Welcome To Our Community!
Are you concerned about America? Join our community, where you can post your own articles and content, without leftist censorship. Team up with us today and make your voice heard!
Join Us!

Evolutionary Teachings Are Absurd, Asinine, and Amusing!

Conservative Angle

Conservative Angle Administrator
Staff Member
Feb 22, 2018
1,823
958
113
conservativeangle.com
By: Don Boys, Ph.D.

http://donboys.cstnews.com/evolutionary-teachings-are-absurd-asinine-and-amusing

Evolutionists, because of the pressure to provide an answer for origins, jump to unsound, unscientific, and untrue conclusions that make them look shallow, silly, and for sure, not scholarly. With feckless lectures and fraudulent books, they make their pitch for goo-to-you evolution but when educated people hear and read the flaky, false, fraudulent fairytale they fall to the floor holding their sides with raucous laughter, gasping for breath.

The evolutionary positions evaluated in this article are for real although they are so ridiculous, I will be accused of exaggerating to make a point. But, I don’t have to exaggerate. The truth from the pens of evolutionists will finish them off for all studious, sophisticated, and sincere readers.

Before evolutionists can speak about Darwin’s mutations, the fossil record, or natural selection (which Darwin finally rejected), they have to get everything spinning; therein is their first big problem. The more evolutionists teach about origins, the deeper they slide into a really black hole. The evolutionists’ answer to getting everything started is a Big Bang. Well, it really wasn’t a bang nor was it big! (Of course, the real Big Bang is when God spoke and bang, it happened!)

Evolutionists expect us to believe that once upon a time (as all fairytales begin) there was nothing, well yes there was something. There was space and matter (and Creationists are expected to give them that), and all the matter in the universe was compressed into a sphere the size of a needle point! The small ball or sphere is called the “cosmic egg,” and I hope I’m not too pushy by insisting on knowing where the egg came from. Maybe the cosmic egg was laid by a cosmic chicken! And with time, the egg exploded producing the orderly system of stars, planets, comets!

It seems evolutionists feel no obligation to tell us where time, energy, space, and matter came from; however, God does inform us. Genesis 1:1 reveals, “In the beginning (time) God created (energy) the heaven (space) and the earth (matter).” There you have time, space, matter, and energy. The evolutionists say that special creation is too incredible so they came up with their own origin story—that is more unbelievable than God’s account.

We are told that a cosmic egg came out of nowhere and exploded. We are not told what caused the explosion, yet explosions don’t just happen. Moreover, an explosion (whatever size) never, under any circumstances, produces order for which the Universe is well known. The colossal Universe, allegedly caused by a massive explosion, runs like a Swiss clock. I demand an explanation if I am expected to consider their story.

I would also like to know the origin of the scientific laws under which the universe operates such as gravity, inertia, centrifugal force, planetary motion, first and second laws of thermodynamics, etc. I have read more than 40 evolutionary texts and not one even brings up the subject. Where did the scientific laws come from; how did they start; and who caused them? Also, did the scientific laws precede or follow the Big Bang?

Obviously, the Big Bang is in big trouble. It has started to fizzle and has become the Big Bust. World famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who coined the term on a BBC broadcast said, a “sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.” Other scientists are running from the Big Bang as if their hair is on fire.

Highly mis-educated people want us to believe that nothing created something that became everything; we are expected to believe nothing plus nothing equals something. However, zero times zero does not equal anything and for sure not everything. Nothing can do nothing and wishing doesn’t help.

Evolutionists must deal with the origin of the Universe before they can sit down beside Darwin’s warm, little pond and watch life develop—from nothing. Yes, I know, Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation more than a hundred years ago, but somehow, someway life must get started and the only possibility available was rocks that eroded into dirt. So, flowers and all plants then small living creatures came from rock and millions of years later the rocks evolved into rock stars.

But to be gracious, after having a good laugh at nothing creating everything, let’s agree for argument’s sake, to Evolutionists’ position on the origin of the Universe and earth. All right, we are here whether by natural selection or mutations or however, so let’s deal with dinosaurs giving birth to birds! This frantic, false, and fanciful theory was devised because there is a total absence of transitional fossils. This is the “hopeful monster” theory first espoused by paleontologist O. H. Schindewolf and geneticist Richard Goldschmidt in the 1930s and 1940s. This silly theory was resuscitated and nursed back to life by Niles Eldridge and Stephen J. Gould because they were convinced (rightly) that no transitional fossils existed.

Please note that these two major evolutionists admitted what all paleontologists know, that there are no missing links, necessitating this silly “hopeful monster” theory.

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Natural History Museum proved that assertion when he wrote, “[Stephen] Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils….I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” That’s from a leading evolutionist! Niles Eldredge, world famous evolutionist and coworker with Gould, confessed in the Guardian, “The search for missing links is probably fruitless…no one has yet found any evidence of transitional forms.” However, if molecules-to-monkeys-to-man evolution had happened, there would be billions of in-between fossils all over the earth. But there’s not one.

Realizing his evolutionary world was collapsing around him, Gould grabbed onto the “hopeful monster” theory but gave it more respectability by calling it punctuated equilibrium. Because there are no transitional fossils, Gould said that evolution happened in spurts or jerks such as a dinosaur giving birth to a bird then long ages of no change. Then another spurt or jerk with another major birth of an advanced creature. But it is all silly speculation. Some call this “evolution by jerks.”

