Search This Blog

Friday, 31 January 2014

The Evolution Theory Evolution and The Crime of the Century

Ever wondered why the human evolution theory changed:
The Evolution Theory Evolution 1.1

Ever wondered why the linear diagram evolved into a tree? Why did the concept of man evolving from chimps evolved into an idea that man and monkeys just have the same roots? 

That the magic of evolution! It is mysterious and to some extent, sinister.

This essay would reveal an inconvenient truth of a convenient con.

The Missing Link defines the above title as:
a hypothetical form of animal assumed to have constituted a connecting link between the anthropoidapes and humans, identified by some authorities as constituting the genus Australopithecus.
something lacking for the completion of a series or sequence.

Darwin's On the Origin of Species (OOS) did not particularly discuss human evolution. Nor did he mention anything about a missing link. However, in this notorious publication, he already remarked about a tree of life:
At each period of growth all the growing twigs have tried to branch out on all sides, and to overtop and kill the surrounding twigs and branches, in the same manner as species and groups of species have at all times overmastered other species in the great battle for life.
So if the linear notion was not directly from Darwin, where did it come from?

The idea came from German biologist and professor Ernst Haeckel. Heackel was the one who promoted Darwin's theory in Germany. Below is a copy of a page from his book published in 1879, just a few years after OOS.   

 ''Tree of Life'' by Haeckel in the ''The Evolution of Man'' (Published 1879)
Haeckel's diagram is still a tree but if you would look closely, you would see that man came from ape-men, and then ape-men from apes. 

The ape-men stage is the missing link.

So the evolution theory itself is a tree: from the tree concept of Darwin which branched out to Heackel's tree and to the linear diagram of Huxley (another supporter of Darwin). At some point in time, Haeckel's tree and the linear of Huxley merged to create the common and popular conception of the theory. 

The tree that you would now see in Biology books came out apparently from an offshoot of Darwin's tree. I have attempted to illustrate that below:

Evolution Theory Evolution 2.1

Darwin's evolution theory is a tree where other evolution theories have branched out from. And it is not the fault of the masses that they are confused about the evolution concept. Evolution scientists are apparently not good communicators.

So it is not surprising that there are atheists that are still looking for the missing link:
Although chimpanzees remain our closest living primate relatives, there is now no evidence that Homo sapiens somehow evolved from chimpanzee-like individuals, losing chimp characteristics over time.  
Jennifer Viegas
October 2009
In fact, Ernst Haeckel's evolution theory had so great an impact that atheists have created the greatest con in science and in human history.

The Crime of the Century

Before I tell you what that is, let me first quote this preface from the world famous TIME magazine:

The Crime of the Century must strike at the most undefined and thus most vulnerable part of the soul: it must touch the messy unconscious, where all kinds of emotions meld into each other. Pity and envy are involved; desire and revulsion; fear and sometimes schadenfreude.
Yes, it is difficult to not feel schadenfreude for those atheists who masterminded the GREATEST CRIME IN SCIENCE:

The Fake Ape-Man, 1912

Eoanthropus dawsoni was the scientific name of this alleged missing link, and it would have been an extremely early example of a creature showing both human and apelike qualities. At 375,000 years old, it put England in contention for a cradle of humankind, being found in the Sussex town of Piltdown. The "first Englishman" he was proudly called when the anthropologist Charles Dawson found him in 1911. For decades, Piltdown Man was cited along with Neanderthal man and Heidelberg man as an example of early hominid life in Europe. Then in 1953, the fragments, including a jawbone, were tested: they did not contain enough fluorine to be the age that Dawson claimed; worse, the jawbone was that of a 10-year-old orangutan, its teeth ground down to simulate age, and a crude chemical wash applied to the bone to make it appear ancient. No one knows who perpetrated the hoax: Dawson had died in 1916. Very quickly, however, Piltdown became a synonym for phony

To God be the Glory forever! Praise be the name of the Lord.

I'd like to promote the Church that I am affiliated with, kindly check this out: or you can download our Church's app from iTunes:

Sunday, 19 January 2014

The Evolution Fraud

Last thursday, I watched a debate between an atheist and a Christian minister at the premier institution of higher learning, the University of the Philippines (Diliman Campus).

