Falling or Failing?

I’ve noticed in my Google Reader recently the following ads:

The urls lead here and here. Here’s a sample:

Evolution really did happen, living things really do have a common ancestor, and the earth really is 4.5 billion years old.

But the way evolution really works has little in common with Darwin’s theory. Darwinism is in deep trouble and it’s too late save it.

It’s no different than the Berlin Wall in 1986, Enron in 2000 or the US financial markets 3 years ago: It’s a bubble propped up by academic theorists, atheist zealots, politics and shell games – not hard science.

All that needs to happen is for the right 3-5 scientists to step forward and expose the evolution industry for what it is…. and it’s not a question of “IF”, it’s only a question of WHEN. Darwinism has about 2-5 years left. And when the !@#$ hits the, fan it’s it’s gonna be quite a spectacle.

But that’s not the important part! The real crime is that the “evolutionists” never bothered to tell you how evolution REALLY works. The evolutionary process is neither random nor accident. It’s purposeful, it’s pre-programmed, it’s so ingenious and elegant it takes your breath away.

Todd Wood writes on his blog following the Evolution 2010 meeting in Portland:

Then I came home, and I noticed an outrageous banner ad at a creationist blog proclaiming: “2013: Darwinism Falls.” Ugh. I understand that there are people who think (mistakenly) that there’s a big crisis in evolutionary biology and it’s going to collapse, but I’ve never encountered anyone arrogant enough to set a date. So I clicked on the ad, and it was pretty sad. It’s some site run by an engineer. What is it with engineers? Why is it the most arrogant and vitriolic antievolutionists are engineers? I don’t know, but here’s a prediction for you, Mr. 2013-Darwin-Falls: It ain’t gonna happen. I was just there at Evolution 2010 (unlike you), and I’ve been to many of their past conferences (also unlike you). They’re doing fine. They’re plugging right along. There’s lots of excitement. Lots of research funding. Thousands of researchers. They’re not going anywhere. So unless Jesus Christ returns bodily to rule the earth in the next three years, 2013 will see evolutionary biology continuing to enjoy the same cultural power they have now.

3 thoughts on “Falling or Failing?

  1. Why 2013? Is this supposed to be the “End Times” version of anti-evolutionism?

    That’s an easy way to dismiss something, just say that it’s going to go away in a few years. I suspect that the only coming to these people in 2013 is embarrassment.

  2. But, will they really be around to see, it is, afterall, after 2012…

  3. According to the Biblical view, Darwin wasn’t wrong:

    Adam/man = ruddy (red) = (soul – Gen. 2:7) = the ‘animal’ sentiment principle ‘only’).

    Ruddy in his initial state was a ‘brute’ animal of some kind.

    This brute animal came from the ‘dust (clay, powder, mud)’ of the ‘ground (powder, clay, earth, mud)’.

    Genesis 2:4 says: “in the day when God created the heavens and the earth”. This word ‘day’ translated means – ‘to be hot’.

    Therefore, ruddy came from dust/ground (clay, powder, mud) at a time ‘in the beginning’ when the earth was ‘hot’.

    Evolution teaches that all life began in the hot primordial soup (mud)! There is no difference between what evolution teaches and what the Bible says.

    The question to be asked is, if in its initial state, ruddy was a brute animal – what animal was it?

    Human beings are ‘mammal’ but where did that come from?

    Ruddy had to have been a ‘primate/mammal’ (Genome studies support this) of some kind.

    Why aren’t the other primates creating beautiful artwork, and making buildings to live in?

    Obviously ‘we’ have something ‘they’ don’t. But where did ‘we’ get that from?

    Ruddy (primate) entered another realm (Gen. 2:8) and got a ‘spiritual’ nature (‘God’s image’, higher consciousness, aura, sixth sense, supernatural, etc.) and it ‘changed’.

    Ruddy must also have been an ‘asexual’ creature if the woman came ‘from’ it. It gave birth to her.

    Early evolution by its nature would have favoured asexual creatures. Male/female only came later. *As evidence for that I will point out that all human embryos are, at first, ‘female’. The copies can only produce after the manner of the original (she can only produce ‘after herself’ – female). A later brain wash (no doubt from male sperm) produces a male.

    Ruddy entered the garden and got a higher consciousness and it changed. It left the garden, gave birth to a female (I have no idea how long this process took) and sometime later returned with her to the garden.

    When ruddy left the garden for the first time, he was in some respects very different from when he had first wandered into it – Neanderthal.

    This occurred to ‘one’ primate who had three states:

    1) first state – brute animal (before the garden, Gen. 2:7)

    2) second state – left the garden to give birth to the female (Neanderthal)

    *all female hormones were somehow pooled into ruddy’s first offspring and ruddy became a male at this time.

    3) third state – (after the garden – Homo sapien)

    Ruddy returned to the garden with a female. We have no idea how long they were there (we do know the earth is very old). If ruddy was a very early primate and the garden is timeless then how old was ruddy?

    Adam/ruddy and his female leave the garden (for good) = Homo-sapien.

    The earlier offspring of Adam (Neanderthals) were still on the earth when Adam and Eve returned to it. Thus Neanderthals and homo-sapien existed (for a time) together.

    Adam/man/ruddy = brute animal – Neanderthal – Homo-Sapien

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s