I doubt they will print it as it is too long. Maybe they will print it as a long editorial. I'm sure you will have fun with me and this as usual too!
This
letter is written to answer many of the evolutionists who seem to get
predominance in the Dallas Morning News. It is addressed, however, to our students
who are beginning a new school year. My goal
is to validate the real truth about evolution and its woeful lies. I am asking the students to reason and study
the theory of evolution and the science that is supposed to prove the reality
of it. I want our students to think for
themselves and not simply follow the teachers who are teaching them a false and
misleading theory. Our students deserve
the truth. I want to encourage them to
ask some tough questions of their teachers, because evolution as taught must be
answered scientifically for it to be true.
Evolutionists say the Design seen in
Nature and Science only appears designed. Here it the problem with that. What is only "appearance" is also FUNCTIONAL
DESIGN so it is much more than just "appears designed". A cloud can appear like a design but has no
function so it is truly only appearance. This is NOT what we find in nature and
science and to dismiss it so easily is not applying the methods we have to
investigate the reality of this excuse.
Evolution works off the principle of "Randomness"
and "Natural Selection" by trial and error and by such has produced all of what
we see today. There is a problem with
that theory. In today's world, I have never seen "randomness"
produce precision. Have you? Yet we are to believe randomness produced the exactness
of precision of the Laws of Nature and Science to which we all rely to live. Even the evolutionary scientists perform
experiments from the Laws of Nature and Science. You
are to believe all that was produced randomly? Really?
Ask your teachers for examples in everyday life where randomness has
produced precision! If that principle is true we should see it everywhere. We
don't do we?
Let's take this a step further. In
nature, with its trial & error method and survival of the fittest it stop
at the fittest stage. I will deal with that in more depth later. In science
& creation we see the precision of the Signs of Design, Engineering, Programming
(RNA, DNA in all things). I would like an
evolutionist to give me examples
where the precision of Design, Engineering & Programming occurs without
Intelligence operating behind it. Also how does it even happen by the "randomness
of trial and error" in every day life other than they say evolution does.
The Design we see is so profound that
man has been studying for centuries to learn from it so we can make life better
for mankind. So a random non- brain of
trial and error can out-design, out-engineer, and out-program what man (at the
top of the evolutionary chain) still can't match much less copy? How can that be when it has no real
intelligence? I want you to really think on this logically with common sense!
It out performs the top of the evolutionary chain in design, engineering and
programming without actual intelligence! Really? Do you want to buy some ocean
front property in Colorado too?
If you read Darwin in his book, Origins,
chapter 6, he gave the reader and believers
in evolution how his theory could be disproved? What disproved
his theory is the complexity of RNA and DNA because it is too complex to have
evolved from the simplest thing we know by simple steps. They are all fully
formed at the start and very complex at the beginning of the simplest form of
life we know today. They are more complex than man's most complex computer
program of today! Could a complex design, engineering, computer program occur without a real intelligence of a brain behind it? Evolution says it can and has! Really? And that is not FAITH based! OK then
I also find this confusing. Evolution
says it works on survival of the fittest and by random trial and error. Let's take one of the examples used to
explain how evolution works.-- the finch. The finch shows its Design by its
ability to adapt to its environment by its beak size. Interestingly, once it reached a position of "fittest,"
by adapting it's beak size the little bird had no need to adapt or "evolve"
further because it was at its fittest. It has shown the ability to adapt back
and forth when needed due to environment. But there are still finches today. No
evolutionist I have debated can tell me what to what higher order species has
the finch evolved. To further complicate
things, I have these problems with any creature, whether plant or animal, once
it was fittest and had adapted and survived, it somehow then "needed"
to evolve to a higher order. Why? It was already fittest so didn't need to "evolve"
now did it? So, according to evolutionist it "decides" to evolve from fittest
to a new higher order species. But to do so must now go through stages of being
unfittest for life until it reaches its new fittest stage. Due to survival of
the fittest, that creature is now being selected against by evolutions own
theory since it is now unfit for fittest life. During this random trial and
error it is no longer fittest until it completes its "evolution"
to its new fittest stage! Since this is true of evolutionary theory, it
is now working against it's own survival and it is very contradictory to
me! How does evolution work against
itself and still survive its own principle for evolution to work for any
creation? When man uses trial and error,
we know when we have achieved success and to stop. Evolution based on their
theory doesn't know because after adapting to fittest for environment it must "evolve"
to higher order for it to work and to do so it must work against its own
survival. How does a non-thinking brain of evolution (any creature found on the
earth) know when to stop? It has to
stop, doesn't it, or it would keep evolving itself out of existence. How does a
non-thinking brain know the difference scientifically? Its random trial and
error principle in a non-thinking brain could not rely on a thinking safeguard
once it passed fittest and kept on evolving up the chain per this discussion.
