Jahnu
2020-12-12 00:35:12 UTC
Evolution is probably the most common myth, people in general hold to
be true. Of course, most scientists know that evolution is pure
belief, with no evidence to back it up, still, this belief is being
taught in all educational institutions of the world, as a scientific
fact.
Before science came along, people needed religion to tell them about
the world. Religion taught people that God created the world, that God
was the original cause if everything.
Now a days, of course, we know better, because now we have science to
tell us how the world works. Today we we know that chemicals combined
to create life and then evolution created all the different living
entities.
The theory of evolution according to Darwin, is not even a theory
anymore. Its been updated to science. For the last five decades or
so, evolution has been propagated to the general populace as a
scientific fact.
So lets examine how existence is accounted for by evolution, and see
if it makes any sense.
You see, first there was a pool of chemicals. Then, by the
fluctuations of those chemicals, an amoeba-like creature was formed,
and then this amoeba gradually, through many, many intermediate
species, grew legs and learned to talk.
Ok, so far so good. Dont even think about whether the first human was
a male or female, thats just an annoying detail, you dont have to
worry about. Such annoying details are not taught in evolution.
Then, how did the first human learn to talk, when there was no one to
talk to? Thats another annoying detail they dont teach in evolution.
So, you are the first human on the planet, completely alone, no one to
talk to. So what do you do? Do you sit down and wait for your counter
part to evolve, so you can begin procreating? Maybe you grunt a little
bit under your breath at the sheer idiocy of your situation.
hahaha :D I know, right? Who comes up with shit like that?
Also when your counter-part finally evolves, you can begin grunting
together and evolve some kind of language. Of course, dont ask what
language a evolved, and speken by the first people, thats another
annoying detail. As far as we know Sanskrit is the mother of all
languages, and how that fits into evolution is not yet clear.
Note, in contrast to the sheer idiocy of this evolution nonsense, and
its linear concept of time, the logical, coherent and authentic
explanation we are offered in the Vedic tradition - humans have simply
always existed. Time is cyclic - civilizations goes through endless
cycles of creation, maintenance, and destruction, age after age. At
least that explanation makes sense to a rational mind.
The modern explanation of evolution is not only improbable and highly
speculative, wishful thinking, it is also complete and utter
anti-intellectual garbage.
Still, it is being taught in all universities as an objective,
scientific fact. It is considered completely rational and the best
explanation according to observable facts. They actually teach you
that in school - evolution is the best explanation we have right now
to explain the world.
Of course, nobody with a brain actually believes in this nonsense, but
this is how it is being propagated to the broad masses.
The fact is that modern mainstream people are brainwashed fools. They
dont have so much as one single independent thought in their brains.
If they didnt have TV, newspapers and magazines to tell them what to
think and believe, theyd be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
Its a statistic fact that the general mass of people are more
disturbed and dissatisfied than ever before. Anti-depressants are
selling like never before. Some years ago WHO reported that the
biggest health problem facing humanity in the new millennium is that
more and more people will be born with mental problems. Is that the
symptoms of an evolved civilization?
It's rather peculiar how people in this scientific age are so little
scientifically oriented when it comes to God and religion. The dogma
has been created in modern society, that religion is faith only and
science is knowledge only. Thats hardly a scientific approach to
religion and God.
I can understand, how one may reject certain religions, but to
downright deny the existence of a Supreme Being is simply irrational,
and indicates an unevolved intellect.
There is nothing healthy or open-minded about being an atheist, and
the proof is that at the same rate society dispenses with its former
religious values, at the same rate society becomes debased, riddled
with crime and insanity.
Besides, it should be noted, that whether one calls himself a
Christian, Hindu, Mohammedan, Democrat, Republican or whatever, one
can still be of an atheistic mentality. It is not the designations we
put on ourselves that determine our identity. It's our mindsets and
actions and the knowledge we cultivate that define who we are.
There is a Bengali saying - phalena parichiyate - something is judged
by its result. Or, like Jesus said - you judge a tree by its fruits.
So things are judged and understood, not by their names, but by their
effects and influence. And the effect modern society has on the world
is one of destruction. Again, are those the symptoms of an evolved
culture?
In conclusion, here is what science has to say about evolution.
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are
great con-men, And the story they are telling may be the GREATEST HOAX
EVER." -- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission
"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian
accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only
a variety of wishful speculations." -- Franklin Harold, Emeritus
Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State
University, in an Oxford University Press text.
"Darwinian evolution - whatever its other virtues - does not provide a
fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially
clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic
model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in
the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit.
None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however,
mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental
biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of
scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones
for tangible breakthroughs." --U.S. National Academy of Sciences
member Philip Skell
"[The] Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular
half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by
the religious ferocity of its rhetoric." --National Academy of
Sciences member Lynn Margulis
"Mutations have a very limited ?constructive capacity? . No matter how
numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
--Past president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre-Paul Grasse
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has
been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of
evolution." --Late American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould
"Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal
tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the
various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves." --The
father of molecular systematics, Carl Woese
"Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record
first appear, 'fully formed,' in the Cambrian . The fossil record is
therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early
diversification of the various animal phyla." --Invertebrate Zoology
Textbook
"It remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined
with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of
new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well optimized
functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated
molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts." --Two
leading biologists inAnnual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
"New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not
connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."
--Eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr
Science now know that many of the pillars of the Darwinian theory are
either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them
as factual evidence of Evolution. What does this imply about their
scientific standards? - Jonathan Wells
The bacteriologist Alan H. Linton wrote:
"None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been
shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of
independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation
times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after
eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of
bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has
changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes
between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising
that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic
cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher muliticellular
organisms."
Evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan echoed the same
thing in 2002:
"Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages
of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the
paleontologists, still has never been traced."
