.
.
S i t e  S e a r c h

A_B_C_D_E_F_G_H_I_J_K_L_M_N_O_P_Q_R_S_T_U_V_W_XYZ

List of Topics__Ask Suby__Free Stuff__Questions Lists
Terms of Use__________________Privacy Policy

C r e a t i o n  I n d e x

C r e a t i o n  N o t e s  p a g e  1 3

-Survival of the fittest:.Charles Darwin,.Origin of  Species.(first published 1859 by John Murray), Penguin Books, 1968, England. The phrase 'survival of the fittest' was arrived at by Herbert Spencer, an enthusiastic Darwin supporter, who coined the phrase 'survival of the fittest', after reading what Darwin had said about all animals apparently struggling for existence.

Spencer and others of similar thinking, believed that this should also be the way of humans, because they erroneously.assumed that men and women are also animals; that is, he believed it was natural for the strong to vanquish the weak.(Nazis anybody?).and for the rich to exploit the poor. But, it's also natural to be stupid and feeble minded, two things Spencer and those others of similar mind failed to extricate themselves from, as history has sadly proved in laying its greed, control foundations continuing to affect mankind today by those who reject Creator-God, as many also have done in the past. Today the rejection of Creator's knowledge continues the trend of 'hey God, get out of here, l'll live my own life the way I want to' and so the problems of life continue because of this attitude that is pumped by the dark side into minds susceptible to such negativity.

Those of this attitude find justification for their devious.self-centered ways and such is the way of those vehemently avoiding truth as so clearly shown in the movie about creation versus evolution.Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

"Who is more contemptible than he who scorns knowledge?"
...John of Salisbury 1159 A.D.

"Birds live on seeds and insects constantly destroy life...since more.(insects).are produced than can possibly survive, there must be a struggle for existence."....page 116,.Origin of Species. Here, Darwin focused on struggle, not balance in design of life.

Darwin's research was hijacked by those wanting to justify.alternative.strategies and empower their motives toward subjugation of others through methods of deceit including war creations. They too, wanted to be creators and controllers, but not as the Infinite One is, which is for love, but rather of selfishness, greed, control and self-will, things of the ways of destruction, the ways of the dark side. Too bad their greed induced a myopic view in them regarding the good hearted intent Darwin possessed. But Creator-God doesn't 'bang.whammo' destroy them. He is kind, always holding out for change. He sees ridiculousness in their off base ways and wants them to change from evil directions:.Psalms 2:2-4, "The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together against the LORD and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder and cast away their cords from us. He that sits in the heavens shall laugh. The Lord shall have them in derision."

Darwin unfortuately believed nature was in some kind of a war:."When we reflect on this struggle...that the war of nature is not incessant...the vigorous, the healthy and the happy survive.(those who hijacked his theory carried it a little further, as deceivers almost always do, a little further that is, to where the weak are all gone by those who have determined who are to be classified as the strong)."....page 129,.Origin of Species.

We are not here to produce a super race, but rather a compassionate one that would be extraordinary.

Darwin was obviously blind to the harmony of nature that we overstand today. Failing to specify why any given organism exists, beyond insisting that it be able to survive, shows the limitations of Darwinian focus and of persons that for over a hundred years since his theory, continue to espouse it.

The bigger is better hypothesis should mean a species is more capable of survival. It has been reasoned by evolutionists that larger offspring should have a better chance of survival. But, Justin Congdon of the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory in Aiken, South Carolina found from a 20 year release and recapture study that larger offspring of turtles did no better in the survival stakes.."It seems counter to everything we know about evolutionary biology that bigger isn't better.".says Congdon in.New Scientist Magazine.(newscientist.com), November 20, 1999, page 7.

-Symbionts:.an organism living in a state of symbiosis

-Symbiosis:.the living together of two dissimilar organisms in close association or union, where this is advantageous to both, as distinguished from parasitism; the many and varied ways creatures have of coming to depend on one another

-Diastolic: characterized by diastole, which is the normal rhythmically occurring relaxation and dilatation of the heart chambers, especially the ventricles, during which they fill with blood

-Systolic:.characterized by systole, which is the usual rhythmic contraction of the heart, especially of the ventricles, following each dilation, during which the blood is driven onward from the chambers.

-Tardigrades:.Minute water animals with segmented bodies and four pairs of legs, usually considered as belonging to the arthropods.

-Theory of Evolution.(Darwin's):.holds that all species of plants and animals developed from earlier forms by hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations, initiated by natural selection acting upon random.mutations; those forms surviving which are best adapted to the environment thanks to natural selection producing survival of the fittest, thus eliminating any unfit, weaker of a species. But hello! species don't change.

Today we know, thanks to Mendel's laws that the hereditary tranmisson part is accurate to a point.

The theory of evolution begins with the axiom of a created universe with all its complexities of design including support of life, then leaves that all off for its concocted mysterious hocus-pocused natural selection process. 

The theory of evolution avoids saying anything about invisible design which supports the physical world and all in it, as is thoroughly shown during this subject of Creation/Evolution. For example, every consideration regarding magnetism elicits underlying laws of physics. You know how magnetism.works, but the whys of magnetism's workings are beyond the scope of many having not studied physicists' explanations on it. They did the detailed research for any who may be interested in what they have discovered.

