Search This Blog

Saturday, 22 February 2020

Darwin Devolves: ENDGAME








"I figured it out, by the way." -Tony Stark


Chris Rock had a stand up international tour gig several years ago (before Obama became president). I think it was an HBO special. Anyway, it was hilarious. He made fun, of course, of then presidential candidate John McCain because, well, he was not black. Lol. Obviously, his favorite was Obama. But his reasoning for choosing Obama,  was not a joke. He was boringly serious: He said, "Obama is not only black, he's black and qualified" (emphasis mine). 

And that's why Dr. Michael Behe is a Darwinist' nightmare. He's a scientist-- a qualified biochemist and a genius.
He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. Behe’s current research involves delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures.

Behe's first anti darwinian evolution book was called Darwin's Black Box. After a few years, part 2, was the Edge of Evolution. And Darwin Devolves, apparently, unintentionally, completed the trilogy. 

The paperback version was just released this February. And just like how the Avengers killed Thanos in Endgame using the 6 infinity stones, Behe murdered Darwinism via this third book. 

There were some attempts of some people to effectively cripple evolution theory but those arguments seemed to be feeble or lacking. But just like Tony Stark, Michael Behe figured it out. 



POWER 

Iron man/Tony Stark figured out a way to travel the quantum realm which was a key in defeating the monster Thanos. 
For Darwinian evolution, Biochemistry is the key. 

Richard Dawkins, famous Darwin apologist is a biologist. It is understandable that his knowledge of biochemistry is not that grand. Just like a Pediatrician would not have that extensive knowledge on how to treat elderly cancer patients, Dawkins would not have that broad Biochemistry education. That's probably a reason why I think he wouldn't appreciate what I'd like to call BBB (Behe's Beautiful Biochemistry). 

BBB in Darwin Devolves is outstanding. Strikingly gorgeous. If there were flaws in Darwin's Black Box or in his 2nd book, all of them seemed to have vanished in Part 3. With DNA evidence, incredible logic, armed with decades of research, he was able to deliver a powerful coup de grace to Darwinian theory. 


TIME

Behe was on the side of angels. And apparently, time was on the side of Behe. Black box was published in 1996. DNA sequencing data was not that abundant as it is now. In this 3rd book, Behe was convincingly able to show via the DNA information that there is a huge error in the Darwinian evolutionary mechanism and that devolution is the reality that we now need to accept. 


REALITY

Numerous examples on how Darwinian evolution would not make sense and how it would not work were provided in the book and I don't want to spoil them. But I'll give you one. 

Spoiler alert!

In a young planthopper's legs, there are miniscule gears. These toothed gears are very similar to what you'd see inside drills or inside the Big Ben in UK. This was discovered by a couple of scientists just a few years ago. 

I was so impressed and in awe of this biological feature that I blurted out this pseudo-plagiarized poem on twitter:


I think that I shall never hear
A poem great as a hopper's gear
Gears whose hungry teeth mesh
Against each other as it press
A planthopper looks at God all day
And lifts its legs and jumps and say:
My body easily breaks and tear
But only God can make my gear


Interesting enough, I did get a response from an atheist that tweeted:

"Silly theists.  Science is for scientists." 

That's it. I was actually disappointed. I was hoping for a more negative, more retaliatory reply with multiple links as evidence but all I got was a shallow, puny tweet.



MIND

There's a section in Darwin Devolves entitled "The mind" that deals with the origin of life. It also discusses different perspectives of scientists. And some of those perspectives are, sadly, idiotic. 

One of those ideas comes from Dr. Eugene Koonin.

Eugene V. Koonin is the leader of the Evolutionary Genomics Group at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI).  He received his PhD in Molecular Biology in 1983 from the Moscow State University. He seems to be smart. OK, he is intelligent. But there is a difference between intelligence and rationality. Smart people can still do stupid things. And unfortunately for Dr. Koonin, one of his stupid mistakes is promoting a multiverse as a possibility to defend the existence of evolution.