Take that same thing and use it for
symbiotic relationships and I really don't see how they can do it since they
both MUST have each other to survive without each and both dying. So how do
they both do the above at the same time and survive and arrive together
simultaneously ready for the symbiotic relationship to work while surviving
both non fittest stages? I've asked evolutionist, those top of the chain bright
minds, how they would do it step by step, and they can't even give me a step by
step answer yet just say time did it and evolution is scientific fact. Is that
a real scientific answer to you? Not to me.
Top of the chain evolutionary brains can't figure it out but non brain
of evolutionary design, engineering, programming out performed top of the chain
man before we arrived! Really? So we have given an incredible high intelligence
and power to randomness of natural selection and trial and error and evolultion
says it uses no FAITH! How is that again? I don't have the faith to be an
evolutionist!
Did you know Mathematician Atheist Fred
Hoyle himself said that the odds for evolution to occur are as likely as having
a tornado go through a wrecking yard and it form a 747!
A non-Christian, Dr. Jonathan Wells, a
molecular biologist, has written a book "Icons of Evolution" wherein
he discloses that most of the icons used to teach evolution have long ago been
proven as frauds and had plenty of time to be removed from texts but are still
in texts. You must ask the question, why in the name of good science would that
be?
If you read a quote by Evolutionist Dr.
Richard Lewontin you will get your answer. In it he admits to evolution being
bad science, using just so stories and their first objective is spreading
atheism, not good science. Evolution can't handle true scrutiny. Notice it only
brings personal attacks not truly scientific answers. The responses this brings
will prove that. There will be no real scientific answers!
Professor Richard
Lewontin, a geneticist, is certainly one of the world's leaders in evolutionary
biology. He wrote this very revealing
comment which illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis
creation-regardless of whether or not the facts support it.
"Our willingness to accept scientific
claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real
struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in
spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its
failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in
spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated
just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow
compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the
contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material
causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that
produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we
cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (the italics were in the original)
In Physics Today magazine, an
article titled "Teaching and Propaganda" (June 2000 edition), Dr. Mano Singham wrote from his position as an
evolutionary teacher in college, admitting to teaching evolution by using
brainwashing and propaganda techniques. He expresses problems with students
just taking his information without questioning. Despite the techniques he uses
it bothers him and he prefers questioning students, fulfilling a more realistic
role of teacher. Which is to facilitate thought and let you come to your best conclusion on your own not one of coercion. Although, in the end, he still uses the same old religion vs.
science debate. Read it and you will recognize the methods as they were
probably used to teach you. To teach our
young adults with such glib reasoning completely destroys the educational
process.
Students, evolution is a theory
facilitated by the liberal atheists of this country who want to create a one-sided
system of teaching. Ask yourself, what
are they so afraid of by letting students be exposed to the many and varied
problems with the evolutionary theory? The original case was for both sides to
be presented as true education should be. Isn't that still the goal of education? Let
students take all the information and decide what makes best sense to them and
motivate them to find the correct answer.