"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself
whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin,
The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin)
be true. Of course, most scientists know that evolution is pure
belief, with no evidence to back it up, still, this belief is being
taught in all educational institutions of the world, as a scientific
fact.
Before science came along, people needed religion to tell them about
the world. Religion taught people that God created the world, that God
was the original cause if everything.
Now a days, of course, we know better, because now we have science to
tell us how the world works. Today we we know that chemicals combined
to create life and then evolution created all the different living
entities.
The theory of evolution according to Darwin, is not even a theory
anymore. Its been updated to science. For the last five decades or
so, evolution has been propagated to the general populace as a
scientific fact.
So lets examine how existence is accounted for by evolution, and see
if it makes any sense.
You see, first there was a pool of chemicals. Then, by the
fluctuations of those chemicals, an amoeba-like creature was formed,
and then this amoeba gradually, through many, many intermediate
species, grew legs and learned to talk.
Ok, so far so good. Dont even think about whether the first human was
a male or female, thats just an annoying detail, you dont have to
worry about. Such annoying details are not taught in evolution.
Then, how did the first human learn to talk, when there was no one to
talk to? Thats another annoying detail they dont teach in evolution.
So, you are the first human on the planet, completely alone, no one to
talk to. So what do you do? Do you sit down and wait for your counter
part to evolve, so you can begin procreating? Maybe you grunt a little
bit under your breath at the sheer idiocy of your situation.
hahaha :D I know, right? Who comes up with shit like that?
Also when your counter-part finally evolves, you can begin grunting
together and evolve some kind of language. Of course, dont ask what
language a evolved, and speken by the first people, thats another
annoying detail. As far as we know Sanskrit is the mother of all
languages, and how that fits into evolution is not yet clear.
Note, in contrast to the sheer idiocy of this evolution nonsense, and
its linear concept of time, the logical, coherent and authentic
explanation we are offered in the Vedic tradition - humans have simply
always existed. Time is cyclic - civilizations goes through endless
cycles of creation, maintenance, and destruction, age after age. At
least that explanation makes sense to a rational mind.
The modern explanation of evolution is not only improbable and highly
speculative, wishful thinking, it is also complete and utter
anti-intellectual garbage.
Still, it is being taught in all universities as an objective,
scientific fact. It is considered completely rational and the best
explanation according to observable facts. They actually teach you
that in school - evolution is the best explanation we have right now
to explain the world.
Of course, nobody with a brain actually believes in this nonsense, but
this is how it is being propagated to the broad masses.
The fact is that modern mainstream people are brainwashed fools. They
dont have so much as one single independent thought in their brains.
If they didnt have TV, newspapers and magazines to tell them what to
think and believe, theyd be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
Its a statistic fact that the general mass of people are more
disturbed and dissatisfied than ever before. Anti-depressants are
selling like never before. Some years ago WHO reported that the
biggest health problem facing humanity in the new millennium is that
more and more people will be born with mental problems. Is that the
symptoms of an evolved civilization?
It's rather peculiar how people in this scientific age are so little
scientifically oriented when it comes to God and religion. The dogma
has been created in modern society, that religion is faith only and
science is knowledge only. Thats hardly a scientific approach to
religion and God.
I can understand, how one may reject certain religions, but to
downright deny the existence of a Supreme Being is simply irrational,
and indicates an unevolved intellect.
There is nothing healthy or open-minded about being an atheist, and
the proof is that at the same rate society dispenses with its former
religious values, at the same rate society becomes debased, riddled
with crime and insanity.
Besides, it should be noted, that whether one calls himself a
Christian, Hindu, Mohammedan, Democrat, Republican or whatever, one
can still be of an atheistic mentality. It is not the designations we
put on ourselves that determine our identity. It's our mindsets and
actions and the knowledge we cultivate that define who we are.
There is a Bengali saying - phalena parichiyate - something is judged
by its result. Or, like Jesus said - you judge a tree by its fruits.
So things are judged and understood, not by their names, but by their
effects and influence. And the effect modern society has on the world
is one of destruction. Again, are those the symptoms of an evolved
culture?
In conclusion, here is what science has to say about evolution.
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are
great con-men, And the story they are telling may be the GREATEST HOAX
EVER." -- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission
"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian
accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only
a variety of wishful speculations." -- Franklin Harold, Emeritus
Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State
University, in an Oxford University Press text.
"Darwinian evolution - whatever its other virtues - does not provide a
fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially
clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic
model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in
the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit.
None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however,
mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental
biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of
scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones
for tangible breakthroughs." --U.S. National Academy of Sciences
member Philip Skell
"[The] Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular
half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by
the religious ferocity of its rhetoric." --National Academy of
Sciences member Lynn Margulis
"Mutations have a very limited ?constructive capacity? . No matter how
numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
--Past president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre-Paul Grasse
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has
been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of
evolution." --Late American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould
"Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal
tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the
various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves." --The
father of molecular systematics, Carl Woese
"Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record
first appear, 'fully formed,' in the Cambrian . The fossil record is
therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early
diversification of the various animal phyla." --Invertebrate Zoology
Textbook
"It remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined
with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of
new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well optimized
functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated
molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts." --Two
leading biologists inAnnual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
"New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not
connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."
--Eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr
Science now know that many of the pillars of the Darwinian theory are
either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them
as factual evidence of Evolution. What does this imply about their
scientific standards? - Jonathan Wells
The bacteriologist Alan H. Linton wrote:
"None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been
shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of
independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation
times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after
eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of
bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has
changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes
between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising
that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic
cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher muliticellular
organisms."
Evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan echoed the same
thing in 2002:
"Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages
of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the
paleontologists, still has never been traced."
"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself
whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin,
The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin)