Genetic Entropy
Genetic Entropy is one of my most favorite scientific discoveries. This scientific discovery doesn’t belong to me, though. It originates with John Sanford. After reading his book, Genetic Entropy, I simply KNEW that the theory of evolution is false because I now KNOW why it is false.
The theory of evolution is typically defined as Creation by Mutation/Selection – particularly, ‘the origin of species by means of natural selection’. The first part of the title of Darwin’s book is, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection”.
Creation by Natural Selection IS science fiction. Natural selection doesn’t touch our genes! It can’t. It’s physically impossible for natural selection to get at our genes and change them. Natural selection cannot design and create anything, let alone a genome.
In truth, natural selection is NOT the mechanism of change behind the theory of evolution. It’s the random mutations that produce genetic change, NOT natural selection! Natural selection or survival of the fittest doesn’t do anything. It just waits for you to die. Natural selection is entropy or death. They built a whole “science” on a fictional, immaterial, invisible process that doesn’t even touch our genes – natural selection! And, they literally give natural selection ALL the credit for designing, programming, creating, and producing our genomes and our physical bodies. For these people, natural selection is their god. They worship it with a passion. Natural selection is a man-made god, an idol.
Natural Selection: The evolutionary process by which heritable traits that best enable organisms to survive and reproduce in particular environments are passed to ensuing generations.
Everyone who has taken introductory psychology has learned that nature and nurture together form who we are. As the area of a rectangle is determined by both its length and its width, so do biology and experience together create us.
As evolutionary psychologists remind us, our inherited human nature predisposes us to behave in ways that helped our ancestors survive and reproduce. We carry the genes of those whose traits enabled them and their children to survive and reproduce. Thus, evolutionary psychologists ask how natural selection might predispose our actions and reactions when dating and mating, hating and hurting, caring and sharing. Nature also endows us with an enormous capacity to learn and to adapt to varied environments. We are sensitive and responsive to our social context.
To explain the traits of our species, and all species, the British naturalist Charles Darwin (1859) proposed an evolutionary process. Follow the genes, he advised. Darwin’s idea, to which philosopher Daniel Dennett (2005) would give “the gold medal for the best idea anybody ever had,” was that natural selection enables evolution.
Natural selection implies that certain genes — those that predisposed traits that increased the odds of surviving long enough to reproduce and nurture descendants — became more abundant.
Natural selection, long an organizing principle of biology, has recently become an important principle for psychology as well. Evolutionary psychology studies how natural selection predisposes not just physical traits suited to particular contexts — polar bears’ coats, bats’ sonar, humans’ color vision — but also psychological traits and social behaviors that enhance the preservation and spread of one’s genes. We humans are the way we are, say evolutionary psychologists, because nature selected those who had our traits — those who, for example, preferred the sweet taste of nutritious, energy-providing foods and who disliked the bitter or sour flavors of foods that are toxic. Those lacking such preferences were less likely to survive to contribute their genes to posterity.
As mobile gene machines, we carry not only the physical legacy but also the psychological legacy of our ancestors’ adaptive preferences. We long for whatever helped them survive, reproduce, and nurture their offspring to survive and reproduce.
“The purpose of the heart is to pump blood,” notes evolutionary psychologist David Barash. “The brain’s purpose,” he adds, is to direct our organs and our behavior “in a way that maximizes our evolutionary success. That’s it.” (Social Psychology, p. 8, 159.)
Everything they wrote here is false or incomplete.
It’s NOT a rectangle, it’s a triangle! It’s not just nature and nurture that form us. There’s an essential third component!
Do you know what it is?
NATURE vs. NURTURE vs. NIRVANA: An Introduction to Reality
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01JWRCSVA
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521132615
The third component is deliberately eliminated from science by the Materialists, Naturalists, Darwinists, Nihilists, and Atheists. These people state that it does not exist. The BioPsychoSocial Model tells us that it does exist. Somebody is right, and somebody is wrong. They both can’t be right.
These people have been teaching for over 150 years that Natural Selection made you, that evolution made you; but, that’s physically impossible. Natural selection can’t make anything. Natural selection and the theory of evolution are based exclusively on entropy. Natural selection results in entropy or death. Evolution is entropy. Entropy is death. Entropy cannot make anything at all. Entropy or death can only destroy. The different types of evolution can only destroy. The different types of evolution or entropy can only produce death and extinction.