Yes, a multiverse. A comic book multiverse. Seriously.

This reminded me of a tweet from the popular satire account, the Babylon bee (Feb 6, 2020):

Atheist Accepts Multiverse Theory Of Every Possible Universe Except Biblical One

Dr. Behe did not relent in reminding the reader of the existence of Eugene Koonin in every chance he gets. His attacks on Koonin were just too good. Behe should try being a stand up comic like Chris Rock. His jokes on Koonin were simply the best.


SPACE

Of course, in Darwin Devoles, Behe quoted the classic Watchmaker argument of Paley. He admitted its little flaws and he also mentioned Dawkin's counter-- the blind watchmaker (an oxymoron). The main points of Paley's Watchmaker argument, for me, are still valid. Dawkin's rebuttal seemed to me, to borrow Alvin Platinga: "is not much of an argument".

Anyway, I have tweaked Paley's and came up with this:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the stupidity of this answer. But suppose I had found worn out gears upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the gears happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the gears might have always been there...  

But supposed again I had found a young planthopper on the ground, and it should be inquired how similar gears happened to be in its legs; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the gears might have always been there... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, a maker, who formed the gears for the purpose which we find it actually to answer,; who comprehended its construction, and desined its use... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the gears of the planthopper, exists in the works of man: in cars, in submarines, in watches. with the difference on the side of man, of being lesser in degree.

My fascination with these natural gears is, I hope, understandable. The scientists who discovered them I believe had that same feeling. Behe too appreciated this.

Imagine that, gears! And what's more interesting is that those gears are only present in young planthoppers because they need them to jump from one space to another, just like a wind up toy car needs gears so it can move. However, when they become mature, the gears are lost because the hoppers can now jump on their own.


SOUL

Another amazing thing about this book, besides BBB, is that Behe was able to bravely point out an obvious truth like that kid in the Emperor's New Clothes story,  who said, "But he doesn't have anything on!"

The Darwinian Theory is faulty. Evolution theory is full of loopholes, vagueness and Behe is just an honest kid who just sees the nakedness and idiocy of the darwinian mechanism.


Closing Credits

Just like in any good Marvel movie, there is a closing credit scene. This book has an appendix. Don't forget to read that part too! There's a Dr. Dolittle (real person) story that you will like.

Tuesday, 24 September 2019

The Reason Why Hyenas Laugh and Why Evolution is Wrong


When I was studying college biology at the University of Santo Tomas, I wasn't able to shake off this one line I read from a biology book. I remember reading it in UST's main library and laughing out loud.

It goes like this, female hyenas have vaginas that look like penises. And this is probably what the hyenas were laughing about!

I was shocked when I read it. Was it an editing error? Or did the editor miss that part. It was crazy. Anyway, kudos to author, whoever he was. He probably felt triumphant when that book was published.

So that's why hyenas laugh. Now comes the serious part. Animals, particularly humans, need 2 sexes to reproduce, male and female. Even Hyenas needed these 2 sexes to multiply. But over thousands of years, they have remained just 2. Evolution has no explanation over this. If you'll google it, you will find that there is not much talk about it.

You might find that old Seattle times 2006 article which states:


Well, that leading theory seems be their best guess about it, but that's just what theories generally are, educated speculations.

I put it to you, that macro evolution, specifically, human evolution is wrong simply because it could not have produced, randomly, like a lottery to have just 2 sexes. That these 2 sexes would copulate, (and enjoy it while doing it), and reproduce. It seems inconceivable that a biological process would have this unpremeditated result.

When Jordan was asked this question (if you are in a hurry, go to 2:16 directly):





So for him, a real woman must have female genitalia, female reproductive organs. Therefore, the counterpart, the male must have male genitalia. Folks, having 2 sexes could not have been a result of a magical, random phenomenon. Females must have female reproductive organs to reproduce, males must have the counterpart organs so they can have sex. This infers design. A very intelligent design. It is not from a biological lottery.

