A Question of Magic - Version 1.4.1 (Rewrite of Dear Sir Version 21.4)

=========================== (2010 October)

===== (Part 1.1: INTRODUCTION To An Anti-Evolution, Anti-Liberal, Essay)


Corrupt: ClimateGate has shown, EMPIRICALLY, how perfectly Politics + Ideology can NULLIFY the ''scientific-impartiality/ scientific-objectivity'' of SCIENTISTS: easily, quickly, effectively, and en-masse.

So. EVERY claim to ''Scientific Consensus'', by ANYONE, is DEAD. Forever.


Murderers: The DDT fiasco has shown, EMPIRICALLY, how perfectly ALL Humanists lack conscience (and sense): tiny mewling souls litter their tracks.


However. The Dominant Characteristic of a 'Defender' of Evolution is this: ''Liar:''

Evolutionists lie, and they know they lie. EVERYTHING noted in this essay, they have been confronted with. They KNOW it ALL, and quite well at that.

As you read, recall these words, and consider how selectively you have been 'educated', and by WHOM. Then ask why. Then ask what to do. Then act; or not.


===== (Part 1.2: the Stupids vs the Scientists)


Observable patterns are present in the matter that comprises the physical-world.

One group of people, the majority (let's label them: the Stupids), look at some of these patterns and THINK: ''something with an intelligence was at work here.''

Another group of people (generally self-labeled: the Scientists), a highly vocal minority of activists, present some of these patterns and DECLARE: ''this all CERTAINLY occurred via natural processes ALONE. TRUST US - WE KNOW!''


The minority-group insists that the majority-group are IDIOTS, and DEMAND that ''non-'expert' opinions'', contrary to theirs, MUST be discarded. Um, wow.

How is this radical Big Brother approach justified? Why, ''Science has spoken''!

Is ''Science'' some manifested OverGod-like entity? No. A bunch of old pro-NAMBLA, pro-Humanist, pro-Environment, pro-dead-baby, hippies? YES.

These Cultistic Fanatics DEMAND that --PERSONAL--REASONING be disregarded... they STATE that their take (i.e. their OPINIONS, i.e. the ''Scientific Consensus'') on the patterns IS 'correct' in an ABSOLUTE sense. They STATE the minds of the Stupids are, as 'proven by Psychology', INCAPABLE of reason!

For the Humanist-scientists this last is an ACCEPTED 'Truism'! Really!


ClimateGate/ DDT has PROVEN: 1) Peer-review does NOT correct/ detect error;

2) Scientists are NOT somehow, magically, 'Honest' and 'Objective'... or 'Good.'

(As will be seen, Evolution is not a ''fact'': the correct word is ''figment.'')

*) Question: is there such a thing as one single unassailable (or vaguely decent!) 'scientific' proof that Evolution is The One Correct Interpretation of the patterns?

*) Question: do these 'mega-robust' 'scientific' 'proofs' of Evolution remove the 'intelligence' hypothesis from the table? (What alternatives do they consider?)

===== (Part 1.3: References)


This booklet does not, really, contain references. It consists, mostly, of reasonings and logics. Such things do not require references. If you are not capable of evaluating the contents for yourself then you have a serious problem.


This booklet is NOT written for Liberals. It is written to help Christians stand against the filth that is the General Practice of Liberalism. So. Two Goals:

*) Firstly it shows that the 'Science' underlying the ''Truth That Is Evolution'' is really, truly, absolutely, garbage.

*) Secondly it demonstrates, to a degree acceptable to any sane adult, that the Liberals, who are True Believers of Evolution, are truly 'alien': they lie. Not simple, spur of the moment lies. Neither lies that arise out of momentary lack of clarity (sometimes for longer than 'momentarily'), created while defending what you think is true: such are more properly stubborn-born mistakes; and are of course reprehensible. No. Their lies are cold, systematic, finely crafted and designed. And massively endemic. And heavily protected. And well understood.


This IS true of the Liberals: John 8:44: ''Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.''


As for the non-real-world idea that 'scientists' are Honest and Objective, recall this: 1 Timothy 6:20: ''...keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called...''


Yes, many/ most Liberals ARE deceived, but so what?: 2 Timothy 3:13: ''But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.''


Here is what the bible says about what the Liberals ARE: John 3:19-20: ''And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.''


And here is how the bible says we are to treat Liberals: Matthew 10:14: ''And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.'' ... and, generally: Romans 16:17-18: ''Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.''


As strange as this may or may not be, the Bible really is the only FUNCTIONAL, PRACTICAL, reference needed. There is no actual science involved in regards to Evolution: it is simply sets of lies, told by exceptionally evil people. PERIOD.


===== (A Question Of Magic, Part 2.1)

= (The Practice of Anti-Science 1: The Fall of the Modern Scientists)


To properly examine a given issue in the physical world is much harder than it looks at first glance. You have to make sure that each fact is correct; and that it is reasoned-with correctly; every logical step has to be rational, and connect rationally with everything else relevant to it. Etc. (All in proper real-world context.)

The process of 'synthesis' (also called the 'core-dialectic' further on): take all the above, and make just one, maybe two, 'changes' to the argument. Errors. On Purpose. And the outcome is COMPLETELY changed: presto, Evolution is 'true'.


To practice proper science, a scientist has to -Endlessly- check & re-check for flaws and correct them - in everything. Liberal/ Liar 'scientists' turn this process on its head: they have an 'Answer' (i.e. 'Conclusion'/ 'Truth'), and map out SOME synthesised-'reasoned' pathway to it, drilling downwards to carefully selected data-sets. Such a 'Truth' then becomes 'the Consensus', a.k.a. Scientific Truth.

In this way, the ACT of addressing ''Burden-Of-Proof'' is explicitly removed from consideration... replaced instead with synthesis-born rhetoric. THEN, of course, only Certified 'Experts/ Authorities' may EVER again comment on such 'Truths'.

THIS is the Humanist mindset: which is directly incompatible with, well, reality.


A Lie is:

*) being in ERROR,

*) on PURPOSE. (Usually to aid in attaining some specific goal.)

-) So. What is a Liar? Someone who knowingly evangelizes error.


ERROR -can- be ''properly'' demonstrated via fact (the physical world) and/or logic (internal rationality) and/or reason (external/ overall rationality).

PURPOSE -cannot- be ''properly'' demonstrated: apart from drugs and/or torture, the INTENT of a given person cannot be explicitly shown (especially true for proficient/ intelligent liars). But Purpose can be VERY strongly indicated via:

1) The sheer number of 'errors' involved;

2) The logic-depth of the 'errors': many of them are flat-out ludicrous.

3) Given that such 'errors' have been pointed out to them... repeatedly;

4) Given that their 'errors' all support essentially the same conclusion(s).

These render the starting assumption of honesty on their part massively unlikely.

And Modern 'Scientists' REQUIRE that their honesty be assumed: otherwise they would have to actually PROVE what they scream... and THAT they CANNOT do.


WHAT TO DO with a Liar? Each and every time you see that person, remember what they are, then point your finger and say: ''Liar.'' Walk away. It is that simple.

Biblically, such a person should be marked and avoided. Note that ''recognizing that he/she made a certain/ specific mistake'', or ''saying sorry for offending you'' are not, properly (or even at all) repentance: that would involve PROPER re-evaluation of their support of Evolution, and relevant action... the mere words (& empty actions) of a PROVEN liar have NO value. (Remember the dust & shoes?)


It is important to take note of a core reality here: Corruption.

A later section talks about this from a more basic starting point, but for now take notice that what is described above (and below) are people being CORRUPT.


The ''Settled Science/ Consensus'' of Climate-Change/ Disruption was based on errors. Errors made by Evangelical Humanists (a.k.a. Scientists.) On purpose. To reach a Goal. They lied. Oh, but it was for the ''sake of the planet''!

Scientists lied about Climate-Change... to save the world from Climate-Change?

Um?? WHAT they did is not in (real, actual, proper) dispute - it is quite well documented: THEY LIED. THEY MANIPULATED. They destroyed careers.

HOW they did it is not in dispute either; they re-defined the 'obsolete' principles and practices of classical science; they re-defined the rules that govern peer-review; they banded together with like-minded Ideologues, and excluded EVERY ''anti-scientist'' blind to ''the obvious Truths of man-caused climate-disruption.''


-WHY- they did it, is not properly certain. Certainly, by their own words, the most powerful factor was apparently Ideology: they lied to all, to Save The World...

But, also certainly, there were powerful financial imperatives: the relevant grant-approving-politicians were set (at the time of writing still are) poised to gain unheard of regulatory power (over the peasants) and financial power (taxing the peasants) derived from the 'Scientific Truths' of Anthropogenic Climate Change.


So they were both without integrity (lying for the sake of 'good' - so they say), but also simply fraudulent ($$ greed: grants, projects, etc.)

Consider these self-same TWO factors in regard to the 'Scientific Truths' of Evolution. Notice how they are (each one!) MUCH, MUCH stronger?

In the case of Evolution, there is yet another, Greater, factor: the 'Truth' of Evolution is THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT foundation stone that underlies PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE of Political Secular Humanism. (It is WHY judges could make abortion legal. WHY in Britain a Muslim can threaten to murder, and get away with it; while if you merely criticize Islam, you get thrown in prison.)

So? Well, Secular Humanism -PER DEFINITION-, allowed for the creation of very vaguely defined justification-concepts like 'ethics' and 'morals.' And from these, which are very much open to 'personal' re-interpretation, modern Politicians/ Elites are ALLOWED to ''justify'' their actions. This ability to 'creatively' defend personal- and institutional corruption, above ALL other factors, is WHY Evolution is so UTTERLY important to the Elitist Humanists/ Liberals.

The Concept of Evolution is the very Prime-Shield-Wall of Modern Political Corruption: in Christian dominated countries anyway.

Should Evolution lose its ''Absolutely True'' status, the entirety of modern politics would cease to exist: the Stupids would start to -INSIST- on Biblically-valid ''justifications'': the Elitist Politicians are FAR too corrupt to ever ALLOW that.

Politicians desire ''freedom''; the EXACT same kind of ''freedom'' that Satan sought. The EXACT same ''freedom'' Stalin & Mao utilized to murder MILLIONS.


===== (A Question Of Magic, Part 2.2)

= (The Practice of Anti-Science 2: Which is Primary: Reason versus 'Science')


Before going on, the following question should be resolved: 'what is Evolution'.


The general, SCIENTIFICALLY accepted ''Definition Of Evolution'' is this:

e1) Descent,

e2) with Modification,

e3) Solely due to Natural-Processes.

This is, to put it very mildly, a highly problematic 'definition'. What is, to put it very mildly, astonishing, is that the main stream scientific community ACCEPTS it, COMPLETELY. What is quite astounding is that there are people in this world who are so moronic that they accept such swill as their version of 'gospel'.


''Why the heavy dose of sarcasm?!'' Well, since you asked:

Firstly, notice that -proving- (e1) would require, at the least, (old-school-type) SCIENTIFICALLY, proof-of-parentage for every single breeding generation. For every living thing that has ever lived. WHICH IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY!

Secondly, notice that (e2) is PERFECTLY vague: literally ANYTHING classifiable as 'change' is just peachy for 'Scientific' 'Evolution'. No distinction is made between the new or the old, the lost, the shuffled, the damaged, the singular or the group. WHICH IS CERTAIN TO BE 'TRUE'!

Thirdly, notice that (e3) would require that the COMPLETE genetic record be available, of every single living creature that has ever lived. At the very least: ideally, each and every 'mutation' must be detected and recorded as it occurs, in order to EXCLUDE the possibility of non-Natural influence. AN IMPOSSIBILITY!


''Oh grow up! Surely no decent, educated, SCIENTIST would ACTUALLY try and abuse the outrageous aspects of the Definition!'' Care to bet on that, Thomas?

-X-: The Stupids are of the 'opinion' that 'Evolution' (present-day-ish) is about new life-information coming into being. You know, new genes/ alleles. ('Allele'? 'Natural Selection'? Wait a few sections.) Let this be called 'Stupid-Evolution.'

The Scientists 'KNOW' -this- Stupid 'opinion' is Very INCORRECT!!! According to the Honest Scientists, what MUST also be considered as being EVOLUTION is:

*1) The Effect of Natural Selection (ENS) (or equivalently the Effect of Genetic Drift (EGD).) I.e. simply the ALTERATION of gene-frequencies (how common a given allele is in a given group), as breeding-generations continue onwards through time. DESPITE the absolute fact that not one single new gene/ allele has come into being over the entire recorded history of the entire world, the mere act of shuffling alleles around like LEGO-blocks somehow PROVES Evolution, SCIENTIFICALLY. IN PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS! No, I am not kidding.

According to the Way Of The Perfected Scientist, that groups of offspring are different (the HOW, or the WHY, both being IRRELEVANT!) from their parents, is sufficient as -SCIENTIFIC- PROOF THAT EVOLUTION IS TRUE.

''Wow! That is SO retarded!'' say the grown-ups in the room. Still think that the sarcasm is unreasonable? (And note this: they know EXACTLY what they are doing; they are NOT stupid, NOR mistaken, NOR ignorant. They are LYING.)

(Note: a specific child is different from its parents - but this is NOT proof of Evolution. Why? Because they say-so. Call me a Stupid, but I fail to see why the basic logic of the Scientific Definition accepts the one case, and rejects the other. Maybe I'm just not enough of a Pure Scientist... or a spin-doctor/ propagandist.)

NOTE: these specific phenomena (Effect-NS, Effect-GD) are quite real... therefore Evolution has been PROVEN to be TRUE, SCIENTIFICALLY. I am not exaggerating. THIS is mainstream, practiced, Science. (PS: The ''non''-natural version of the above allele-LEGO-game is called ''breeding'': cats, dogs, etc...)

*2) But there is more: Also fulfilling aspect (e2) of Evolution is that viruses & bacteria have the nasty habit assimilating whole genes, from their environment, into their own DNA/ RNA. Like lots of tiny Borgs. A given Stupid might ask: ''While this is interesting, since there are no new genes/alleles involved, why is this phenomenon held forth as examples of 'Evolution in action'?'' Because, SCIENTIFICALLY, the DEFINITION makes it so, you blithering idiot. Can't you read, moron? The basics of the Scientific Method too complex for you, Stupid?

NOTE: this specific phenomenon is quite real - therefore Evolution has been proven to be TRUE, SCIENTIFICALLY. Again, no kidding or exaggeration.

