Evolution or Creation? A Definitive Statement.

The Origins: Genesis and its contender

The beginning is half the whole, says an old adage, and you agree with this every time you refuse to enter a movie halfway through, or to begin reading a novel at the middle. But are we always so logical? Our instinct tells us that we cannot prescind from the information available at the beginning, or from reasoning in sequential steps. Cause and effect sequences have to be revised for us to keep a firm grip on our logical processes. Take the example: Why can't we find a man as large as a whale? The obvious answer: Because there is no couple hefty enough to beget one whale sized tells the whole story.

This type of direct relationship between cause, as sufficient cause, to all possible effects is the most elementary means available to all to discard idiocy from theories. Or at least it should be! But it isn't! And no better proof can be obtained of this anomaly than the success of Charles Darwin and his subservient mental clones, and their successful invasion and conquest of the scientific establishment.

Using the same commonsense capable of reducing whale's size to baby sized, we can always be certain of the difference between the possible and the impossible. We know only too well that it is as easy to take less from more as it is impossible to take more from less. The theory of evolution, however, demands the opposite. And not as a single happenstance but as a natural law, and in an unending flow of new living species always better than their ancestors, leaving us undecided as to what to admire more if the unrestricted optimism or the sheer folly, for greater optimism had never been seen, and a more monumental stupidity has never been thought! If you like to dream every night of putting ten dollars into your pockets to awaken with the gross national product as the fruits thereof, believe me you're not beating Darwin's optimism, or his idiocy.

And no matter how you wish to put it, how you wish to embellish, adorn it or reinvent it, it boils down to just that!

There is always only one logic and you can’t beat it. If you empty a pocket or a purse in order to put in ten dollars, you can’t bring out eleven dollars without creating a dollar out of nothing! Impossible! If it’s a savings account paying a dollar interest you are still taking out less than was put in, for what was put in to generate that extra dollar was not only ten dollars, but also the bank, the bank’s activities, the market, risk and time. A lot more than your savings plus a dollar was put in! No way for Darwinian Mechanics on that basis to be right, but rather worse as bankruptcies often add in cruel remembrances. When all’s considered even Central Banking humbled lies.

So Darwin had ideas! Did his ideas create all things? Or were ‘All Things’ he sought to structure, by some one else as structures made? The mechanism he sought to explain, who invented, created, and put to work such thing?

When you get down to Darwin, his crazy clones et al; you must depart from origins, to fantasize on mechanisms lacking a previous plan. For plans come from ideas, and whose idea was that? Mechanism unplanned, from no previous idea and from no previous mind? No matter how you embellish it, or how you wish to prove it, it all boils down to that!

So, what is all the fuss about?

FALLING FROM TREES: From Newtons apple, to Darwin’s rather brusque descent.

Two Britons, both to be remembered as connected by gravitational happenstance. The apple to honor Isaac, as often said: many apples have fallen on men’s heads but there was only one Newton! In relation to Darwin, since his "The Descent of Man" it has often been said lacking apples in his case, that the main suspect was he, and falling down squarely on his head!

Darwin’s case admits a better description using hallucinogenic drugs and mushrooms which were possibly not known in his time, but are better fitted to the way his observations were magnified out of proportion and then fitted into theory. For he awed for the commonplace, gaped at trivia, and exaggerated like mad.

Poor Darwin's substance
He noticed variability within species! He observed offspring resembling parents not to be identical to them! He also noticed an inheritance factor in the offspring! He realized some individuals were better fitted for survival, and were better breeders! He observed what animal breeders did in selecting the desirable traits to better the desired qualities in each succeeding generation: scent in dogs, for example! He then transposed this artificial selection to nature to present his readers with nature having precisely the breeder’s savvy and good intentions to force in a few pages a natural selection! Due to nature not having gone to the breeders’ school—nor likely most of his readers— in order to tighten on the ‘natural adaptation and survival of the fittest’, nature could be considered to be as aggressive and unreliable as needed to force changes within the theory’s laxity! And then he simply introduced the biggest blunder conceivable, a blunder extant still in the minds of all his victims: he mistook transformation for evolution!

"What Mr. Darwin seems to have forgotten—he was immediately told—is that we, the English, a nation of breeders of horses and dogs —and of such competence in the field as nobody has yet dared to question— despite our competence have never yet seen a horse become more than a horse, or a dog become more than a dog".—The English press was denying transformism which Darwin had sneaked in as evolution!

Of course there is a natural selection! Of course there is a survival of the fittest! But there is no place for Darwin in this picture! When a cheetah attacks a Thompson gazelle at close to sixty miles an hour, and the lighter gazelle responds accelerating to close to fifty miles per hour, artfully dodging the heavier predator, and getting away many times, they are acting out these very principles; but in a way barely sufficient to keep in shape as any jogger knows only too well. Neither will the jogger find himself either suddenly— or eonly in far away descendants in long traditional practice— flying blue-streak away from kryptonite, nor will the cheetah acquire its wings! There is, and this must be emphasized, an enormous difference between true science always capable of proof and better sense, and the falsifiers of true science building tall-tales, and by rattling a few old fossil bones manage to devastate the human mind.

If you have begun to suspect that the idea behind it is to use the joyful strengths of optimism to demolish the sanity of our Christian civilization, congratulations, it's a bull's-eye! If, on the other hand you think you are discovering how easy it is to make dupes of the masses, you are too late for that! It was joyfully announced by Randolph Hearst circa 1900 when he said: "The truth said once is soon forgotten, but a lie repeated a hundred times becomes public opinion." And the best definition of the worst type of public opinion, the mind devastative public opinion is what they incessantly hammer in as "Evolution"... But fortunately there is the Genesis connection!