This is my version of irreducible complexity. The two human sexes did not evolve. They were simply made that way, male and female.

But I do hope those hyenas won't lose their sense of humor.



Tuesday, 31 October 2017

The Atheist's Diamond

Have you ever seen that before? No? It's called the Atheist's Diamond. The A of course stands for atheism. That letter below, on the other hand is actually not the letter V but the Greek letter lambda (that is upside down). Lambda is a scientific symbol, according to symbologist Robert Langdon. He said that it's common in the fields of particle physics, comology, etc. Therefore, the atheist's diamond means atheism is supported by upside down science (not real science). It's not real science that can stand upright, proud, firm and unshakable.

The atheist's diamond has actually been upgraded. If you would notice, there is a letter B on the left arm that supports atheism. That B stands for the Big Bang theory, an upside down science. I'm glad a tv show was named after that concept, because that theory is really a joke, a sitcom. It's a weak, unverifiable, movable notion of the origin of the universe that would eventually collapse.



So that's what atheists believe as gospel truth, an unreliable origin of the universe that is defeated by it's own origin, according to National Geographic. It's like shooting yourself on the foot, a self referentially destructive concept. It's a paradox. The Big Bang theory is not science, it's science fiction.

The other arm, The Right Arm that supports atheism is E. 

Evolution theory is a chaotic theory that will not and cannot stand. It's a mess.





So from a line to a tree to a plexus. What a mess. Evolution theory is evolving. It's self referentially destructive as well. X = A+B. That's wrong! Oops, sorry I mean X = A+B+C. Wrong again! Wait, wait let me change that, it's X = A+B+C+D! How convenient.

So atheism is supported by 2 unreliable arms that will eventually collapse. Atheism is a jenga tower that is destined to fall down.

Tuesday, 24 October 2017

Better Atheists? (A Book Review on Dan Brown's Origin)





When the stars threw down their spears,
And watered heaven with their tears,
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

--William Blake, The Tyger


Two Saturdays ago, Kumail Nanjiani, a Pakistani Muslim, hosted Saturday Night Live. He was very funny. He joked about how racists can be idiots and how they can be better racists. He said his problem was their inaccuracy. "Do the research... an informed racist is a better racist." He said that to the live audience after mentioning a racist mistook him for an Indian. Well,  Pakistan was part of India before so you can understand the racist's confusion, haha.

I have that same problem with atheists. They have a penchant for being inaccurate. They have gross ignorance when it comes to the Evolution Theory. And Dan Brown is my example.

Brown's new book, Origin, which I just finished reading earlier today, is his Noli Me Tangere. An atheist novel wanting to start a revolution against religion, against God.

The Da Vinci Code is a prequel to this Noli Me Tangere, attacking first Jesus Christ before going after Da Boss, The Father of Jesus (Da Boss by the way is an interesting translation to Hawaii language from the Hebrew word, Adonai, meaning Lord).

Going back to Dan Brown, I give Origin 1 star out of 5 and 2 thumbs down, simply because he got the evolution theory wrong.

FACT:

All art, architecture,locations, science, and religious organizations in this novel are real. (page 7)


But the science is not real! Do the research! Human evolution theory does not state we evolved from apes. It's saying that apes and humans have the same origins. Educated atheists call apes as their cousins. I can
understand if Brown would have errors in his knowledge about artificial intelligence, chemistry, physics, but he called the book Origin! He should have studied the subject more, perhaps interviewed a biologist, or read a book on evolution. I guess Brown relied too much on his eidetic memory. I of course wouldn't challenge his knowledge about art and symbols, I know it would be profound, but his lazy, reckless writing about
evolution theory is an insult to his intelligence.