*3) And more: According to the Definition, simple aging should also be an Example of Scientific Proof of Evolution. If all your cells are replaced every seven years or so, and since the copies are often imperfect/ different, present-'you' is a more (evolved) descendant of younger-'you'. As Big Brother Scientist TOLD YOU: No arguing is allowed with Scientific Definitions! Know your place, whore.

*4) And more: ANY genetic damage to ANY gene (effect/ cause: irrelevant of course), that is transmitted to the next generation, is Scientific Proof of Evolution.

*5/ X) Lastly, there is the Stupid version of Evolution, which the Scientists have graciously allowed to be included in the Definition. How very considerate of them. I'm not kidding about that either - they might have just left it out, you know...


(The Conflation Fallacy is considering different physical phenomena as if they were the same. The above Definition-trick is NOT that. Rather it IS intellectual corruption, AND massive collusion/ groupthink. Only a gen-u-ine retard would accept it: or equivalently, an Evolutionist... a mainstream Scientist. Or a child.)


Before other 'interesting' ideas can be discussed, it is first of all necessary for YOU to choose: the Authoritarian Scientific Definition of Evolution, or the Rational Stupid Definition of Evolution. Pick one:

*) Choose the Scientific Definition, the one the Real World Scientists use, the one which all the Scientific Journals accept, the one in the Biology textbooks, and there is nothing left to say: Evolution is true; Science has, indeed, 'spoken'.

*) If you are over 30, and are thinking that all that is the biggest load of bull-sh@t you have ever encountered, I have to disagree: there are other kinds of ideology ('sensible' atheism/ liberalism) and politics ('good' communism/ liberalism) and ''religions'' ('moderate' Islam/ liberalism) even more (or at least equally) ridiculous. Just saying.


===== (A Question Of Magic, Part 2.3)

= (The Practice of Anti-Science 3: What is Science: Causality versus Correlation)


The next question to ask is then this: 'Science' - What is it?


Well, the Stupid version of science goes something like this:

*p1) making some observation(s),

*p2) drinking some beer and dreaming up something (rule / pattern) to explain it,

*p3) waking up the next day mostly sober-like, and then going out and trying to (alpha) Positively Test, AND (beta) Destructively Test, AND generally (gamma) Re-Examine your beer-induced hallucination.

Presto. Science. The Use of: FACT. LOGIC. REASON. Finding the Rules and Patterns that infest the Real World. AND BLOODY --VALIDATING-- THEM...

-) (px1) And do note that some things ARE unknown. Sad, unfortunate, but true.

-) (px2) And do not forget The Unspoken Purpose of 'science': with RARE AND SPECIFIC exceptions, it is supposed to be understandable by the 'peasants' (MANY non-scientists have VERY high IQ's), given time and the inclination.


A Dude Named Popper added another rule to those above: (*p4) it MUST be Possible To Disprove the hallucination. The reason for this is simple, and rather blindingly obvious if you are an ADULT: as for the Eternal Children...

*) Let's take the Scientific Definition of Evolution. 'Proofs' 1,2, 3 & 4 ARE solid. So Evolution IS true. Part X is 'part' of Evolution, and Evolution is true... so Part X HAS TO BE ''Truth''... Presto! Childish? Moronic? A Lie? Why, yes: HENCE the Falsifiability Criterion! (Guess how Honorable-Scientist Inc. treated Popper.)

*) Adults consider the case FOR, and the case AGAINST, and the case IF-AT-ALL when examining the validity of something. Humanists/ Evolutionists, and little children who are prone to hissy-fits, do not. (The core content of this essay, namely Part 3, is in essence devoted to the concept of gamma-testing.)

*) Falsifiability compliments Old-School Science: BOTH oppose New Science.


So why all this tongue-wagging? Well, there are two concepts in conflict:

*) In the new Science, ''correlation'' is ACCEPTED as proof. THE 'methodology' that 'proves' Evolution.

*) In the days of old science, ''causation'' was REQUIRED for proof to be 'scientific'. A methodology which renders Evolution unprovable/ non-existent.


The CORE weakness of ANYTHING based on correlation is this: correlations cannot DISCRIMINATE - correlations are SPECIFICALLY unspecific. Sure, correlation can INDICATE how much B -LOOKS- like A, whereupon the New Scientists start screaming that B -CAUSED- A. But correlation CANNOT exclude that -C- caused A, and not B. Or A caused C and B, or... or... or... etc.


A nice contrast-based comparison, via examples, would perhaps be in order:

*) ''Gravity'' is a phenomenon due to matter ATTRACTING matter. The Earth sucks. While in an absolute sense the PRIME-MECHANISM for this attraction is not understood, the PRACTICAL MECHANISM, namely the ATTRACTION-FORCE itself, can be OBSERVED/ DETECTED. --MEASURED--. Over and over and over and over again. Just go drop something... voila!

*) ''The FACT of Evolution'':: ''Fossils show that as billions of years flowed past, Evolution HAPPENED. The white-stuff-in-the-rocks became ever more 'complex'; i.e. organic information increased. That Evolution is REAL is a FACT.'' Really?

It LOOK-EE LIKE-EE as if Fossils show that as time passed, general organic information changed over time. So what is missing? Well... the SCIENCE-stuff.

(e3): the REASON for the changes is UNKNOWN: the rocks are silent about that. (I.e. was it the Martians? Evolution? God? A very smart trans-dimensional duck?)

(e1): the descendant-ancestor linkage has to be ASSUMED. IF assumed, THEN the concept of Evolution LOOKS like it could explain the general fossil patterns.

IF. It is indeed possible to construct a strong correlation between the PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS, and The IDEA of Evolution. BUT. The IDEA of Super-Brains&Computers from Mars/ the Stars would ALSO correlate. So would The IDEA of a God that is: odd-ish/ and-or hyper-intelligent/ and-or with unknown motives, etc. etc. (Can these 'Scientists' SHOW that Evolution ALONE ''did it''? Can they EXCLUDE the other alternatives? No: and that is the problem.)

But the situation is MUCH worse: Via the laws/ dictates of Reason/ Logic, correlation cannot ever be specific, so it CANNOT be used to SPECIFY Evolution, even GRANTED the assumption that the other alternatives are invalid. So they crafted the following logic-abortion: ''Because only natural process(es) are known to exist, therefore(!) No Non--HUMAN-- Intelligence -CAN- EXIST. Therefore some form of the Mechanism(s) of Evolution MUST exist.''  WTF?!

*) A last example. Can smoking cause cancer? (No.) ''Why, yes it can cause cancer! It is a scientific fact!'' The Scientists say this was proven 'scientifically' using statistical methods (i.e. correlation-based methods; i.e. kindergarten look-ee like-ee Science; i.e new Science: which is all JUST like Evolution Science!!)

VIA the New Science:: Statistics can give a weight ''value'' to correlations: i.e. it 'looks-a-LOT' like smokers get a whole lot more cancer than do non-smokers. Such is --PROOF-- in the new 'Science'; i.e. correlation-based 'proof'.

VIA the old-school scientific method:: certain specific chemicals can cause certain changes in certain of the organic molecules which comprise certain cells, changes that are identical to cancer-cells observed in nature. Microscopes are nice (in laboratories.) Nice ones that can map the organic molecules involved. Organic chemistry can show/ test the various pathways this can happen along.

The relevant experiments are highly repeatable. Causation-based science Rules!

See? SMOKING does NOT (sometimes) cause cancer. Ingesting/ inhaling CARCINOGENS Can Cause Cancer. And THAT is, again, the problem with correlation-based 'proof': it is NOT specific, it CANNOT discriminate.


If correlation-based 'proofs' are valid, then Evolution is Scientific & true.

If causation-based proof instead is valid, then Evolution does not exist. It is that simple, and that thorough, and that complete. (Which, given that Evolution is supposed to be oh so very absolutely 'true', is just oh so very absolutely weird...)


===== (A Question Of Magic, Part 2.1,2,3 j1/3)

= (The Practice of Anti-Science: Interlude - Natural Selection of Alleles)


What do Alleles have to do with Natural Selection? EVERYTHING. Literally.


Why does your girlfriend's cute younger sister look different from her? Why are the puppies in a litter different from one another? The answer is ALLELES.


The basic building block used in a specific living molecular-machine is a GENE: i.e. a molecular device (or sub-device). If you want to, you can think of it as a 'page' in a 'book'. All the pages together tell the 'story' that is the physical 'you'.

Chromosomes are like 'chapters' in that book. And the whole book is the DNA. (There are some more odd bits elsewhere, but DNA is by far the bulk of it all.)

People are different from each other because, for a given page number, they have a different version of that page! There may be, for example, ten versions of page '17'. And twenty-five versions of page '377'. Etc. Etc. Etc.

So. What Stupid Evolution CLAIMS, is to be able to CREATE new pages.


A gene does WORK. I.e. it has a FUNCTION. I.e. it is a DEVICE. It is sufficient to consider a given FUNCTION-TYPE-of-gene as occupying a 'page-number' (or a gene-slot if you will) in the DNA 'book.' (DNA is actually a double-helix: so every FUNCTION-TYPE of gene, has TWO gene-slots. They interact in various ways.)


The overall living molecular-machine can be seen as a collection of 'abstracted'-FUNCTION 'PARTS'. Your nervous-System, for example, consists of a whole lot of different gene-slots/ gene-types/ alleles/ 'pages', all working TOGETHER.


The 'Mechanism of 'Natural Selection'' is the following real-world process:

Example: Function-Part 'taller' lets a specific buck get at higher-up tree-berries. IF there are many berry-trees, and IF there is less food for 'shorter' bucks, THEN a 'taller 'buck should, all else being equal, have the resources for more offspring.

So. For some environmental aspect, some Function-Parts, of a SPECIFIC living molecular-machine, might be 'better' than the same Function-Parts of others of the same specie. Thus the CRUX of Natural Selection: Function-Part = Allele(s).

So. Since the ALLELES of kiddies are from their parents, 'taller' parents are likely to have 'taller' kiddies. Repeat for quite a few generations. Voila: taller bucks.

The 'Effect of 'Natural Selection'': the more useful alleles become more common.


So. What Natural Selection DOES is to play LEGO with alleles. FACT. PERIOD.

What Evolution CLAIMS Natural Selection 'can do', is help CREATE new alleles.

NOT THE SAME THING! Liberals STATE, without saying so outright, two things:

*) that individual alleles are CAPABLE, over time, of incremental FUNCTION changes. This is unproven: also, given real-world Complexity restraints, unlikely.

*) that all living things can HANDLE such randomly-effected changes applied to, essentially, ALL its alleles. This is ALSO unproven... and, shall we say, unlikely.


===== (A Question Of Magic, Part 2.1,2,3 j2/3)

= (The Practice of Anti-Science: Interlude - Abstracted Functionality)


Consider these words: Information, Complexity, Order/ Chaos. Patterns.

-) A heap of dirt possess lots of information: the location of one speck to another speck, for example. There will be patterns. There is a lot of chaos.

-) Crystals have all the above, but there is a lot of order present.


Re-read the two last points, in last part of the previous section, again:

*) that individual alleles are CAPABLE, over time, of incremental FUNCTION changes. This is unproven: also, given real-world Complexity restraints, GALACTICALLY unlikely.

*) that all living things can HANDLE such randomly-effected changes applied to, essentially, ALL its alleles. This is ALSO unproven... and, shall we say, GALACTICALLY unlikely.


Alien. This best describes the difference between a car and a world filled with piles of dirt. Between a molecular device (gene) and the shape of clouds.


Perhaps the mistake was using the word 'Nature' - because living molecular machines are NOT 'natural'. They do not BELONG in this universe.


This may seem a but odd, but 'science' was about forming ''correct-ABSTRACTS'' from the patterns and events seen in the world. When it comes to genes/ etc, the best concept might be to notice that the presence of Functionality, and the prevalence of Interrelated Functionality. These things are not natural.


They are Complex. Period.

I am sick. SICK. Of liberals, literally, having re-defined the essential meaning of basic words in their endless struggle to to annihilate the very ability to REASON in those who are their chosen enemies. They are, really are, Children of Hell.

So. Complex. It is a nice word. The correct word/ idea. Dirt does have complexity, but only a God-damned fool would actually equate -that- with genetic complexity. 'Nuff said.



-) Your shoe. Versus your foot. Versus the grass... Versus the dirt.

-) Your sock. Versus your toes. Versus the stinky germs... Versus salty-sweat.

-) Your shades. Versus your eyes... Versus the clouds.

-) Your lips. Your lungs... Versus the air you breathe in, and out.


If you cannot SEE what the difference is, then that is your problem: you are, certainly by choice, a fool. Do go forth. Fight your fight. Then die. And proceed to suffer the fate you so very mindlessly did not sidestep.


===== (A Question Of Magic, Part 2.1,2,3 j3/3)

= (The Practice of Anti-Science: Interlude - The Wild Marbles)


Marc Morano has been bashing his head against the Liberals (although he might himself be one, but of a different type - I wouldn't know) for some time over at ''http://www.climatedepot.com/''. The truth is a beautiful thing.


Lately, Anthropogenic (i.e. man-caused) Climate Change (aka Climate Disruption) has seen decreased use as the soul-buggering implement of choice, and seems to be in the process of being replaced with Loss Of Diversity.


This is a good thing. Why? Because 'Loss Of Diversity' has an EXACT, highly functional, clear, definition.

All the alleles, of all the living things, are the GREAT BAG OF MARBLES.

Identify each Marble. Add it to the Bag. Voila.


EVERYTHING else is nonsense. This cannot be 'estimated.' There is nothing that runs 'parallel' to it. Either 'Count the Marbles', or practice garbage. Period.


Let's take the Pekinese. And kill them all. Does it matter? No, because ALL their alleles yet exist in the wolves they were bred from. (If not, then, well...)

Take Darwin's Finches: it is very likely that there is a ''root specie'' from which ALL the others are merely (sequential) sub-sets. So kill all the derivatives: there is ZERO Loss Of Diversity.


But why is this 'good'?

Well, keeping count, --OVER TIME--, of the ''Allele-Pool'' will show three things:

1) A certain amount of HIGHLY non-trivially-different alleles are being lost, continuously. Without any human interference. So take out those Marbles.

2) A certain amount of HIGHLY non-trivially-different alleles are being lost, continuously. WITH human interference. So take out those Marbles.

3) Exactly ZERO new alleles, of EVEN the most trivially kind, are coming into existence. Not one. Not ever. Not for all the species on the whole planet.


--) Evolution does not exist. Not at all. In any way. There is not one single trace of its activity. Anywhere. OOPS!

Yes. Humans are, quite likely, responsible for the destruction of a lot of marbles.