Avoided also in evolution, is an accounting for modifications, accounting for programming and even the accounting for even simple things in nature.

In Darwin's vast conceptual scheme, related organisms are descended from common ancestors, supposed ridiculous ancestors such as these. Before Darwin's theory was hijacked and made much worse, Darwin had major doubts about his theory.

Such tenets are based on his conjecture and conjecturing by those following him and though interesting, proves nothing.

Descent with modification, a phrase used in describing evolution, is another foundational assembly brick used in inventing the theory of evolution. It too crumbles under examination as do all tenets of evolution used as proof of the beginning of living organisms.

Darwin believed what appears to be design in living things can be explained naturalistically as the result of the unfounded and mysterious actions of random variations and natural selection. Darwin knew there was some force beyond the physical. He just couldn't see deep enough into Creator's ways to find it. He was blinded by the errors he latched onto.

Here it was supposed that inheritable changes in genes.(known as mutations), occurred spontaneously and randomly without regard to any particular environment. He apparently didn't consider that a living organism's poisoned environment would be a mutational cause. Mutations were overstood by many in a struggle to comprehend the reality of living organisms, to be the only source of genetic novelty. Many geneticists believed that evolution was driven onward by the random accumulation of favorable mutational changes, however they too 'missed the boat' on these things. Natural selection, that is, evolution directed by adaptive fitness, was reduced to a minor role by mutationists.

'Naturalism' and 'naturalistic' are referred to by some evolutionists as the philosophical doctrine that the physical universe is the whole of reality and that ideas and the supernatural are human projections.

Neo-Darwinism is based on the accrual of mutations. Evolutionary theory is driven by natural selection due to environmental pressures, the process eliminating the least stable structures, those less adapted to a given environment. 

-Is evolution really a theory?.Evolution as commonly taught fails in all 3 criteria necessary to account for theoretical status: 1) its explanations do not reduce ambiguity; 2) it has not displaced the creation theory which it attempts to do; 3) its basis is inconsistent for necessary experimental testing to arrive at any new axioms. In the light of this, we can ask, Upon what true science does evolution depend? Carl Sagan on it.

The extraordinary claims of evolution require extraordinary proofs to compete with its concomitant rival, that being creation by a Creator.

Letters spelling words on pages in books aren't the important thing. It's what goes on in the mind of a reader. Information alone without intelligent processing is useless. Progress comes not from information, but from comprehension of what that information conveys. Intelligent processing involves insight and clairvoyance, two factors the world is mostly in ignorance of.

Consider the silly.experiments of time past deemed to such an extent to be necessary in the then emerging medical field. Doctors way back when, would have recently deceased bodies dug up under the secrecy of late night. The medical system is still not transparent today, but then, neither is politics with its closed door meetings. If things discussed to be implemented are from motivations of good for people, then why the secrecy?

The emerging medical system wanted body organs for examination and experimentation. Obviously, being of such lower consciousness just to be able to justify this hideous practice, provided a lock on their comprehension, shutting out the overall picture, such as the story of the ape's DNA shows.

Decisions on parts of bodies to extract, the appendix being one and tonsils being another, came out of this early research they conducted. When you don't take into consideration the invisible supporting the visible, you are bound to head in the wrong direction. The wrong direction includes causing harm for money and control, as in wars, medicine and just about anything else you could think of:.Jeremiah 6:13. Greed finds many devious paths and justifications for its actions.

And the morbidity.prevalent in 'modern' medicine is much the same, what with such things as vaccinations, poisonous drugs and the cut, poison and burn approach to wellness, which in time only increases sickness.

This type of idiocy belongs to those having left off their Creator for their own concoctions:.2Chronicles 16:12.

When understanding is in harmony with higher purpose as a result of higher consciousness.(what is that?), then progress for all humanity results. Why?

If attempts to progress convey confusion, as evolution most certainly does, can we expect much progress at all? And we haven't yet seen anything monumental evolution has produced apart from a string of awards to those able to remember and repeat the meaning of terms other evolutionists concocted and recorded in a book. Their memories were good but their comprehension of life's meaning was vacant.

-Unfounded faith:."Science.(true science).is based foremost on evidence not authority or revelation.(and false 'science' is pushed mostly by authority). In science nothing is taken on faith while in religion faith is at the heart of belief." ...Kendrick Frazier, Editor of the.Skeptical Inquirer, in July/August, 1999 issue. Kendrick is saying to be wary of that which is supported with authoritativeness.(such as).if it lacks evidential.mechanisms toward proof postive results.

What was missed here regarding faith in order to be faith, is that faith has to have a solid foundation. To be faith, it must be more than just a word connoting various things to just about everyone you may talk to, which is blind faith, which is no faith at all and simply unsubstantiated.opinion. Evolution's fundaments are sketchy, unprovable and actually idiotic when you analyze them. To believe such fundaments, one must have blind faith, which takes evolution into the realm of being just another false religion.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*