The image above is Brown's creation. A symbol about science supporting religion/God. It is true, science has indeed supported the existence of God. Inaccurate science, like apes evolving to man, on the other hand is supporting atheists and Brown's latest book. Let me try to make a symbol for that:


A

V

 Inaccurate science (inverted lambda) supporting atheism




Monday, 15 August 2016

First in, best dressed; Atheists, worst dressed


Atheist in a Flying Spaghetti Monster costume

Australians are such classy people. They use the idiom "first in, best dressed" which means the same as, "first come, first served". Did you know that?

Well, I didn't so had to google  a little. And this came up:


Haha! Apparently, it's not that popular. But I did see a reliable, logical explanation:

Idiom Definitions for 'First up, best dressed'
First up, best dressed comes from big families; the first child awake wore the best clothes, so if you are first to do something, you are ahead or have an advantage. Similar to the early bird catches the worm.(First in, best dressed is also used.) 



SOURCE: https://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/first+up+best+dressed.html 


Simply fantastic. And sounds cool too, makes you think it's a fashionista term.

But before I was able to find that reference, I stumbled upon this:

I believe it originated from an old Latin proverb...  

`prior tempore, prior jure.' 
[First in time, first by right.] 
[First come, first served.] 
@`Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary' Deluxe Second Edition. 1964 Simon & Schuster 

SOURCE: https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081222043017AADcK1j


Prior tempore, prior jure. You got to love those latin maxims! Dura lexx sed lex!

Anyway, going back to that last definition, first in, best dressed did not come from that latin proverb. "First come, first served" did. But that phrase prior tempore, prior jure stuck in my mind like an LSS...

prior jure...

prior jure...

jure...

De Jure...

De facto... de jure!

You got to love word association! I then remembered a perfect reasoning, a most wonderful, most beautiful argument against atheism. It's called the de facto and the de jure question.

The de jure (by right) question is the validity question, i.e, is it logical to believe in God? Is it rational? Is it rightful to believe in such a supernatural being?

The de facto question on the other hand is the existence question itself: Does God exist?

When I remembered that, I almost heard a ch-ch-ching ch-ching sound. More like a tt-ting ting sound. Well, to be exact a Platinga name. A professior Alvin Platinga.

Here he is:



Let me try to translate that into non-klingon.

Just like first in, best dressed, there is an order of things. In the atheism arguments, there is no need to start with the de jure question if one cannot answer that one basic, ultimate question the de facto question. What kind of atheist can know a thing like that? They cannot disprove the existence of God. It's impossible. They cannot experiment on it, they do not have the tools for it. They are poorly dressed for it. 







Saturday, 23 August 2014

The Evolution of "Charles Darwin"

Charles Darwin - a name all active atheists know. But what they do not know is that the name evolved.

Charles Darwin invented the Evolution Theory, a theory that atheists believe to be true in reality, that it is what really happened to us, that we came from lower forms of life.

Darwin made the theory because he, himself was an atheist.

Here are some excerpts from his autobiography:

"I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation,"
"Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories,"
"I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true,"
If Darwin had been alive today, he might have been active in twitter. Anyway, here's what happened to his name. Approximately after 50 years his birth, his name has evolved to:

CHARLES DARWIN ----> CHARLES DAWSON

Who is Charles Dawson? Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce to you a man, though different in appearance from Darwin, though his name is 2 letters different from Darwin, Dawson carried the same atheistic spirit that Darwin had.

In fact, he was too committed to atheism, that because of his extreme love of the idea that God doesn't exist and that evolution is correct, he created another tool to further the cause of atheism. He created Eoanthropus dawsoni or the Piltdown Man.

From an article of the popular TIME Magazine:
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. 
SOURCE: http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1937349_1937350_1937363,00.html
Though the article would not point the blame to Dawson directly, it is only rational to believe that Dawson played a great role in what I call to be the greatest crime in Science.

But it does not end there. For the name has evolved again.