If not for the LIBERALS, and the Insane Religion of Evolution, humanity would have known this. From the beginning... THIS is the Legacy of ''Evolution.''


So the obvious way to counter Loss Of Diversity, is to kill every single Liberal.


Of course, the Liberals will not, EVER, actually count the Marbles. Because they know well enough that there is not one tiny SHRED of Evolutionary activity to be found in 'nature.' So this page is here to provide you with a way to torture them :-)


===== (A Question Of Magic, Part 3)

= (Chasms-of-Reason in the Algorithm of Evolution: a.k.a. Fairy-Magic Logic)


!!!CAUSATION IS THE PROBLEM!!!  With the Stupid definition for Evolution in one hand, and a better idea of what is sanely reasonable in the other, behold the Greatest Slight-of-Hand Trick ever (um, this is debatable...) pulled on mankind:


While the Scientists explicitly state that 'Correlation-Alone' is sufficient to PROVE Evolution, the hordes of Stupids are not quite sophisticated/ educated (stupid?) enough to just surrender their thoughts on a mere say-so: uppity little bastards...

So. The Great Pseudo-!!CAUSAL!! Algorithm of Evolution was projectile vomited into this world by Charles Darwin. A sad little man, with a Magic Idea. An idea that would finally give the Hedonist-Atheists what they had long searched for: public acceptance. ''No more public spitting on us! At last we are non-dripping!''

(So it all becomes clear, over time: the hand-crafted 'demands' of ''Science'' are merely expressions of the totalitarian-ideological desires of Hedonist-Atheists.)


The present-/ modern-day variant of the Algorithm is essentially the same as that which Darwin splattered this world with:

*) The world is subsumed in a Great Ocean of Randomness: all things suffer change/ mutation (hah! read 'DAMAGE' in the case of DNA) over time.

*) These random changes, via the Mechanism of Natural Selection (MNS) (or via Genetic Drift (MGD), or some other scapegoat) lead to advantageous changes, i.e. NEW, FUNCTIONAL, alleles/ genes, propagating into the world.

*) Passing through the Awesome Mists of Time Machine (Powered with Fairy Dust), crawling goo goes in the one end, and pterodactyls fly out of the other.

*) Rinse and repeat without end. Whee!


Presto. The Algorithm of Evolution. Inevitably True! Inevitably Obvious! Inevitably SCIENTIFIC! HOW! CAN!! THIS!!! NOT!!!! WORK!!!!! HEE-HAA!!!!!!


(Effect of Natural Selection (ENS) IS the alteration of gene-frequency, i.e. how common a given allele is in the world. Effect of Genetic Drift (EGD) is the SAME thing, but is due to temporary patterns that naturally arise out of randomness.)


The Mechanism of Natural Selection (MNS) is --UTTERLY-- critical to the PRACTICALITY of Evolution: it is to serve as the 'Mega-Brain' of Evolution.

1) MNS must 'Think' - it must --Create-- ORGANIC-DEVICES (I.e. information.)

2) MNS must SUPER-DRASTICALLY reduce the number of breeding-generations required to reach some given new gene/ allele. (While GD might, theoretically, have a minor general impact, it CANNOT do the 'thinking' aspect.) Simply, entropY kills information over time: so Evolution MUST occur FASTER.

*) MNS is indeed DRIVEN by randomness (as opposed by an Intelligence.)



=- (3-1: Anti-Magic Chasm #1, Y-X, Coarseness)


For the sake of brevity (and to bypass a lot of Liberal/ Scientific rhetoric.):

*) Let's call the Great Ocean of the Randomness of the Universe, entropY.

*) Let AEvolution be the loss of Stupid-Evolution products (i.e. genes/ alleles.)


Mutation versus Damage. EntropY causes genetic DAMAGE as time ticks by. Scientists re-define this damage as 'mutation'. Mutation made the X-Men, you know, and gave some people super-powers. I saw it on TV, so it must be true.


Why not call the apple, 'apple'? Well, that is problematic, because if you call the apple, 'apple,' then the very first question a Stupid would ask is this:

''Isn't this like a Perpetual Motion Machine of some kind?''

Why yes, you idiot, it is. (EVERY molecular machine (specie) in the bio-sphere!)


X: Hand one: EntropY is busy, d-i-r-e-c-t-l-y, ANNIHILATING genetic information; in a multi-dimensional fashion ('random' implies: multiple (all) angles of attack.)

Y: Hand other: EntropY is the --SOLE-- PRIME-DRIVER of the unknown (hypothetical) processes that are to --IN--d-i-r-e-c-t-l-y INCREASE genetic info.

(Let: Delta = Y - X; for some time-period.)

Evolution itself is then a net-effect of this hypothetical conflict: IF Y exceeds X THEN the result is Evolution, ELSE the result is AEvolution. (Y=X would be silly.)

A Stupid would look at this situation, and suddenly feel like it is really, really unlikely that this bird is going to fly: positive Delta is NOT some kind of 'obvious', or 'inevitable' outcome, now is it? (The Scientists come from the other direction: Evolution is ''obviously true'', so of course none of this ''idle speculation'' matters.)


The EXISTENCE of Evolution is predicated on this single, great reality: The Great PRIME Xnife-Ydge.

At this point I would like to ask you, oh Stupid reader: have the Really Honest and, like, Objective, Scientists ever explained this to you in school? Why. Not. ?.

Q: Care to speculate? (A: If a pathway towards personal, factual, reasoning is not known/ available/ feasible, then the alternative is ''belief''-via-AUTHORITY/ ''best-guess.'' So why is it important that YOU ''believe'' in Evolution? Because The Theory of Evolution, along with the New Sciences of Psychology & Sociology, are the primary foundation stones for atheism, liberalism, communism, socialism, etc. The Western-world political-system is BUILT on this ''Secular Humanism.'' The elites NEED to be free of the KJV Bible: ''Evolution'' the pathway to the goal.)


Oh. But there is more. The Great Xnife-Ydge #2: Pekinese were bred from wolves. In the process, the overwhelming majority of the wolf-alleles were lost to the Pekinese. Wolves can become Pekinese, but Pekinese CANNOT become wolves. (This was done via Unnatural (Human) Selection.)

Given the random nature of the world, it is a given that similar events happen all the time, via the Mechanism of Natural Selection (MNS). So. Whole, entire, alleles are being lost. Entire species! FOREVER AND EVER. Constantly. But not one single new gene/ alleles has been recorded as coming into existence. EVER.

But there is still more! The Great Xnife-Ydge (#3)... the silence of the requisite Evolutionary-Activity (i.e. functional attempts at new-gene generation) on the molecular-level is... deafening. And don't forget the required SUB-activities (i.e. partial attempts at getting one single functional new-gene: can likely only be determined in retrospect) required for even one instance of Activity... there is so much NOTHING happening, that it is almost fascinating to watch!


*) Related to the Great Xnife-Ydge (#1 & #2) is the issue of Genetic Rot.

As time goes by, entropY damages genes. These genes/ alleles have to either be Replaced(1), or Repaired(2)... (by the Magical Evolution Fairies, of course.) Or otherwise just Discarded(3) via MNS/ GD/ Etc... (yet another net loss.)

What is to drive Evolution is RANDOMNESS: that means that, via the general rules describing randomness, some of those bad genes will be Sticking(4) around. As time goes by, they are likely to aggregate to a certain level; a certain percentage of bad genes will always be around.

So what is Genetic Rot? It is when Evolution makes a 'healthy' gene adapt to the presence of a bad gene: resulting in a rotten gene. Which makes the bad genes less bad: i.e. (bad + rotten) is better than (bad + healthy).

This makes the bad gene less likely to be removed via MNS -- which is really, really bad! Also, the rotten genes will themselves tend to be adapted to: more rotten genes being the result. ('bad', 'rotten', 'healthy', are considered in terms of level-of-FUNCTION in the molecular machine, i.e. living thing.) The Mechanism(s) of Evolution is trapped in a limited kind (the complexities of machine function should allow only so much deviation) of downwards spiral.

To overcome this Nightmare Scenario, a random-acting process to address a SPECIFIC problem is needed (i.e. must find-&-do-something-to one bad-gene amongst many good-genes.) It is rationally (to counter damage accumulation) REQUIRED that such a random-acting process have a VERY high rate of activity... and as already noted, such activity is noticeable by its extremes of absence. But, of course, It gets even worse:


*) The Brush-Width of the Mechanism of Natural Selection. CAN Natural Selection 'obviously' and 'inevitably' detect-and-select for even the SMALLEST gene-advantages/ disadvantages? Is there no LIMIT on this process? Can MNS, in the non-imaginary real-world, 'discriminate' between similar alleles (i.e. genes of the same function-type)? There are tens of thousands of genes involved in the functioning of a living creature: the advantage/ disadvantage due to variation in a SINGLE new gene WILL be lost in the sea of practical variability, UNLESS its magnitude-of-advantage/ disadvantage is sufficiently high. (All those other alleles in a given creature, all existing in a highly variable-over-time environment...)

Why does this matter? Because MNS is supposed to be the 'Mega-Brains' of the Mystery Evolutionary Machine: MNS CANNOT ''select'' between differences, if it CANNOT --detect-- differences. And without MNS the number-of-breeding-generations-Problem, to achieve some given end-effect, becomes... too visible... recall those Great Xnife-Ydges, ticking away as they corrode all life into dust?

=- (3-2: Anti-Magic Chasm #2, ''There is no spoon''; Infinite Flexibility Myth 1)


Complexity is the planetoid-sized Death Star reflecting off the cataracts of the Scientists. The preceding Chasm was concerned with a few practicalities relating to real-world complexity, which Scientists simply... ignore. This Chasm is concerned with a similar, but more wishy-washy, Wish-It-Away scam.


One of the primary Techniques used by the Scientists is this: There is a possibility that A is true. IF given A, there is a possibility that B is true. IF given B, there is a possibility that C is true. IF given C, there is a possibility that D is true. THEREFORE proposing D is a valid Scientific Argument. Um?! (This could be described as 'correlation-'logic'', since that is what is used to connect-the-dots.)

Trying to bring clarity to this sort of Toddler-like 'Argument' is HIGHLY frustrating, since the counter-statements boil down to showing, CLEARLY TO THE BABY, that A, B, C and D are each UNLIKELY. And that the linkages are invalid/ unlikely. Boring! (In classical science these correlation-driven 'possibilities' would not have been accepted at any stage: proof would have been REQUIRED for each link in the chain. This is yet another ridiculous aspect of the new Science.)

Many of the Chasms discussed could be linked (via Scientific correlation-'logics'.) Each is linked to yet more 'possibilities'. Scientists use this systemic-confusion to confound Single-Topic 'debates': a big-essay response is the only tool feasible.

(If you are an adult, hopefully what has been written will make sense to you.)


Let's start with a kitten. It is an incredibly complex, functioning, molecular machine. The Scientists would have it be that one can simply wade into the DNA of a kitten, make lots of changes, and the machine just keeps on ticking: rat-machines and bird-machines beware. (Why, it is JUST like Wishing-on-a-Star!)

IF it is NOT true that s-p-e-c-i-f-i-c Gene-VARIANTS -DO- -NOT- -MATTER-, then Evolution, literally, CANNOT occur. Magical flexibility... Let me explain.

*) Let us take a mythological gene that works with some sugar inside the kitten. There are only so many POSSIBLE constructions/ designs/ Options for sugar-genes of this function-type available to choose from. THIS IS A FACT.

*) For the sake of argument, let's say that 25 different major options of this sugar-gene are known to exist in nature. Each of them can have very minor variations, resulting in 5 alleles each. An additional 75 major options have been 'designed' in the laboratory-computers that cover the full range theoretically possible for the sugar-gene-options. THIS IS THE REALITY, OF, UM, REALITY.

*) So what Evolution is supposed to do, is mess around, and periodically Hop from one sugar-gene-option to another sugar-gene-option. (Like exchanging a shovel for a pick-axe or a hammer.) Of course, part of the Hop-process is that eventually all 5 alleles, for the given option, have to be Evolved into being.

*) A given gene/ allele exists as PART of a highly complex molecular machine. Change/ damage a single gene/ allele just a tiny bit too much, and it can easily have drastically negative effects on the overall function of the machine.

Q1) Can one just stick in any old sugar-gene-option into the kitten? Well no, it will die. Rather horribly. (Hopefully its death would be quick... not that Liberals care.)

Q2) A question to ask would be: out of the 100 sugar-options, how many CAN be plugged into a kitten? And function properly for its ENTIRE LIFESPAN. But the other question is this: which sugar-gene-options can be plugged in, AND require the least number of changes from the presently used sugar-gene alleles. (Keep in mind that a given sugar-gene option actually consists of ALL its 5 alleles.)

Q3) Alleles have great practical utility: MNS is powerful. Hopping to a new sugar-gene will have the effect, at least after a few Hops, of rendering older alleles worthless: SYSTEM WIDE. So just how much value does ''Evolution'' get out of this whole process? Not only does the Idea of Evolution require that EVERY molecular-machine allele-variant must be able to handle several options of the sugar-gene, it must also be able to handle all the alleles associated with each.

Oh, and this must be true of EVERY gene-type! ALL AT ONCE!!


!WTF!) IS THIS EVEN POSSIBLE? (''Complexity, where?! There is no such thing as complexity, you Stupid peasant!! Just BELIEVE in the Science!!!'')


There is (of course) a way to examine this idea, in practice, in the real world. Check if the 'alleles' for a given gene-type contain members of the other gene-options. Presto. Such occurrences must be MASSIVELY common (see logic of STP later), or else the Hypothesis of Evolution is directly counter-indicated. Yet from what I've read (if understood correctly) is this NOT the case, AT ALL. Oops.


Ask yourself: Is it really POSSIBLE to 'evolve' a cat into a dog? SAYS WHO?

*) First, remember that Evolution is supposed to be driven by RANDOMNESS.

*) Second, recall that the Idea of Evolution requires that this conversion be done (somewhat) step-by-step; AND that each successive step be functional-&-competitive in the real world (i.e. each iteration has to survive-&-flourish - AND IN GENERAL BE BETTER THAN THE PRECEDING STEP.)

*) Given the above, and noting the whole sugar-gene-option spiel, just how many PATHWAYS exist from kitten to puppy? Sure, you could start anywhere, BUT there are points were in order to progress, it would become necessary to make certain very SPECIFIC changes to other genes: and achieving that with 'randomness' will require -massively- MORE breeding-generations... which is the One Great Thingy that the Scientists simply cannot allow: so they just... ignore it.


