
Darwin's only but considerable
contribution....................................314
Darwinism..................................302, 312
Daughter's religious freedom was
violated...........................................462
David..................................................285
David Hilbert......................................421
David the son of Jesse........................428
Dawkins.....................127, 266, 347, 453
Dean Kenyon......................................275
Debate..................................................72
Declaration of Independence.....286, 297
Defying known laws of physics.........177
Deists..................................................297
Democracy rules by compromise.......486
Design of the eye................................185
Design Removed by Error..................569
Despots...............................................276
Destruction of the established church 307
Different concepts can be freely
discussed........................................477
Dino DNA..........................................155
Dinosaurs bones.................................144
Disagreeing primarily on how origins
began..............................................456
Discovery Institute.............................410
Disingenuous to our welfare..............286
DNA.............................................27, 258
DNA sequence blocks........................218
Do some Christians deny God spoke the
........................................................454
594
Does not replace the right not to believ
in it.................................................444
Does not reside within the realm of
spectacular human endeavor..........557
Doesn't amalgamate the finer.............312
Doesn't seem to be.............................392
Dogs...................................................381
Don't breath........................................414
Downs syndrome...............................393
Dowsed a homeless man............453, 488
Dr. Chadwick.....................................118
Dr. Francis Beckwith.........................472
Dr. Miller...........................................351
Dr. Paul Giem............................256, 271
Dr. Sanford.........................................209
Ducks.................................................381
Dwell with everlasting burnings........415
E=mc squared.....................................416
Each after its own kind......140, 262, 373,
379, 435
Ear..........................................................8
EARTH SUN DISTANC.....................67
Einstein..............................................268
Eliminate useless parts.......................179
Enabling act........................................504
End to end Chromosomal fusions......377
Endowed by their Creator..................286
engineering of a new species.............392
Enlightenment of science...................398
Envy is a scoundrel's praise...............467
Epigenos.............................................202
Establish some facts...........................225
Eternal hell fire for the.......................467
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty
........................................................528
Ethnic cleansing.................................282
Eugenio Pacelli played central role in
making Hitler.................................505
Evangelical Evolutionist....................435
Every evil is dangerous and every
freedom uncertain..........................485
Evoled back........................................385
Evolution IQ Test...............................395
Evolution is only a theory..................181
Evolutionary destiny..........................302
Evolutionary tree..................................22
Exasperation is a predictor of civil
conflict and disorder.......................454
Expelled.............................................128
expulsion of its opponents..................444
Face new threats.................................451
Faith...............................................8, 273
Faith is the essential ingredient..........259
Faked drawings..................................255
False breading....................................375
Fascism..............................................302
Federalist............................................297
Feet.........................................................8
Ferns...................................................381
Fewer than 50 percent of radio carbon
dates.................................................54
Fifty State Constitutions....................287
Fighting Darwinism...........................434
Fiji........................................................12
Filament structure of the universe......126
Fireflys...............................................244
First Amendment...............................308
First signs of a growing dictatorship..469
Flanking clause..................................450
Forged................................................265
Forum at the Salk Institute.................463
Fossil....................................................24
Fossilized jelly fish............................148
Fossilized tropical plants....................115
Founders.............................................293
FOXP2 gene...............................200, 264
Fraud....................................................15
Frederich von Bernhard.....................302
Freedom will die an anguished death.454
French Revolution..............................221
Fruit Flies...........................................321
Function and perform as religions.....456
G. Gonzelez........................................580
Galapagos finches......................253, 431
Geiger Counter...............................49, 69
Gene switchers...................................262
General Friedrich von Bernhardi.......283
Genes..................................................200
Genesis...............................................224
Genesis 1&2.......................................229
Genesis 2............................................229
Genesis begins with...........................230
595
Genesis Chronology...........................452
genetic code set up to reject evolutionary
advances.........................................379
Genetic material from viruses............315
geniuses..............................................244
Genocides of 'the survival of the fittest'
........................................................450
Geological column...............................54
George Washington......................46, 299
German militarism.............................283
German scientists and professors of
biology...........................................303
Giem, Dr............................................256
Give birth to undersized pups............325
Glacier Bay........................................107
Glenn Beck.........................................442
Glowworms........................................244
Gnostic teachings of the Grail............429
God by name is declared resoundingly
........................................................286
God creating light...............................242
God has forgiven us by his grace......453,
487
God was assassinated by....................286
Going to destroy Chriristianity..........131
Goliath................................................285
Goodstein.............................................15
Government has usurped the right
granted it........................................443
Government interference into............442