CHARLES DARWIN 
|
|
CHARLES DAWSON
|
|
RICHARD DAWKINS


From a difference of 2 letters, now 3 letters have mutated, and 1 letter was added to form the name Richard Dawkins. but like Dawson, Dawkins carried the same atheistic spirit that Darwin had.

From an excerpt of an article by  of the Religion News Service:

Dawkins was a famous evolutionary biologist before he touted atheism. His 1976 book, “The Selfish Gene,” bridged the gap between academic writing and popular science and became a rare best-seller. In it, he outlined his theory of “memes” — ideas that travel within a culture through discussion, writing or images — which spread far beyond academia and into popular culture.
SOURCE: http://www.religionnews.com/2014/08/07/richard-dawkins/

So Dawkins is also a biologist like Darwin. He too was committed to atheism, and because of his extreme love to the idea that God doesn't exist, he:
His Richard Dawkins Foundation supports dozens of atheist organizations with its annual budget of $800,000 
That's right folks 800,000 American dollars. Why create another Piltdown Man when you can just give atheists, money?

However, even with Dawson's, oops, I mean Darwin, er sorry, I mean Dawkins' financial resources, he is now attracting the same negative attention that Piltdown Man had received after it was discovered as a hoax.


As you can see from the time stamp, that was just 3 days ago. And here are some of the response, that horrible tweet has been getting:




I just hope the horrible name doesn't evolve again.

The End.



----------------------------------

The Unprofitable Blog MAIN MENU

Sherlock Holmes is Not an Atheist

The Decablog (10 Anti Atheism Articles)

Scientists discover that atheists might not exist (featured article)

Stars Prove God is Real (featured article)





Monday, 10 March 2014

Sherlock Holmes is Not an Atheist

You know my methods, Watson. There was not one of them which I did not apply to the inquiry. And it ended by my discovering traces, but very different ones from those which I had expected.
     The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes (1893) 
Yesterday, I was able to watch the last episode of BBC's Sherlock, Season 3 on cable channel AXN. The intelligent producers/writers of this series have shocked and awed Sherlock Holmes fans worldwide due to their unorthodox storylines. And it worked. The first two seasons hold a 100% rating at Rotten Tomatoes, and season three has a 97% approval rating.

BBC's Sherlock was so popular because

The deduction sequences are ingenious,
Dan Martin, The Guardian
Unlike other versions of Sherlock, BBC was triumphant in stimulating the minds of its viewers.



In fact, the show was so successful that The Telegraph called the show:

a global phenomenon

Anyway, I used the term unorthodox above because this British channel's creation made Sherlock, the greatest detective in the world, a murderer (on Episode 3 of Season 3). A Sherlock fanatic would undoubtedly frown on the idea but I was able to find a justification. Their version of Sherlock was an atheist. So in that, I find comfort. I am relieved that my favorite character was only able to do the abominable because he did not believe in God.

It's actually easy to prove that the original Sherlock Holmes, written by the knighted Conan Doyle was a theist. Also in  The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes we can see that the original is on the side of angels:
There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as in religion,
 Can't but agree. Sherlock is indeed a genius. Anyway, to continue:
Our highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers. All other things, our powers, our desires, our food, are all really necessary for our existence in the first instance. But this rose is an extra. Its smell and its colour are an embellishment of life, not a condition of it. It is only goodness which gives extras, and so I say again that we have much to hope from the flowers.

So thank God for the roses.

The end.

And welcome to the Unprofitable Blog!