Scientists like to pretend that the questions asked above, and problems posed, do not exist. They like to pretend that Evolution has ''infinite'' gene-possibilities to work with. They like to pretend that ANY specie can handle ANY kind of gene-activity. (What about PROOF of those Magnificent Assumptions? Surely things so REAL, cannot be THAT invisible? Or are the Stupids silly to ask for PROOF?)

The Scientists NEED to ignore ALL the negative-indications, because the alternative is the following nightmare ''possibility'': WHAT IF 'EVOLUTION' SIMPLY CANNOT OCCUR, AS A LOGICAL/ PHYSICAL FACT.


Has anyone, perhaps, bothered to CHECK? Oh, sorry, I forgot: Evolution IS true, there it IS possible. How very silly & un-scientific of me.

=- (3-3: Anti-Magic Chasm #3, ''Play Them Dice Again''; Infinite Flexibility Myth 2)


Not one single new (NON-TRIVIAL) allele has ever been documented as coming into existence. The Scientists say that the time-scale is too small (in terms of breeding-generations) for that. Really? Even with rapidly breeding bacteria in a laboratory where the mutation rates can be increased (via radiation or chemicals), where the environment is perfectly controllable to any MNS-setup imaginable? Really? You mean that HAS NOT BEEN DONE?! Wow. How weird!


Let us consider the coming into being of new genes/ alleles.


*) Passive Gene-Evolution (PGE): This is where (as a hypothetical example) certain genes (perhaps erroneously double-copied; or whatever) are 'switched off'; and then undergo random mutations (without MNS penalty). Later such a gene could be turned 'back on', and if the Randomness of the Universe happened to create a new working gene/ allele, hooray! (This process should be -somewhat- invisible in the here and now - genes need to be tracked over all generations. This process is also, very, not compatible with MNS... oopsie!)

*) Active Gene-Evolution (AGE): This is where a brand new gene/ allele has stepped into function (via PGE?), and now faces a host of practical hurdles.

(This process should be directly visible, via intermediate activity.)

-) For all that follows, keep in mind that Evolution MUST be probability busting; i.e. the number of breeding-generations MUST be limited (heck! insanely reduced!). If the probability-busting-aspect fails, so does Evolution, DIRECTLY.

-) While some issues could be addressed at the same time, more factors should still take (much!) longer to address than fewer factors (set-intersections will lessen the valid probability spaces - and this IGNORES interaction problems!)

-) Do note that there are no such thing as Evolution Fairies: they are not available to magically nullify the basic logics of the real-world. Kindly keep that in mind.


Some basic AGE rate-hurdles that should, logically, exist.

*) From logic. -Pre-Function-: For every fully functional new gene/ allele, it is GALACTICALLY-CERTAIN that a very great many nearly-functional or badly-functional 'work-in-progress' genes would occur. (Which stands counter to MNS's requirement of step-improvements... but never fear: Evolution will find a way!)

*) From logic. -System-Integration-: Given a new gene/ allele, every other gene that is impacted by the new gene is likely to have to 'adapt' to it (via the Mechanism(s) of Evolution.) The living molecular machines of Earth are quite flexible (based on alleles, of all things, after all. Incidentally, 'alleles' ratchet up general/ overall complexity MASSIVELY... weird!) For everything involved to logically/ functionally WORK with everything else, this type of activity must occur.

Oh. And this process would iterate: changes would beget more changes, etc. etc.

*) From observation of the real world. -Function-Optimization- (maybe also Enhancement?): As seen in all the living molecular machines in the world around us, genes/ alleles not only work well, they work very well: once a gene/ allele is working, Evolution must then expend more breeding-cycles on this aspect.


Another cute little thingy to keep in mind is this:

*) From logic. -Rfeedback-: First note that MNS cannot ''demand'' some specific new gene/ allele: it can only discriminate/ select between genes/ alleles that are already available. It can however create powerful pressures: an example would be ''become taller or die out''. Under such a condition, ANYTHING that helps 'tallness' will be heavy favoured (including selection between new genes/ alleles). Let's call this Rfeedback: feedback that is Dependant on the Random-nature of Randomness to generate a REQUIRED response.

Should some specie 'evolve' such that another specie is strongly impacted, the 2nd specie could then experience such a 'Pressure-of-Doom!' NO NUMBER OF BREEDING-CYCLES CAN ADDRESS THIS! Either a solution --happens-- to present itself, at which time it can be exploited, Or Else the specie ceases to exist: taking with it ALL the information it possesses, all it has ever 'achieved.'

This REALITY is at play every single time something is 'demanded' from the Mechanism(s) of 'Evolution.'

As a practical matter, Rfeedback is one of the most powerful counter-arguments against Evolution, since it would logically come into play often, and since there is ZERO conceivable counter to it except one: Massive Intelligence...

(In addition to all this, Rfeedback has ENORMOUS practical import when considering the repair of genetic damage via Evolution... In general, every single 'mutation', be it 'beneficial' or be it damage, has the potential to trigger an Rfeedback scenario: anywhere in the living molecular machine. And the more complex the machine, the more likely it becomes.)


A lot more could be said about all the various kinds of expected molecular-level activity: but since ZERO activity is being observed (a few trivial, very-RANDOM, i.e. very-very not-Complex, gene-damages per generation), it would have little meaning save as an academic exercise. And the Sciences of Evolution provide far more than enough of that kind of 'exercise' already.

=- (3-4: Anti-Magic Chasm #4, ''Resistance Is Futile''; Infinite Flexibility Myth 3)



DNA, in general over all the species, is known to be highly resistant to damage, a.k.a. mutation/ change. (For every cell, there are all sorts of cute mechanisms that seek to maintain the integrity of the raw-DNA.)

In theory, the Prime Purpose of resistance mechanisms is to keep the physical, living, molecular machine protected against entropY (i.e. keep it STATIC; as per the original master-DNA from when mommy-met-daddy): on a cell-by-cell basis. DNA is found inside each cell, and it is constantly read-from (it is a collection of device & sub-device blueprints, after all), as the cell goes about its business: if it goes iffy, the result tends to be cancer, which converts the living into the dead.

Given how amazingly powerful Evolution is (and given that it certainly exists, after all) it is rather strange that it is not allowed to enhance the molecular machine in general, cell-by-cell, over time ('reproduction' requirement: the cells divide)... but enough with the nonsense.


As a start one could say since entropY is directly opposed by such resistance mechanisms: both its destruction aspect, as well as its Magical Evolution Aspect, are both -equally- 'inconvenienced'.

Two things. This would ONLY be true if the resistance mechanisms were PERFECT: which they are not, in case you were wondering.

And secondly, 'Evolution'-type damage/ mutation is ONLY applicable to the reproductive cells: at any other location there CANNOT be Evolutionary 'mutation', only damage.


The Evolutionists gloss this over, but there is really no reason why these resistance mechanisms should also be in effect with the reproductive cells. In terms of Magical Evolution, it makes very little sense.



*) NEUTRAL: Note that damage piles up at a somewhat steady rate: and Evolution must address EVERY SINGLE instance of damage. (The alternative would be damage-accumulation, and that would serve as an explicit proof that Evolution does not exist. It is important to take note of this, because damage accumulation IS practically observable. Evolution is directly counter-indicated, as a matter of observable fact. But, again, enough with the nonsense.)

Whether fixing x-number of damages per period, or 10x-damages per 10x-periods, ultimately it is all the same: well, in a perfect world. In a non-perfect world, entropY WILL be advantaged since the resistance mechanisms will be imperfect.

On an isolated-specie basis, Evolution does not benefit by such a slowdown. Nor should it suffer too much by such a slowdown (depending in the level of perfection of the mechanisms.) And, again, it is strange that resistance mechanism are required in general for the creature to not die rapidly from cancer: Evolution, after all, is super-duper-probability-busting... weird!

*) NEGATIVE: Let specie A have fewer Evolution-slowing mechanisms (for the reproductive cells) than specie B. A can therefore evolve faster than B, and therefore B ceases to exist. Period.

The simple question to ask is this: is this Real Problem observable in nature: i.e. given all the massively complex systems that Evolution is supposed to have 'created' (all those various machines in endless competition with each other) is this, perhaps, not the most basic type-of-system that would RECOGNIZE the reality of Evolution (and control its very rate) implemented everywhere by all the denizens of the bio-sphere? Why, it is almost as if all life is designed to JUST oppose entropY... which the resistance mechanisms 'recognize' easily... weird!

A companion concept to this would be Evolution ACTIVELY Controlling life-span: shorter lifespan (hence lower reproductive age, hence more generations per unit of time) means more rapid Evolution, which means that the longer-lived animals WILL be destroyed. (There is no proper argument against this either. More later.)

Simple, really: the quicker-to-evolve will destroy the slower-to-evolve. Given Evolution, given resource competition (in the end-degree), that is an absolute.

*) NEGATIVE: The resistance mechanisms are NOT perfect: i.e. some Types of Damage will be advantaged over others.

Such imperfections, by themselves, could theoretically make Evolution impracticable: it could easily alter, by a whole-integer factor, how fast Evolution would occur - if at all. (It is like starting an artwork using a hammer and a chisel... and then suddenly having to work with only a hammer: which represents a huge increase in complexity-to-get-a-desired-result, when-faced-with-competition, by the way. These two situations are NOT the same, yet somehow, mystically, ''Evolution Will Find A Way...''; the religious droning really does get annoying.)

And do recall that entropY is out there, ever-murdering information...

The point to take note of is that the exact operation of Evolution is completely undefined: so there is no way to determine how such imperfections would affect Evolution. This specific lack-of-exactness (which is so very much NOT classical science) is a general convenience the Evolutionists need like a fish needs water.

*) NEGATIVE: These resistance mechanisms did not just pop into existence from nowhere. Evolution had/ has to CREATE, ADAPT/ EVOLVE and MAINTAIN such DNA-protective mechanisms DIRECTLY, all by ITSELF...

Now, why would long-lived animals have such mechanisms, in their breeding cells at least? Why would Evolution spend so much time making something that would DIRECTLY disadvantage them? Mmmm?


A little reminder: Damage is a PRIMARY-level event. Recall that damage is both the basic driver of Evolution, and also the Great Destroyer of it works.

Evolution (if it even exists) is, certainly, at the --BEST-- a TERTIARY-level event. (Secondary would be the MNS-Brain (somehow!) controlling the grouping/ aggregation of multiple damage-events. Tertiary (!peep!) would then be having the grouped damages (magically) turn into REAL-WORLD -FUNCTIONING- build instructions: which is what DNA is, build instructions.)

In the non-perfect real-world, such a situation will never work: destruction is the primary-level event, and will certainly dominate any derivative-level event.

(!peep!): Kindly note that the 'how' of damage is properly understood here, while the 'how' of Evolution is utterly unexplained/ undefined... so there is really no way of determining just how many levels below 'Tertiary' it really lies... how very, very convenient.


Um. Where are all the signs of Evolutionary molecular activity in regards to repair operations? (i.e. detectable via its Tertiary-level active ordering of damages)? Why, it is almost as if such repair does not exist - at all... how weird!

But that would rationally imply that damage aggregation occurs, which would directly and explicitly serve to disprove Evolution... darn it!, yet more nonsense!


*) GENETIC 'RUST': Consider a hypothetical gene/ allele a.k.a. molecular device: it has a physical-function of some kind, with a perfect-half-circle with little leeway as a middle, a Left-End with no leeway, and a Right-End with much leeway. Randomized-damage impacting on the R-E 'WILL' cause it to become very chaotic: damage will aggregate until the R-E starts to lose more and more leeway, until eventually it will be a chaotic jumble, with no more leeway. The L-E will remain unchanged. The half-circle will chaotically gain imperfections, and cease to be a perfect half-circle; until it too has no more leeway.

What is described here is inevitable. Much like rusting iron flakes & expands, filling in all the available gaps with garbage, the very leeway which is an absolutely prerequisite for Evolution will certainly end up LOCKING-IN the current gene/ allele functionalities, while at the same time losing the ability to absorb even a minimal level of damage-events.

(Note that the above example was for a purely 'physically-considered' gene/ allele, but the same realities will hold true for any 'function-considered' gene/ allele as well (leeway will be more variable, both over time and location.))

The problem with Genetic Rust is that Evolution has to, somehow, fix every single occurrence of it: or otherwise Evolution does not exist.


Aren't you glad & grateful that all these well known aspects of Evolution are taught in all schools, all over: the Honorable Scientists want everyone to UNDERSTAND just how obviously-true Evolution is...! And since they are Objective, they gladly show both the case for and against! This is SO much better than Intelligent those Intelligent Design bastards, who are all, like, one-sided and stuff. YAY for Science!

=- (3-5: Anti-Magic Chasm #5, DNA-ToL, STP)


This is the perhaps the most interesting of the Chasms. It is also the hardest to discuss: the Scientists use it with great effect to Show how true Evolution ''looks.''

It is, unfortunately, hard to argue against something without a pretty alternative to present in its stead. But this is the state of it: the Unknown is simply 'unknown'.


Note 1: The Scientists like to pretend there is a difference between ''Evolution'' and ''Common Descent.'' Both demand ancestor/ descendent links. Both demand genetic change (vague.) Both demand natural random processes to drive them.

As far as I am concerned, they are the selfsame thing. Period.

Note 2: Incompetent scientists are subjective: such do not look at (causation) what IS, but rather see (correlation) what they want to see, i.e. what MIGHT BE.

Note 3: Patterns are patterns - once identified their use is NOT dependent on an explanation for their coming into being. OBVIOUSLY. The Theory of Evolution has contributed NOTHING to the practical sciences: that should be obvious.


This tale is told from the viewpoint of the Evolutionists: it would be more effective to start with the objective viewpoint, but this particular deception deserves to be faced head on. Re-read it afterwards by referring to the various comments.

*) Evolution demands that DNA changed over time. THEREFORE any changes in (X1) DNA are due to 'Evolution', and are to be explained by it. Specifically, there is the so-called Gene Clock.

*) The GClock states that as the aeons (i.e. time) tick by, a given Functional-gene ''Changes'' at a constant rate (some number-N over M-millennia.) (X2)

So. Where Two genes have a common-ancestor-gene, the number of differences between them represents the time between them in a fairly direct manner: so half the number of changes represents the time to the common ancestor. Voila!

(Explaining-away the mixing of GClock-type (ignores-function) changes and normal Evolution (function-dependant) is tricky: it requires the relevant Stupid to be unaware of the Hypothesis Killing 'damage-accumulation' problem.)

**) (X3) In a burst of mindless genius, the Scientists realized they could use this 'truth' to build a great Tree of Life, the ultimate show-piece to maximize the 'obviousness' of Evolution.