Grand Banks earthquake....................110
Gravitation.........................................366
Gravitation is a theory........................361
Grigori Perelman................................420
Habits.................................................171
Haeckel.......................................283, 307
Haeckel's Embryos.............................255
Half life................................................49
Half of dates disagree...........................56
Hamilton, Madison, and Jay..............297
Harold................................................564
Harvard biologist E.O.Wilson............434
Has acted upon its own prerogatives as
an aggressor....................................478
Has never succeeded in centralizing
science............................................477
Has the non-establishment clause
trumped the sequent freedom clauses?
........................................................446
Have gained an upperhand.................477
He makes some of these same mistakes
........................................................432
Herbert Spencer........................................
Sir Arthur Canon Doyl...................427
Heretics......................................453, 488
Hexanucleptide repeats......................391
High-jacked by interpretation............502
Historical disgrace..............................284
Histories worst nightmare..................451
History repeats itself..........................455
Hitler..................................................308
Hitler was a Roman Catholic.............503
Hitler was never ex-communicated....503
Holds the purse strings to research....473
Holocaust...........................................304
Holotype...............................................65
Homeotic genes..................................317
Homes................................................285
Homo-sapiens.....................................418
Hood...................................................265
Hood's vision......................................479
Horse and Mule..................................375
How life begin....................................130
How much damage was done to science?
........................................................478
How protein molecules fold...............265
How would the fused chromosome 2
impart.............................................392
Human Chromosome 2......................383
Hybrid................................................376
Hypotheses.........................................265
I 224
IBEX....................................................67
IBM....................................................265
Ice Age...............................................107
Ice becomes magnetic........................114
If Darwin knew..................................203
If goverment enforces evolutionary
doctrin............................................451
If Nietzsche was buried next to God..436
If these genes are so alike..................322
Ignoramuses.......................................273
596
Impeachment......................................502
Implacable henchmen of evolution....451
In God We Trust................................291
In order to defend itself......................465
In the twinkling of an eye..................229
Incitement to conflict and disintegration
........................................................469
Inheritance..........................................323
Inner-ear...............................................66
Inquisition..................................491, 506
Inquisition and the Holocaust............502
Inquisition of evolutionay dogma......444
Instructions encoded within...............255
Integrity..............................................285
Intelligent Design...............................347
Interference in matters of religion......444
Irreducible complexity.......................178
Irreducible Complexity..............125, 402
Is an evolutionist by his morality sworn
to be honest?...................................474
Is better understood............................451
Is generally used as an annihilation
strategy...........................................451
Is there any government that should not
be overthrown?...............................468
Islam...................................................507
Isochron................................................35
It has come to that point.....................485
It is dangerous to allow either to
dominate.........................................454
Jack Cuozzo.........................................11
Jaw...................................................8, 13
Jay Gould admitted..............................25
Jewish tracts.......................................285
Joe Bidden has called Creationism....527
John Grant..........................................432
Johnson..............................................221
Jonathan Wells...................................125
Judge Jones........................................409
Judicial tyranny and gutless partisan. 410
Julian Huxley.....................................303
Junk....................................................267
Junk DNA..........................205, 208, 269
Karl Marx...........................................279
Katanga mine.......................................59
Kepler.................................................183
Kepler's 390 year old conjecture........420
Key words for faith are cloaked in such
terms as..........................................456
Kind of DNA bases............................380
Kinder, gentler thing disenfranchised
from its...........................................455
Kitsmiller v. Dover............................409
Knew of only one primary, historical
threat...............................................450
Know them by their fruits..................373
Laboratories.......................................389
Lead-potassium....................................35
Leakey............................................72, 75
Leaves out the delights of sex............419
Lecture Notes.......................................68
Leroy Hood........................................264
Let's teach our children......................464
Libby....................................................49
Liberty Bell........................................301
Lichen cover.......................................434
Life, Liberty and the pursuit..............286
Light on the first day..........................242
Like an ambush waiting for...............455
Like corrupt political bumpkins.........469
Lincoln.......................................285, 454
List from the Handbook.....................185
List of biots or ignoramuses...............439
Little Ice Age.......................................43
Lock and key........................................14
Locke..................................................294
Logically incorrect.............................421
Loose and bind...................................494
Louis Pasteur......................................398
Lucifer................................................586
Luciferin.............................................244
Lucy.....................................9, 10, 72, 74
Lyell...................................................105
Macroevolution..........................254, 313
Made the Nazi dictatorship legally
constituted......................................504
Magicians of logic................................46
Magna Carta.......................................296