The Unprofitable Blog Table of Contents




Tuesday, 18 February 2014

Table of Contents


The Decablog
10 Anti Atheism Articles


The Secret of Atheists  
it's the holy grail of atheists

On the Origin of Atheism  
how this disease starts

The Atheism Delusion  
the chaos and destruction caused by atheists

The Bing Bang Joke 
why the Big Bang Theory should not be taken seriously

The Greatest Trick of the Devil 
an essay about Charles Darwin

The Evolution Fraud 
how unscientific the evolution theory is

The Evolution Theory Evolution and The Crime of the Century  
how the evolution theory became an accomplice to the greatest crime in Science

The Morning After 
the aftermath of atheism

Evolution Theory: MASS MURDERER 
why the theory is worse than Hitler

Why Christians are More Rational than Atheists
the title is self explanatory 


 
Appendix A

The Reason Why other Pastors do Not Revere Christ
the title is self explanatory


Conscience and the Bible
the psychology in the Bible

"And our paradigms must also change," 

--Professor Clive Finlayson, Director of the Gibraltar Museum

Sunday, 16 February 2014

Evolution Theory: MASS MURDERER


I point to the theory of evolution and I say, "I accuse you!"

I accuse the evolution theory of mass murder!

I accuse this myth of man-evolved-from-lower-forms-of-life of genocide.

The evolution theory is worse than Hitler.

...when Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany - to May 8, 1945, when the war in Europe officially ended. During this time, Jews in Europe were subjected to progressively harsher persecution that ultimately led to the murder of 6,000,000 Jews 
SOURCE: Jewish Virtual Library
A Nazi Concentration Camp


Hitler was almost able to kill a race.

The theory of evolution on the other hand, was not only able to kill a race, but of several species. To date, the theory was able to eliminate, 14 species!!!

Lordkipanidze and colleagues say their work shows the entire early fossil record for Homo – comprising perhaps nine species dating between about 2.3 and 0.5 million years old – is in fact a single long-lived group. 
Here’s the list of now apparently defunct species: Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo gautengensis, Homo ergaster, Homo georgicus, Homo soloensis, Homo pekinensis and Homo mauritanicus. 
All of them would now be sunk into Homo erectus according to the study findings. 
Their work also has major implications for later Homo, implying that a further six species should all be sunk into our kind, Homo sapiens. The species no longer required would be: Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo antecessor, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo helmei and Homo floresiensis. 
So, the entire ~2.4 million years of evolution of the genus Homo comprises, this new study proposes, at most two species: Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. These would both belong to a single evolutionary line rather than being separate twigs within a bush of species. 
SOURCE: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/10/18/can-skull-doom-14-human-species 
That essay was just posted a couple of months ago. 

David Lordkipanidze who made the discovery, is an archaeologist and anthropologist, winner of Georgia's Order of Honour (2000), Director General of the Georgian National Museum in 2004, foreign Member of the United States National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science (U.S.), he's also winner of the Award of the Prince of Monaco, the French Order of "Palmes Academiques", the French Order of Honour (2006) and the Rolex Award for Enterprise. In short, Lordkipanidze has credibility, unlike Charles Dawson, the creator of the ape-man skull in 1908.

And as a biologist, I agree with Lordkipanidze's findings. Though the author of the above article was not convinced but Lordkipanidze and his team's research does make sense. It's rational. In fact, I prophesy that after a few years, they will realize that the Homo erectus and Home sapiens are just one specie.

Why? Well, remember this word: plastic.

This is an excerpt from an article, published just more than a month ago by Professor Clive Finlayson, Director of the Gibraltar Museum
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. 
SOURCE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25559172

Case closed.

To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.



PS
I'd like to promote our Church's flagship program The Old Path. We are currently using 5 satellites to broadcast it.

These 5 satellites are: NSS 806, GALAXY 19, HOTBIRD 6/8/9, THAICOM 5 and STARONE C2. To check their frequency in your country, kindly go to this page: 
http://www.mcgi.org/broadcasts/satellite/

Thursday, 6 February 2014

The Morning After

Out flew the web and floated wide;  
The mirror crack'd from side to side;
"The curse is come upon me," cried
    The Lady of Shalott. 
Alfred Tennyson

Once upon a time, in a castle, in an island, there lived a mystical lady who was forbidden to look outside the window. This island was near Camelot.