Natural selection doesn’t predispose anything! Natural selection doesn’t organize anything! It can’t. Natural selection doesn’t touch our genes! Natural selection doesn’t endow us with anything! Natural selection has NO ability to learn anything. Natural selection doesn’t enable anything. Natural selection doesn’t do anything. Natural selection is supposed to be dumb and blind without a soul or a mind, according to the Darwinists. Creation by Natural Selection wins the rotten tomato for the most stupid, illogical, irrational, and ineffective idea ever created.
The theory of evolution is correlational, NOT observational. NO type of evolution has ever been caught in the act of design and creation. It’s physically impossible for natural selection and random mutations to design and create something. Entropy prevents them from doing so. Chemical evolution or macro-evolution is prevented from happening by random diffusion or entropy. Macro-evolution is also prevented from happening by genetics. The genes are there to prevent macro-evolution from happening. Evolution of any type is entropy and death. Death cannot create life!
In fact, evolution (genetic change), random mutations, and natural selection didn’t even exist until AFTER God designed, programmed, engineered, field-tested, fine-tuned, manufactured, created, and produced the proteins and their matching genes in the first place.
The theory of evolution is a fictional story that they made up out of thin air after-the-fact to fit the facts. NO part of it can actually design and create. It’s a fictional story, not science.
We are sensitive and responsive to our social context, NOT our genes!
Who is this WE that they keep talking about in our Social Psychology textbooks? WE can’t be our society, environment, or social context that WE are sensitive to and responsive to! And, it’s definitely NOT our genes. Our genes aren’t sensitive and responsive to anything according to the Evolutionists! The genes, natural selection, and random mutations are supposed to be dumb and blind without a soul or a mind. Our genes can’t be sensitive nor responsive to anything.
Personal pronouns imply a person or a psyche – NOT our genes (nature) and NOT our environment (nurture).
Natural selection and your genes DO NOT and CANNOT pass your Psyche Legacy (psychological legacy) from one generation to the next! Natural selection doesn’t touch your genes, and it definitely doesn’t touch nor change your Psyche either. It’s science fiction to imply that it does. The theory of evolution is science fiction. Design and creation by natural selection is science fiction. The idea that your genes carry your “longings” or “desires” from one generation to the next is science fiction. There’s no such thing as genetic memory, at least not at the physical level. All of our thoughts and memories are carried as quantum waves from one generation to the next through our Psyche or Quantum Non-Local Consciousness.
Your genes don’t care whether you live or die. Only YOU care whether you live or die. Your Psyche cares whether you live or die; but, your genes do not. In order for your genes to care, they would have to have some sort of Psyche, or Intelligence, or Consciousness, or Awareness. But, if your genes have a Psyche, then the very existence of that Psyche falsifies Materialism, Naturalism, and Darwinism which claim that Psyche does not exist. Physicalism, Naturalism, and the Theory of Evolution are self-defeating. They don’t work as advertised because they can’t work as advertised.
Natural selection results in entropy and death, NOT X-Men and new unique life forms. Natural selection cannot design and create and program genomes. Natural selection doesn’t touch our genes.
Random mutations are also entropy; but, at least random mutations by definition in principle actually change our genes. However, random mutations cannot design and create anything either.
Entropy is death. Death cannot design and create new unique genomes and life forms. That’s physically impossible! Mutation and Selection can only produce entropy or death. They are based exclusively on entropy or death. Death cannot design and create life. Death can only end life.
Remember, the theory of evolution is Creation by Entropy or Creation by Death. That’s NEVER going to work because it’s physically impossible!
Isn’t it refreshing to finally have access to the truth, rather than all the science fiction that the Evolutionists have been feeding us throughout our lives?
Well, I think it is.
I used to be a Materialist, Naturalist, Nihilist, and Atheist until I finally started to study the evidence. The evidence and the truth set me free! The Science and the Scientific Evidence convinced me that God must exist in order to have done all the Science and Fine-Tuning which natural selection and evolution could NEVER have done.
Mark my Words
—
Can Natural Selection Create?