So. How to achieve this most noble of all conceivable goals?

*) Statistical procedures that work with these-kinds of differences, require a high degree of basic similarity: that is just the way the mathematics crumble. So. Take some gene-TYPE, one that makes a specific sugar for example, and look for all other occurrences/ OPTIONS of it in other species. Then count the number of differences between that gene-type in a given specie and all the others; rinse and repeat. And the mathematics builds a section of the DNA-based Tree of Life. (X4)

*) The ''FC-over-M'' (see X2) number depends on the specific type of gene: some genes can be used to map larger areas of the Tree than others. Predictably, in perfect harmony with the Science of the GClock, the average of pretty much ANY five gene-types (selected from the available pool of FUNCTIONAL genes at random) would deliver the same Tree for that local area of it.

*) That last point is INCREDIBLE! This is the clearest PROOF of Evolution anyone could imagine! A Grand Pattern, with Evolution as the ''Sole Possible Explanation'' in the very fabric of all living things, revealed by the Higher Science of Evolution: the Single Tree Phenomenon/ Pattern (STP.) Hallelujah!


(X1) ''changes in'' are actually ''differences between''. The one ASSUMES Evolutionary DESCENT, the other objectively works with the raw data.


(X2) There is a RADICAL difference between a gene/ allele picking up random damages of N over M, AND picking up FUNCTIONAL Changes over Millennia (FC-over-M). Functional Changes REQUIRE the workings of Evolution, which are RANDOM in turn (involving Rfeedback among other things.) Also a very great many factors (interaction with other genes, closeness of viable gene-options, etc. etc.) would determine the (comparatively fractional) rate of FC-over-M. In terms of statistics, the FC-over-M distribution would not only have a massive variance: it might even be white... EITHER case massively counter-indicates the STP.


(X3) The order of progression here is highly dubious/ suspicious.

-) There is a rule in statistics that you must NEVER, EVER, look at the end-result/ outcome when compiling your problem-statement/ mathematics: you end up with a SELECTED outcome.

-) Since new Science is based on correlations, something highly surprising is not only possible, but occurs frequently: Given that an actual correlation is not specific, it is therefore not ''attached'' to a specific hypothesis/ theory! This means that as the need arises, the 'theory' can 'evolve' using the same ''outcome''! WTF! This is another reason why the falsifiability criterion exists: to disallow this kind of 'reverse-engineering'-always-correct ''Science.''

In old school science the driving idea was increasing understanding the universe.

In the new Science, the driving idea is dreaming up ideologically-compatible explain-aways as to why one thing correlates with another.


(X4) At this point note the distinction between a raw Difference Tree, and a Time-Difference Tree: DT vs TDT. (Data vs (Data + Assumptions).)

--) Note that the Tree SHAPE is SPECIFICALLY generated by the Algorithm!

-) The links placed between the nodes serve to indicate the ancestor/ descendant relationships. I.e. Evolution is directly ASSUMED. (Who needs proof anyway.)

-) The Markovian Nested-Hierarchy is a 'prediction' made by Evolution. 'Markovian' indicates a one-directionality (i.e. downstream and upstream), while the 'Nested-Hierarchy' indicates a branching, TREE-SHAPED, pattern... get it?

There is no real reason why Evolution would disallow backwards-breeding, (who cares about the practicalities of mixing-up gene-options anyway) but since the Grand Pattern does not 'show' this happening... get X3 a bit better now?



Q: What -IS- a gene?

A: A gene -IS- its function. What -IS- a water pump? It -IS- a thing that pumps water. So. What is the CRUX problem with the GClock? Well. Two given functional genes are different from each other... which means that they have different functions. SO there are base-pair differences between them. SO WHAT!

This has the effect of breaking the rationality of the GClock: as does taking the conceptual-jump the GClock makes from 'differences' to 'changes' (+1, +1).


So. What the DNA-'ToL' of the Scientists really IS, is:

*) a DNA-Difference-Data-derived,

*) Tree-Shape--FORCED (via 'minimized' difference-'distance'-links (which AGAIN assumes Evolution)),



So. The GClock 'Theory' serves as a stand-in ''fix'' for the STP problem: (when the MNS failed, simply invent a 'special-'explanation'' sub-''Theory''! Yay!)

*) The ''practical'' (ha ha!) Evolution of the GClock is considered as an advanced aspect of Genetic Drift (EGD)... IF granted the Fairy Magic REQUIREMENT that past gene/ allele selections somehow become (via unspecified means) INVALID for future use: which breaks its rationality yet again (+1).

Put another way: the ''practical'' GClock has endless ''different-than-before''-steps as EXPLICITLY -REQUIRED- Output... i.e. yet another magically invisible mechanism(s) required for the Greatest Obviously True Scientific Fact on Earth.

*) For ''theoretical'' Evolution to be probability-busting, Evolution must be ''INTELLIGENT'', i.e. it must 'look' for the QUICKEST & best way of achieving the ultimate goal of 'enhancement of a specie via changes (to DNA)'... it must HUNT the probability-spaces for available gene-options... (WHICH MEANS that going BACKWARDS is a VERY valid proposition! As time passes ever onwards, gene-function should, just maybe?, 'drift' randomly (or a bit non-randomly?) among the nearest gene-options; hey, why not? Oh, right: Fairy Magic.)

Fact: the Grand Pattern of STP is massively indicative of Un-Quickness.

-) MNS is expected to generate very random patterns in gene-FUNCTION-differences. Also visible should be ''bridging''-genes when new species are split-off (via specific alleles.) STP shows NONE of this.

-) Understand: the STP does NOT support the Evolution Algorithm: it ACTIVELY counter-indicates it... which the Scientists bypass (read: ignore) with the ''IF given A, there is a possibility that B...'' trickery of an unspecified GD-variant.


But. The existence of the Grand Pattern really is AMAZING!

A Plus for the new Science of the GClock is that it provides a (very bad) explanation for the Grand Pattern... which is not really a plus.

A Plus for the old science: it makes no assumptions; it just states what exists.

A Minus for the new Science is that it ignores all counter-indications.

A Minus for the old science is that it cannot provide an explanation... (Chasm 9?)


There are exactly three explanations for the Grand Pattern: The Irrational GClock; That most classical of all indicators of Intelligence At Work -- a design-pattern; Or ''necessity'' as per Chasm 9 (and where is the molecular ACTIVITY?)

=- (3-6: Anti-Magic Chasm #6, Bad Fossils 1)


Ah, fossils. That great reservoir or Evolutionary Truth via Crystal Clear Evidence.


The Fossil-Tree (FT) is constructed in a manner practically equivalent to that of the DNA-ToL. The strange methodology the Scientists followed in the STP section is eerily similar to their treatment of fossils. There they also ASSUME ancestor-descendant links between different-looking fossils. There also, they ignore the implications of the concept of FUNCTION, and instead look solely at ''changes'' (X1 in Chasm #STP).

However, unlike with the DNA-ToL, the error of ignoring proper conceptualization has SEVERE repercussions in the case of the FT: I think the word is ''scandal.''


It is a fact that the Fossil-Tree (FT) consists of periods of stasis, and sudden splitting-events. (Unless the Scientists are motivated to dream up new ''Science'' to explain-away problems with their correlations.) There is no exception to this.


Questions: How are the FT-nodes ordered; How are the FT-links determined.

*) Nodes: Cladistics is an organization-method. It creates super-groups (example all entries have teeth), with sub-groups (sharp teeth, blunt teeth, etc.) All the various fossils are taken, plugged into the cladistics sausage-machine, and out pops all the nodes on the FT.

(It is one of the Great Secrets of Evolution Science, but MNS can & DOES create cladistic changes... something to keep in mind when reading the scientific drivel.)

Again, 'function' is NOT 'changes': ''Repeat it enough, and they shall believe!''

*) Links between the nodes: Just ASSUME that Evolution is true (i.e. that there ARE descendent-ancestor links), then you just LINK all the nodes together. Pop!


The DNA-'ToL' IS built using differences in gene--FUNCTIONS--. The differences are detected via counting base-pair-differences between selected genes.

The FT is built using differences in -physical- FUNCTIONS (VERY strongly related to the molecular-machine-building--DNA-, of course.) The differences are detected via the methodology of cladistics applied to bones-in-rocks.

Occam says that what patterns you see in the present, you could also expect to find in the past. And so it is. The same overall generalities of the Grand Pattern are in both the DNA-ToL as well as the FT.


There are some nasty problems with the FT:

*) To make the FT correlate better with the modern-day DNA organization-methods (DNA-ToL), the FT was... edited... to better match the DNA-ToL.

*) The FT is hand-crafted. o_O. And there is a STRICT -RULE- that Evolution IS true. So. The various cladistics were carefully hand-selected, over the passing of -decades-, so as to ''correctly PLACE'' bits-of-fossil in the Evolutionary-FT (EFT).

*) In the pre-Darwin days, basic ''human-eye correlation'' was used to create the various fossil-organizing trees that existed then. They were often not all that much different from the modern ones. Which makes sense, if you think about it.

-) One of the great 'achievements' attributed to the Idea of Evolution, is that it allowed the ORGANIZATION of fossils into the FT. (Which at this point is funny.)

-) All these points, EACH, add to the classical Circular Logic fallacy. (In terms of the Fossil-Tree itself; and also in terms of comparing the Two Trees.)


Another problem is this: we have no idea how much the Scientists involved in the FT have been cooking the data. Fossil-'Science' goes hand in hand with dating methods. The various Scientists involved in the pre-Isochron dating methods, it is now known as a -FACT-, LIED about the severe problems involved with them. (Which is why the isochron methods had to be introduced in the first place.)

Via Magic and Mystery, the isochron-methods' results somehow match, essentially exactly, their previous sets of lies. What a coincidence! Oh, and there are some severe problems with isochron dating as well... but THIS time, the Scientists will not be lying, no sir! You can trust them THIS time!


... and then there is that HUGE problem with the EFT.

**) The EFT was constructed with the idea of ever-evolving life, with new DNA being ''observed'' in the fossil-'record'. The same strange Great Pattern (ASSUMED to be the ''fingerprint'' of EVOLUTION) also seems to be present in fossils (multiple cladistic lines produce same Tree, and that Tree has some resemblance to the DNA-ToL - even though only a tiny part of the ToL covers those species that could be fossilized.)

*) Assumption Zero: fossils are a record of Evolution happening. Er, No. Fossils ARE a record of stone-dead examples/ members of various species.

*) Assumption 1: Cladistics ''observe'' Evolutionary CHANGES. Er, No. What cladistics ARE based on, is Differences in Physical Function. THAT is what they detect. The practical detecting of differences, is NOT the same as the practical detection of the CAUSE/ MECHANISM of the differences. (Typically, the Scientists refuse to acknowledge this distinction, which is patiently insane.)

*) Assumption 2: Splitting events are driven by Evolution. Er, Highly unlikely. MNS (via ALLELES), i.e. wolf-2-Pekinese, is almost certainly the driver here.

--) It is a FACT that CLADISTICS cannot be used to detect Evolutionary activity. Sure, you might take a long overview of the FOSSILS, and say that somewhere along the way Evolution MIGHT have taken place. But cladistics can ONLY be expected to detect major MNS-type events over time: IF EVOLUTION IS GIVEN.

So. The FT CANNOT be an EFT: i.e. the FT CANNOT show Evolution.

The FT IS a MNS-T... at best: a record of essentially random MNS events: occurring in an essentially random environments (climate, plants, other animals), at random places, at random times, in random ways using what alleles are available... (Hey, who paid for all this? How much individual-TIME has this cost?)


The crux problem with the FT is now this: fossils are found in sediment-rock, which cannot be dated. So nearby lava-rocks are dated: using many magical assumptions... In PRACTICE, the fossils are used to date the sedimentary rocks; a practice that exists because the FT has been incorrectly conceptualized. This-all has a VERY high impact: it is a systematically applied, endemic, super-error.

=- (3-7: Anti-Magic Chasm #7, Bad Fossils 2)


Correlations, when stacked one on top of the other, and then interlocked with yet more correlations, have a powerful 'visual' impact. (There is perhaps no better example of this than the 'science' of Evolution.) That impact is however purely imaginary: Dreams of flights of winged fluffy bunnies are but dreams.

Such correlation-'arguments' are, essentially, not based on reason, and therefore cannot be reasoned against. (Which is why this essay was written as it was.)


Assuming Evolution: The fossil-record shows that some specie (node) remains locked, unchanged, in Stasis. Then 'poof!', and the specie Splits into a few more species; the original usually rapturing off to Darwin-topia during the process.


Of course, there are some really serious problems with this:

a1) Should, as per Evolution, new genes/ alleles arise, the randomness-of-the-universe WILL manifest those new genes/ alleles (be it via NS or GD.) Genes/ alleles CANNOT come into existence and not, somehow, exist! Genes/ alleles exist to be USED (i.e. genes exist to exist; or: genes exist.)

This is the classical objection to Evolution, which predicts ever changing, incrementally different nodes, over time. Certainly NOT Stasis; AND certainly NOT sudden Splitting events. The Scientists have no proper explanation for this, so they simply cite 'all the other overwhelming evidence', proclaim that Evolution is 'true', insult the Stupids for being Science-blind religious maniacs for a while, and then go on about their day. (It is actually all quite funny: like a big circus! :-)

The new Scientists claim that the Stasis-Splits are a perfectly acceptable example of an 'Unknown'. But that is Not Correct: what it IS, is a massive counter-indication against the Theory of Evolution.

a2) But it gets worse. Consider the practical effect of the presence of alleles.

Question: Were there alleles way-back-then? If there WERE, then the Stasis-periods are ABSOLUTELY impossible. Consider how rapidly climate changes. Consider how rapidly MNS 'uses' alleles. Remember the Pekinese? See the problem? NOTHING is as fast, as responsive, as MNS running on alleles. Be it via lizards, or birds: NS 'creating' new species, RAPIDLY, has been FULLY DOCUMENTED in the modern world.

And to say that there were NOT alleles present, that they only came into being relatively recently... PROVE it. At some point, surely, one can ask for actual 'proof', in the place of yet another inane 'possibility'? (It is a very nasty habit that Scientists have: to equate 'Idea'/ 'Possibility' directly with 'Reality'.)

-) Oddly enough, even though I lean towards the old-earth idea, the 2nd allele-argument makes the fossil-record positively SCREAM Young-LIFE. Go figure!