Are your parents paying to educate you
to be brainwashed with propaganda for only one side of the story. Aren't you
smart enough to think for yourself when given all the facts? There are ample sources to search out the
truth about evolution. Use the brain you
were given to find out for yourself. If
you question your parents' faith, why can't you question your teachers? Verify if what you are being taught can be
backed up with other science sources that use proven science to explain their
beliefs and answer rebuttals. To do
otherwise is nothing but a programmed topic you are forced to believe. What I see is logically dedueced and comes
from common sense that only an extreme intelligence explains what I see in facets
of creation science, including design, engineering, and programming . I believe it is mathematically impossible for
evolution to be true. I am hopeful the
students who read this will at least look at all sides scientifically to make
up your mind. Look up the scientist dissent list on the internet. Within that list, not all anti-evolutionists
are creationists; their opinions are due to the bad science they find within
the scope of evolution. Science has
never been decided by popular vote. If so, the world would still be flat and
all planets would still orbit the earth! Someone broke away and discovered the truth. Within the internet lies more information at
your fingertips for all of the sides, evolution, Intelligent Design and
Creationism. Use your mind, research and come to your own understanding as to
what you discern about the real laws of science and nature and how they work so
precisely together. Or, how you think they don't. You
may think evolution has a satisfactory answer for you scientifically. The
important factor here is that you to arrive at YOUR own informed decision, not
one that came from an educational system that, in my opinion, greatly hinders
brilliant young minds, telling them what is truth and what is not. Biased education has been around for a long
time. Don't be one that simply agrees
without determining what you see for yourself.
Education now only informs of the
one biased side, about which Dr. Lewontin and Dr. Singham agree is misleading
and done with fraudulent techniques, to keep problems of evolution, which are numerous, out of the classroom. I would also like to recommend a book
entitled, "A Closer Look at the Evidence by Richard and Tina Kleiss. I got mine
at Half Price book store. It gives individual examples evolution can't answer that
you should be aware of.
P.S. Take this to class and use it to
start class discussions and see if the answers you get make sense and satisfy
you intellectually scientifically.
This
letter is written to answer many of the evolutionists who seem to get
predominance in the Dallas Morning News. It is addressed, however, to our students
who are beginning a new school year. My goal
is to validate the real truth about evolution and its woeful lies. I am asking the students to reason and study
the theory of evolution and the science that is supposed to prove the reality
of it. I want our students to think for
themselves and not simply follow the teachers who are teaching them a false and
misleading theory. Our students deserve
the truth. I want to encourage them to
ask some tough questions of their teachers, because evolution as taught must be
answered scientifically for it to be true.
Evolutionists say the Design seen in
Nature and Science only appears designed. Here it the problem with that. What is only "appearance" is also FUNCTIONAL
DESIGN so it is much more than just "appears designed". A cloud can appear like a design but has no
function so it is truly only appearance. This is NOT what we find in nature and
science and to dismiss it so easily is not applying the methods we have to
investigate the reality of this excuse.
Evolution works off the principle of "Randomness"
and "Natural Selection" by trial and error and by such has produced all of what
we see today. There is a problem with
that theory. In today's world, I have never seen "randomness"
produce precision. Have you? Yet we are to believe randomness produced the exactness
of precision of the Laws of Nature and Science to which we all rely to live. Even the evolutionary scientists perform
experiments from the Laws of Nature and Science. You
are to believe all that was produced randomly? Really?
Ask your teachers for examples in everyday life where randomness has
produced precision! If that principle is true we should see it everywhere. We
don't do we?
Let's take this a step further. In
nature, with its trial & error method and survival of the fittest it stop
at the fittest stage. I will deal with that in more depth later. In science
& creation we see the precision of the Signs of Design, Engineering, Programming
(RNA, DNA in all things). I would like an
evolutionist to give me examples
where the precision of Design, Engineering & Programming occurs without
Intelligence operating behind it. Also how does it even happen by the "randomness
of trial and error" in every day life other than they say evolution does.