The Physicalists, Naturalists, Darwinists, Nihilists, and Atheists teach that natural selection can create anything that it sets its mind to. These people teach that natural selection made you.
Are they right?
They are not!
They are deceiving themselves and trying to trick us and deceive us as well.
Creation by Natural Selection is demonstrably false, which means that it has been falsified by Scientific Evidence. Natural selection doesn’t do anything. Natural selection doesn’t touch our genes, nor does it pre-determine our future. Natural selection doesn’t have a mind. There is NO intelligence or psyche within natural selection. There may (or may not) be some type of intelligence or psyche within our genes; but, there is NOTHING there when it comes to Natural Selection or Evolution. Natural selection is a fictional concept that they made up out of thin air. It doesn’t really exist as a person or an entity. The same can be said of evolution. I’m not the only scientist to have figured this out by now. Natural selection is worthless as a creative agent and can’t function as a creative agent.
[Editorial Note: I have written permission from John C. Sanford to use all of the quotes from John C. Sanford which I use in my books, so long as I cite the sources which I have done.]
START OF THE QUOTE FROM “GENETIC ENTROPY” BY JOHN SANFORD — USED BY PERMISSION FROM THE AUTHOR JOHN SANFORD.
Chapter 9: Can Natural Selection Create?
Newsflash — Mutation/Selection cannot even create a single gene.
We have been examining the problem of genomic degeneration and have found that deleterious mutations occur at a very high rate. Natural selection can only eliminate the worst of these, while all the rest accumulate — like rust on a car. Might beneficial mutations at other sites in the genome compensate for this continuous and systematic erosion of genetic information? The answer is that beneficial mutations are much too rare, and are much too subtle to keep up with such relentless and systematic erosion of information. This is carefully documented by Sanford et al. (2013), and Montañez et al. (2013). It is very easy to systematically destroy information, but apart from the operation of intelligence it is very hard (arguably impossible) to create information.
This problem overrides all hope for the forward evolution of the whole genome. However, some limited traits might still be improved via Mutation/Selection. Just how limited is such progressive (“creative”) Mutation/Selection? By now it should be clear that random spelling errors in an instruction manual could never give rise to an airplane component (say a molded aluminum part), which then resulted in a significantly improved overall performance of a jet plane. Not even with an unlimited number of flight trials/crashes and an unlimited budget. So, it is certainly reasonable to ask the parallel biological question, “Could Mutation/Selection create a single functional gene from scratch?”
A gene is like a book, book chapter, or an executable program — and minimally consists of a text string with 1,000 characters. Mutation/Selection could not create a single gene because of the enormous preponderance of deleterious mutations, even within the context of a single gene. The net information must always still be declining, even within a single gene or linkage block. Even if a gene was 50% established, deleterious mutations would degrade the completed half of the gene much faster than beneficials could create the missing half of the gene. However, to better understand the limits of forward selection, let us for the moment discount all deleterious mutations and only consider beneficial mutations. Could Mutation/Selection then create a new and functional gene?
1. Defining our first desirable mutation. The first problem we encounter in trying to create a new gene via Mutation/Selection is defining our first beneficial mutation. By itself, no particular nucleotide (A, T, C or G) has more value than any other, just as no letter in the alphabet has any particular meaning outside of the context of other letters. So, selection for any single nucleotide can never occur except in the context of the surrounding nucleotides (and in fact, within the context of the whole genome). A change of a single letter within a word or chapter can only be evaluated in the context of the surrounding block of text. This brings us to an excellent example of the principle of “irreducible complexity” within the genetic realm. In fact, it is irreducible complexity at its most fundamental level. We immediately find we have a paradox. To create a new function, we will need to select for our first beneficial mutation, but we can only define that new nucleotide’s value in relation to its neighbors — and we are going to have to be changing most of those neighbors also. We create a circular path for ourselves. We will keep destroying the “context” we are trying to build upon. This problem of the fundamental inter-relationship of nucleotides is called epistasis. True epistasis is almost infinitely complex, and virtually impossible to analyze, which is why geneticists have always conveniently ignored it. Such bewildering complexity is exactly why language and information (including genetic language and genetic information) can never be the product of chance, but always requires intelligent design. The genome is literally a book, written literally in a language, and short sequences are literally sentences. Having random letters fall into place to make a single meaningful sentence, by accident, would require more tries (more time), than earth history can provide (i.e., “methinks it is like a weasel” would take 27 ^ 28 tries — that is 10 followed by 40 zeros). The same is true for any functional string of nucleotides. If there are more than a dozen nucleotides in a functional string, we know that realistically they will never just “fall into place”. This has been mathematically demonstrated repeatedly. But as we will soon see, neither can such a sequence arise by selecting one nucleotide at a time. A pre-existing “concept” is required as a framework upon which a sentence or a functional sequence must be built. Such a concept can only pre-exist within the mind of the author. Starting from the very first mutation, we have a fundamental problem even in trying to define what our first desired beneficial mutation should be.