What about 'transitional' fossils? First off, what Evolution is said-to-predict is an ENDLESS number of 'transitional' fossils: curves consisting of multitudes of nodes on the FT. Adding a bare few more nodes into the FT changes nothing.

Also: what is more likely to explain the odd transitional-fossil: the KNOWN phenomenon of birth-defects, the KNOWN phenomenon of ENS, or the perfectly invisible phenomenon of Evolution. Mmmm? Oh, of course! Silly of me, yet again!


Some related ideas that are tossed out by the Scientists:


Vestigial Organs: example the wings on an Ostrich. Some of the counters are:

*) Prove that MNS in not to blame. Cannot? Too bad.

*) Are the wings completely useless? For every practical situation it will ever find, AND has ever found, itself in? No? Then go fly a kite.


Atavisms: example whales with leg-bones.

*) MNS NOT to blame? (i.e. did some ancient ancestor not have use for them?)

*) Are they completely useless?

*) Lastly, so what. There are flipper-like things attached to those bones, yes? So, in the OPINION of a bunch of the Scientists, they have no 'real' use? The Scientists have reached a 'consensus' on that? And why should anyone care about ''CONSENSUS'' in SCIENCE?!?! Since when is -OPINION- 'scientific'?!?!

(Yet more correlation-based flim-flammery.)



*) It is an unfortunate reality that humans often have difficulty in distinguishing between 'correlation' and 'causation', between 'mind-picture' and reason.

*) It is a fact that the Scientists have spent very many decades in shaping the 'dialogue'/ 'landscape' of the Sciences to conform with their desires: any sensible adult taking a look at their activities, their work, their outputs, will see this clearly.

*) There certainly are many different patterns in nature: and the very nature of the new Science lends itself to free-flowing 'interpretations' of those patterns. THAT is the 'strength' of Evolution: a horde of non-reality-based maniacal radicals on a Mission from Darwin (namely to ''kill God', and rape all souls') are its Protectors.

*) Of course, it is indeed 'possible' that Evolution did occur. But there is no way to PROVE it, AND there are a LOT of very serious counter indications. While a bit late to do so, here follows a short quote on when a ''hypothesis'' has failed:

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Scientific_method/: ''Failure to see the predicted results from a well designed and implemented experiment is clear indication that the hypothesis is defective.''

(A 'Theory' is a 'Hypothesis' that has been PROVEN... so... Really! Where?!?!)

So at which point will it finally be acknowledged that the 'Theory' of Evolution is a failure? Silly question! Sorry!


Something to keep in mind. Ever encountered those probability calculations that are supposed to indicate how unlikely life is? You know, made by those Stupid religious maniacs? The Scientists heap so much contempt on such things, that it is painful to watch. But those SAME Scientists, the very people who SCREAM that the Science of Evolution is unassailable, REFUSE to work out the calculations themselves, EVEN ROUGHLY, and then defend them in public.

How. Very. Weird.

=- (3-8: Anti-Magic Chasm #8, IRC)


IrReducible Complexity is, like the falsifiability criterion, a favourite spit-target of the Scientists (i.e. coverage is general: specifics like Hopping are not discussed.)

Two types of counter-'argument' are presented by the Scientists:

*) firstly misstating what it is REALLY about; in one of very, very many ways;

*) and secondly with cute little ''thought experiments''...


So here is what IRC is about: Note that there are TWO main concepts involved:

*1.1.1): A molecular-MACHINE (i.e. some living thing) is made up of PARTS (i.e. a gene/ allele). A given machine-part could be sliced up into SUB-PARTS/ chunks/ sections -- BUT should ANY sub-part be removed/ altered (damaged), the machine-part stops working. (Generally 'a very bad thing' for molecular-machines.) (The finer the slice-&-splice, the easier it could be to get the requisite sub-parts, but the more improbable the re-assembling process becomes...)

I.e. IRC is, in essence, a sensitivity-to-damage argument.

*1.1.2): In practice, ANY gene/ allele that reacts VERY negatively to ANY minimal 'mutation' (i.e. damage), is most likely IRC (via the nature of complex devices.) (So there are lots of them: which is ASTOUNDING, especially if you consider the Mullerian counter-spiel a bit further on: i.e. doubly-lucky.)

*1.2): The (complex) machine-part has a 'primary function/ work', which is NOT related (in terms of functionality) to any of the sub-parts/ sections of sub-parts.

(I.e. the whole-part-Function is NOT duplicated by any of the sub-part-Functions.)

*1.3): The effect of all this is that in order to get to the desired Function for the PART, Evolution has to play at RANDOMLY assembling the tiny pieces into the required gene. And this is the CRUX of the IRC argument: 'randomness' implies that ever-more generations of time is required - which DIRECTLY counter-indicates the probability-busting Requirement of Evolution. (Recall that entropY is ceaselessly hammering away at the DNA of every living thing... all the time.)


The resulting IRC argument itself has three parts:

*2.1): IF it is GIVEN that the various sub-parts are present in the environment, & ready for assembly to take place (which is all bloody unlikely);

*2.2): THEN MNS cannot SELECT for the primary function of the machine-part; since any removal-or-alteration type-of-change FROM the present gene WILL require a non-functional predecessor. (Which is counter to Evolution.) So the sub-parts have to assemble via a PURE random process (however way the Scientists want), and then '!poof!', the functional part comes into being.

*2.3.1): There are thousands upon thousands (millions? billions? all the alleles, for all the species on earth...) of instances of this 'type' of machine-part: which then changes the type of 'problem' the Mechanism(s) of Evolution (MoE) has to overcome, to one it would have to solve without being able to use MNS. Oopsie.

*2.3.2) Sure, there are bound to be a few pathways-to-existence for SOME of the IRC genes... but for ALL of them?


Is this how the Honest Scientists portrayed IRC to you? Mmmm? Still think that it is a stupid lie told by evil religious people?


Note that Removal- or Alteration-type changes can be analysed for a KNOWN gene. For Insertion, which uses the unknown, this is not possible.

I.e. the trusty ''IF given A, there is a possibility that B...'' trickery is called upon.

So, next consider one of the 'obviously-true' little 'thought experiments' the Scientists have used so EFFECTIVELY to discredit the logic of IRC.


(TalkOrigins.Org): ''The Mullerian two-step:

With Behe's error now in hand, we immediately have the following embarrassingly facile solution to Behe's ''irreducible'' conundrum. Only two basic steps are needed to GRADUALLY evolve an irreducibly complex system from a FUNCTIONING precursor:

1 - ADD a part.

2 - Make it necessary.

It's that simple. After these two steps, removing the part will kill the function, yet the system was produced directly and GRADUALLY from a simpler, -FUNCTIONAL- precursor.''


They even thoughtfully provide us all an example of the application of the above:

Paraphrased: ''Imagine three cubic stones in a line - a bridge. Place a slab on top of them - STILL a bridge! Remove the middle stone. Voila, an IRC bridge!''


Very well, let us extend their trivial example to genes/ alleles.

1) Some gene/ allele evolves incrementally over the eons, as per the requirement of Evolution. Prime Function Exists CONTINUOUSLY. (This is the IRC-A gene.)

2) Another change is made to the gene: the INSERTION of a sub-part. (The definition of IRC specifically ONLY talks about REMOVAL/ ALTERATION.) As-Per-Evolution, the Prime Function STILL remains. (This is the IRC-B gene.)

3) Next some or other part (not the inserted one!) gets removed. The Prime Function STILL Remains. (This is the IRC gene.)

-) WOW! Their example destroys the IRC argument! Me am SO, like, AWED!


At this point I would like to remind you of the whole sugar-OPTION spiel. Then:

Their 'argument' may indeed be valid...:

*) IF the IRC-A gene is MASSIVELY LUCKY enough to be such that addition of another part is possible, AND TO STILL retain Prime Function! AND now be IRC.

*) IF the IRC-B gene is MASSIVELY LUCKY enough to be such that removal of some OTHER part is possible, AFTER THE LUCK OF THE PREVIOUS STEP, AND TO STILL retain Prime Function!! Far out, dude!!!


WTF?!: So instead of Evolution creating & using lots of non-IRC genes (even IRC-A are too limited), it hunts for these Lucky Genes. Might I ask why? Mmmm?

It may be obvious, but note that IRC-genes will not easily 'evolve' further; both Removal- and Alteration-types of damage will BREAK their function. So... why?

=- (3-9: Anti-Magic Chasm #9, The Dirt-Eating Goo & The Balanced Bio-Sphere)


Evolution is blind. Give any specie the ability to breed & displace/ destroy every other specie on the planet, except for its food, and it WOULD. Happily.

Then its food (the Dirt-Eating Goo) would ask Sociopathic Big Brother Evolution: ''Hey, WHY must I be edible?''

Rinse & Repeat.

This is an undeniable FACT. (And is yet another classical counter-argument.)

So. Given that Evolution WILL happen faster, the shorter the breeding-cycles are, where is the other non-magical alternative type of Goo: the Hungry Goo that Ate the World? Mmmm?

Again, this is a massively obvious TYPE of flaw in the 'obvious truth' of Evolution, and again, it just gets ignored: and there are MANY possible incarnations of it...

(Recall how even simple diseases can completely destroy native populations that are not used to it? Same thing, just more lethal. What about all the Magic, dude?)


So let us test it. In the real-world. Take a Rat. Pick a single enzyme, protein, whatever and change it in the lab so that the pRat becomes poisonous to its predator species. Let it take TWO base-pair changes in its predator species to adapt/ Evolve to this.

Set the pRats free.

And watch EVERY predator species die out. Why? Because the kind of molecular activity required to react to this type of situation has NEVER been observed. Not once. Not EVER.

THAT is how much Evolution SUCKS in practice: we KNOW what some of its limits ARE HERE AND NOW; we can PREDICT that it will fail.


Now, given how fast bacteria can spread, if for example a 4 base-pair change is required by EVERY animal (for example) to survive, THEY WILL ALL DIE.

So. Why has this not happened? Surely it SHOULD have happened? Surely it could happen tomorrow?


So you think that the Evolution 'debate' does not matter? Really? What will happen if the work of some happy Scientist, some nifty gene, is absorbed by some bacteria? Mmmm? The whole f@cking world will die, you spineless twit!

(You want evidence that there is a God? Well, you are still alive, despite YOU allowing some incredibly foolish people to bumble around, oblivious to reality.)



If the ecological 'niche' of a given specie is taken to mean its functioning in the climate, weather, plant-life, animal-life, insect life, bacteria & viruses, etc. etc. that comprises its environment, then it follows DIRECTLY that its DNA reflects this niche (at least as a lower bound: there might be more 'written', but all these MUST be addressed: or it would already be dead.)


The Bio-Sphere is all about PRACTICAL Balance. The question is a simple one: why would Evolution 'create' such a Balance? Mmmm? Why bother? Balanced complexity is not a nice place to be at: for the simple reason that maintaining That STABILITY becomes a nightmarishly difficult endeavour. Obviously. Yet the Scientists want everyone to ''just believe in Evolution!'' (Talk about irony.)


The REASON for existence of the Grand Pattern, the STP, WHATEVER its cause may ultimately be, is almost certainly chained to the BALANCE/ STABILITY of the Bio-Sphere. The Bio-Sphere would not be Balanced/ Stable without every specie ''fitting-in'' with every other specie. Such a system, left to run by itself, would REQUIRE that every specie be 'adapted' to ALL others: otherwise random contact would result in fatal instability. The STP would be the manifestation of this reality on the genetic level. In other words, the STP would be NECESSARY. (In fact, if it could be shown that STP exists between species that are near-certain to have had no contact with each other, Evolution would be counter-indicated: the ADDITIONAL cycle-burden for such 'sequentially-chained'/ INDIRECT specie-'fitting' would be completely insane.)

The general level of FEEDBACK required for this PERVASIVE Balance (even ignoring all additional complications) would be... off the charts. Unimaginable. The cycle-burden for achieving it all would be horrific: truly impossible to achieve... as would the level of required molecular activity.

(Faith: the Scientists would never be moved by mere facts and logic and reason.)


Keep in mind that EVERY time some specie 'evolved' in the past, those in direct contact with it would also be pressured to 'counter-evolve'. And this effect would have spread out like ripples in a pond... and back again... and out again... etc. etc. Where each and every change would OPPOSE the Balance/ Stability.


*) Again, it would take Little work on the side of Evolution to completely destroy the Balance, but you MUST completely ignore that: you MUST surrender your little Mind to Science! Remember that Science Loves You! Beware the evil God-religions! Science is SO much better! Science alone has Ultimate Truth! Honest!

*) It is VERY unclear how 'nature' can have such extreme variations in breeding-cycles among different species and STILL remain stable in the face of Evolution: that it does so would rather seem to counter-indicate Evolution, DIRECTLY.

*) An interesting question arises: does a given specie fit into a niche, or do the niches determine the DNA of the species? Given the pervasiveness of the Balance, the second factor seems to be the dominant. But that hardly makes sense in terms of Evolution, now does it. But then, what does.


Yawn. So the problem the average Stupid has with Scientists, early in the morning, in the afternoon, and even late in the evening, is this:

Question : ''Where is the Presented Proof? Of ANYTHING.''

Answer: ''Well, nowhere. But we are Scientists, you MUST BeLiEvE in us! WE are the Pure Angels, the Perfected Paragons, of this, our New Earth-Home!''

Response: ''Er... How about I DON'T do that. Um. I have to run away now.''

And the Scientists call me a Stupid FANATIC.

=- (3-10: Anti-Magic Chasm #10, Time and Time Again)


There are two parts to this section: I'm not too confident on the math of the second one, so take care when reading it. The issue at hand here is the never-ending duplicity of the Scientists.


So, to kick it off:


''... Observed RATES of evolutionary change in modern populations must be greater than or equal to RATES observed in the fossil record.

... In 1983, Phillip Gingerich published a famous study analyzing 512 different observed RATES of evolution (Gingerich 1983). The study centered on RATES observed from three classes of data: (1) LAB EXPERIMENTS, (2) HISTORICAL COLONIZATION EVENTS, and (3) the FOSSIL RECORD.

... A useful measure of evolutionary RATE is the darwin, which is defined as a change in an organism's character by a factor of e per million years (where e is the base of natural log). The average RATE observed in the FOSSIL RECORD was 0.6 darwins; the fastest RATE was 32 darwins. The latter is the most important number for comparison; RATES of evolution observed in modern populations should be equal to or greater than this RATE.

... The average RATE of evolution observed in HISTORICAL COLONIZATION EVENTS in the wild was 370 darwins―over 10 times the required minimum RATE. In fact, the fastest RATE found in colonization events was 80,000 darwins, or 2500 times the required RATE. Observed RATES of evolution in LAB EXPERIMENTS are even more impressive, averaging 60,000 darwins and as high as 200,000 darwins (or over 6000 times the required RATE).

