Failure of Darwinism is failure of atheism and the downfall of Darwin's theory starts as science goes more deep. Darwin's theory is like a religious verse for Atheists. So will the faith of atheism be down as Darwin's theory now becoming more contrary to science day by day.

We are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories… Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism.” (Protocols 2:2-3)

The Illuminati have long known that if you destroy belief in God, people will cease to fear God and to obey the Ten Commandments. They then become pawns of the Illuminati, willing to serve money instead of principle, and carry out iniquities from sexual misdeeds to even murder.

In the Illuminati propaganda arsenal, the greatest tool for destroying faith in God has been Darwin’s theory of evolution. I know some say “I believe in evolution and God.” Nonetheless, countless people have become atheists from being taught the theory as “fact” – I was once one of them.

However, Darwinism cannot be challenged on morals alone. The public has been told evolution is “science,” on a footing with physics and chemistry. Therefore Darwinism must be challenged on scientific grounds.

As author of two books on Darwin’s spurious theory, I know one cannot discredit, in a few paragraphs, an idea which the Illuminati have spent millions to indoctrinate society with. But let’s dent it, shall we?

GENETIC CODE DERIVED FROM CHANCE?

Darwin claimed life began eons ago from chance chemical processes. From the first living cell, all life evolved. This might have been plausible in Darwin’s day, when cells were considered simple. But no longer. Even a bacterial cell requires thousands of different proteins ­- each composed of hundreds of amino acids in precise order. Francis Crick, who co-discovered DNA’s structure, estimated the odds of getting just ONE protein by chance as one in 10 to the power of 260 – a number beyond imagination.

To function, cells require the genetic code, which is far more complex than Windows 8’s codes. Would anyone argue the latter could derive from chance?

Further, the primordial cell must have perfected – in the span of one lifetime – the process of cellular reproduction; otherwise there never would have been a second cell. Yet, despite mathematic implausibility, and a dearth of supporting evidence, schoolchildren are still taught that life began from a chance arrangement of chemicals.

According to Darwinism, single cells eventually evolved into invertebrates (creatures without backbones like jellyfish), then successively into fish, amphibians, reptiles, and finally mammals. Darwin said this occurred from creatures adapting to environments.

The discovery of genetics threatened this claim. New organs require new genes. Just moving into new environments doesn’t give you new genes.

This initially stumped Darwinists, but they eventually found a solution. Random mutations – copying mistakes in the genetic code – occur very rarely, but DO alter genetic information. So modern evolutionists said animals gained new genes by chance mutations, which made them more fit, and which they adapted to evolve into higher forms.

Dr. Lee Spetner, who taught information theory for years at Johns Hopkins University and the Weizman Institute, discredits this in his book Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. Spetner demonstrates that random mutations destroy genetic information and function – never increase it. Mutations are to the genetic code what typos are to a book. In humans, mutations cause sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, Down’s syndrome, and thousands of other diseases. Spetner shows that even the rare “beneficial mutations” evolutionists trumpet – such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics – actually result from functional losses.

If, as evolutionists claim, bacteria evolved successively into invertebrates, then fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, there must have been countless “transitional stages.” Think about it. For a fish to become a land creature, turning its fins into legs would require new bones, new muscles, new nerves – and while it was adapting to life on land, a new breathing system. Since this supposedly happened from chance mutations – very rare events – innumerable creatures would have to live and die during the intermediate period.

So where’s EVIDENCE for these transitionals? Not in the living world. Among bacteria, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, there are many thousands of species, but no intermediate species between these groups. That’s one reason why Carl Linnaeus, father of taxonomy (the science that classifies the living world) was a creationist. Evolutionists try to explain the missing intermediates by saying “they all became extinct” (a convenient euphemism for “we ain’t got proof”). A more apt reason for their nonexistence: they never existed.

Evolutionists therefore rely on fossils of extinct creatures as their evidence for these transitional stages. Yet while fossils show variations within types, they do not validate the transitions between major animal groups Darwin’s theory requires.

For example, while billions of invertebrate fossils exist, fossils illustrating their alleged evolution from simple ancestors are missing. Furthermore, the study of fossils has a storied history of error. In 1912, the announcement of “Piltdown Man” led the New York Times to exclaim in a headline: “Darwin Theory Proved True.” For four decades the British Museum displayed this supposedly 500,000-year old “apeman” – until it was exposed as a hoax: an orangutan jaw and human skull had been planted together, stained to look old, with their teeth filed down.

Genuine fossils can be equally deceiving. Evolutionists called the coelacanth – a fossil fish claimed to be extinct for millions of years – a transitional form between fish and amphibians, its fins said to be “limb-like.” Then people started catching live coelacanths, and they were 100 percent fish – no amphibian characteristics. Why are fossils tricky? Because, as molecular biologist Michael Denton notes in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 99 percent of an animal’s biology resides in its soft anatomy, which is inaccessible through fossils. This disposes them to subjective interpretations.

Which brings us to our closing point. Evolution is not a science like physics or chemistry, which comprise repeatable, testable knowledge. Water boils at 100 degrees centigrade. This can be tested countless times. If I argued that water boils at 75 degrees, you could easily test and disprove my hypothesis.

But take evolutionary claims. Darwin said we lost our body hair because our apelike ancestors preferred mates with less hair. How do you disprove that? How do you disprove that “Lucy” (fossil bones found in Africa) was our ancestor? Laws of physics and chemistry can be tested in present time. Evolution, however, mostly constitutes opinions about the past, and one cannot test the past with the same authority as the present.

I’m out of time – but you’re not.

For more information view more @



Source:www.HenryMakow.com

I personally think evolution and the big bang is a very big joke .

this is a beautiful article. It raises some pertinent facts that I must do more research on.

Many atheists however (the learned ones) often maintain that evolution might be wrong, bt that there is no better explanation of life yet. The foundation/cornerstone for atheism isnt evolution, bt logic..cold hard logic.

You still have to credit Charles Darwin too.. D man tried a lot (even if u think he's wrong).

EVOLUTION IS DEAD!!!! ever since the big bang theory was proved!

I don't know why Christians of choose to attack science they can. I only reason to all these is that Christian never reason from the angle that God might have create a self sustaining system than taking the bible book of Genesis at face. although many of don't understand the ancient system of writing, many don't want reason or even study to gain more knowledge because they fear that they don't want to be be lead astray

The father of taxonomy existed before evolution was proposed and he himself classified man as an ape a.k.a primate and urged scientists why we belonged to that class.....

Linnaeus classified man as among the primates

[url] http://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolus_Linnaeus [/url]