2. Waiting for the first mutation. Let’s assume we can know the first desired mutation. How long do we have to wait for it to happen? Human evolution is generally assumed to have occurred in a small population of about 10,000 individuals. The mutation rate for any given nucleotide, per person per generation is exceedingly small (very roughly about one mutation per 30 million individuals, for a given nucleotide site). Within a population of 10,000, one would have to wait 3,000 generations (at least 60,000 years) to expect a specific nucleotide to mutate. But two out of three times, it will mutate into the “wrong” nucleotide. So, to get a specific desired mutation at a specific site just in one individual will take three times as long, or at least 180,000 years. Once the mutation arises in one individual, it has to become “fixed” (such that each individual in the population will eventually have a double dose of that mutation). Because a newly arisen mutation arrives in a population as just a single copy, it arrives on the brink of extinction. The vast majority of new mutations soon drift back out of the population, even the ones that are beneficial. So, any specific desired mutation must arise many times before it “catches hold” in the population. Only if the mutation is dominant and has a very distinct benefit does selection have any reasonable chance to rescue it from random elimination via drift. According to population geneticists, apart from effective selection, in a population of 10,000, our given new mutant has only one chance in 20,000 (the total number of non-mutant nucleotides present in the population) of NOT being lost via drift. Even with some modest level of selection operating, there is a very high probability of random loss, especially if the mutant is recessive or is weakly expressed (we actually know that most mutations will be both recessive and nearly neutral). Therefore, even a beneficial mutation will be randomly lost due to genetic drift most of the time. Our numerical simulations suggest a weakly beneficial mutant will be lost about 99 out of 100 times. So, a typical mildly-beneficial mutation must happen about 100 times before it is likely to “catch hold” within the population. So, on average, in a population of 10,000 we would have to wait 180,000 × 100 = 18 million years to stabilize our first desired beneficial mutation, to begin building our hypothetical new gene. So, in the time since we supposedly evolved from chimp-like creatures (6 million years), there would not be enough time to realistically expect our first desired mutation to go to fixation in the genomic location where our required gene is hopefully going to arise. A vast amount of mutations would arise during 18 million years, but only once would that specific nucleotide mutate to that specific new nucleotide — such that it’s not lost due to genetic drift and is fixed.
3. Waiting for the other mutations. After our first desired mutation has been found and fixed, we need to repeat this process for all the other nucleotides encoding our hoped-for gene. A gene is minimally 1,000 nucleotides long. More realistically, a human gene is on average about 50,000 nucleotides long, when regulatory elements and introns are included. To be extremely generous we will only consider a gene of 1,000 nucleotides (and we assume each nucleotide is by itself selectable). If this process was a straight, linear, and sequential process, it would require about 18 million years × 1,000 = 18 billion years to create the smallest possible gene. This is more than the time since the reputed Big Bang! So, it is a gross understatement to say that the rarity of desired mutations limits the rate of evolution. Furthermore, single nucleotides do not carry any information by themselves, and cannot be selectively favored. Specified information requires many characters (minimally, a sentence or similar text string is needed). Like any message, a genetic message which specifies some life function requires many nucleotides to reach its “functional threshold”. Functional threshold is the minimal number of characters (or nucleotides) needed to convey a meaningful message. Below the functional threshold, individual letters or nucleotides have no benefit and cannot be favored by selection. This means that realistically, waiting time will be much, much longer — because no selection can happen until the minimum string of nucleotides falls into place by chance. If the functional threshold for selection is 12 (no selection until all 12 letters are in place), the waiting time in our hypothetical human population becomes trillions of years.