... ... This ''unique and staggering'' acceleration in evolutionary RATE was only 7 darwins (Williams 1992, p. 132). This RATE converts to a minuscule 0.02% increase per generation, at most. For comparison, the fastest RATE observed in the fossil record in the Gingerich study was 37 darwins over one thousand years, and this corresponds to, at most, a 0.06% change per generation.''


Sigh. 1983... why that is like equivalent to a million years ago, only not. The above is very flawed, and is so in multiple dimensions.

**) Actual, Stupid, Evolution IS about new genes/ alleles.

**) The above USES cladistics: care to explain HOW to --RELATE-- cladistics to --NEW-- genetic information coming into being? It is logically IMPOSSIBLE (cladistics are all about the changing of allele-frequency-BALANCES: which is -not- directly linked with the -specific- content of the Allele-Pool.)

Given the complex, inter-related, ways genes function, a NUMERIC (i.e. EXACT) 'equation' relating PHYSICAL new-changes to GENETIC new-changes is rationally impossible. So: of WHAT is 0.02% a change of? Mmmm?

**) The above SEES MNS: care to explain how, exactly, THAT relates, IN TURN, to cladistics? NUMERICALLY?! This is not really feasible to try and determine in the here-and-now; how much more so for the instance of HISTORICAL data.

**) Also: a small army of ''Evolution-is-true'' assumptions are being laid over the actual observations (just look at HOW the data is being described.)

**) Note that the 0.02% and 0.06% ''change'' ''PER GENERATION'' are for the ENTIRE specie: i.e. EVERY member of the specie, for that generation, has those 'improvements.' Their logic would dictate this is NOT the rate of creation of new DNA, but rather the rate of near-complete penetration of the Allele Pool. Which is NOT the same thing, both time-wise & function-wise.

**) While not stated, their logic would imply something like a variable kind of 'delay': i.e. 'mutations' happen all the time, but the 'Evolution' due from a given change (in the now), lies somewhere in the future. NOTE how ANY actual details on the actual Functioning of The Mechanisms of Evolution is bypassed...

**) The historical 'darwins' values do not provide the size of the relevant populations. Note the implied 'delay' concept in the preceding paragraph. So HOW is such an idea to relate to what happens in a modern-day laboratory?


So. The 'Science' IS running off cladistics... which is actually running off ENS... all the while PRETENDING to be the Stupid version of Evolution... Bleh.


Tsk, tsk. While on the subject of moral pygmies: Interlude:

www.evolutionfairytale.com, has a spiel on how DNA is decaying over time. I was banned after not emulating the vile little Liberals - i.e. ''one has to be like them, to save them'' - which in practice disallows telling them, to their faces, that they are evil liars who are not there to reason, but ONLY introduce doubt, to find those vulnerable to their garbage... i.e. to ALLOW them to Evangelize Evolution.

This is like becoming a whore, so as to convince whores that whoring is wrong.


Sigh. Anyway.

Note that trying to compare results derived from the garbage-Science Fossil-Tree record, with the empirical genetic mutation rates (which follows next), makes no sense whatsoever. It's like comparing strawberries with moon-rocks. Nevertheless, the Scientists Are Sure that somewhere inside that ocean of MNS activity, Stupid Evolution also lurks... so:


(TalkOrigins:) Space restraints keep me from properly quoting, so instead I'll try and summarize:

*) Cancer research has determined the rate of genetic mutation at about 1.8x10-9 per site per generation. Human DNA has about 6.34 x10+9 base pairs. So there are about ~= 3.5 DNA changes per generation. Actually the number should be a bit higher to allow for other processes. Let's pick 5 DNA changes per generation out of the air.

*) The percentage value is therefore about: 5 / (6.34 x10+9) = 0.8 x10-9 = 0.000,000,000,8 = 0.000,000,08 % per generation for humans beings.

What NOT to do is this:

Today: 7 billion people/ etc (in a lab). I.e. 480%. So: 480 / 0.02 = 24,000.

0 B.C.: 200 million people. I.e. 16%. 1 in 800.

100,00 B.C. 1 million people (or only 10,000). I.e. 0.08% (0.000,8). 1 in 4 (Zzzit!)

Yes, the above does indeed not make much sense. So WHY present it? Re-read the paragraph under: ''Sigh. Anyway.'' That is why. (One could extend more arguments from the above, but since none of it makes sense, they do not either.)


But, WHY?!

All the 'darwins' babble is there to sell ONE core weed-'idea': Parallel Evolution.

It is a difficult idea to sell, since it cannot be USED directly. (Read on a bit...)

The 'parallel Evolution' 'idea' is this: all the members of a specie suffer 'mutations': so the 'linear' view of genetic/ allele Evolution is, like, stupid. Yeah!

Complexity, is like, busted! There is, like, oodles of mutation happening, man!

A simple question: How are these 'parallel' 'mutations', which each exist in separate, discrete, GENES, spread out over a lot of individual animals, supposed to ''Merge''/ ''Combine'' together so as to 'evolve' the GENES? Care to say HOW?

(Sure. There are events where genes are erroneously 'spliced' together: but such events are, well, pretty brutal, function-wise. Modern functional genes do NOT show that such events have been anything but extremely rare; if at all.)

''Um...'': and the story changes: After a minor-ish 'good' change to a gene/ allele, its gene-frequency first goes up; when there are many copies of it around, it can 'process' many different kinds of new changes all at once. Rinse & repeat!

A simple question: What is the difference (now!) between 'conventional' Evolution and Parallel Evolution? NONE. In fact, it is a good 'explanation' of Evolution.

But. Since this is such a good 'explanation', why is this concept not in general use? For one VERY simple reason: it logically enhances the strength of the following: (Fossil Tree - Stasis & Jumps): ''... the classical objection to Evolution, which predicts ever changing, incrementally different nodes...''

The argument FOR Parallel Evolution, directly opposes the Fossil Tree Science.


This has been said before: what it hard to 'figure-out' Evolution, is the complete and utter nonsense the Scientists spew out. They make so MANY errors, in so MANY different ways, and then mix it all together.

Understand this well: it is NOT possible to argue with them using reason & logic, because they are not USING reason & logic: this is why they 'win' their 'debates'.


Why is this argument so hard to make? Surely the Honest Scientists do a better job somewhere?

No. Sorry. They actually don't.




===== (A Question Of Magic, Part 4)

= (4.1: Miscellaneous, 1 of 2)


Well, the best now lies behind you. What is ahead is me ranting on and on and on about the accursed hippies. So do feel free to either take a break, or leave.


=- (4-1.1: Why Simulations Are Magical)

This point is best explained directly: do evil wizards, dragons and magical fairies exist? Well, simulations for them exist, so I guess they DO exist! Wow!!

If you are a Scientist, then there is a 'possibility' that Evolution is real: and as any Scientist worth the 666 on his forehead knows, calling something 'possible' is only a little bit different from calling it 'probable'. Why the two words sound almost identical! So they MUST mean almost the exact same thing! Tada! Science!

Just because somebody is fanatical about World of Warcraft does NOT make it all real... well, unless you have the finely trained mind of a Scientist...

(How can a given Scientist not KNOW that they are creating Virtual Worlds when writing/ creating Evolution simulations? Good point! They DO know...)


=- (4-1.2: Some humour from TalkOrigins)

*) ''In fact, evolution can be PRECISELY defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.'' (That's SO nice!)

''These definitions are simply wrong (all the dictionaries). Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind.'' (Aw, 'dem 'ol dumb hicks is a-talkin' 'bout complexy-like stuff.)

*) ''What is the scientific method? This is a complex and contentious question, and the field of inquiry known as the philosophy of science is committed to illuminating the nature of the scientific method.'' (Consider it ILLUMINATED!)

''Though science formally cannot establish absolute truth, it can provide overwhelming evidence in favor of certain ideas. OFTEN these ideas are quite unobvious, and USUALLY they clash with common sense.'' (Yes! Sir! Mind OFF!)

''The PRIMARY function of science is to demonstrate THE EXISTENCE of phenomena that cannot be OBSERVED directly.'' (How perfectly convenient!)

*) ''No alternate explanations compete SCIENTIFICALLY with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.'' (Especially funny are (2) and (3). But (4) is the REAL kicker.)

*) And then the funniest of them all: ''Many people have asked how to cite this work in formal research papers and academic articles.'' (Ow! Ow! My tummy!)


===== (A Question Of Magic, Part 4)

= (4.1: Miscellaneous, 2 of 2)


=- (4-1.3: The Core-Dialectic - i.e. How To Lie In An Extremely Effective Manner)

The Hegellian Dialectic is a well-known methodology. It forms the heart of the Chinese brainwashing-programs. It is quite interesting to read up on - there are some very good articles on ''Crossroad.to'': I really recommend reading them.

Central to the Dialectic is a certain sub-process - which is to be discussed here.


Simply, the core-dialectic (CD) (also called 'synthesis') is a specific way to tell lies. What makes it different, is that it works off the way the human brain tends to process information, in order to bypass/ fool the truth/correctness-checking aspects. (The CD is not new: con-men throughout the ages have all naturally, instinctively, used the dialectic. This entire essay is a testament to it!)


So. How do you short-circuit the lie-detection functions of a human mind?

*) It takes concentration, REAL concentration, (and lot of thinking-work), to examine a SINGLE given fact for 'correctness.'

*) It takes concentration, REAL concentration, (and lot of thinking-work), to examine a SINGLE given logic/reason-step for 'correctness.'

*) So. Combine several facts, and several logic/reason steps. (The more of each, the better.) So a whole lot of rather hard thinking-work lies before you... or not.

Now. If your IQ is high enough, (AND/OR if you have a natural knack/ skill for doing it), you can tweak one or more of the facts. And/Or tweak one or more of the logic-steps. And COMPLETELY alter the ''-rational-'' outcome!

*) ...AND the rapid-checking mechanisms of the mind doesn't see it. MAGICAL!


--) Example 1: Perhaps the most common core-dialectic in the Western world is the pro-abortion 'argument.' SIMPLY have The Honest Scientists call an unborn baby a 'fetus.' WHICH turns 'killing' into 'removal.' WHICH makes partial-birth abortion or live-birth abortion OK. Snap! Just like that. (Very impressive!)


--) Example 2: As noted before, re-naming 'genetic damage' as 'genetic mutation.' Damage has to be addressed (via replacement or repair), while Mutation makes Awesome Magical Super-Heroes. (Again, very impressive!)


--) Example 3: This is not an actual example, but points out where you can find a lot of them. Spin-doctoring. That venerated Political practice, has the core-dialectic as its bedrock. This then includes TV, newspapers, etc. Pretty much every time that a Liberal speaks, anywhere, is where you will find core-dialectics.


=- (4-2: The Evil That Men Do)

=- (4-2.1: The Rationality of Evil)


By itself this topic has NOTHING to do with God, the KJV Bible, or anything like that. However, let's start there anyway; since it certainly ends there.


**) What discriminates a soul-filthy hippie-Scientist from a converted trailer-trash whore? Truth. Reason. Specifically, giving a damn about both.

*) Choosing reason is (it turns out) the second most significant choice a human being can make.

*) Choose it, pursue, seek to perfect it ceaselessly, and the result WILL be the KJV Biblical Lord. (Or rather, the other way around... He cometh a knockin'.)

*) Otherwise you messed-up somewhere.


Here is what exists, what is real:

*) God is accessible as a kind of omnipresent telepath.

*) In a fuzzy kind of way.

*) BUT. Go looking for God, and devils will ALSO start playing in the sandbox.

*) ...and devils REALLY screw up playing in the sandbox.

*) You yourself are also a negative element is this: not fooling yourself becomes a cottage industry.

-) Dealing with all this requires that you be as rational as possible. The more you practice rationality, the more ''rationality will practice YOU.'' What this means is that you no longer 'act' from the same 'core' as before.


*) The above is empirically verifiable. But is rarely followed. For this reason, most who consider themselves 'Christian', are quite mistaken. Following the above road is not optional... otherwise you WILL mess up somewhere: devils have a remarkably wide scope of influence, and they will make you fail, if they can.

*) It is not enough to simply go forth and blindly check if -SOME- kind of supernatural 'God' exists. EXACTLY as with the classical scientific method, you have to: Alpha: Positively Test; Beta: Destructively Test; and Gamma: Re-Examine. In other words, you have to error-check; correct; Rinse and Repeat...


**) Call them the Lawless, or Hedonists, or Atheists, or liberals, or hippies, or whatever. They are all the same thing: Irrational.

*) Psychology exists to refute all the above; on an individual level. Sociology exists to manage that refutation; on a societal level. That which demands the refutation is Lawlessness.

*) ''Are religious people truly so weak, so blind, so stupid, that they cannot grasp that they are victims of their own minds?'' This is the single, core, psychological crux-'truth' of Atheism - without it, Atheism cannot be PRACTICED. It is the Wall of Moronic Denial. (WMD;)

*) As documented throughout this essay, Atheists are remarkably dishonest. Manipulative. Liars. Most people would call their actions 'evil.' Their condition is an inevitable result of their profound surrender to a perceived, but non-existent, weakness. Atheists refuse to accept that their minds might actually work: this single point explains a great deal about them.


None of this is particularly difficult to understand.


Ok. So why is it Rational to be Evil? Simply: Why not?

You can be weak, and chose not to control (for example) your own empathy: then the pain of others will 'hurt' you as well. Otherwise their pain might be amusing, irrelevant, pleasurable, or just annoying.

You can be weak, and chose to be irrationally afraid of situations where you are fairly confident the various possible outcomes: not committing rape when you both want to, and could get away with it, is a good example of this.

Why could normal, 'good' Germans work in the death-camps? They were never 'good.' Similarly, even 'good person' soldiers will steal, and rape children.

If you chose to be rational, properly, then ultimately Evil follows directly. This is undeniable. This is why devils are DEVILS. And though they DENY it, THIS is WHY Scientists/ Atheists/ whatever are such foul liars, deceivers, manipulators.


Individuals differ in regards to wants, desires, feelings, thoughts, etc. etc. Because of that, people are 'naturally' evil in different ways.

Of course, the concept of evil does exist: what is 'bad' for you is evil. Similar with 'good.' Selflessness is irrational. So is kindness, generosity, etc. etc. etc.