Though she cannot look through the castle windows, she can still view everything using a magic mirror. She can see people, knights, practically, she can see all things via the reflection of the mirror.

One day, while weaving tapestry, she saw a knight named Lancelot, riding on a horse. Perhaps out of loneliness, she left the mirror and looked directly through the window to see Lancelot. Yes, the window was off limits but she did it anyway.

The mirror shattered. The mirror cracked from side to side.

"The curse is upon me," said she in horror of the mistake that she made. This horror was probably the same feeling atheists felt when the fake ape-man in Piltdown, England was revealed to be a hoax (yes, we're still talking about evolution).

Imagine the shame, the ridicule, the embarrassment atheists endured when "the missing link" was exposed as a phony. The curse was upon them.

They had it coming.

The Piltdown Gang





Above is a painting made by John Cooke in 1915 called the Piltdown Gang. Arthur Keith (anatomist) was the one in a white coat, behind him to the right, was Arthur Woodward (Natural History Museum). Next to him was the criminal mastermind Charles Dawson, the creator of the ape-man skeleton.

"Gang" had probably a different connotation at the time (1915). However, today, "gang" can not be more appropriate.

gang

1  [gang] 
noun
1.
a group or band: A gang of boys gathered around the winning pitcher.
* * *
5.
a group of persons associated for some criminal or other antisocial purpose: a gang of thieves.
No doubt about it, what Dawson did was a crime. And Dawson was the head criminal.

Guess whose portrait hangs on the wall in that Piltdown Gang painting? The evil Charles Darwin.

To better grasp the entire story, The National History Museum in London created a wonderful timeline for us (I have edited some parts for easier reading):
1859Darwin publishes On the Origin of Species.


1871Darwin publishes The Descent of Man, his book on human evolution.


1908The first fragment of Piltdown Man's skull is found

1912May 24: Dawson visits Smith Woodward and shows him skull fragments and other fossils from Piltdown. 
1912June 2: Dawson, Smith Woodward and Teilhard de Chardin start digging at Piltdown and find another piece of skull. 
1912November 21: The Guardian runs a story on the finds at Piltdown. 
1912December 18: Smith Woodward announces Piltdown Man at a meeting of the Geological Society in London.
1949
Kenneth Oakley runs flourine tests that reveal the Piltdown fossils are more like 50,000 than 500,000 years old.
1953
Joseph Weiner and Wilfrid Le Gros Clark join Oakley and discover the skull and jawbone come from entirely different species.
1953
November 21: The Natural History Museum announces Piltdown Man is a hoax.

So for more than 40 years, England was fooled, the whole world was fooled, the entire kingdom of atheists was fooled.

Thank God for the flourine test!

It's possible that on November 21, 1953, the shock has not settled yet among atheists. Most likely, the morning after November 21 did they feel the curse.

To God be the glory.





Out flew the web and floated wide; The mirror cracked from side to side; "The curse is come upon me," cried The Lady of Shalott - See more at: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16080#sthash.nR1LkXZx.dpuf
Out flew the web and floated wide; The mirror cracked from side to side; "The curse is come upon me," cried The Lady of Shalott - See more at: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16080#sthash.nR1LkXZx.dpuf
Out flew the web and floated wide; The mirror cracked from side to side; "The curse is come upon me," cried The Lady of Shalott - See more at: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16080#sthash.nR1LkXZx.dpuf
Out flew the web and floated wide; The mirror cracked from side to side; "The curse is come upon me," cried The Lady of Shalott - See more at: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16080#sthash.nR1LkXZx.dpuf
Out flew the web and floated wide; The mirror cracked from side to side; "The curse is come upon me," cried The Lady of Shalott. - See more at: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16080#sthash.nR1LkXZx.dpuf
Out flew the web and floated wide; The mirror cracked from side to side; "The curse is come upon me," cried The Lady of Shalott. - See more at: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16080#sthash.nR1LkXZx.dpuf