The Design we see is so profound that
man has been studying for centuries to learn from it so we can make life better
for mankind. So a random non- brain of
trial and error can out-design, out-engineer, and out-program what man (at the
top of the evolutionary chain) still can't match much less copy? How can that be when it has no real
intelligence? I want you to really think on this logically with common sense!
It out performs the top of the evolutionary chain in design, engineering and
programming without actual intelligence! Really? Do you want to buy some ocean
front property in Colorado too?
If you read Darwin in his book, Origins,
chapter 6, he gave the reader and believers
in evolution how his theory could be disproved? What disproved
his theory is the complexity of RNA and DNA because it is too complex to have
evolved from the simplest thing we know by simple steps. They are all fully
formed at the start and very complex at the beginning of the simplest form of
life we know today. They are more complex than man's most complex computer
program of today! Could a complex design, engineering, computer program occur without a real intelligence of a brain behind it? Evolution says it can and has! Really? And that is not FAITH based! OK then
I also find this confusing. Evolution
says it works on survival of the fittest and by random trial and error. Let's take one of the examples used to
explain how evolution works.-- the finch. The finch shows its Design by its
ability to adapt to its environment by its beak size. Interestingly, once it reached a position of "fittest,"
by adapting it's beak size the little bird had no need to adapt or "evolve"
further because it was at its fittest. It has shown the ability to adapt back
and forth when needed due to environment. But there are still finches today. No
evolutionist I have debated can tell me what to what higher order species has
the finch evolved. To further complicate
things, I have these problems with any creature, whether plant or animal, once
it was fittest and had adapted and survived, it somehow then "needed"
to evolve to a higher order. Why? It was already fittest so didn't need to "evolve"
now did it? So, according to evolutionist it "decides" to evolve from fittest
to a new higher order species. But to do so must now go through stages of being
unfittest for life until it reaches its new fittest stage. Due to survival of
the fittest, that creature is now being selected against by evolutions own
theory since it is now unfit for fittest life. During this random trial and
error it is no longer fittest until it completes its "evolution"
to its new fittest stage! Since this is true of evolutionary theory, it
is now working against it's own survival and it is very contradictory to
me! How does evolution work against
itself and still survive its own principle for evolution to work for any
creation? When man uses trial and error,
we know when we have achieved success and to stop. Evolution based on their
theory doesn't know because after adapting to fittest for environment it must "evolve"
to higher order for it to work and to do so it must work against its own
survival. How does a non-thinking brain of evolution (any creature found on the
earth) know when to stop? It has to
stop, doesn't it, or it would keep evolving itself out of existence. How does a
non-thinking brain know the difference scientifically? Its random trial and
error principle in a non-thinking brain could not rely on a thinking safeguard
once it passed fittest and kept on evolving up the chain per this discussion.
Take that same thing and use it for
symbiotic relationships and I really don't see how they can do it since they
both MUST have each other to survive without each and both dying. So how do
they both do the above at the same time and survive and arrive together
simultaneously ready for the symbiotic relationship to work while surviving
both non fittest stages? I've asked evolutionist, those top of the chain bright
minds, how they would do it step by step, and they can't even give me a step by
step answer yet just say time did it and evolution is scientific fact. Is that
a real scientific answer to you? Not to me.
Top of the chain evolutionary brains can't figure it out but non brain
of evolutionary design, engineering, programming out performed top of the chain
man before we arrived! Really? So we have given an incredible high intelligence
and power to randomness of natural selection and trial and error and evolultion
says it uses no FAITH! How is that again? I don't have the faith to be an
evolutionist!
Did you know Mathematician Atheist Fred
Hoyle himself said that the odds for evolution to occur are as likely as having
a tornado go through a wrecking yard and it form a 747!
A non-Christian, Dr. Jonathan Wells, a
molecular biologist, has written a book "Icons of Evolution" wherein
he discloses that most of the icons used to teach evolution have long ago been
proven as frauds and had plenty of time to be removed from texts but are still
in texts. You must ask the question, why in the name of good science would that
be?