Aside from CHOOSING to be irrational, there are ZERO exceptions to this fact. But TWO types of modifiers exist. One is externally applied 'policing.' Joining a group has many benefits, and for such groups to exist in practice, there are rules in place that limit acceptable behaviors. It can be a 'nice' group like a hippie-orgy-club, or a 'nasty' group like a prison gang. You are externally dominated.

The other is internally applied 'policing': should you become convinced that a God does exist, desire-to-avoid-negative-consequence(s) would dictate that you avoid ticking Him off. Hence you adopt, without any actually existent external supervision, limits on your behavior and even thoughts. You are self-controlled.


Atheists make a big deal out of following God out of 'fear.' Oh the horror! Why do MOST people not run around murdering and raping and stealing? Fear of... the police... One cannot really call the Atheists stupid: purposefully suspending the use of your mind is something else. The Bible names it thus: Foolishness.

What one CAN however say is this: Atheists are quite aware of their acts - they ARE liars. They ARE deceivers. What they are not, in general, is stupid.


Last item: Q: What is Biblical 'good'?

A: Righteousness = Do & Be what is RIGHT. (Perhaps, sometimes: 'honor.')


These are types of issue that being an adult does not help you with all that much. People do not reason like this, in general, and as such you are no better off than an inexperienced child. Deal with it.

=- (4-2: The Evil That Men Do - Continued)


Christians face TWO great mortal-enemies in this world; in MORTAL combat:

*) The Lawless (Atheists, communists, whatever) are proceeding in their attacks on Christianity via the destruction of its core theologies. Evolution is only one battle in this war. Eventually they shall seek to murder all KJV-type Christians.

*) In times past, no other group has murdered, raped, enslaved & robbed Christians more than the Muslims. This is a CLEAR FACT. There can NEVER be anything but full-blown war between Islam and all Christians: as per the orders given by THEIR Prophet Mohammad - carved in stone in THEIR Koran.


=- (4-2.2: The Larger Context - Know thy enemy - Capitalism vs Communism)

Only a complete FOOL holds hands with his mortal enemies.

I recommend reading ''The Irrational Atheist'' by Vox Day. (Free online!)


In the ideal, Capitalism is to be a Meritocracy (work & ability): minimal government - with greatly limited powers; an independent judicial-justice system - with a focus on the individual, NOT the group. Etc. Etc.

Politics is for the birds: there is NOT supposed to be much of a focus on it.

Innovations (sci-tech/ engineering), which do cause disruptions, are welcomed.

Old-school science is the norm - politics especially must have NO part of it.

Capitalism can ONLY work if the population trying to practice it is KJV-Christian. Nothing else is really compatible with it. Why? In the main, because such Christians are controlled via internal constraints: some of which are unique.


In the Ideal, Communism/ Socialism grants all equal access to everything: a maximum government in every way; the judicial system serves as an arm of the government, and will have its focus on the group - actual justice does not exist.

Political/ ideological activity is rewarded: working harder/ better is not rewarded.

Disruptions to the System are the height of 'badness,' and WILL be punished.

Correlation-type Science is the norm: Why? Politics can, and does, easily involve itself. There is no better example of this than the garbage-Science of Evolution, which exists to serve as an Ideological foundation stone for Atheism. Second to it is Psychology and Sociology: all these are utilized to CONTROL the masses.

Most 'religions' are incompatible with Communism: only Atheism is TRULY compatible with it. Why? Because under Communism control is via EXTERNALLY imposed constraints: THAT is the difference.


The irony here is deep: Which option has maximal Freedom? Ideal Communism CANNOT function: in practice the levels of anarchy become too great. Under the Chinese model, which DOES function, INTERNAL CONSTRAINTS are imposed via massive propaganda- & brainwashing-programs; and BRUTAL oversight.

So? Why is America dead? Give KJV-Bible Churches the power to name a person (married 15+ years; employed in Private sector), via something like the Westminster Confession of Faith, 'Accepted as a Christian.' Let such a person have a vote. Voting must be secret. But this is all academic: it's too late.

=- (4-2: The Evil That Men Do)

=- (4-2.3: The Larger Context - Know thy enemy - Islam)

Only a complete FOOL holds hands with his mortal enemies.


As a start I would recommend reading Winston Churchill's famous quote on Islam (WWW.) JihadWatch and BareNakedIslam are good next stops (& more links.) To understand Islam theologically, slog through The Prophet of Doom. (Free!)


The Official Opposition, to both Evolution & Islam, make the terrible mistake of ''playing nice.'' ('Good manners', when leading to INSANITY, MUST be cast off.)

*) Evolutionists are LIARS. Without facing that FACT, it is NOT possible to understand them, it is NOT possible to formulate actions addressing them.

*) To understand Islam, to PROPERLY grasp the genius of Muhammad The Desert PIRATE-King, it must be realized that Islam captures, like flies in amber, CRIMINALS. Almost the ENTIRE criminal element of an Islam-infected society, is turned towards the self-policing/ maintenance/ rule of Islam, AND its expansion.


Why become a Muslim (a.k.a. Mohammad's Land Pirates)? (Type A):

*) Money: In Civil- and Criminal-Courts, facing non-Muslims, your WORD is enough to exonerate you of ANY accusations of theft, violence, rape, etc. Wow!

*) Sex 1. You are allowed 4 'wives'; of ANY age. Their entire lives are in your hands... so enjoy! Rape is so difficult to prove, that it is a cottage industry. Yeah!!

*) Sex 2: Female Genital Mutilation. Something like 32 of the top 35 FGM countries in the world are Islamic. The other 3 have strong Muslim populations.

Nothing is so much fun as sticking it to a submissive woman/ little girl, and watching her moan in pain. Every. Single. Time. If THAT doesn't make you hard:

*) Violence. Same as with Money. BUT with the ''infidels'': you get to slit people's throats, cut off their heads, burn them alive, rip/ blow them to pieces, cut off limbs, hang queers... men, women, children: ALL is FULLY justified under Islam.

*) The Religion of the God of CRIME: Die while doing the above, and you go to Heaven where you will be Master of 72 female slaves FOREVER! Awesome!!!

A Religion Suitable for MORONS: It is EASY to be a Muslim! Islam is essentially a set of mechanical exercises. In fact, using your mind is EVIL! SUPER-COOL!!!!


Why NOT become a Muslim? (Type A):

*) No alcohol or drugs. (To atone give alms to the poor: drinking is so expensive!)

*) NO raping boy-children! Aw damn!! Girl babies are just fine however (just more alms!) Raping a male prisoner-of-The-war is Ok, as long as neither of you enjoy it... Female prisoners-of-The-war of course EXIST to be enjoyed, so don't worry.


Why become a Muslim? (Type B):

*) You are a man, and are deeply terrified of the Type A Muslims. A live coward.

*) You are woman, and have ZERO say in the matter: such is the life of a slave.


And the ''moderates'' in the West? Simply, there are 'degrees' of Type A...

Do not Wonder-Why Islam spreads in prisons & primitive tribes in Africa: Know.

=- (4-2: The Evil That Men Do)

=- (4-2.4.1: The Larger Context - Face-To-Face - Confrontation)


FIRST OF ALL: You should NOT be face-to-face with the Scientists. If you are, you must have somehow been forced into the situation: so leave. If you cannot leave, then leave anyway. I am NOT kidding.

SECOND: You are going to lose. (Muslims are different - much easier to oppose their nonsense (just keep on hammering at the given IMPORTANT issue: do NOT deviate... and they fall), BUT they will gladly beat you up or kill you.)


Consider devils. They attack you as much as they -CAN-; at some given moment (as constrained by the Living God.) As per Rebecca Brown (first two books are really good), devils will cast their whisper-thoughts & force-nets: all sorts of nonsense as to WHY their level of attack, then, is what it is. Lies & Misdirection.

Their whispers are COMPLETE nonsense. The level of attack is MOSTLY based on what you are doing with the Lord in that time, and what He wants to occur, and therefore LETS them do: secondary are whether CLEAN Christians are helping/ praying for you or not, AND also importantly how much prayer-type stuff you are doing ON YOUR OWN. Thirdly how CLEAN (simply: how correct) you are. ('Clean' Christians are VERY rare: (the new bibles, and the consequent new ''Holy Spirit'', has obliterated the Protestant 'Christian' church. Then there are lots of unknowns. And several other problems as well. And the mistakes made here.)

IN A SIMILAR MANNER, Scientists care NOTHING about a given argument in a 'debate': THEY HAVE THEIR PURPOSES, and -INDIVIDUAL- 'arguments' ARE USED -solely- AS 'CHANNELS'/ 'CARRIER-MEDIUMS' TO CONVEY/ EXECUTE THOSE PURPOSES. So ask yourself why you are arguing something with someone who is NOT ever going to move beyond pretend-response?! So leave!


Rationally, it makes no sense to talk to Scientists, since they do not WANT to reason: their SOLE intent is to mind-rape you into having approved thought(s).

If you can, pretty please, understand this ONE point, and ALWAYS keep in DIRECTLY foremost in your mind when dealing with them; you should drastically limit the amount of damage they can inflict on you (i.e. lies they have successfully planted into your head.)

MAKE NO MISTAKE: They WILL win: talk with one of them long enough, and you WILL be corrupted in SOME way. Victory. They have decades upon decades (if not more) of accumulated experience/ specific crafted 'arguments'/ techniques/ to draw on: ALL of it crafted by some of the most intelligent people in the world.

Oh. And DEVILS will sit outside of such encounters and work to destroy your mind, and simultaneously uplift theirs. (Some of the most nifty moments ever are when prayer kicks in (see Daniel), and suddenly the little Scientists' ''mind'' just shuts down - no devils, no ''creativity'': the idiot becomes, in an instant, an idiot.)


Point: You try and play with the Well-Trained Children of devils, and their parents WILL be around to join in the fun. Unless you are SPECIFICALLY told to, DON'T.

=- (4-2.4.2: The Larger Context - Face-To-Face - Debate)


This section can be completely nullified by a given Scientist: all he/she has to do is read through it, and use the techniques that remain... and there are MANY...

However. ALL the techniques run off ONE single thing: the Core Dialectic. But that does not help all that much: it takes, in my opinion, intervention from the Holy Spirit to SEE through CD's. My empirical justification for this position is that there are very many highly intelligent proper-scientists who CANNOT see through the OBVIOUS garbage that is Evolution: Ask: WHY? And: See my point?


So here is a rough-and-ready summary of some techniques the Scientists use:


--) The ultimate goal of debate is to hijack the cognitive abilities of the audience. I.e. DO THEIR THINKING FOR THEM. (Secondly, be ABSTRACT: avoid reality.)

*) Every rule is subject to creative change or reversal - the debater has no limits to what he may choose to do, or how, or anything. Debate is ART.

*) Infect literally EVERYTHING with CD's: barring genius-level IQ, this makes it impossible to PRACTICALLY counter (takes an essay!) -EACH- 'argument.'


*) To lie/ deceive convincingly is the greatest ability in the art of debating.

*) Get the audience to look past the irrefutable rationality of an opponents arguments, get them to disregard it: get them to NOT reason... and YOU WIN.


*) Never, ever, concede the slightest point of reason. (Important for next point.)

*) Win the debate, not the actual arguments, which are meaningless. Preventing the audience from EVER reasoning (EFFECTIVELY/ correctly/ logically/ rationally) is the single most important & practical goal to strive for in a debate.


*) Pre-crafted & well-designed 'arguments' are extremely effective tools.

*) Confusion upon the enemy! (dream up logical-SOUNDING 'arguments', but which are very hard to 'unpack' to the level of step-by-step rationality: i.e. CD's.)

*) Confuse the issue enough, and then insist on a specific (apparently 'clear') interpretation(s): people will strongly tend to follow/ 'absorb' such. I.e. ''Trust me.''


*) Overload reasoning: weave together several multi-syllable arguments at once. Combined with flair & pizzazz, a competent debater can create 'mental pictures'/ correlations that are quite intractable to fact-based reason and logic: fact-based logic and reason can ONLY be applied to facts, logic and reason...

*) Overload responses: ask a whole bunch of questions all at once (during your turn of the debate.) The practical limits on debates make replying to this sort of thing impractical. If the audience is unaware of this, the opponent looks stupid.

*) Overload opponent: try to force the opponent to have to constantly 'define' the DETAIL of things, and the like, on BOTH sides. In essence, the opponent carries the core burden of reason for BOTH sides: this is a very hard (& silly) thing to do.


A Question Of Magic: (Conclusion To An Anti-Evolution Essay)



At the beginning of this essay the following was said:

The Dominant Characteristic of a 'Defender' of Evolution is this: ''Liar:''

Evolutionists lie, and they know they lie. EVERYTHING noted in this essay, they have been confronted with. They KNOW it ALL, and quite well at that.

As you read, recall these words, and consider how selectively you have been 'educated', and by WHOM. Then ask why. Then ask what to do. Then act; or not.


Something else typifies the 'Defenders' of Evolutionist, namely this: ''mindless.''

In the time of Darwin, it was thought that cell-walls were somewhat like very small oil-droplets. Relatively easy to bring into existence. Since then we have learned that cell-walls are extremely complex: built-up using an array of very complex, very SPECIFIC, organic molecules, in a VERY complex, multi-functional structure.

Yet. In the face of this MASSIVE increase in the KNOWN Complexity Of Life, the response of the Scientists has been to paste a superior little smile onto their faces, and ''stand in awe'' of the ''hereto unimagined achievements of Evolution.''  Oh, and ''Science is providing new and exiting proofs of Evolution every single day! Hooray!'' (Paraphrased-times-2.)


The new Scientists are Mindless Liars.


Evolution's ''awesome victories'' over ''practical complexities'' exist only as a massive Public Relations program. You may ask how this can be. The answer is simply that most University-/ College-brainwashed people have a VERY heavy personal emotional investment in the Truth of Evolution. Without ''Evolution'', their atheist-based world-views would crack, and then self-destruct. OuchY.

It is nothing more than that. They are cowards. Small, tiny, pretend-people.


I hope this essay was sufficient to bring THIS point across:

*) 'Science' was never something that you were supposed to 'believe' in: it is simply a TOOL, nothing more. Humans ARE Reasoners, NOT Science-ers.

*) The suspension of The Unspoken Purpose of science has, in practice, had the effect that a 'Belief' in 'Science' has REPLACED the PRACTICE of Reason. It seems that, in practice, either science is a tool used to aid reason; or else 'Science'-'opinions' is used to supersede reason - which is literal insanity.



G.K. Chesterton: ''The first effect of not believing in God is to BELIEVE in anything.''

2 Timothy 4:4: ''And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.'' Well, hot damn! That sure does ring true, now, does it not?