It was a debate between Gerome Almodovar (Co-Founder of Rationalists and Darwinians of Nasugbo) and Bro.Eli Soriano (Presiding Minister of MCGI).

I'd like to dispute the "Rationalists" part of the name of Mr.Almodavar's group, but that's another story. 

Anyway, the debate was a success, the Christians won of course, and the atheists left the event nonchalantly and silently.

However, they were not that silent at first. The event had a huge turn-out so I watched it standing-up. And I can't but notice the 3 stooges, I mean the 3 atheists who were seating in the front row. They were laughing at the Christian Minister for his stand against the evolution theory. Particularly, his attack on the classical view of the theory.

Let me elaborate. 

This is a bit technical, and it might be long, (still not sure how long it will take me to explain it) but if you can muster all your patience, I would greatly appreciate it. 

Please bear with me.

It seems that these 3 stooges, (sorry, I mean, the 3 atheists) were not familiar that the linear type of the evolution theory is more popular to the majority of people (educated) in the Philippines:

Since many in the Philippines subscribes to the above view that man evolved from monkeys, this is what the Christian Minister has assaulted.

But these 3 idiots, I mean these 3 stooges, kept on mocking the Christian Minister. Fortunately, thank God, they stayed until the debate was over. They were probably shocked how the debate ended, how Bro.Eli won the argument, and how the Co-Founder of the Darwinian and Irrationals lost in shame and in embarrassment.

Anyway, what these 3 stooges were referring to is this:

That's the evolution theory Tree. If you would notice, it's not showing that man evolved from monkeys/apes but that man and the primates have a similar ancestry. That's why they were referring to them as "cousins". This has now been a scapegoat of atheists. What a bunch of idiots.

When Bro.Eli asked Mr.Almodavar the difference in essence between man being cousins with monkeys and man evolving from a lower form a life, the atheist seemed to have stuttered, as he looked like someone who was not eloquent in speech. 

The hindrance in Mr. Almodavar's attempt in explaining the difference is understandable. The current status of the evolution theory is a mess.

I have a degree of BS Biology from the University of Santo Tomas and this has not helped me overlook the loopholes of the theory. Even when I was a Science Education Associate (Biology Dept) of the National Institute of Science and Mathematics Education Development (NISMED) in UP Diliman (I was there for 2 years), I was only able to see the excuses the evolutionists are making.

The Evolution Fraud
Part 2

I contacted Dr.Mike Behe (one of the scientists that I trust), American biochemist, author, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture to get his opinion on this linear/tree/cousin fiasco:

...from what I read our understanding of human evolution is something of a mess and in flux. Scientists in the field have proposed a linear descent, a tree-like descent, a "braid"-like descent, and more. Here's a link to a recent essay that gives a good overview of the state of confusion of the field.

I hope he wouldn't mind me sharing this to you. Well, it's in the interest of Science! Of course he wouldn't mind.

So you wouldn't have to read that entire article Dr.Behe shared, here's the gist of this December 31, 2013 news from the BBC:

We have built a picture of our evolution based on the morphology of fossils and it was wrong.
We just cannot place so much taxonomic weight on a handful of skulls when we know how plastic - or easily changeable - skull shape is in humans. And our paradigms must also change.
Some time ago we replaced a linear view of our evolution by one represented by a branching tree. It is now time to replace it with that of an interwoven plexus of genetic lineages that branch out and fuse once again with the passage of time.
So now, even the evolution tree is wrong! Hahaha!

Say goodbye to the cousins of the 3 stooges!

I have no doubt that after some years, after a few more discoveries, they would have to abandon the evolution theory altogether and admit that Darwin was wrong.

To God be the glory!

Saturday, 4 January 2014

The Secret of Atheists


I just had an epiphany. I have just discovered their secret. I have just deciphered the atheist code. I have uncovered their holy grail. It's a well-fortified secret that they will never tell you.