Sanford, John (2015-02-23). Genetic Entropy (Kindle Locations 1684-1755). FMS Publications. Kindle Edition. USED BY PERMISSION.
END QUOTE.
—
Trillions of years!
Well, that’s the END of the Theory of Evolution, isn’t it?
The Darwinists NEVER use their God-given brains to stop and think about these kinds of things. At the best possible average pace, with God making sure that there are NO deleterious mutations and NO devolution taking place, it would take on average 18 million years to fixate and stabilize a SINGLE beneficial mutation through “Natural Means” into a population of 10,000 apes which God has already designed and created in the first place and kept alive and functional during those 18 million years, just so that population of 10,000 God-created apes can achieve their first beneficial mutation through “Natural” Hands-off Mutation and Selection. 18 million years on average per beneficial mutation! Think about it!
If those apes need 1,000 such beneficial mutations in order to become men, then you are looking at 18 billion years on average to produce those targeted 1,000 beneficial mutations; and, that’s with a population of 10,000 apes that God has already designed and created in the first place and that God is making sure receive ONLY beneficial mutations and NO devolution or deleterious mutations. And, that’s also with God keeping that population of 10,000 apes alive during those 18 billion years so that they can indeed “evolve” their necessary 1,000 beneficial mutations and become men all on their own through “Natural Means”.
Furthermore, it has been estimated that it would in fact take at least 20 million such beneficial mutations to convert chimpanzees into humans through “Natural Means”. With that targeted goal in mind and assuming NO deleterious mutations or extinctions along the way, how long would it take on average to convert 10,000 chimpanzees into 10,000 humans using Natural Selection and Random Mutations to do the job? So, what do you get if you multiply 20 million beneficial mutations with 18 million years per beneficial mutation? At the BEST possible pace, with God keeping those 10,000 chimpanzees alive all along the way, and with God making sure that there is NO devolution, NO extinction, and NO deleterious mutations taking place, the quickest on average that Mutation and Selection could convert a chimpanzee into a human through “Natural Means” is 360 trillion years.
John Sanford isn’t exaggerating whenever he says that it could take trillions of years for Mutation/ Selection to design and create something useful “naturally”. And, it really isn’t Natural Evolution if God has to design and create the 10,000 chimpanzees in the first place, and then keep them alive for 360 trillion years by blocking ALL deleterious mutations and preventing ALL extinctions that might take place during that period of time, just so He can convert 10,000 chimpanzees into 10,000 humans “naturally” or through “Natural Means”.
Think about it! At the BEST possible average pace, it would take at least 360 trillion years for Mutation and Selection to convert a population of 10,000 chimpanzees into 10,000 humans through “Natural Means”, with God keeping those 10,000 mutants alive and preventing deleterious mutations during the whole time. And, that’s with 10,000 chimpanzees that God has already designed and created in the first place! How old did they say our universe is? How long would it take to convert a bacterium into a human through “Natural Means” when billions of beneficial mutations are needed? Wouldn’t it be easier and faster to just let God design and create those 10,000 humans in the first place?
YES, it would be!
The Darwinists and Materialists NEVER stop and use their God-given brains to think about and calculate these kinds of things. You will NEVER get these kinds of calculations and truths from the Darwinists because they don’t DO this kind of science. It’s too difficult and painful for them. I’m willing to wrap my mind around these kinds of things. Your typical Darwinist isn’t. Your typical Darwinist is afraid of it because they don’t want to be proven wrong. For the Materialists and Darwinists, ignorance is bliss! But, ignorance is the reason why the Darwinists and Materialists truly believe that Mutation/Selection can design and create anything that it sets its mind to. The rest of us KNOW BETTER!
If you think about it, this is radically advanced science — the best that humans are able to come up with! Can you see and understand now why the 9th Chapter of “Genetic Entropy” put an END to the Theory of Evolution for me? It’s because I understood what John Sanford was talking about and chose to believe that it is true. Now the onus is on you.
What do the Darwinists typically do when presented with these kinds of Statistical Models of the Mutation/Selection Process?