In the same way black must contrast white to build meaningful grayscale, against the backdrop of the only contender: the most ridiculous, counter-logical and unscientific darwinian and post darwinian theory or evolution, Genesis was there to shine forth radiantly. Enter "The Days of Creation":

Days or eons?
Ecology is the epitome of complexity, built up with uncountable millions of living creatures engaged in uncountable checks and balances, yet they have a fundamental need of simultaneousness. Every prey-predator pair has to coexist in space and time for the predators to survive. It’s inescapable! Contrariwise to Darwinian madness denying limitations and restrictive origins, in order to postulate unplanned systems of uncharted complexity and everything fueled by senseless optimism, we must begin by getting a feel of the problem. Can we? Will we know where to begin?

A black box is a mental construct to reduce mind boggling problems to manageable proportions, basically to an input-output formulation. Our basic input will be pairs, prey-predator pairs. The moment we begin feeding our basic input we begin to get a feeling of what an excessively complex dynamic interactive system implies, specially when the interactive part enters the equation! To simplify, the basic parameters will be space, time and simultaneousness. But on introducing the first pair, let’s say cheetah-gazelle, we realize we cannot even calculate an optimal population without a better knowledge of the entourage which is there for much greater complexity! With each and every additional living creature complicating in uncharted ways the whole situation! A situation in which we do not even know which if any should be the first pair to enter our blackbox to output at every point a stable system! The key, however, is stability through interaction at each step of the process even if we don’t know the number of pairs per species, or the adequate order for their introduction! It is beyond our competence, but the keys for understanding are all there.

We face an equilibrium problem which minimized in complexity resembles an old mattress for which fixing one spring can lead to several other springing out of place. How can we go about it? Old mattresses do get fixed, but springs are few and species uncountable; springs are elementary, species exceedingly complex. If old mattresses were more complex nobody would ever even think of fixing them, as new mattresses offer the advantage of simultaneous placement of all their springs, pointing again, even for the simplest systems to the advantage of simultaneousness! Precisely the same requirement with which we began by saying: Every prey-predator pair has to coexist in space and time for the predators to survive. It’s inescapable! The other two problems: prey-predator ratio, and order of each prey-predator pair introduction can also be solved, most elegantly by simultaneousness! In other words: Take everything as is, and then, have it set up instantaneously! Given sufficient power as only God can have, elegance and project feasibility both fall directly to the side of The Days of Creation. Complete sets are ordered into being and put in place in a fuss-less manner! And our intermediate mental crutch, the black box imaginary construct can be happily discarded!

But, will we be taken seriously on this point in a scientific discussion?

In scientific debate yes, and on two additional counts: Firstly, you only have to take a short Wikipedia tour of the Big-Bang to realize that not only nature was set up without having to fuss up to eons galore, but that the whole universe was created instantaneously!

Adding eons you put in NOTHING NEW! You merely admit a trade-off to cooling expansion (more space, less heat, and the logical consequences thereof).

Secondly, by analogy to all excessively complex dynamic interactive systems take the one most familiar to you, the almost instantaneous formation of the human baby. If you think nine months is incompatible to instantaneousness, just consider the explosive cell growth from two human cells to more than a trillion cells in nine months!

Better still, try to extend the precise time required from nine months to... as much as you desire in order to better admire the precision of Genesis in its days of Creation!... Only remember: the nine months are mere expansion to what was already potentially there in the instantaneous fusion between the ovum and the spermatozoid!

From the first paragraph above on whale sized creatures: What is not potentially there, at the inception, will never be. In other words my dear Darwinian clone, sorry, you’ll never become a kangaroo!

To wit, potential requires no time, only its realization through successive actualizations!

ASK THE CREATOR!
To seek God for a religious reason is commonplace. We have the Church, the Bible, and the doctors of the Church. We also have preachers, schools and universities. For the origins we have Genesis. Nobody thought of questioning Him directly; but He came to us with the answer as He always has... Maria Valtorta, Italian mystic translated to more than ten different languages transcribed Jesus Christ’s words on the subject as follows: "In relation to that grave error, which has caused so much damage, not only it’s impossible for a monkey to evolve into a man; but not even with all your technology can you reduce a man to a monkey. You may maim and degrade him, but no matter what you do a monkey you will not get, because the monkey has its own perfection!

This is the definitive statement on two counts: First, we have already seen the impossibility for any evolutionary theory succeeding on account that no mechanism—natural or otherwise—can create something out of nothing, or permit in any way to take out more than was put in. Not for a single case, least of all on a regular, constant basis. We were however leaving open a possibility to the opposite, to have a lesser creature derive from a superior one.

The above statement closes out any such possibility on the basis of perfection. A distinct perfection. A closed perfection as corresponds to a distinct species.

Secondly: The above statement brings to our attention the perfection of each species as such. Perfection can’t be bettered or it wouldn’t be perfection! In other words: the perfection of each species lies in the unalterable fullness of each species. It was bad enough to pretend a mechanism bringing into existence any enhancement implying something not potentially in its inception, but to demand the same mechanism to produce perfection in all cases? Well, there are straightjackets, you know....

Much damage is mentioned as the result of preaching or accepting Evolution. And it is easy to see where the damage is made, and which results can be further expected. We can recognize the most serious assault on human reason, and an open imposition by political and financial power to impair thinking. Logical cause to effect is abolished, proportions loose all relevance, and unfounded optimism is presented as omnipotence. Everything good can be expected without effort or merit. Only rights and no duties rule for progress, and progress and blind optimism are one. The only needed force is sex, and singly exalted, responsibility for offspring can be better waylaid to natural selection. The laws of the jungle function optimally above human law. Bestiality can have no substitute in evolutionary thinking, if it got us here, evolutionaries seem to say, why not only bestiality? Why not proclaim it king? The apocalyptic beast has been unleashed!