That secret is... well before I give that away, kindly read this first (please be patient with me):
When commenting in 2006 on the seemingly unstoppable rise of the Brights [an atheist group] in the United Kingdom, journalist Gary Wolf noted that the monthly Brights meetup in London was one of the largest and best-organized. Thanks to its excellent website, the topics and dates of these meetups, some of which were held jointly with London Atheists, are available for all to see.
The meetings were originally held monthly in 2003 and attracted a slightly fluctuating attendance, which firmed up sharply during 2006 and the first few months of 2007. This period overlapped roughly with the publication of the two most high-profile works of the New Atheism: Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion and Christopher Hitchens's God is Not Great.
The site helpfully provides full details of each meeting, including estimates of attendance, occasionally with photographs allowing the number of attendees to be confirmed. 
The December 2006 "Yuletide Celebration" social event was clearly much appreciated, whereas only four people responded to the following invitation in May 2006 to watch The Da Vinci Code together: "You know you want to see the film. So why not see it with a bunch of friendly brights and atheists?" Now who would want to miss out on that?
Yet from the second half of 2007, the meetups became increasingly infrequent. Whereas ten meetings were scheduled for 2005, there were only two meetups arranged for 2008, and only one for 2009. Nothing at all happened in 2010. Or in 2011.
This might have been due to organizational difficulties. Then again, it might point to a more fundamental loss of interest and commitment, reflecting the waning of the novelty value of "Bright" ideas.
The last meeting, held on 21 July 2009, attracted 10 people. As one commenter pointed out dejectedly, "It would have probably been better if the person who organised it actually showed up." After that, no further meetings took place.

My condolences to the Brights. It seems that their light was more of a black light.

Anyway, it seems that atheists have a little ADHD problem. Hahaha! This attention deficit and need for validation is the 1 of the 2 parts of the decoder to unlock the atheist secret.

The second component of the decoder is this:
Comedian and writer Pippa Evans is the co-founder of the Sunday Assembly, a growing worldwide movement where non-believers congregate to celebrate atheist rituals of community and wonder. Recently a congregation formed in Melbourne, and it's already attracting a growing flock. But why revisit the traditions of church worship if there's no God to praise?

The question we get asked the most about Sunday Assembly is ‘But why?’ Why set up something that is sort of like a godless church and sort of like a show, and is fun and yet serious? 
My stock answer is ‘Why not?’

Two months ago I hosted the first Sunday Assembly Australia in Melbourne. It was a buzz to see 60-odd people laughing, singing and being together, sharing lemonade and homemade cakes and making new connections.

One couple I met had just moved to South Melbourne and wanted to meet people, but they didn't want to go to church as they didn't believe in God. Where's the place to do that?

Say what you like about the Church but it did, and still does in many places, serve a vital function of creating and serving its community. Sure people go to praise God, but they also come together to make friends, lay aside differences, sing, clear their minds and partake in ritual. We love ritual as humans, whether it be a Christening, chanting at a football match or strange family traditions that no one else knows about (ask a member of the Evans family to sing ‘Oh Plum Pudding’ and you will be quite surprised by the result).
Rituals are fantastic at bringing us together, but what do you do if you don't believe in God? If you aren't comfortable singing his praises but you do want to find a way to engage with people that doesn't involve an entrance fee and a bar?
That's where we come in.
Sunday Assembly has grown faster than anything I have ever been a part of. We set up in January and now, at the end of June, Sanderson (my co-founder) is in America, hosting the first Sunday Assembly New York, Melbourne is holding its second Sunday Assembly and we have a congregation (yes, we use that word) of over 600 people in London.

Such funny people. An atheist church. So if we put together the validation hungry-attention disorder and their envy plus the need to congregate with singing, what do you get? My dear rational friends, atheists are unhappy. That's their secret. They are not satisfied with their lives and they are sad.

For there can be no true joy without God.

In Gary Wolf's great "Atheists United" article, the journalist commented that:
Typical atheists are hardly the rabble-rousing evangelists that Dawkins or [Sam] Harris might like. They are an older, peaceable, quietly frustrated lot, who meet partly out of idealism and partly out of loneliness
The typical atheist is lonely. That's the most rational conclusion that we can get. They are truly unhappy.


To God be the Glory!