If you read a quote by Evolutionist Dr.
Richard Lewontin you will get your answer. In it he admits to evolution being
bad science, using just so stories and their first objective is spreading
atheism, not good science. Evolution can't handle true scrutiny. Notice it only
brings personal attacks not truly scientific answers. The responses this brings
will prove that. There will be no real scientific answers!
Professor Richard
Lewontin, a geneticist, is certainly one of the world's leaders in evolutionary
biology. He wrote this very revealing
comment which illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis
creation-regardless of whether or not the facts support it.
"Our willingness to accept scientific
claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real
struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in
spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its
failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in
spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated
just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow
compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the
contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material
causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that
produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we
cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (the italics were in the original)
In Physics Today magazine, an
article titled "Teaching and Propaganda" (June 2000 edition), Dr. Mano Singham wrote from his position as an
evolutionary teacher in college, admitting to teaching evolution by using
brainwashing and propaganda techniques. He expresses problems with students
just taking his information without questioning. Despite the techniques he uses
it bothers him and he prefers questioning students, fulfilling a more realistic
role of teacher. Which is to facilitate thought and let you come to your best conclusion on your own not one of coercion. Although, in the end, he still uses the same old religion vs.
science debate. Read it and you will recognize the methods as they were
probably used to teach you. To teach our
young adults with such glib reasoning completely destroys the educational
process.
Students, evolution is a theory
facilitated by the liberal atheists of this country who want to create a one-sided
system of teaching. Ask yourself, what
are they so afraid of by letting students be exposed to the many and varied
problems with the evolutionary theory? The original case was for both sides to
be presented as true education should be. Isn't that still the goal of education? Let
students take all the information and decide what makes best sense to them and
motivate them to find the correct answer.
Are your parents paying to educate you
to be brainwashed with propaganda for only one side of the story. Aren't you
smart enough to think for yourself when given all the facts? There are ample sources to search out the
truth about evolution. Use the brain you
were given to find out for yourself. If
you question your parents' faith, why can't you question your teachers? Verify if what you are being taught can be
backed up with other science sources that use proven science to explain their
beliefs and answer rebuttals. To do
otherwise is nothing but a programmed topic you are forced to believe. What I see is logically dedueced and comes
from common sense that only an extreme intelligence explains what I see in facets
of creation science, including design, engineering, and programming . I believe it is mathematically impossible for
evolution to be true. I am hopeful the
students who read this will at least look at all sides scientifically to make
up your mind. Look up the scientist dissent list on the internet. Within that list, not all anti-evolutionists
are creationists; their opinions are due to the bad science they find within
the scope of evolution. Science has
never been decided by popular vote. If so, the world would still be flat and
all planets would still orbit the earth! Someone broke away and discovered the truth. Within the internet lies more information at
your fingertips for all of the sides, evolution, Intelligent Design and
Creationism. Use your mind, research and come to your own understanding as to
what you discern about the real laws of science and nature and how they work so
precisely together. Or, how you think they don't. You
may think evolution has a satisfactory answer for you scientifically. The
important factor here is that you to arrive at YOUR own informed decision, not
one that came from an educational system that, in my opinion, greatly hinders
brilliant young minds, telling them what is truth and what is not. Biased education has been around for a long
time. Don't be one that simply agrees
without determining what you see for yourself.
Education now only informs of the
one biased side, about which Dr. Lewontin and Dr. Singham agree is misleading
and done with fraudulent techniques, to keep problems of evolution, which are numerous, out of the classroom. I would also like to recommend a book
entitled, "A Closer Look at the Evidence by Richard and Tina Kleiss. I got mine
at Half Price book store. It gives individual examples evolution can't answer that
you should be aware of.
P.S. Take this to class and use it to
start class discussions and see if the answers you get make sense and satisfy
you intellectually scientifically.