Majority will......................................309
Making Catholicism the only recognized
religion...........................................503
Mammoths.........................................112
597
Man is only an Ape that can lie!........441
Mandible................................................8
Maniacal tyrant of doctrinal corruptions
and scientic inquisitions.................485
Maoism..............................................435
Marshak................................................11
Martin Luther was ex-communicated 503
MARTYR..........................................534
Marvels of DNA.................................260
Mary Leakey........................................21
Mass spectrometer....................41, 56, 70
Master genes......................................326
Mathematical nightmare....................421
Mathematical wizardy..........................44
Mathematicans Face Uncertainty.......420
Melvin Cook........................................59
Messiah..............................................285
Methuselah...........................................43
Michael Behe.....................................125
Micharl Newdaw................................462
Microevolution...................................313
Might better be understood as an
example..........................................450
Miller-Urey........................255, 256, 314
Minefield of immune rejections.........387
Mirror copy........................................264
Miscarriages.......................................377
Missing links........................................14
mitochondria......................................267
Mitochondria......................................277
Mitosis................................................390
Modifying the way those genes.........261
Molecular Clock.................................159
monoliths strutting like destinies of
doom..............................................466
Montesquieu.......................................295
Moral authority..................................285
Morality..............................................299
MORMONISM..................................584
Morrison Formation.............................35
Moses.................................................242
Mr. Hood............................................421
Mr. Schwartz......................285, 439, 477
Mrs. Leakey.........................................22
Multi' dimensional future consciousness
........................................................430
Multiple enzymes...............................391
Mummified seals..................................35
Mutation that do not affect function. .204
Mutations...................................317, 391
mysterious calligraphy.......................270
Nancy Pearcey....................................285
Nation formed by...............................286
National Geographic.....28, 75, 153, 261,
311
National Science Foundation.....171, 482
Natural Selection........................302, 437
Natural selection can favor egotism...284
Natural Selection can favor egotism etc.
........................................................474
Natural selection selects all that is good
........................................................437
Nazi party...........................................310
Nazi's likely tried experiments...........419
Nazism...............................................302
Neanderthal..........................................10
Neanderthal novel................................30
Neanderthal skull.................................18
Near destruction of plant life.............326
Nebraska Man......................................17
Neutral laws of general application. . .288
Neutron capture conversion.................60
New habit...........................................123
New synaoses.....................................123
News Week........................................280
Newsweek..................................279, 431
Nguaruhoe in New Zealand.................64
NHEJ machinery................................378
Nietzsche....................................282, 283
Nineveh................................................36
No fossil containing strata would remain
........................................................106
No more than a million dollars a year483
Noah Webster.....................................299
Noah's Flood......................................326
Not about why we are Americans......410
Not an absolute truth..........................351
Not parabolical.....................................17
Not what Darwin would predict.........206
Nothing to do with the sequence of DNA
........................................................325
Nova...................................................349
598
Occurred in 1949, range from 270,000 -
..........................................................64
Off-switch..........................................323
On the brink of treason.......................502
One female and one male...................387
One religious construct is the winner.452
One species carrying another species.386
One step beyond democracy is chaos 454
One trillion single dollar bills............260
Only 1.6 % of the DNA codes for
protein............................................320
Only a heartbeat apart........................463
ONLY CALL TO FAME...................197
Open hostility.....................................442
Opposing views..................................479
organic molecules should not preserve
........................................................156
Origin of Life.....................................258
Origin of life from inanimate matter..399
Origin of life on Earth is a mystery....400
Osteocytes..........................................145
Ostriches.............................................145
Our Ape ancestry just evaporated......392
Our modern Scientific Revolution were
forged.............................................439
Our thirteen states..............................470
Oxford Castle.......................................35
Packed in blankness...........................135
Paleocurrents are flow directions.......118
Panacea start up switch for evolution 399
panomastoid.........................................12
Pat Robertson.....................................280
Paul & Moses.....................................228
Paul Giem.............................................68
Peer-Review...............................102, 405
People who killed Jews......................465
Peppered moths..................................433
Peter...................................................493
Peyote cases.......................................288
Physicist Robert Gentry.......................60
Pig........................................................17
Piltdown bird......................................151
Pity poor Thomas Hales.....................420
Plate movement..................................106
Pleiochroic haloes................................31
Poincare Conjecture...........................420
Poles.........................................................
survey.............................................425
Poll.....................................................425
Pope............................169, 489, 493, 497
Portable art...........................................11
Portable X-ray......................................18
Possesses in its inherent appetite.......450
Potassium-argon...................................57
Power of influence.............................477
Primal horde.......................................283
Proclamation of Damnation.....................
\ 455
Ptolemy..............................................183
Public universities..............................451
QUESTION........................................229
r. Walczak's........................................403
Radiocarbon dating..............................56
Rare genetic mutations.......................204
Rate group............................................40
Rationalism of a Designer..................440
Reach only 68,00 miles......................260
Readers' Digest...................................293
Recombination...................................162
Recorded lie span...............................326
Red flag of cultural domination.........455
Regulation..........................................315
Relentless government support..........443
Religion is not enough.......................430
Religious beliefs are penalized..........443
Religious discrimination............452, 487
Religious Nation................................426
Render the Constitution null and void
........................................................450
Repeat performance of siblings..........388
Researchers don't have a clue............322
Residual activity...................................69
Resort to force to establish its sanctity of
errors..............................................450
Resurrected the dead instantaneously 454
Resurrection.......................................454
Resurrection of Christ........................223
Retinohypothalamic tract...................236
Revelation..........................................224
Revelation ends with..........................230
Revert back into monkeys..................387
Rice plant...........................................382
599
Richard Leakey....................................21
Rights crafted in language so eloquently
inspired...........................................451
RNA...................................................257
Robert Gentry.......................................31
Rogue scientists..................................284
Russel Wallace...................................427
Sabbath for a thosand years...............238
Sabotage and eliminate Democracies 310
Salt crystals........................................147
Same potential audiences...................466
Sarcophaguses....................................254
Save both faces...................................260
Saved from such a deserved fate by only
a \....................................................489
Scary..................................................397
Scary because if it is misleading..............
it is deceiving................................397
Schizophrenic.....................................280
Scopes Trial........................................305
Scratching feas and eating bugs.........464
Screaming like burnt fiends...............271
Screw up physics................................235
Screws up bio-chemistry....................234
Seances...............................................427
Second creation description...............229
Secularism..........................................290
Selection of Facts...............................375
Seperation of Church and State..349, 451
Sequencing dinosaur DNA.................153
Serial Propaganda..............................311
Serious doubts to its demcratic legality
........................................................474
Shakespeare........................149, 197, 278
Shanidar Cave......................................20
Shaparo..............................................564
Siblings of both sexes........................388
Sigmund Freud...........................279, 283
Signers of the Declaration of.............298
Signs Omnibus Appropriation Bill....482
Silent or neutral mutation...................208
Sir Isaac Newton would be fired........478
Sir Muir Russell...................................97
Slavery with its tragic results.............455
Smithsonian........................................572
Socrates or Plato.................................454
Space travel........................................131
Special interest influence...................484
Spiritists...................................................
Sigmund Freud...............................427
Splitting and re-attaching Chromosomes
........................................................375
Spontaneous abortion.........................378
Spontaneous generation.....................392
Spontaneous Generation....270, 314, 399
Stalin..................................................275
State takes sides.................................439
Sterile.................................................387
Sternberg............................................572
Stone them with stones......................428
Stretch from here to the moon............260
Struggle between good and evil.........224
Suicide by contradiction.....................454
Summation of Biblical blasphemy.....586
Supracontinental.................................119
Supreme Court...................................350
Survey................................................488
Surveys...............................................422
Survival of the fittest..................276, 304
Suspended the laws of nature.............223
Symbiosis...........................................180
Taggers.......................................202, 262
Tagging..............................................323
Tanks and troops................................284
Tantamount to those inflicted for
criminal or moral misconduct........443
Tapeats sedimenta..............................122
Taxation without Representation.......484
Teaching of evolution prohibits the free
excercise.........................................443
Telomere cap......................................378
Temple of Science..............................465
Terrorist philosophy...........................310
Tetrahymena.......................................381
That very day his thoughts perish......428
That violent generation of extremists and
madmen..........................................455
The.....................................................176
The age calculated are reduced............60
The annililation of matter...................177
The Anointed Cherubim.....................172
600
The atheists are mostly incontrol of our
schools............................................465
The Bible is not a cosmological treatise
........................................................489
The Bible makes good internal sense.250
The Big Bang.....................................127
The big squeez...................................135
The black hole of history.....................47
The Catholic Church rejects creationism
........................................................488
The Chariots of the Gods...................129
The crucifixion is the paradigm.........224
The dead know nothing......................226
The Discovery Institute......................472
The eye vs. an engineer......................185
The falling edific................................441
The gene mysteriously reappeared.....127
The genes are pre-existing and
functioning.....................................322
The greatest story ever told................464
The Holy City....................................243
The illusion in everyones mind..........483
The Inquisition from 1200 A.D. to 1800
A.D.................................................502
The law of gravitation........................362