Assuming that they don’t go head-in-the-sand and actually study them instead, the Darwinists try to shave the figures in half or by one-tenth, which is exactly what they do when designing Mutation/Selection Models of their own. They cheat. They choose parameters that are scientifically inaccurate and don’t match with Reality in order to shave those estimates down to something that they might be willing to accept. They keep shaving and cheating until they get the numbers that they want, and then they call the results “Science”.
If they really take John Sanford’s Models seriously, the Darwinists will demand that God artificially accelerate the Mutation/Selection Process so as to make it possible for the Theory of Evolution to be true. But, even if God were to speed up the process a thousand-fold, it’s still going to take 360 billion years for chimpanzees to evolve into humans through “Natural Means”; and, the Darwinists are still going to complain, even though we are starting with Chimpanzees that God has designed and created in the first place.
It can be fascinating and entertaining to watch a Darwinist try to shave trillions of years off a Statistical Estimate that he doesn’t like, all in an attempt to increase the possibility that the Theory of Evolution might be true.
And, that’s just the beginning of the problems for the Theory of Evolution. It only gets worse from there on forward, because John Sanford actually has TEN points in chapter 9 of “Genetic Entropy”, each of which decreases the likelihood of Mutation/Selection creating anything at all, even if it has an infinite number of years to do so. Evolution by random mutations and evolution by natural selection CANNOT design, create, and deploy anything! It has been conclusively and finally demonstrated that it is so. It has been empirically and logically observed to be so. The Theory of Evolution doesn’t work and can’t create new unique genomes from scratch, so we have no choice but to declare the whole thing to be FALSE.
Many different scientists taught me that Random Mutations and Natural Selection (Evolution) cannot design and create genomes and life forms. They met their burden of proof and demonstrated to me that it must be so. (See the partial list of Reference Materials below for a selection of some of the best scientific evidence that falsifies the Theory of Evolution.)
I chose to believe the scientific evidence rather than the claims of the Materialists, Naturalists, and Darwinists who teach that Psyche, Intelligence, and Syntropy do not exist.
Evolution Is Creation by Death
I did make a scientific discovery in recent days (May 2018) that I think has merit and value to the Scientific Community.
I do seem to be the first person on the planet to realize that NO type of evolution can do selection. Selection of any kind involves choice; and, choice is exclusively the product of a Psyche or a Mind. Evolution of any type by definition, in principle, is dumb and blind without a soul or a mind. The very definition of Evolution eliminates its ability to do selection, a priori. Evolution can’t do selection because evolution can’t do Psyche or Choice. Evolution doesn’t exist as a Psyche, Person, Intelligence, Mind, or Soul capable of doing choice or selection.
Furthermore, any attempt to imbue evolution with a soul, psyche, or mind automatically FALSIFIES Materialism, Naturalism, Darwinism, Nihilism, and the Theory of Evolution which claim that Psyche or Syntropy does not exist. The theory of evolution is a non-starter because evolution of any kind cannot do selection or choice.
Always remember, creation by natural selection is science fiction and wishful thinking because evolution of any kind cannot do selection or choice.
Materialism, Naturalism, Darwinism, Nihilism, Behaviorism, Determinism, Physical Reductionism, Atheism, Classical Physics, and the Theory of Evolution are based exclusively on entropy. Entropy is death. Death cannot design, create, and produce life. Such a thing has never been experienced nor observed. Darwinism or the theory of evolution is Creation by Death, or Creation by Entropy. Creation by Death or the theory of evolution is impossible. It can’t happen, which means that it didn’t happen.
Therefore, the theory of evolution cannot be used to explain the origin of life. The most that the theory of evolution can explain is death, extinction, devolution, and genetic entropy. Evolution of any kind is a function of death or entropy. Evolution is entropy. Evolution is death. Evolution or death, of any kind, can’t be used to explain the origin of life. The truthfulness of this reality becomes obvious, once a person realizes and accepts the fact that the Theory of Evolution, Physicalism, Naturalism, Atheism, Nihilism, Classical Physics, and Darwinism are based exclusively on entropy. Entropy or death cannot produce life. The different types of evolution or entropy cannot produce life. It’s impossible for entropy or death to produce life.