This inane theory is being taught to our children in public school classrooms and in The Wonderful Egg (Ipcar, 1958). The book was recommended by the American Council on Education and the Association for Childhood Education International. It is also endorsed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science The book tells of a mother dinosaur laying a wonderful egg that hatched into a baby bird—“the first baby bird in the whole world!” The book asks, “Did a mother dinosaur lay that egg to hatch into a baby dinosaur?” The book answers “no” to various kinds of dinosaurs. Then comes the climax: “It was a wonderful new kind of egg.” And what did the dinosaur egg hatch into? “It hatched into a baby bird, the first bird in the whole world. And the baby bird grew up…with feathers…the first beautiful bird that ever sang a song high in the tree tops…of long, long, ago.”

That is not education; it’s called, brainwashing. Moreover, it is academic child abuse to convince children that a dinosaur could hatch a bird. What nonsense. The book should be listed under science fiction, not children’s books.

It becomes even more absurd when you realize that even if the above happened contrary to elementary science then it would have to happen again—a bird of the opposite sex. And it would have to happen in a timely manner and in the same location! And the second bird would have to be fertile; it would also have to be able to breed with the first and only other bird on earth.

Not only is evolution absurd, asinine, and amusing, it’s also wrong, and I challenge evolutionists to speak to the issues; however, my past experience is they will not deal with their unscientific teachings. They find it easier to attack me.

Evolutionists are like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat—that isn’t there.

Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for eight years. Boys’ book, Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! is available here. Follow Dr. Boys on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D. and TheGodHaters, Twitter, and visit his blog.
 
Reactions: TPcat78

Brianchaninov

New Member
May 25, 2019
1
2
3
Good summary of Creationist position. Correlates with Dr. Henry Morris's "The Genesis Flood". which impacted me a 25 yr old agnostic long ago. Check out "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man"--- Fr. Seraphim Rose for an Eastern Orthodox Christian perspective on this.
 

Well Noted

New Member
May 27, 2019
6
5
3
This reminds me of the supercillious atheists of the Enlightenment era, as noted by writer, Voltaire. That was when the Reformation stalled out on secular sarcasm very much like your well-written title piece above. Whatever else may have come of a more tolerant Enlighenment, the lines of bitter estrangement between Christianity and secularism were clearly drawn and persist today in the religious squabbling today over irrelevant details of Holy Scripture and the evolution of our species from families of worms. I'm astonished at the self-congratulatory articles in secularist publications, for example, when they expose myths of apparently stupid people, always neglecting to address those who might be offended not so much by what was written but by the smarmy condescension of so-called "scientists."

Funny thing is, that there aren't any scientists in the entire universe, except for someone who pretends to be one, or perhaps in mad scientist cartoons. There aren't any degrees of credentials in the art or professions of science, even the MS, Master of Science degree doesn't produce "scientists," but only nicely educated people with an appreciation of careful, analytical thought and the process of arriving at conclusions. There's no market for those people, although there is a big demand for folks with that kind of education, as a sign of intellectual prowess and creative problem solving. "Scientists say," means "I really want you to believe me, that, blah, blah, blah…," and nothing else.

After all, anyone can an atheist; we were all born godless atheists. Atheism is doing what comes naturally, the liberal state of mind, the original, communist state of human civilization following the Stone Age. There can be nothing more innocent than an atheist, i.e., an animal doing animal things, without a single molecule of shame. They tend not to do well in the civilized world, however, having a blind eye to human affairs, just like Lassie the dog. They don't get dry humor at all, but will howl at anything suggesting poop, pee, or violence upon legitimate, moral authority. They get really mad when it's pointed out they they're God-fearing atheists, always offended or upset a the mention of supreme, moral authority. In their hearts, they are Old Testament citizens fearing the next rain for fire or great flood while trying to get away with the most vile acts against decency.

It will necessarily fall, however, to us Christians to bridge the abyss of enmity between supercillious atheists and holier than thou Christians. It won't be accomplished through apologetics or hurling scriptures and verses at atheists. It's going to be through a common narrative starting with Genesis, which contains a good bit of particle physics and cultural anthropology embedded within — you know, the stuff atheists in oppositional mode sarcastically spout. There is a third rail between believer and unbeliever that must be touched to draw currents of reason that quell the enmity of holy war. It's fine for us to hold the moral high ground without alluding to that incendiary, incomprehensible fact, because liberals lack the moral acuity to understand the grace of God. I haven't read it, but Prager's, Rational Bible, may hold some bridging girders.

When liberals are finally informed that Jesus was the last blood sacrifice that ended the gloom and doom of Old Testament, and ascended to warm the frigid cosmos with the love our our Creator, it's only a short hop to the inescapable fact that, whatever else the Big Bang may represent or have been, each one of us was established as a distinct possibility of that moment when darkness was divided from light. My God, what shivers we can feel to then realize that the Dark Age of the Universe then ensued, all dark matter for billions of years, until finally the starry firmaments became visible in a universe seen only by God. In UK, they say, "Mind the gap," but in this matter, we should bridge the gap with a sensible, third rail narrative of God's ineffable creation and the friend, in Jesus, God sent to save us from the inner gloom of primordial consciousness.