The lesser, base clay of Darwin.........312
The lie................................................173
The literal story of Genesis................225
The moral unction of atheism............465
The most spectacular failure in human
history............................................557
The National Academy of Sciences'
history............................................472
The official Federal Religion of the Us
........................................................502
The organized power of a class to
oppress another..............................468
The other 98.4% of the DNA.............321
The Pew Study...................................124
The Pope............................................296
The Pope annulled..............................296
The Pope signed the Reichskonkordat
........................................................504
The revolutionary right to dispose of.468
The Roman Catholic Church......452, 487
The sad epics of history.....................455
The soon to be deceased.............453, 488
The state by teaching evolution, is
teaching Roman Catholic doctrine452,
487
The Supreme court's five catholic
justices............................................502
The survival of the fittest is taught as
destiney..........................................466
The take over of science.....................479
The total admissions made by subtracing
........................................................466
The tree of the knowledge of.............234
The Vatican signed a Concordant with
Nazi Germany................................503
Their own private army......................470
Their own private butler.....................470
Their private special interest..............470
Theoretical constructs of a fictional
science............................................441
These areas that code for protein, which
dictate.............................................321
They admit it themselves...........452, 487
They are in perpetual conflict proves.456
Things of known age............................64
Third Reich........................................310
Thomas Jefferson...............................442
Those who fled to America's shores. .451
Tick-tocks in the rocks.......................157
Tiger...................................................560
Time Life..............................................17
Times always change.........................451
To change times and laws..................491
To create an Ape................................419
To preserve the peace shoot the.........463
To that extent we are not a democracy
........................................................468
Toad...........................................136, 381
Today, there are different threats.......450
Tomas Lindahl...................................148
Trashes the US Constitution..............309
Treated unfairly without a voice........455
Tree ring dating..............................48, 79
Trees of life..........................................21
Triceratops.........................................149
Triumph of evils.................................450
601
Trump card of scientific lies and
iniquites..........................................485
Truth is an extreme form of blasphemy
........................................................437
Try, try again, a definition of a theory
........................................................370
Trying to escape the gallows..............469
TV......................................................169
Tweaking............................................317
Twin...................................................312
Twine Double Helix...........................168
Twins..................................................387
Twist a fact around a lie.....................440
Two heads clumped uncomfortable onto
........................................................528
Tyrannosaurus....................................144
Ultimate ironies..................................441
Unable to create Adam.......................229
Unalienable Rights.............................286
Unapproachable light.........................416
Unexplored frontier............................322
Uniforitarianism.................................110
Union of Church and State.................441
Unwavering faith in the presumption of
the unproven...................................456
Uranium Disequilibrium Dating..........54
Uranium-thorium.................................35
US becoming a land of two nations...486
Vegatation..........................................229
Ventriloquist......................................280
Very fine and intriguing work............251
Vic Walczak.......................................397
Violence is..........................................284
Violent ant-thesis...............................454
Viruses are dangerous contagions......315
Wall of Separation between Church and
State................................................369
Wall of Separation between evolution
and the State...................................454
Wall of Seperation between Church and
State........................................452, 487
War 2..................................................312
War of the Worlds..............................220
Waste bin............................................269
watermelon...........................................30
Watermelon........................................375
We have the purpose of..............276, 303
We have the purpose of preventing
bigots..............................................476
Weather would have to cease.............121
Webster defines purgatory as.....452, 487
Weimer Republic...............................310
Wells..................................................253
Wernher Von Braun...........................268
WHAT ARE SOME OF MAN'S
ACCOMPLISMENTS...................192
What cannot start cannot go...............399
What Darwin didn't know..................200
What is death?....................................226
What is truth?.....................................451
What regulates them?.........................264
What the Dark Ages tell us................467
What the twenthy Century tells us.....467
What you don't know which might help
your enemy.....................................440
When America hiccups, the rest of the
world sneezes.................................475
Where is God?....................................435
White washed sepulchers...................466
Who is God........................................410
Whole gene comparison.....................217
Whole genomes not compared...........218
Why we are happy..............................293
Winning adherents.............................455
Witchcraft...........................................427
With 98% of the DNA.......................322
Without an obvious alteration of
neighboring genes..........................392
Without innovational revision............392
Witness protection program.................45
Woodmorappe......................................65
Work as one and inseperable.............369
Work of one laboratory........................46
World View........................................457
World War 1...............................302, 312
World's 50 top Universities................479
Writing directly from the experience of
history............................................446
X-Rayed Plants..................................375
Zebra finch.........................................264
'Horizontal Transfer'...........................315
'Let there be light'...............................245

