-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
humanity 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, which are the ways of the
cabal,
exemplified
by surreptitious
acts to hijack
the American people.(*).
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."
Luke
6:35 "But love you your enemies and do good and lend, hoping for nothing
again and your reward shall be great and you shall be the children
of the Highest, for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil."
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.criminal
Rockefeller medical field.(Luke
8:43,44). 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,
wondering 'how the body would be if we took this organ out'? The push for
something new and gross which they could sell as 'science' and overwhelm
the tried and true natural methods that always work better, was
the aim of such satanists.
If they really were out to help people, they would have continued to use
the tried and proven methods of centuries. But alas,
people follow the advice of those they trust and that, all too often, to
their harm and death. Type 'sudden death' into a search engine and see
so-called
medical 'science'
at work.
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.