At times I’ve wondered why nobody else has been able to see and understand these obvious truths; but then, I used to be a Materialist, Naturalist, Nihilist, and Atheism, and there I find my answer. At the time, I wasn’t able to see nor understand these obvious scientific truths because I didn’t want to see them, understand them, nor accept them. No seeking, then no finding. I wasn’t looking for any of this, so I never found it. I only found it after I started looking for it. I had convinced myself that this type of information doesn’t exist. Self-deception works, and it works every time, especially when it comes to scientists like me.
The axiom stating that evolution is dumb and blind without a soul or a mind, if taken as being true, prevents evolution of any type from being able to do selection. In other words, the very definition of evolution as being dumb and blind FALSIFIES the Theory of Evolution by preventing evolution of any kind from being able to do selection or choice. Evolution is entropy; and, entropy is death. Death cannot do selection or choice. Death cannot do life. Entropy or death can only destroy. That is what has been experienced and observed.
Meanwhile, the Materialists, Naturalists, Darwinists, Nihilists, and Atheists DEMAND that you accept on blind faith that their claims – that death, entropy, or evolution can produce life – are true.
We scientists have FALSIFIED the Theory of Evolution trillions of times in thousands of different ways, but we choose to ignore the evidence because it isn’t telling us what we want to hear. That’s the way we do science in this world – by ignoring the evidence, discounting the evidence, banning the evidence, and destroying the evidence. We do our science this way so that we can prove to ourselves and to others that the Theory of Evolution is true.
There is another way to do science, though – a better way of doing science. I call it Science 2.0; and, it involves allowing ALL of the evidence into evidence. Once we choose to do so, then ALL of the evidence that we have on hand as a race FALSIFIES the claims of Materialism, Naturalism, Darwinism, Nihilism, Behaviorism, Determinism, Physical Reductionism, and Atheism which claim that this evidence does not exist.
Once we have eliminated all of the falsehoods such as Materialism, Naturalism, Atheism, Nihilism, and Darwinism, then we are left staring at THE TRUTH, which is that ONLY Psyche can design, program, engineer, field-test, fine-tune, manufacture, create, and do science.
By eliminating all of the falsehoods or pseudo-sciences, it becomes obvious that God’s Psyche must of necessity exist in order to have DONE all of the Science that needed to be done, which evolution and the rocks could NEVER have done. Remember, evolution and the rocks can’t do science because they can’t do selection or choice.
The observation and realization, that evolution of any type cannot do selection, just might be one of my greatest scientific discoveries even if I don’t end up being the first person on the planet to have made this discovery.
Obviously, everyone across the world is now starting to make these kinds of scientific discoveries right and left because we have finally started to take our blinders off. More and more of us are willing to see, which makes us able to see. Nowadays, it’s obvious that the Theory of Evolution is false; whereas, we couldn’t see it before because we didn’t want to see it, and we didn’t know where to look.
All you want is the truth. Everything else is worthless in the end.
Mark My Words
—
Source
Science 2.0: I Upgraded My Science
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0771K6WTX
The Scientific Method Proves That the Theory of Evolution Is False
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01IAAIRT2
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521133611
NATURE vs. NURTURE vs. NIRVANA: An Introduction to Reality
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01JWRCSVA
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521132615
Myers, D. G. (2010). Social Psychology (10th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reference Materials
Wells, J. (2000). Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong. Washington, DC. Regnary.
Sanford, J. (2014). Genetic Entropy (4th ed.). Cornell University: FMS Foundation.
Sanford, J. C., Marks, R. J., Behe, M. J., Dembski, W. A., & Gordon, B. L. (Eds.). (2013). Biological Information: New Perspectives. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.
Meyer, S. C. (2010). Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. New York: HarperCollins.
Meyer, S. C. (2013). Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. New York: HarperCollins.
Mark My Words. (2016). The Scientific Method: Proves That the Theory of Evolution Is False. Kindle. Retrieve from:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01IAAIRT2
Mark My Words. (2016). The Theory of Evolution Proved to Me that God Exists: Why I Am No Longer an Atheist and Why I No Longer Believe in the Theory of Evolution. Kindle. Retrieve from:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01HZYBZ7K