BOOKS

Antheny Flew: There is a God. The conversion of a World Renowned Atheist.

Buried Alive by Dentist Jack Cuozzo

The Edge of Evolution & Darwin’s Black Box by Michael J. Behe

Science Discovers God by Ariel Roth

The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzales and Jay W. Richards.

Dr. Gonzalez was fired by his atheistic University for writing this masterpiece from a

602
Design Perspective. His firing is virtually proof in and of itself he has written a world-class

book that scared and enraged the evolutionists!

The Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell

Additional sources: Unlocking the Mystery of Life DVD, illustra Media & Creation

vs. Evolution, Harvest House Publishers.

DVD: Is Evolution Scientific? By Eric Garloff

Video: Creation vs. Evolution by Ralph O. Muncaster

The Discovery Institute

Explorationsfilms.com

Creation Ministries International www.CreationOnTheWeb.org Or,

www.CreationOnTheWeb.com

DetectingDesign.com Sean Pitman, M.D.

E-mail: Seanpit@gmail.com

www.secondlookSeminars.blip.tv/post

www.scientiftheology.org

Creation Ministries International publishes an International Catalogue of Books,

DVDs, teaching tools, (for children, youth, and families.) etc. Creation On The

Web.com/store. Some of the book titles in their published list are as follows: [in their

Catalogue there is a brief description of the subject matter of each book or video]:

603
 BOOKS

After the Flood by Bill Cooper

Annals of the World by James Ussher

Battle for the Beginning by John MacArthur

Battle for the Truth by David A. Noebel

The Big Argument by Dr. Michael Westacott & Dr. John F. Ashton, Eds.

Bones of Contention (revised and updated) by Marvin L. Lubenow

The Creation Answers Book by Dr. Don Batten (Ed,), Dr. David Catchpoole, Dr.

Jonathan Satfati and Dr. Carl Wieland

Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics by Dr. Duane T. Gish

Creation: Facts of Life (Revised and Updated) by Dr. Gary Parker

Creation and Change by Doctor Douglas F. Kelly

Darwin on Trail by Dr. Phillip E. Johnson

Darwin’s Enigma by Luther Sunderland

Did God Use Evolution by Dr. Werner Gitt

Dismantling the Big Bang by Alex Williams and Dr. John Hartnett

Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No by Dr. T. Gish

Footprints in the Ash by DR. John Morris and Dr. Steven A. Austin

Frozen in Time by Michael Oard

The Genesis Files by Dr. Carl Wieland (Ed.)

Genesis for Today by Dr. Andy Mcintosh

The Genesis Record by Dr. Henry M. Morris

604
 The God factor by Dr. John f. Ashton

God’s Promise to the Chinese by Ethel R. Nelson, Richard E. Broadberry and Ginger

Tong Chock

Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail

Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe by Dr. Steven Austin

Hallmarks of Design (2nd Edition) by Stuart Burgess

In Six Days by Dr. F. Ashton (Ed.)

In the Beginning Was Information by Werner Gitt

The Long War Against God by Dr. Henry Morris

Many Infallible Proofs by Dr. M. Morris and Henry M. Morris111

The Puzzle of Ancient Man by Dr. Donald E. Chittick

Reason in the Balance by Dr. Phillip E. Johnson

Refuting Compromise by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

Refuting Evolution by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

Refuting Evolution 11 by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

Remarkable Record of Job by Dr. Henry M. Morris

Seven Men Who Rule the World From the Grave by Dave Breese

Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer

Six Day Creation by Robert Gurney

Starlight, Time, and the New Physics by Dr. John Hartnett

Time and Eternity by Dr. Werner Gitt

Universe by Design by Dr. Danny Faulkner

Unwrapping the Pharaohs by Dr. John Ashton and David Down (incl. 90-minute

605
DVD)

The Vanishing Proofs of Evolutions by Thomas Heinze

The Wonder of Man by Dr. Werner Gitt

The World That Perished by Dr. Whitcomb

The Young Earth by Dr. John D. Morris

In-depth Books//

Ancient Ice Ages by Michael Oard

The Biotic Message by Walter James ReMine (Technical)

Darwin’s Black Box by Michael J. Behe

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton

The Frozen Record by Michael J. Oard

Genetic Entropy and the mystery of the Genome by Dr. John Sanford

The Geologic Column by Dr. Reed and Michael J. Oard

Geology By Design by Carl R. Froede Jr., P.G.

An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood by Michael J. Oard

Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth by Dr. Larry Vardiman

Mussoula Flood Controversy by Michael Oard

Mythology of Modern Dating by John Woodmorappe

Not by Chance by Dr. Lee Spetner

One Small Speck to man by Dr. Vij Sodera

Radioioistopes & the Age of the Earth 1 by Larry Verdiman, Andrew A Snelling and

606
Eugene F. Chaffin (Technical)

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth 2 by the above authors (Technical)

Sea Floor Sediment and the Age of the Earth (semi-technical)

The Preceding were not all of the Book Listings

Under the Heading of General DVDs there are about thirty five listings

Creation The Flood And The Ice Age Dr. Kent Hovind series.

Distributed by:

American Portrait Films

P.O. Box 19266

Cleveland, OH 44119

1-800-736-4576

CREATIONIST’S MAGAZINES

Acts&Facts (free)

Published by

Institute for Creation Research

P.O. Box 52029, Dallas, TX 75229

I included these resources so everyone will know there is available scientific literature

supporting the Creationist’s view.

607
608
i
“The sun was the foremost god of heathendom… The sun has worshippers at this hour in Persia and other lands… There
is, in truth, something royal, kingly about the sun, making it a fit emblem of Jesus, the Sun of Justice. Hence the church in
these countries would seem to have said, keep that old pagan name. It shall remain consecrated, sanctified. And thus the
pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder, became the Christian Sunday, sacred to Jesus.” Catholic World, March, 1894, p. 809

Who in the world was Balder that we should substitute his day of worship for Saturday, the 7th day of the week in memorial
to the creation of God? You are going to have a difficult time believing this crazy story, so I quote an authority: the Grolier
Encyclopedia.

Balder: “In Norse mythology Balder was the god of light and beauty. The most beloved of the gods, he was the son of
Odin and Frigg and the husband of Nanna, the goddess of the moon. A famous Norse myth tells how Loki, the evil giant,
had Balder killed with a dart made of mistletoe, the only thing in the world that had not promised his mother it would never
harm him. By his refusal to weep for Balder, Loki also thwarted the Gods’ effort to secure Balder’s release from death and
return to Asgard, home of the gods.” Grolier.

Comment: The Roman Catholic Church changed the Holy Sabbath of Christendom, the 7th day of the week for the worship
of the Creator of heaven and earth, for an ancient Norse fairy tale? To worship a false pagan god, who was unable to save
himself, for the one true God, Firstborn of the resurrection, and Lord of the Sabbath.
There are psychotics posing as churchmen, parliamentarians, rulers in high and low places and the world follows after them
like the beast of Revelation, and there are no delusions in the world that one can think of?